the title of this topic shouldn't be Y R We Here

If we have souls and animals don't and we evolved from apes

Here is a good argument: For everything phenomena that evolutionist cannot explain they just say "something crashed into it" and the probability of this happening in space is 1 in 40 million.

I definately believe in creationism. Here is a good argument: For everything phenomena that evolutionist cannot explain they just say "something crashed into it" and the probability of this happening in space is 1 in 40 million.

If we have souls and animals don't and we evolved from apes then at what point did god decide to give us souls. Did he just say "You a good ape, yes you are." and give us souls?
And any who says that we don't have souls is just a loser.

and you can't believe evolution as absolute truth.

albrecd the whole point of the off topic forum is to be off topic not on topic otherwise it would be called on topic not off topic which is what this is =off topic now stop asking off topic questions that are really on topic because this is an off topic forum

... I would rather burn in hell for eternity, then join that God in condemning others to.

Is God just ****ing with us?

Er... bad case of bruteforcing?

The flood (in the old testiment) dumped thousands of tons of soil and sediment on the bones eroding them and buring them deeper then they should have been.

actually the universe is only about 6000-10 000 years old according to new studies.

meant 1 in 40 billion which i have to say is almost inpossible corrisponding to the number of times that evolutionist state the the reason why say the planets orbit the way they do is that something crashed into it.

Its much easier to just say that some all powerful being (namely God) did it and we don't have to understand it. Isn't that a whole lot easier?

actually the universe is only about 6000-10 000 years old according to new studies. Someone will probably ask "Well what about dinasour bones they are supposed to be millions of years old". Dinosaur bones in later research have been found to be actually only several thousand years old and the reason they were buried so deep and eroded so much is because of the great Flood.

Another thing.

Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. Science doesn't create facts. Ever. There are no facts. There's absolutely no guarentee that the next time you drop something it will fall. Don't confuse evolution as being just a hypothesis (and in actuality, gravity is much less understood than evolution).

Why do I have a feeling that some catholic (or equivalent) school found compsci...

actually that commandment isn't one of the ten commandments and the first commandment i think is "Love the lord your God with all you mind, you sol, and your heart" something like that.

you guys are all just athiests and somehow i sense that no matter what i say you guys will quote it and make fun of me. i look forward to your insults otherwise this will be quite boring

you guys are all just athiests and somehow i sense that no matter what i say you guys will quote it and make fun of me. i look forward to your insults otherwise this will be quite boring

From what I have somewhat skimmed through this topic, I find some here are judging the whole religion based on inaccurate assumptions and/or using extremist examples.

Control? Judgment? I am not sure where you are getting this from, and the sources may be accurate, but that is in no way expressing the opinions of all Catholics or Christians.

Finally, you are using science to disprove something wholly unscientific. If I understand it correctly, for the rest I refer to Cornflake's post.

I find this post to be exteramly offesive and if this is your fianly warning about making such posts. Not every one here is athiests and i will not stand for the generilation or storistizing of minority gorups or even marogity ones for that matter.

actually the universe is only about 6000-10 000 years old according to new studies.

actually the universe is only about 6000-10 000 years old according to new studies. Someone will probably ask "Well what about dinasour bones they are supposed to be millions of years old". Dinosaur bones in later research have been found to be actually only several thousand years old and the reason they were buried so deep and eroded so much is because of the great Flood.

But see, if the universe was indeed that old... the expansion of the universe theory, which is based on what we observe in modern times, would be completely different/noexistant.

Science dose not say that there is no god b/c there is no proof it simpley as of now there is no indication to point to the existance of god. Witch is not compley the same, one alows for the posblity if proof can be found in the futtuer.

All science says is that there is no God because there's no proof of such.

I'm just saying that science doesn't help either way, because it has no stance in the matter (as of yet). So arguing between the two is, again, useless.

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence".

Science is showing that there is no need for a god.

Never judge a philosophy by its abuse. (St. Augustine)

Is God just a child that got bored one day?

Update: Oh, and, saying that the Universe doesn't "need" a God is still irrelevant. Because it doesn't answer whether or not it's there.

So let me ask you, is our entire notion of God simply there because thousands of years ago we felt the need to explain something we didn't understand with faith *or*, did God really make himself known to us?

and the argument that more atrocities have been committed by religion than any other cause is faulty. Modern science has made killing more widespread and efficient than the inquisitors or crusaders could've possibly imagined.

"Belief" is accepting something unknown to be true.

BTW: I'm "Satanic" by means of religion, just because I like to rock the boat and see people make funny faces when I tell them. They actually have a great moral code and set of principles to follow. Satanist's are not cultists. It's an actual, well structured, universal religion.

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!

2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!

5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!

7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development," has become the most vicious animal of all!

8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!

Wrong. According to almost all schools of philosophy, "A belief is something you accept as truth". it can be proved, unproved or anything else.

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

3. When in another's lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9. Do not harm little children.

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

1. Stupidity"”The top of the list for Satanic Sins. The Cardinal Sin of Satanism. It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful. Ignorance is one thing, but our society thrives increasingly on stupidity. It depends on people going along with whatever they are told. The media promotes a cultivated stupidity as a posture that is not only acceptable but laudable. Satanists must learn to see through the tricks and cannot afford to be stupid.

2. Pretentiousness"”Empty posturing can be most irritating and isn't applying the cardinal rules of Lesser Magic. On equal footing with stupidity for what keeps the money in circulation these days. Everyone's made to feel like a big shot, whether they can come up with the goods or not.

3. Solipsism"”Can be very dangerous for Satanists. Projecting your reactions, responses and sensibilities onto someone who is probably far less attuned than you are. It is the mistake of expecting people to give you the same consideration, courtesy and respect that you naturally give them. They won't. Instead, Satanists must strive to apply the dictum of "Do unto others as they do unto you." It's work for most of us and requires constant vigilance lest you slip into a comfortable illusion of everyone being like you. As has been said, certain utopias would be ideal in a nation of philosophers, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, from a Machiavellian standpoint) we are far from that point.

4. Self-deceit"”It's in the "Nine Satanic Statements" but deserves to be repeated here. Another cardinal sin. We must not pay homage to any of the sacred cows presented to us, including the roles we are expected to play ourselves. The only time self-deceit should be entered into is when it's fun, and with awareness. But then, it's not self-deceit!

5. Herd Conformity"”That's obvious from a Satanic stance. It's all right to conform to a person's wishes, if it ultimately benefits you. But only fools follow along with the herd, letting an impersonal entity dictate to you. The key is to choose a master wisely instead of being enslaved by the whims of the many.

6. Lack of Perspective"”Again, this one can lead to a lot of pain for a Satanist. You must never lose sight of who and what you are, and what a threat you can be, by your very existence. We are making history right now, every day. Always keep the wider historical and social picture in mind. That is an important key to both Lesser and Greater Magic. See the patterns and fit things together as you want the pieces to fall into place. Do not be swayed by herd constraints"”know that you are working on another level entirely from the rest of the world.

7. Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxies"”Be aware that this is one of the keys to brainwashing people into accepting something new and different, when in reality it's something that was once widely accepted but is now presented in a new package. We are expected to rave about the genius of the creator and forget the original. This makes for a disposable society.

8. Counterproductive Pride"”That first word is important. Pride is great up to the point you begin to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The rule of Satanism is: if it works for you, great. When it stops working for you, when you've painted yourself into a corner and the only way out is to say, I'm sorry, I made a mistake, I wish we could compromise somehow, then do it.

9. Lack of Aesthetics"”This is the physical application of the Balance Factor. Aesthetics is important in Lesser Magic and should be cultivated. It is obvious that no one can collect any money off classical standards of beauty and form most of the time so they are discouraged in a consumer society, but an eye for beauty, for balance, is an essential Satanic tool and must be applied for greatest magical effectiveness. It's not what's supposed to be pleasing"”it's what is. Aesthetics is a personal thing, reflective of one's own nature, but there are universally pleasing and harmonious configurations that should not be denied.

Peace notoroge...
for Jesus is always with you

On a related note, does any one know for what specific reason that the "campus crusade for christ" is having a crusade against PORN?

Okay, a belief is "something you accept as truth". You're still making a decision based on experiences either proving or disproving what you want to believe in. Something as concrete as "2 + 2 = 4" doesn't require belief, because you know it to be true. Something, like, God, does require belief, because, you need to "accept" it as truth, because you can't really know for sure.

Well it's just that going that far with a relgiurse club to the point where it is discrmenating agested others and other relgionges it should start breaking the rules of the student union constuoition.

How You Can Help:

By winning students to Christ, building them up in their faith, and sending them out to win, build and send others, we can do this. Come, help us. Help change the world.

Our Mission:

Look around you at the world. War, pollution, crime, hatred, unger are rampant. We want to change that. We want to change the world.

You know what you doing.
Move 'Zig'.
For great justice.

Dan -- I might need your help with the rules/regulations stuff.. those guys are certanly trying to push something on someone.. I think I might join

At LU we have the part about tying to push blifes on students of any kind but idk about u of w, it is an older school so there consution may have been made by poeleop who where in such clubs.

carbon dating ... is only effective to up to 3000 years

a bunch of numbers, some "facts"

dinosaur bones are only around 4000 years old and i can prove this because when scientist test for carbon 14 they should find none if the bones are billions of years old but they can still find carbon 14 in almost all bones and some have not even fossilised yet.

Also the way that scientist used to calculate the age of the earth with carbon dating but since that is only effective to up to 3000 years they stopped and switched to other methods (i forget it but will check later and enter it). This methods are also highly inaccurrate and the scientist find that with the calculations, the earth is only 6000 years old which is way off from what they expected. So they change their calculations to match the years they want. Also many of the "facts" we have today in our textbooks are actually JUST theories and have been taken as fact. There has also been living dinosaurs found to this day in many remote regions but have been covered up or had their names changed.

My problem with religion is that it tells people how they must act, not through reasoning out what is the best way to act

I talked to one of them - he hadn't read the bible, but he was convinced it was true. Weird.

(scientists) make up lies and twist facts for what they want.

to glorify God, by producing scientific evidences for the literal truth of the Bible.

Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Rev 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as [the feet] of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

ive had countless people come to my door saying that god wills ave me and i should follow his way

Fundamental Freedoms
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

There is lots of proof that maybe humans and dinosaurs DID coexist
The Taylor Trail in Glen Rose Texas:
"A series of 14 sequential human footprints on the same platform with at least 134 dinosaur tracks."
-I have been to Glen Rose to see this.

Although Morris tempered these assertions by stating that "certain identification is lacking," what actually is lacking is any legitimate evidence for the new claims. Having intensively studied the Taylor Site since 1980 (and as recently as January 1989, I can testify that none of the Taylor Trail tracks (or other trails on the site) contain clear human features, and most do not even closely resemble human prints. In fact, the new "man track" claims are not really new, but are simply variations on the old, thoroughly refuted claims. What Baugh and Patton are now claiming as human prints are merely portions of the largely infilled metatarsal segment (sole and heel) of the dinosaur prints--essentially the same depressions previously misinterpreted by various creationists as human prints.

The Iguanodon (which this is) was believed until very recently to have a tail that drooped behind it (like most Dinosaurs did). But reciently (way after the figurine was sculpted) a fosslized Iguanodon was found. This was the most clear fossil found of this dinosaur, and it showed a Tendon running down its back and tail wich would have held it up as depicted in the figure. The Chupicuaros could not have known that the tail was like this unless they had seen one first hand.

The original Mesopotamian writing system was initially derived from a system of clay tokens used to represent commodities. By the end of the 4th millennium BC, this had evolved into a method of keeping accounts, using imprints of a nail (hence the term cuneiform), atfirst only for numbers, and finally a general purpose writing system, initially used to represent Sumerian. This writing system was originally a logographic writing system, but had begun to evolve phonetic elements by the 29th century BC. By the 26th century BC, this script had been adapted to another Mesopotamian language, Akkadian, and from there to others such as Hurrian, and Hittite. Scripts similar in appearence to this writing system include those for Ugaritic and Old Persian.

The earliest known hieroglyphic inscriptions are the Narmer Palette, dating to c.3200 BC, and several recent discoveries that may be slightly older, though the glyphs were based on a much older artistic tradition. The hieroglyphic script was logographic with phonetic adjuncts that included an effective alphabet.

Writing was very important in maintaining the Egyptian empire, and literacy was concentrated among an educated elite of scribes. Only people from certain backgrounds were allowed to train to become scribes, in the service of temple, pharaonic, and military authorities. The hieroglyph system was always difficult to learn, but in later centuries was purposefully made even more so, as this preserved the scribes' status.

The world's oldest known alphabet was developed in central Egypt around 2000 BC from a hieroglyphic prototype, and over the next 500 years spread to Palestine and eventually to the rest of the world.

actually i went to a seminar from a person named Ian Taylor who has many references and gave me some panflets with all the information and i will bring them tommorrow. and this stuff isn't made up and just to let you know...all the well known evolutionists are originally creationists and christians but make up lies and twist facts for what they want.

The date range of this period is ambiguous, disputed, and variable according to the region in question. While it is possible to speak of a general 'stone age' period for the whole of humanity, some groups never developed metal-smelting technology, so remained in a 'stone age' until they encountered technologically developed cultures. However, in general, it is believed that this period began somewhere around 3 million years ago, starting with the first hominid tool-making in Africa. Most australopithecines probably did not use stone tools (although they seem to be invented by Paranthropus robustus) but the study of their remains still falls within the remit of archaeologists studying the period.

A Stone Age was usually followed by a Bronze Age, during which metalworking technology allowed bronze (copper and tin or other metals) tools to become more common. The transition out of the Stone Age occurred between 6000 BC and 2500 BC for much of humanity living in North Africa, Asia and Europe. In some regions, such as Subsaharan Africa, the Stone Age was followed directly by an Iron Age. It is generally believed that the Middle East and southeastern Asian regions progressed past Stone Age technology around 6000 BC. Europe, and the rest of Asia became post-Stone Age societies by about 4000 BC. The proto-Inca cultures of South America continued at a Stone Age level until around 2000 BC, when gold, copper and silver made their entrance, the rest following later. Australia remained in the Stone Age until the 17th century.

War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.


Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.


The sins of the father
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.


Insects do NOT have four feet
LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.


God be seen?
Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

1. Remember that wikipedia isn't always right
2. Remember that alot of the theories we have today are just that, theories.

That being said, at least these theories are based on something. As for me, I would not trust a recount of a STORY that is a few thousand years old

23And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

There is no God.

keep in mind that the bible was not written in english, and that translations are never perfect. that being said, may i remind you that instead of looking at single verses, the whole context should be considered, for example, could it be that by peace, paul meant inner peace? and by war as in war on evil? i dont take the bible word for word and accept it just because i believe in God, i believe that there is a happy median between science and God and we simply havent found it yet.

btw, have u guys ever heard of the church of scientology? they're pretty wack

Hold on. You have to slow down. You're losing it. You have to take a breath. Listen to yourself. You're connecting a computer bug I had with a computer bug you might have had and some religious hogwash. You want to find the number 216 in the world, you will be able to find it everywhere. 216 steps from a mere street corner to your front door. 216 seconds you spend riding on the elevator. When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere.

I don't think that religious people are consciously lying when they say that the earth is 6,000 years old. Rather, I think that they are blinded by their faith. The movie Pi sums it up incredibly well:

It's for Hollywood actors. Really.

I don't think that religious people are consciously lying when they say that the earth is 6,000 years old. Rather, I think that they are blinded by their faith. The movie Pi sums it up incredibly well:


Thats the problem.

Ah, but see, this happens to me EVERYDAY.
Tonight for example:
after playing DDR on endless for 35 min, going to brush my teeth, wash my face, change, come back and cleaning my glasses, getting my volunteer hours sheet, I sit down and its 9:11 -_-]

thats just not right.

danny what do u really think about creationism?
p.s cant spell

"I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on
the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion."

[Charles Darwin, "The Decent of Man", p.645]

Religions are like pills, which must be swallowed whole without chewing

What Pascal overlooked was the hair raising possibility that God might out-Luther Luther. A special area in hell might be reserved for those who go to mass. Or God might punish those whose faith is promted by prudence. Perhaps God prefers the abstinent to those who whore around with some denomination he despises. Perhaps he reserves special rewards for those who deny themselves the comfort of belief. Perhaps the intellectual ascetic will win all while those who compromise their intellectual integrity lose everything.

"Critique of Religion and Philosophy"

What could be more negative thinking then belief that sex and procreation, without which there could be no life on Earth, are dirty and sinful! Our obsession with sex and morailty has produced a sexually sick, sadistic, perverted, frustrated, aggressive, violence-prone society.
"The Rigt Brain and Religion"

Lemme get this strait, you have "faith" in the existance of the most powerful being you can imagine, who's your best bud and who you can ask to do you favours, and further you have "faith" that when you die you don't actually cease to exist and become worm food, but your magical buddy invites you to come up and live with him in the most wonderful place you can imagine, and *we* are the ones for whom truth has become "whatever works for you" or "whatever makes you feel god"??? LMAO!

God spoke to Moses face to face, if you read the verse right after it, you'll notice that this took place in the tabernacle, a place where God resided spiritually

Exodus 19

1 In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt"”on the very day"”they came to the Desert of Sinai. 2 After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain.

3 Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel:...

...

14 After Moses had gone down the mountain to the people, he consecrated them, and they washed their clothes.

Exodus 33
18And he [Moses] said, I beseech thee, show me thy glory.

19And he [God] said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

20And he [God] said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

21And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

22And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

23And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.


Exodus 34
1And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

2And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.

...

6And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

7Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

8And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped

But rather 1, in a number so big that if you wrote 1 and then wrote one zero on every proton in the universe you still would not have the number.

sylvester youve yet to provide the "proof" that the world is 4000 years old, unless that dino model you put up is your proof

You must keep in mind that the universe is infinite, and the possibility of this world existing is much rarer than 1 in 40 billion.

The distance between this earth and the sun, the tilt of the earth at 23.5 degrees, the orbit of this planet, the size and orbit of other celestial bodies among most other facts of our existence are random factors that happened to all come together to make the earth you walk on.

These factors all happening to create this universe and this planet are so rare that the chance is not 1 in 40 billion or something to that effect. But rather 1, in a number so big that if you wrote 1 and then wrote one zero on every proton in the universe you still would not have the number..

You must keep in mind that the universe is infinite, and the possibility of this world existing is much rarer than 1 in 40 billion.

The distance between this earth and the sun, the tilt of the earth at 23.5 degrees, the orbit of this planet, the size and orbit of other celestial bodies among most other facts of our existence are random factors that happened to all come together to make the earth you walk on.

[Earth]...is so rare that it is ifinitesimally unlikely of occurring by chance. Therefore (again - according to creationist statistics) - even if the universe had an infinite age, Earch would not occur through probability.

Bacteria are among the earliest forms of life that appeared on Earth billions of years ago. Scientists think that they helped shape and change the young planet's environment, eventually creating atmospheric oxygen that enabled other, more complex life forms to develop. Many believe that more complex cells developed as once free-living bacteria took up residence in other cells, eventually becoming the organelles in modern complex cells. The mitochondria that make energy for your body cells is one example of such an organelle.

Bacteria live on or in just about every material and environment on Earth from soil to water to air, and from your house to arctic ice to volcanic vents.

Some bacteria are photosynthetic "”they can make their own food from sunlight, just like plants. Also like plants, they give off oxygen. Other bacteria absorb food from the material they live on or in. Some of these bacteria can live off unusual "foods" such as iron or sulfur.

Tony and Boo-chan you are getting too specific and missing my original point. You are stating theories while I state facts.

You must keep in mind that the universe is infinite, and the possibility of this world existing is much rarer than 1 in 40 billion.

"The Rare Earth hypothesis

* Microbial life is common in planetary systems.
* Advanced life (animals) is rare in the Universe."

Ward and Brownlee present a comprehensive portrait of Earth's ultimate fate, allowing us to understand and appreciate how our planet sustains itself, and offer a glimpse at our place in the cosmic order. As they depict the process of planetary evolution, they peer deep into the future destiny of Earth, showing us that we are living near or shortly after Earth's biological peak. Eventually, the process of planetary evolution will reverse itself; life as we know it will subside until only the simplest forms remain. In time they, too, will disappear. The oceans will evaporate, the atmosphere will degrade, and as the sun slowly expands, Earth will eventually meet a fiery end.

Wait a moment, infinite universe is not a fact, it's just another theory.

I think that from an evolution standpoint, an infinate universe would not be possible

And Boo-Chan you piss me off,
You know nothing about anything of this universe and never will. You sit down on other people's theories and believe in them but yet you know nothing about the superstring theory. When Einstein first wrote it he was said to be only understood by 5 people in the world and now you and people like you quote it like its something they understand even if u do understand the basics you still don't know anything about what it signifies.

And Boo-Chan you piss me off,
You know nothing about anything of this universe and never will.

but yet you know nothing about the superstring theory.

When Einstein first wrote it he was said to be only understood by 5 people in the world

and people like you quote it like its something they understand even if u do understand the basics you still don't know anything about what it signifies.

For example, some people mention things like strong/weak nuclear force, mass of electrons and so forth, any of which being slightly different would make an universe like this impossible. Then you come across something like string theory which suggests that constants like these can only be certain values.

And Boo-Chan you piss me off,
You know nothing about anything of this universe and never will. You sit down on other people's theories and believe in them but yet you know nothing about the superstring theory.

the size of the universe must've increased by a factor of 10^50 in less than 10^-32 seconds, or the pair production (matter and antimatter) would've anhilated each other

i forgot where i read this, so dont quote me on it, but the possibility of having the strong nuclear force exist is almost 0, pretty much like 1/infinity if u want

about the graviton, i dont think it has been discovered even with the VIRGO and LIGO project.

I was saying I was just saying that life is ramdom and even the universe is infinite it is highly unlikely that all of these factors would come together at once.

I was just saying that life is ramdom and even the universe is infinite it is highly unlikely that all of these factors would come together at once.

life is ramdom

the universe is infinite

What's the chance of another nearly identical Earth occuring in our solar system? Well there were similarities made between Earth and Mars, but lets assume that the chance is still very very small. Improbable but not nothing.

Creationists argue...

That the universe is infinite -
but the probability of life ocurring without intelligent design (etc) is infinitely small, essentially zero.

That the universe is infinite -
but the probability of life ocurring without intelligent design (etc) is infinitely small...

if you really beleive in something, then you should feel no need to make us beleive. I dont much care about how old the earth is, i care about what is here and now.

I dont mean to be rude, but this convo is slightly pointless in my eyes. Not everyone has to beleive in something, whether it be a God, Demon, or other spiritual being. Others dont beleive in a God, and feel that everything can be expalined in science. Im in a happy medium, I accept the fact that there can be a God, but i also accept the Big Bang Theory (which blows sylvester's theory out of the water) and the fact that the universe is billions, even trillions of years old. If that is what i beleive, then i dont care about what others think, although i will accept their input, in hopes of expanding my beleifs and boundries of what is possible and not possible in my mind. This is how i live, and im perfectly fine with that.

noone is going to change their views because of something that we say

i don't agree because i believe something and no amount of truth whether true or not will make me believe something else. i figure the same is for u

i am not in a catholic highschool

first of all i am not in a catholic highschool.

Atleast all religions under the one true god.

is this the largest post in the history of compsci tony?

thankyou and i also agree that this convo is pretty pointless because noone is going to change their views because of something that we say

first of all i am not in a catholic highschool. Second of all i have been introduced/exposed to other religions and maybe as i get older i may doubt my belief and switch to maybe another branch of christianity. I am a very trusting person yes, and i will believe what i here IF it is believable and they can show me sources and the other side of the story.

i don't agree because i believe something and no amount of truth whether true or not will make me believe something else. i figure the same is for u

Yes my parents did choose my religion but they gave me a choice as i got older if the roman catholic religion was where i wanted to stay.

I don't see a point in pointing out that one religion is better than another. Atleast all religions under the one true god. If your a jehovah witness or a catholic it doesn't matter that much. You will still get to heaven.

Here's an interesting point though: All the christian religions (protesant, free methodist...) branched off the Roman Catholic Church started by Peter. For example: Back in Britiain awhile ago, King Henry the 5th i think wanted to get a divorce but because it was not allowed by the Catholic Church he branched off and created different laws and morals, although very much the same, under him that would benifit him better.

This point is not taking a stab at other religions. It is merely pointing out that there is more than one way to get to heaven than being catholic. I could switch Protesant if the i disagreed with the catholic doctrines and stiill get to heaven just as easily.

and tony, this thread owns yours

Also the way that scientist used to calculate the age of the earth with carbon dating but since that is only effective to up to 3000 years they stopped and switched to other methods (i forget it but will check later and enter it). This methods are also highly inaccurrate and the scientist find that with the calculations, the earth is only 6000 years old which is way off from what they expected. So they change their calculations to match the years they want.

i don't agree because i believe something and no amount of truth whether true or not will make me believe something else. i figure the same is for u

Yes my parents did choose my religion but they gave me a choice as i got older if the roman catholic religion was where i wanted to stay.

I don't see a point in pointing out that one religion is better than another. Atleast all religions under the one true god.

I really hope you don't mean that. I have no problem with people holding their own personal religious views, but I do have a problem when you say things like "they change their calculations to match the years they want".

You are basically saying that thousands of scientists are fudging their data and lying about it, and that the scientific community encourages this conspiracy

if we assume the universe is infinite ... That means everything *must* happen

Second, there isn't one true God.

And the roman catholic church is a branch off of a cult that was started during the colpases of the roman empire....

I wish people would stop teaching religion to kids, or at least give them an unbiased teaching.

Wait... how do you know there's only 1 true god? When the universe was created, maybe god needed help from a few of his friends.... it probably wouldn't be too hard to overlook Earth, so maybe god doesn't even know we exist.

5 -

That's based on misinformation. There are similarities, but no direct relationship to the mystery religions of Rome. I have a slew of resources that back that up (history specialist here), but I think that would be too off topic.

uh i believe that there is one true and god and i believe that the church was started by Peter, Jesus' strongest follower. Peter was also the first Pope and it's pretty far out to believe that the Roman Catholic Church was a branch off of a cult

3 -

*IF* we assume the univere is infinite. AND we assume something has probability > ZERO, which isn't necessarily the case.

4 -

That's an opinion, not a proof. Just because something is believed by a bunch of people doesn't make it a fact. Lots of people think that the Montreal Canadiens are a good hockey team, for instance.

Maybe God created the earth mid-stride 100 years ago.

also Peter did start the church and constantine was just a Roman Emperor dude that accepted christianity and made Rome chrisitan, correct me if im wrong. and if im wrong provide some sources.

changing the calibration scale for say carbon dating would not work, because it's not something that people can just change. It's based upon the rate of decay of certain particles, and the rate of decay does not change

You are basically saying that thousands of scientists are fudging their data and lying about it, and that the scientific community encourages this conspiracy. Actually, occasionally it is revealed that a scientist fabricated some data (often when the results aren't reproducible), and this is treated very seriously. Since the evidence for the age of the Earth comes from many different branches of science, you are also saying that this practice is quite widespread, which completely undermines the importance of science.

Actually, it is quite possible to change the calibration. Carbon dating isn't something that you can just say "O, it is this value so it's this old." The first thing is to relate certain ages with certain values, so they take objects that they know the age of (usually old casket lids with dates printed on them) and check the carbon value. This tells them that when the value is this, the object is this old. Very easy to change.

The level of carbon-14 in the air in the past can be measured (I don't exactly remember how), and from that you can get an estimate for the level of carbon 14 in the object your measuring

Peter was also the first Pope and it's pretty far out to believe that the Roman Catholic Church was a branch off of a cult.

Constantine (founder of Byzantium) was responsible for making Christianity into what it is today

It's not far out to believe that the RCC was a branch off of a cult. There are a lot of similarities with early Christianity and some other genuine cults (such as baptism and rituals involving blood like communion).

Perhaps the cults are branch offs of the Roman Catholic Faith. Basically the reason that there are multiple Dinominations of the Church is because the church is "continually sliding away from the Bible" and as it does so, parts of the church decide that it has become corrupt and split off as new churches or dinominations. I think that it is very possible that these "cults" are split-offs from the church with twisted ideals (Not that it's my place to judge their Ideals as twisted) or perhaps a church that has fallen very far into corruption.

please stop insulting me and for the last time i am not cement in what i believe. i change what i believe, although never out of christianity...

Actually, it is quite possible to change the calibration. Carbon dating isn't something that you can just say "O, it is this value so it's this old." The first thing is to relate certain ages with certain values, so they take objects that they know the age of (usually old casket lids with dates printed on them) and check the carbon value. This tells them that when the value is this, the object is this old. Very easy to change.

I did not say that thousands of scientists are fudging their data. sry i will finish this ltr i gotta go to english

Perhaps the cults are branched off from the Roman Catholic Faith andit is true that the more church's that branch away from the Bible's teachings are sliding away from the Bible's true teachings. I doubt the church, at the present, is corrupt but it has beenat times

And, finally, I have to point out that the entire Protestant Reformation came about because the Catholic church was being corrupt and untrue to the bible - the Lutherans in particular split away so that they could more closely follow scripture. The Catholic church may be the most conservative, but it's not the most true to scripture.

Wow. This is a really long thread.

Of course, you should all realize that true nirvana (heaven) is achieved only by escaping the cycle of life and death (thus ending suffering).

just thought I should throw that out there...

Ah but telling others that there fait is wrong and that ours is the only one to end the cycle of life and death is a from of desier. One most respected all regiones and not push ones blifes apone another.

It is also up to us to decide whether the earth and universe took 6 days and 1 day of rest to complete or billions of years. It all depends on what you believe it is not a set doctrine in the church.

I would've thought you'd have some moral objection to abusing your power like this, Dan.

In any case, stop your spamming, all of you. If I had the heart to edit five people's bits, you'd all lose 1000 bits.

A 150-million-year-old fossil of Archaeopteryx, the earliest known bird, may put to rest any scientific doubt that dinosaurs"”specifically the group of two-legged meat-eaters known as theropods"”gave rise to modern birds.

Archaeopteryx, therefore, is closely related to the theropods. This in turn means that theropod dinosaurs are the ancestors of the modern birds that followed Archaeopteryx.

The Creationist and his arguments, although supposed by the
scientifically minded to be dishonest, are honestly _inspired_ by
personal incredulity. They are aware they are not being scientific, but
are secretly convinced that they do not need to be scientific. The
Creationist may be half-aware that his own individual claim will not
stand up to scrutiny, but he is labouring under the sincere belief that
he is stating the obviously true.

A Creationist today is someone who looks upon evolutionary theory as if
it is an M.C. Escher picture, like the Impossible Waterfall. They are
struck by the certainty that there must be something wrong with it, but
at what point?

"We don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows", is
the unspoken attitude of the Creationist. "I don't know exactly how
you are wrong, but I know from common sense that you are, somewhere."

Evidence _that_ evolution is a reality, is worthless when facing an
overpowering pre-conception that it is a self-contained impossibility.
However impeccable evidence is, if it is against what is thought to be
blatantly obvious, it is disregarded, downplayed, denied, or never
reconciled.

Every denier of evolution also claims that it is forbiddingly unlikely
or impossible - Nobody says it is "probable but short on
evidence". Conversely, everyone who appreciates that complex
evolution is theoretically probable, _also_ is satisfied by the
evidence that it is real. Therefore, the problem lies not in the
evidence, but in explanation. To know that evidence is evidence, one
must know what it is evidence for.

Let us return to Escher's Impossible Waterfall. Out first urge, as
soon as we see it, is to find something wrong with it. We know from the
start there is a flaw in the picture, and the game is to find out what.
How do we know that there's a flaw?

Because we know water doesn't flow uphill. And that is where the
problem with Creationisms lies - In taking evolution to be an uphill
process.

Evolution denial is born from the assumption that the great choice lies
between "design" or "chance". It is the "chance' strawman
that is the one with the "uphill" baggage.

This is not the full choice, however. The real choice involves a third
option, namely "formulaicity". "Formulaic" isn't a word I see at
all on these NGs when it is the most useful explanatory word to
describe the process.

Simple mathematical formula by themselves produce intricate, ordered,
beautiful fractal images(ferns and leaves). When influenced by outside
input, they are known to design machinery.

This has been demonstrated as Darwinian formula have incrementally
synthesised designs for patentable inventions. Natural selection is a
simple formulaic process that reacts with the environment to unfold a
synchronised coping reaction.

~Iain

A Pennsylvania school district cannot require the teaching of intelligent design in high school biology classes, a federal judge ruled in a case that may influence other challenges to the theory of evolution.

``Since it's the first such ruling, if you are a school board lawyer and your job is to keep your school board out of trouble, you will be paying attention to what the district court says in Pennsylvania,'' said Brian Landsberg, constitutional law professor at University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, Sacramento, California.

In his opinion, Jones said the key issue is ``whether Intelligent Design is science,'' and said, ``we have concluded that it is not.''

The ruling ``has potential impact'' across the country because ``it's a piece of ammunition that will be used'' by the winning party, Landsberg said.

Well there's obviously something believable about Intelligent Design if they had to ban it. Many other stories from many other cultures/religeons about the start of the world (most do not include evolution) are still taught in schools.

WAHOOO! Its open...the longest poll continues...
And just to catch up...WHY WOULD THEY BAN INTELLIGENT DESIGN FROM SCHOOLS!
In schools i think it is pretty absurd how they teach evolution. We watched a movie in gr9. showing how we jumped onto a comet, landed on earth, and evolved from "soup" It is not very believable.
and... go Biology teacher!

We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one
of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;
(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and
(3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation

So basically if it goes against the theory of no supernatural beings, It's not science? How can they honestly say that?

(Yes, it's just a theory, as discussed before, you couldn't possibly know that there were no supernatural beings unless you yourself were supernatural.)

But It can be used as proof to prove that it's not provable.

The fact that it is impossible to disprove...

If you can't know for sure that there are no supernatural beings, then you can't very well say that anything involving the possibility of a supernatural being is false.

It is pretty easy to see why, science relies on testability which goes out the window as soon as you can fix up any holes in a theory with the phrase "[deity of your choice] did it". This is not to say that god does not exist, just that science does not deal in god.

So if science doesn't deal in supernatural intervention, then how can they ban it because It's not scientific if they cannot relate the two in order to determine that it's not scientific?

my point is that they shouldn't truely consider it false if they cannot prove it false.

[ID] has been baned from science clases. Note that since ID [u]IS NOT/u] science this is perfectly reasonable.

I think there were monetary rewards being given out if you can prove flying spagetti monster theory to be false.

...a high school teacher in the states who lost his job because he taught intelligent design.

That's not to say that the supernatural doesn't exist, just that you can't use supernatural explanations to back up science.

DeHart's troubles began in 1998, when evolution-minded parents became aware that for 12 years, DeHart had been omitting certain chapters in the assigned biology text and substituting materials of his own for student consideration.

Note that in canada it's illegal to force your beliefs on someone else as you are then violating their own right to beleive whatever they want. So teaching religion in a public school almost certainly violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

and this is getting out of hand, so locked again

instead of fighting about religion with others, go sit visit the salvation army and look at the smiles on the servers faces, and ask them why are they so happy to volunteer. religion is about love, not war, so please, just stop fighting

i dont see how simply presenting the view of intelligent design is considered forcing an religion upon people.. i think that the way most teachers teach evolution is way more unconstitutional

The Pope calls for sexual abstention and chastity. (Spill out the whole story not just half of it... Or perhaps you did not know that?).

You assume, we _all_ believe that sex is the way to go in life. But you'd be sadly and completly mistaken. You fell for the media, dont assume we all did.

This is not to say the Catholic church is eviler than other religions like Islam, its just to say that Cathlisism has changed more than the others because it has to encorperate individual rights into its creed, whereas other places in the world like "Afghanistan" did not have to. So their religions remained, pure, stagnant, and most importantly: evil beyond all knowing.

If you were a religious leader, don't you think making up things about the people you hated would be a good way? Much like in World War 2 we called that Japanese Yips and in Vietnam the Vietnamese were referred to as Gooks?

It makes the enemy easier to hate.

for the Catholic church to survive it had to wh~ore itself to these new standards: the standard of individual rights.

The old Catholics used to burn women alive if they were heiretics, that is: if a woman didn't believe in the chauvinistic views of the Catholic church. But more than just women were butchured by the Church. And you say: but that was the old Church? But I say: how can something narrarated by 'God' change because humans decide it must change?

This is not to say the Catholic church is eviler than other religions like Islam, its just to say that Cathlisism has changed more than the others because it has to encorperate individual rights into its creed, whereas other places in the world like "Afghanistan" did not have to. So their religions remained, pure, stagnant, and most importantly: evil beyond all knowing.

I have no forgiveness for those who follow such a biggoted, dogmatic creed. The Church has done its wrong, it has mislead enough people into doing harm and being biggoted. The thing that pisses me off the most about it is how the Church treated women. It took up until not more than 40 years ago for women to gain full status in this predominantly Christian society. (North America) I hate all religions that deem women of less worth than males.

A woman, is far more sanctamonious than any man or God.

So if you want to believe in a creed which has failed our human society time and time again, be my guest.

No. I'm a realist.

Are you saying that you agree with the Pope going to Africa and telling these people not to use condoms?

Yet of course, women STILL can't be priests.

I don't see you going out there and helping them.. Are you? So please stop with this trash talk. You see sexual abstinence as impossible. Then you are a hopeless case! Period.

To clear up a previous point I made.
The Pope is an idealist in this regard. The absolute best solution for Africa right now would be for everyone to abstain from sex until marriage. But what the Pope doesn't realize is just how idealistic it is and how that's not going to happen. Even in our 'civilized' societies it doesn't happen, so why Africa?

A vacuum has nothing in it at all, it is basically nothing.

Uh oh.

If a vacuum has "nothing" in it, we can say there are no waves passing through it. Put another way, any waves passing through it have an amplitude of zero. But now we know precisely the amplitude of the wave, so, by the Uncertainty Principle, the rate of change of the amplitude of the wave could be anything (much like if we precisely know the position of a particle, the velocity could be anything). If the rate of change of amplitude is anything, then in the next instant the amplitude of the wave can be non-zero, and suddenly we have virtual pairs: an electron and a positron, perhaps, that will annihilate each other very soon after, repaying the "borrowed" energy from the universe. Unless of course the virtual pair erupts into existance near the event horizon of a black hole, in which case one may be sucked into the black hold, while the other is shot outwards.

I agree that the church should not be involved in the teaching of intelligent design, mostly because there are many different theories for many different churches and if one were to be picked, the others would freak. A general teaching is the way to go.

Intelligent Design can be powerful if it isn't presented extreme and too much influenced by the Church.

There are many good arguments for Intelligent Design and there are many prominent scientists who believe in Intelligent Design of some sort.

Mostly because it is possible, although technically it wouldnt survive Occams Razor as of now.

Those who believe Intelligent Design, and understand the less extremist opinions, understand and know that evolution undeniably exists, but you may question the origin of humans. Just because Evolution exists does not mean intelligent design is impossible. They are not mutually exclusive. We are pretty sure at this point that modern man, which is our subject is it not?, evolved, and was not created (if we were) in our current form. Evolution has certainly changed the original, ancestral, creatons (if they did exist).

Just a reminder, I am a supporter of evolution and do not believe that we are the product of Intelligent Design, im just presenting some things from the side of ID because some of the creationists that have posted in this thread, haven't presented any credible evidence and have overall posted biased, fairly useless, zealous, perhaps offensive replies. (might get some hell for this one too lol.)

To Cornflake : OUCH! theres too much to quote but you butchered by argument lol.

Unfortunately, you didn't butcher MY argument. Because when I mean ID i don't mean the idea of an all powerful god. ID means not that we are governed by an all powerful being which explains everything.

Plus some rebuttals by me: Creationism is NOT Christianity, many, many, many, probably near- all of them have their own creationism story. It is not a christian idea. In fact, it was not even invented by Christians, whose creation occurs in the old testament, so the Jews.

Also not all ID arguments are based on denying evolution. As i said in my other post, ID and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. The ID that i believe is a possibility recognizes the effects of evolution. It just proposes the idea that regardless of evolution Earth was given a helping hand by some other intelligent entity. That life on Earth started not by chance but by deliberate actions of another being.

Also science does not involve on the natural world and things that are proveable. Most of science is based on Occams Razor, they are not proved, they are disproved. ex. Since 7 x 7 = 49, lets assume everything times 7 = 49 since we proved it with 7 x 7. Rather disprove it with 8 x 7 is 56 which does not = 49 thus not everything x 7 = 49. Many theories aren't completely proveable, and only limited predictions can be made, and some occur on such a large span of time, humanity is unlikely to record them.

About your remarks about the prominent scientists, i offer no rebuttal. Since i can't list prominent scientists, most sound obscure to me, but i dont keep up with the names of very many scientists. I know i read it in credible literature, although i can't really prove that to you either. You'll either choose to trust me, or to not trust me on this one.

All your rebuttals would be good, but I think you misunderstood my idea of a general, less extreme ID.

You claim that ID, proposes that there is a God. That he is all powerful, wills all. And that man is superior to animals. I don't believe that man is superior (not counting the fact that we can be considered (although again by ourselves) to be the most successful species). ID doesn't propose any of these things. It merely proposes that, life on Earth, was either created or manipulated by an intelligent entity to follow a certain general course. It is suggested not to challenge evolution, although religion jumped on it, it was suggested to show alternate possible theories and ideas. Just because we have no need for something new, does not mean we shouldn't consider something new. wtd presented something like that in the tip of the day thread i think lol.

definitely eveoltution but i dont understand why we dident evolve any more??? but we shall see as time goes on

Well who is to say we are not eveolving more? Over the last 100 or so years there have been chages to the human spescies. Poeleop are matureing faster psyicaly and geting bigger hight wise. But this is also beside the point since the theroy of elveltion talks about servial of the fitest where by good mutations will do better then bad ones. But the way our socirity is set up also all muatations or slight chages to humans will do just about as good as a noraml human so we basilky have come to an end point where we our selves have stoped any futher psyical eveltions from being posibaile.

chrispminis, i wont go into as much detail as cornflakes did but you are obviously wrong about space being nothingness. Is dark matter something you've never heard of?

And about the other thing you said, strong nuclear force and an electron making a neutron? No, as i already eluded to before, a neutron is a proton and an electron stuck together. Hence, the reason that protons and neutrons are comparable in size.

And just for the record, obviously protons are not the smallest. I think that is one of my strongest basis for intelligent design. The universe is comprised of infinite depth, therefore even an electron or a proton for that matter consists of infinite smaller particles which combined create the effect of a protons behaviour. (this is not to mention photons, the smallest particle known to be in existence, for we have never seen one.)

Of course, I cannot prove the universe is infinitely deep. But I can say this, if it is not, then our number system is flawed. And imagine what the boys at Princeton would think of that.

Lay off the crack man....

Also the universe is not infinite. It was already proved to be finite, but expanding at the speed of light, so for our purposes has no boundary because according to general relativity nothing may travel faster than light. Thus the no boundary principle.

The photon is NOT the smallest particle (i don't recall what is, but i am sure neutrinos are probably smaller), in fact we've never even seen electrons and protons and other subatomic particles, we merely know of their existence through their effects and through experiments. In fact, photons being that they form light when in large dense clusters, we have seen them through optical cameras and sensitive spectroscopic and astronomic instruments.

As to how the existence of smaller particles than protons exist helps ID's case, it doesn't. It helps evolutions case of stable particles emerging and stable particles "surviving". ex. In a stable nucleus a neutron may "survive" indefinetely, but on its own, a "free" neutron, it will decay and its lifespan is typically only 15 minutes. So it would help evolutions case, through the emergence of more complicated and more stable configurations of the fermions (quarks, muons, gluons etc.)

As to our number system, it is not flawed. It would only break down in an instance of singularity or (hypothetically, when the universe begins to contract, in which properties C,P, and T would reverse), although the idea of entropy may contradict this (please explain, im not very strong in the area of the second law of thermodynamics and the idea behind Murphy's law and entropy).

Lay off the crack man....

Recommended Reading: A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, easy to understand and makes you feel like a genius lol. btw its about physics and some chemistry.

To Cornflake : OUCH! theres too much to quote but you butchered by argument lol.

Unfortunately, you didn't butcher MY argument. Because when I mean ID i don't mean the idea of an all powerful god. ID means not that we are governed by an all powerful being which explains everything.

Creationism is NOT Christianity, many, many, many, probably near- all of them have their own creationism story. It is not a christian idea. In fact, it was not even invented by Christians, whose creation occurs in the old testament, so the Jews.

Also not all ID arguments are based on denying evolution. As i said in my other post, ID and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. The ID that i believe is a possibility recognizes the effects of evolution. It just proposes the idea that regardless of evolution Earth was given a helping hand by some other intelligent entity. That life on Earth started not by chance but by deliberate actions of another being.

Also science does not involve on the natural world and things that are proveable. Most of science is based on Occams Razor, they are not proved, they are disproved. ex. Since 7 x 7 = 49, lets assume everything times 7 = 49 since we proved it with 7 x 7. Rather disprove it with 8 x 7 is 56 which does not = 49 thus not everything x 7 = 49.

Many theories aren't completely proveable, and only limited predictions can be made, and some occur on such a large span of time, humanity is unlikely to record them.

About your remarks about the prominent scientists, i offer no rebuttal. Since i can't list prominent scientists, most sound obscure to me, but i dont keep up with the names of very many scientists. I know i read it in credible literature, although i can't really prove that to you either. You'll either choose to trust me, or to not trust me on this one.

All your rebuttals would be good, but I think you misunderstood my idea of a general, less extreme ID.

You claim that ID, proposes that there is a God. That he is all powerful, wills all.

And that man is superior to animals. I don't believe that man is superior (not counting the fact that we can be considered (although again by ourselves) to be the most successful species).

ID doesn't propose any of these things. It merely proposes that, life on Earth, was either created or manipulated by an intelligent entity to follow a certain general course. It is suggested not to challenge evolution, although religion jumped on it, it was suggested to show alternate possible theories and ideas.

Ohhhh... *looks at Cornflake's massive post, and ceases to exist* No, but seriously, once again cross examined to death.

Anyways first, i know of particle/wave duality, gave up on quantum mechanics lol. For later i suppose. You said basically the same thing as me with the infinite universe, and expansion thing, except you said that we don't know for sure if the universe expands at the speed of light. Really? I didn't know that, I thought it just expanded at the speed of light. Also about the visibility of subatomic particles. I admit the mistake.

But is it not true that photons are not the smallest particle? and that we do see it.

please don't question the credibility of my sources, which are sound, only question the credibility of my memory, and the fact that i am yet ignorant of many things, and they say the most dangerous thing is a little bit of knowledge.

Im only 15, so I have time to read up.

Finally, I think I'm giving up on this topic because clearly i cant win on ID's side, and all of evolutions good arguments have been put forward i think. Anyways, good debate, most notably Cornflake. Oh btw Cornflake, if you have time would you explain the ideas behind entropy? They seem really strange to me lol.

To Chris: Neutrons are protons and electrons stuck together. That is a proven fact, please do not refute this without also listing resources which "scientifically" disprove this.

It seems you don't like a lot of what i have to say: i presume this is because i'm a creationist? What i mean by: "you don't like what i have to say" is of course, the fact that you say things whimsically. Things like: "I don't know what neutrons are but they aren't protons and electrons stuck together" and also things like "I'm pretty sure neutrino's are smaller than photons", just because you feel like not taking my (creationist) word for it.

The smallest particle we know exists is called a photon. We have never seen one yet. (Notice how i said "know exists": this is because i believe strongly that there are particles infinitely smaller than photons, but we haven't discovered this fact yet

Our number system is an artificial system and has nothing to do with the universe. We apply it to the universe, but don't get the two confused. What you're saying is the same as saying 'if you prove that 0 = 1, the universe will disappear"

To Chris: Neutrons are protons and electrons stuck together. That is a proven fact, please do not refute this without also listing resources which "scientifically" disprove this.

...all good god kills jews in concentration camps

Christianity has changed so much throughout the ages that its difficult for me to see it as anything but a product.

It took up until not more than 40 years ago for women to gain full status.

"Treat others the way you would like to be treated."

Yes, sexual abstinence is an impossible shift with a huge group of people, as Africa clearly shows. Africa has a bigger problem than people having sex - it's called AIDS, and it's killing people at an alarming rate.

To all: Please do not say a relgion is better then another

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. ur funny, what grade are you? 10? please dont say bs that you dont know.. ever heard of quarks? leptons? and fundamental particles? go look up a particle chart.

I'd be hypocritical if I followed any world view that I didn't think was best. If you maintain that all religions and beliefs are equal - then you claim, de facto, that liberal relativism is better than other worldviews.

To answer your question on birth control, Dan; the Catholic doctrine states:............

I think the debate award goes to Cornflake. With all the attitude and flaming that this type of thread tends to generate, your posts are always objective and logically stated. Cheers.

You may want to look up the theology of 'free choice' before making sweepingly ridiculous statements. By the same reasoning, medicine is evil too because it kills people sometimes.

Admittedly, the church is culturally slow. Consider that hardly any organizations or countries gave full status to women until about 80 years ago. Women have only had voting rights in Quebec for 45 years.

I'd be hypocritical if I followed any world view that I didn't think was best. If you maintain that all religions and beliefs are equal - then you claim, de facto, that liberal relativism is better than other worldviews.

GRAVITY AND ANTIMATTER

The generation of antiparticles is possible today, and even now an experiment is under construction where the force of gravity on antiprotons will be measured exactly. Physicists predict, through the mathematics of current theory, that the force of gravity will actually be greater than on normal matter. But they make this prediction without even professing to know what gravity is.

Let's take another look at this. Granted that electricity is an electron interaction, antielectricity would be a positron interaction, and electrons and positrons would attract and positrons would repel each other just like electrons. Even granted that magnetism is a result of a bipolar charge in motion, the result of antimagnetism on antimatter would be the same as magnetism on normal matter.

As an aside, there are a bunch of scientists that have been out looking for a "magnetic monopole" for decades. It seems to me they're as likely to find that as to find a stick with one end.

Now we come to gravity. We know that gravity is proportional to mass. We also know that mass is preportional to atomic number, and that boils down to the quantity of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. As neutrons are made of protons and electrons , and we may eliminate the electrons from gravitic theory (anyone ever hear of an electron star?), this leaves the proton as the sole responsible particle.

Antigravity, therefore, would have the same effect on antimatter as gravity does on normal matter. But what effect would antigravity have on normal matter? The results aren't in yet, but following the examples of other forces and oppositely charged particles, it would follow that what goes up may not come back down. Perhaps this discovery will get things off the ground a little faster.

Let us consider another possibility. Could it be that people simply don't like (or listen to) much of what you say because it is wrong (and stupid)? It has very little , if anything, to do with your being a creationist (though that says something in and of itself about your level of reasoning); it is more that you don't seem to know what you are talking about. Combined with a striking inability to grasp key english language concepts (did you even read your second sentence in that quote?!) it tends to make reading your posts difficult and utterly pointless. You contribute nothing to the debate except mis-information and personal attacks.

neutrons are protons and electrons stuck together, cornflakes if you do not believe this is true show me evidence, show me proof, show me where it specifically refutes this.

if neutrons are not protons and electrons stuck together then tell me what they are. Show me the article you read what they are.

this greatly offends me, i will contact a moderator about your lack of respect for fellow human beings Cornflake. Those are sick things to say to someone, what affect were you intending other than to make me feel like crap?