20-12-1999 14:15									#31
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

You're mixing us up with the Agnostics. We atheists are nihilistic, militaristic bastards.

	20-12-1999 19:52									#32
	Remove this text

Well, 70 feet of water can cause a whole lot of havoc. Especially when many of the major mountain ranges haven't even been formed yet.

If I read my scientific history right, the dinosaurs lived from approximately 250 to 65 million years ago. The Himalayas *started* to form 70 million years ago. The Appalachians (the oldest mountain chain in North America) pre-date the dinosaurs. Not all those mountain ranges are going to be there.

And I wouldn't want to be between the mountains and the ocean when water rises 70 feet. Combined with a nice climate change, survival could get very tough. And dinosaurs don't seem the type of creatures that adapt easily to mountain life.

A 70 feet rise in ocean waters would be one major disaster. I make no claim that it could cause a mass extinction (what can cause a mass extinction is still up to debate in scientific circles) but it certainly could be a major hardship and a very interesting development in the game.

	21-12-1999 10:33									#33
	Got spare money?

Mikey,

Woo-oo. And them religious type, they are polite and clean and pure and all that.

Anyway, I believe yes. Remember the Civ starting demo? That advocated the concept of big bang and evolution, and still creationists played Civ. I think...

	21-12-1999 02:14									#34
	Got spare money?

And proud of it Hugo

And Michael, the second word in 'free thinking' is thinking. The only pre-requirement to liberal minds is thinking, and no creationist really think about ideals.
Clining to the same outdated beliefs to the sole reason that your fore-fathers belive in, inspite of anything five thousands years of science have to say it just not intelligent, all said.
It might be tradiontal, but it certianly not thinking

	22-12-1999 18:57									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I'm back! Nice faces, btw .

But what do I see here? I had never realised until now that Apolyton had such a large population of lunatic bastards.
Creationism???????
Come on. Some almighty person, saying, "thou shall bread", or something like that, and creating the universe? Just ridiculous. I want proof. And nothing, nothing, supports the idea of a sudden creation.
Though far from everything about evolution is known, there is some scientific evidence.
I can't understand how someone can neglect that in favour of some book of a superprimitive civilization.

BTW, for all those moronic creationists-fundamentalists out here, I have a question.

Genesis 1 says that the world is created in seven days.

Genesis 2 doesn't talk about that at all and begins with the creation of humans (Adam and Eva).

Now any person who thinks a little bit about what he reads, sees there are some serious opposite things told in those stories.

So, which one is the 'right one'?
(still have to meet the first person with an answer to that)

BTW2, when you do exegesis on Genesis 2, you would realize that it's not at all about the creation of the universe or humanity.

In the beginning of the story in the original language, the word 'adam' is used, which means earth-being.

Then, when there is taken a rib from adam, the words 'isj' and 'isja' are mentioned, which mean 'man' and 'woman', and the word adam isn't used anymore.
So the woman isn't made out of the man; she's made out of the earthbeing.
How the man is created isn't even mentioned at all.

The story actually wants to say that man and woman are equal. But through all that translations (Hebrew, Greek, Latin, then probably English), the word adam was translated as man.

All this explanation for saying something I thought was obvious:
This story doesn't act at all about the creation of anything. That's just all symbolic poetic language.
Only (fundamentalist) fools take it litteral.
It wants to say that man and woman are equal. So the emancipation idea isn't new.

M@ni@c
nihilistic, militaristic, rational thinking, arrogant jerk

(Arrogant is at least what traditionalist scum say of people like me who are self-willed. But in face of such inferior/primitive/not-self thinking people as some of you, that is a big virtue.)

	22-12-1999 20:58									#36
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Umm not wishing to impose my self upon these intelectuals here, but as I see it, the truth of all this debate relates to faith, For creationists they trace a line back to god who has always been there. Evolutiuonists trace a line back to the big bang, which occurred from matter that had always been there.
The choice is left to logical people, which is more logical, lifeless matter floating around for an infinity waiting for the big bang, or a live god....

As I said place your faith where you want, but regardless of what BOTH sides say, neither side has proof of the beginnings, so it is just Faith, a belief system, not science.

If the Creationists are wrong they will be laughed at all their life, if the evolutionists are wrong ....................


------------------
Rasputin The Mad Monk, Lover of the Russian Queen

	22-12-1999 21:35									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Rasputin: Not exactly. The Big Bang hasnt always been there. What has always been there is vakuum and out of this vakuum our universe was created.

But the point is, while creationists havent got anything to back up their arguments (besides a thousand year old book), scientists have the background hmm, hows that called in english? You know that 3kelvin background thing. Then the fact that the colors of galaxies that move away are red and the ones that coming closer are blue. Therefore that most galaxies are red, we can assume that we are all drifting away and that the universe expands. But well, an expanding universe does need a middlepoint right?

Ata

	23-12-1999 10:07									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Ahem.

Move the religious debate over to Off-Topic. Unless you have something related to the subject, of course.

	23-12-1999 00:34									#39
	Tired of ads?

My only post in this topic, and my last...

The only narrow 'fundamentalist' minds I've seen in this forurm are trying to speak from a 'science' veiw point! These are the people who haven't taken the time to thourghly think this thru for themselves.. rather they are preaching that they have been taught instead of think on it themselves!


Science is based on logic:
Assumption: An all-powerful, omnipotent deity(s) creates a universe. Said deity(s) desires to make it look as if said universe is 'old' according to the 'natural laws' of that universe, said deity(s) don't want presense obvious.
Reasons: Unknown, no refrence frame for all-powerful, omnipotent deity(s)
Conclusion: universe looks 'old' and no scientific presense of aforementioned diety(s) discoverable (it's part of that all-powerful, omnipotent thing)

Science can NEVER PROVE or DISPROVE the 'reality' of an all-powerful diety(s); if that diety(s) exsists and if that diety(s) does not wish it's presence known. The whole damn arguement is moot! It is a question of faith.

Personally do I believe?: Think it is EXTREMELY unlikely, but guess what.. I can't prove it.


M@ni@c:
"(Arrogant is at least what traditionalist scum say of people like me who are self-willed. But in face of such inferior/primitive/not-self thinking people as some of you, that is a big virtue.)"

No.. it is what most people says about you. traditionalist scum or not. Your 'fundamentalist preaching' is as bad as thiers.


Rasputin00:

"big bang, which occurred from matter that had always been there. "

No.. not by ANY current theory. Space, Time, Energy, and especially Matter all these terms totally lose any meaning when you start talking about 'the beginning' (looking back as time approaches 0)

Atahualpa:

"What has always been there is vakuum and out of this vakuum our universe was created."
and
"an expanding universe does need a middlepoint right?"

Part I: No, the big bang theory discribes the expansion of SPACE and the universe itself, not just the matter and energy in it, Vacuum has no frame of referance 'outside' of the universe

Part II: No... well, actually.. every point can by viewed as the centerpoint, it has to do with hyper-diminsionality and what it is that is exactly expanding (ie. space-time itself, the matter and energy is basically just along for the ride) I'd suggest read anything by Stephen Hawkings.


and to the 'fundamentalist' religious types (even though I haven't seen you post, I know you are out there).. stop knocking on my door in the middle of the day and trying to save me.... I work nights, I need my sleep.


Said my peace , exit stage left...
[This message has been edited by Bblue (edited December 22, 1999).]

	23-12-1999 01:57									#40
	Suffering from ads?

Bblue: The Big Bang was the result out of a vacuum. And created our universe. Or better was the origin of our universe.

No, sorry I havent read anything by Steven Hawking. But some other author/scientists or were it more said that it might be that universes are just like balls and that more than 1 universe can coexist. It is also possible that such universes are connected by wormholes. Although that stuff is quite sf, there is a possibility of being true.

Ata

	24-12-1999 07:39									#41
	Support Apolyton

quote: Assumption: An all-powerful, omnipotent deity(s) creates a universe. Said deity(s) desires to make it look as if said universe is 'old' according to the 'natural laws' of that universe, said deity(s) don't want presense obvious. Reasons: Unknown, no refrence frame for all-powerful, omnipotent deity(s) Conclusion: universe looks 'old' and no scientific presense of aforementioned diety(s) discoverable (it's part of that all-powerful, omnipotent thing)

Bblue- I am going to make the assumption the there are Invisible Pink Unicorns on your desk right now. Can you prove me wrong? I did not think so. Does that make my assumption as "scientific" as yours? Why/why not? They both depend on the same for of circular reasoning to reach thier conclusions.

	24-12-1999 11:50									#42
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Eggman on 12-19-1999 12:11 PM St Leo: A giant flood is not that ridiculous an idea. If the Ice Age can lower water levels to the point where Asia and North America are joined, it is possible for the ice caps to melt and raise ocean levels abruptly.

The problem here is to propose a mechanism through which ice caps melt "abruptly." Science requires evidence. Any assertions that lacks any basis is merely hot air.

quote: Originally posted by Eggman on 12-20-1999 09:52 AM If I read my scientific history right, the dinosaurs lived from approximately 250 to 65 million years ago. The Himalayas *started* to form 70 million years ago. The Appalachians (the oldest mountain chain in North America) pre-date the dinosaurs. Not all those mountain ranges are going to be there. And I wouldn't want to be between the mountains and the ocean when water rises 70 feet. Combined with a nice climate change, survival could get very tough. And dinosaurs don't seem the type of creatures that adapt easily to mountain life. A 70 feet rise in ocean waters would be one major disaster. I make no claim that it could cause a mass extinction (what can cause a mass extinction is still up to debate in scientific circles) but it certainly could be a major hardship and a very interesting development in the game.

Considering that it takes hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions of years, for mountains to raise to current heights and Ice Ages occurred after dinosaur extinction (or near the very end of their reign), it is hard to see what this increase in sea water level has anything to do with their extinction.

Also remember that dinosaurs lived in a very hot and humid climate, much more so than we have now. This means there weren't much polar ice caps - if any at all - and most of the water was in liquid form.

quote: Originally posted by Rasputin00 on 12-22-1999 10:58 AM Umm not wishing to impose my self upon these intelectuals here, but as I see it, the truth of all this debate relates to faith, For creationists they trace a line back to god who has always been there. Evolutiuonists trace a line back to the big bang, which occurred from matter that had always been there.

Not true. Consider these:

1. Most Christians aren't creationists. The Pontiff has embraced evolution. Hence, by extension, all Catholics embrace evolution. Liberal Protestants have no problem accepting evolution as well. That clearly shows only fundamentalist Christians are creationists and not everybody who "trace(s) a line back to the Big Bang?"

2. Please differentiate between evolution, the origin of life (abiogenesis), and the origin of the universe. Evolutionists need not agree on abiogensis, let alone origin of the universe.

quote: Originally posted by Rasputin00 on 12-22-1999 10:58 AM The choice is left to logical people, which is more logical, lifeless matter floating around for an infinity waiting for the big bang, or a live god....

Apparently you don't understand the Big Bang theory. Modern cosmology states that time as we know it started with the Big Bang.

If one thinks the Big Bang is absurd, how much more absurd is an infinite being?

quote: Originally posted by Rasputin00 on 12-22-1999 10:58 AM As I said place your faith where you want, but regardless of what BOTH sides say, neither side has proof of the beginnings, so it is just Faith, a belief system, not science. If the Creationists are wrong they will be laughed at all their life, if the evolutionists are wrong ...

Again, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. The Big Bang can be totally wrong and will not affect evolution one whit.

quote: Originally posted by Bblue on 12-22-1999 02:34 PM My only post in this topic, and my last... The only narrow 'fundamentalist' minds I've seen in this forurm are trying to speak from a 'science' veiw point! These are the people who haven't taken the time to thourghly think this thru for themselves.. rather they are preaching that they have been taught instead of think on it themselves! Science is based on logic: Assumption: An all-powerful, omnipotent deity(s) creates a universe. Said deity(s) desires to make it look as if said universe is 'old' according to the 'natural laws' of that universe, said deity(s) don't want presense obvious. Reasons: Unknown, no refrence frame for all-powerful, omnipotent deity(s) Conclusion: universe looks 'old' and no scientific presense of aforementioned diety(s) discoverable (it's part of that all-powerful, omnipotent thing) Science can NEVER PROVE or DISPROVE the 'reality' of an all-powerful diety(s); if that diety(s) exsists and if that diety(s) does not wish it's presence known. The whole damn arguement is moot! It is a question of faith.

That's a common error exploited by Christian fundamentalists. In science, if you cannot supply enough evidence for something, then that something doesn't exist, as far as science is cocerned. The burden of proof must lie with the persons who make assertions, not their opponents.

Suppose I tell you that you are always followed by an invisible flying dog. Can you disprove me? Does that mean I am right? What if I tell you that you don't exist?

[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited December 24, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited December 24, 1999).]

	24-12-1999 12:42									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

All rihgt I'm a Christian. I've been taught to belive in God and creationism. People belive that our world is millions of years old. We believei t's only about 7,000 years old.

You think we evolved from monkeys and muck. We believe that a powerful, kind, and loving God created us in his image. In response to the earthbeing hypothesis Adam means something like "red ground". That's because God created humanity out of the dust of the Earth.

And yes God has always been here. I suppose you can trash whatever I say by caling me a weak minded fool, or a close minded idiot, or a rigid fundamentalist dolt. But I ask you science people this. Who created the laws of science ?

	24-12-1999 15:02									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Well Tree, interesting topic. I myself will not buy the evolution game because of my beliefs.
I am so fed up with the ungodly rubbish that is flooding the American consumer markets, and over-flowing into my own nation of Australia. Whether it be Satanic rock music like Nine Inch Nails or Marilyn Manson, or computer games such as the popular shoot-em up titles or the occultist Pokemon craze.
Playing Castle Wolfenstien years ago, one could never have imagined the realism and violence its later predecessors have now achieved. Such games develop slowly, so when the full obscene horror of these perverse games are fully realized, our children are already desensitized. To think our children find enjoyment blowing away deformed mutants and monsters makes my blood chill.
As for the Sid Meier evolution game, I will certainly not invest my money unto the very companies who are so callously pumping these deranged, and or Atheistic games to our innocent and impressionable children. Although I'm not a rigid Creationist, I am certainly opposed to the philosophical ideas that arose from Darwins controversial theory of evolution, especially where these ideas found horrifying application in recent history. The holocaust is the most extreme example, but even in Australia these trends found root; most infamously through the white Australia policy, and the general misery our native Aboriginal populace have suffered over the years. I'm not saying the evolution theory created racial hatred, but it certainly justified it.
A game about dinosaurs and lush tropical jungles sounds very enticing at first, but it is the deeper message this game will promote, and the inherent dangers that lie in this doctrine that trouble my conscience.
I encourage all deep thinking Christians to contemplate these implications. Sure, playing this game may be an innocent diversion, but who knows what other more sinister projects our hard earned cash is funding?
Join me in taking a stand against godless corporations such as Firaxis, who don't even care about delivering high quality releases, as the recent Alien Crossfire expansion pack well demonstrates.
At the very least I hope people learn greater consumer awareness and caution. It is us, the buying public, who shape the market, thus we have a duty to not only protect our own families from this corporate menace, but to protect the wider community also.

yours sincerely,

Bkeela.

	24-12-1999 17:49									#45
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Sheesh if you want to put it that way, you might as well boycott every new game that gets released. Yes let's ban the ultima games for their religious and satanic symbolism, let's burn copies of SMAC for their portrayal of Sister Miriam, hey... while we're at it how about we have a petition to shut down Activision and Ensemble Studios because of their portrayal of the cleric and the monk respectively. Give it a rest, at the end of the day dinosaurs will just be a game. Whether it is harmful or not, that's up to your own personal beliefs, don't speak for anyone else. If you can't handle it just close your eyes or something... or just don't buy it...simple as that.

	24-12-1999 20:20									#46
	Increase Your PM Length

Typical response from a Victorian. Maybe we should ban the Melbourne Demons while we're at it.

Come on the Brisbane Lions: premiers of 2000.

Bkeela.
[This message has been edited by Bkeela (edited December 24, 1999).]

	25-12-1999 10:39									#47
	Tired of ads?

ONE LAST TIME: Take the evolution/ creationism/ big bang/ religion debate over to OFF-TOPIC where it belongs. For all of you that can't figure out what Off-Topic is, it is the last forum on the list where subjects not relating to any particular forum are discussed at length. One of the particular benefits of that forum is to prevent what has happened here - the hijacking of a legitimate, related topic by those that hold strong views on a similar but off-topic issue. You are all forgiven. Now go there if you wish to discuss further.

Now, back on topic:

Urban Ranger: I merely stated that a large flood, whether it be a worldwide rise in ocean levels or a local phenomenon, could be a possibility and would make an excellent disaster to go along with volcanoes, asteroid impacts, ice ages and the like. For a game. Since when did I need rigorous scientific proof for a game? Relax.

But if you want a mechanism, how about rising planetary temperatures melting the ice caps? This is a theory proposed by Greenhouse Effect scientists. I suppose I could brainstorm and come up with some creative ideas that might cause sudden rises in ocean level (perhaps not scientifically proveable or viable but at least worthy of consideration). How about a rise in the level of the ocean floor? An increase in the planet's water supply by a comet? The creation of a large new land mass?

Also, remember that according to my encyclopedia, much of North America, Europe and southern Asia was underwater during part of the Mezazoic Era - I find it *plausible* (at least for a game event) that this could have happened after the dinoasaurs came about, resulting in a forced adaptation or death. There is also some evidence that in more recent times, the Black Sea enlarged dramatically in a relatively short period of time, forcing humans to pack up and move quickly to higher ground. And do remember that "abruptly" is a much longer time frame when discussing hundreds of millions of years and a game turn is measured in the tens of thousands.

As for the Ice Ages, yes, according to science they happened AFTER the dinosaurs. But WHAT IF the Ice Ages had happened WHILE the dinosaurs were still around. For a game at least, I find the concept interesting.

And since I can't resist, it is good to know that you KNOW what the majority of Christians are thinking. You might want to read your own words on vigorous proof before you make comments like that again. The concept that all Catholics believe by default what the pope says is rather amusing as well (if they did, abortion and capital punishment would both be illegal in the US by now).

	25-12-1999 02:55									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Well I'm a Protestant and I htink the pope is just a man. He says that he believes in evolution. Someone said liberal Protestants d o to. Well my churhc doesn't. We are a very fundamentalist church. So we believe strictly in creationsim. But anyway. This has turned from a simple marketing question to a debate on all of our beliefs and ethics.

It's just a game. I think it looks cool. Besides we hard-core creationists will just consider the evolution part fiction. And to Bkeela. Though you have very noble values, I think banning all games would make the world a very boring place.

Bearcat

	25-12-1999 13:08									#49
	Support Apolyton

Bkeela-
FIRAXIS IS PRODUCING STANISTIC GAMES!?!

Sorry I am confused. They have made:

Gettysburg, a game based on a real life conflict. It is mearly representing a battle that happened in a past age. It can hardly be considered satanistic even if you are opposed to war. If you want to blame someone blame the southern states for ceeding from the USA.

Antiem (spelling?), as above.

SMAC, satanistic? In what way? It is meerly a game about a possible future colonization of another planet. YOU MAKE THE DECISIONS. If you want to play peacefully and embrace god and only have a defensive army, DO THAT.

SMACX - as above.

If firaxis decide to make a game that use the evolutionary theory, that's fine. Evolution is accepted by the majority of people, why wouldn't they use it. Besides it is fantasy. If Firaxis decide to say aliens created dinosaurs would you winge because it conflicted with your beliefs? I doubt it. You don't have to believe in something to have fun with it. I don't believe that bears are blue and they have friendly smiles, but to the age of seven I loved my teddy bear to death.

Oh. by the way, I don't see how insulting Victorians helps your argument at all. Maybe you should grow up and concentrate on the issue at hand.

Eggman: I agree, and disaster so long as it has some plausabilty to it will do (a spontaneous combustion plague is an example of one that isn't acceptable).

I like the idea about having to get off earth before the extinction asteroid hits is a good way to end the game. (sorry I don't know who suggested this)


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

	26-12-1999 10:03									#50
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Satanic rock music like Nine Inch Nails or Marilyn Manson, or computer games such as the popular shoot-em up titles or the occultist Pokemon craze.

Music is music, i.e instruments are hit, plucked, strummed e.t.c to make music, it ain`t satanic.

Computer games are just lines of dull boring code, there are no hidden secret chants or satanic messages.

And Pokemon, SATANIC??? Please explain how pokemon is satanic, i can`t wait to hear that, And what is this rubbish about Hidden Messages imprinting our holy and impressionable children with evil.
IT`S JUST A BIT OF FUN!

	26-12-1999 11:02									#51
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Considering that it takes hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions of years, for mountains to raise to current heights and Ice Ages occurred after dinosaur extinction (or near the very end of their reign), it is hard to see what this increase in sea water level has anything to do with their extinction.

Ice Ages do not cause mass extinctions.:-)


I suppose you can trash whatever I say by caling me a weak minded fool, or a close minded idiot, or a rigid fundamentalist dolt.

Intolerance would weaken my argument.

But I ask you science people this. Who created the laws of science ?

The laws of science are not really laws. They are just of statement of what makes the most sense based on current information.

The holocaust is the most extreme example, but even in Australia these trends found root; most infamously through the white Australia policy, and the general misery our native Aboriginal populace have suffered over the years. I'm not saying the evolution theory created racial hatred, but it certainly justified it.

Christianity justified the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the subjugation of Americas. Besides, eugenics are a perversion of true genetics and evolution "theory".

I encourage all deep thinking Christians to contemplate these implications. Sure, playing this game may be an innocent diversion, but who knows what other more sinister projects our hard earned cash is funding?

Could someone please tell me this member of my species is joking?

It's just a game. I think it looks cool. Besides we hard-core creationists will just consider the evolution part fiction. And to Bkeela. Though you have very noble values, I think banning all games would make the world a very boring place.

Let us just say nobility is in the eye of the beholder.

And Pokemon, SATANIC??? Please explain how pokemon is satanic, i can`t wait to hear that, And what is this rubbish about Hidden Messages imprinting our holy and impressionable children with evil.

Wow, I agree with a creationist. IMHO, Pokemon is the most vile and boring fad to ever exist.:-)

------------------
St. Leo
http://ziggurat.sidgames.com/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

	26-12-1999 16:50									#52
	Remove this text

I never actually said i liked pokemon, i just wanted to know how it was satanic and "occult"

	27-12-1999 03:36									#53
	Suffering from ads?

Hey all. Perhaps you people confused about what evolution, abiogenesis and cosmology are all about should head over to talkorigins.org. You can find lots and lots of anwers to your questions. Even if you don't agree that evolution occurs, it might be helpful if you'd critique what scientists actually think, rather than your misconceptions of what they think.

Example: The objection that survival of the fittest states that only strong animals survive, yet there are many "weak" animals still around, such as the three toed sloth, or the earthworm. Of course, evolutionary theory does NOT state that only the strongest, toughest, most violent animals survive. It says that the animals that reproduce more quickly than other animals wil be disproportionately represented in the future population. That means if being a lowly earthworm allows you to reproduce more than a violent earthworm, lowly earthworms will prevail.

I guarantee you that all your questions can be answered, as long as they are scientific questions. And all your metaphysical objections can be addressed as well...

------------------
Think Galactically -- Act Terrestrially

	27-12-1999 04:38									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I really didn't intend to post agian in this thread, but seeing the relies to my last statement, I felt I should.


DinoDoc: In your zeal to argue your points I feel that you forgot to read what I actually wrote.

quote:

"Assumption: An all-powerful, omnipotent deity(s) creates a universe. Said deity(s) desires to make it look as if said universe is 'old' according to the 'natural laws' of that universe, said deity(s) don't want presense obvious.
Reasons: Unknown, no refrence frame for all-powerful, omnipotent deity(s)
Conclusion: universe looks 'old' and no scientific presense of aforementioned diety(s) discoverable (it's part of that all-powerful, omnipotent thing)

Science can NEVER PROVE or DISPROVE the 'reality' of an all-powerful diety(s); if that diety(s) exsists and if that diety(s) does not wish it's presence known. The whole damn arguement is moot! It is a question of faith."

I stand by what I typed, The arguement is NOT circular. I never entended or attempted to prove the base assumptions, and made no allusion to how 'believable' the base assumtion was, I merely stated IF they were true then you could not use science to prove or disprove it. This was written mainly in respondce to the post by M@ni@c. You have a problem with the base assumptions, fine, argue your points about them but don't discredit what I stated, unless you feel I have stated something wrong, then show where I was wrong.
The only thing in my post I intended to say about the base assumptions were

quote:
"Think it is EXTREMELY unlikely"

btw.. If you change the original assumtions in my argument of coarse the conclusions will change.


Urban Ranger:
After thinking about your reply.. well I'm not sure exactly what you were getting at, but It appears that you want to attack the base assumption. Go for it, but I don't see how you can.
Yes, this argument is commonly used by religion, and as I think you were trying to get at, it doesn't shed any light on whether the base assumtion is true or not. If it is used that way then it is beieng misused.

quote:
"In science, if you cannot supply enough evidence for something, then that something doesn't exist, as far as science is cocerned."

Can't totally agree with this. To tell the truth I can quite put my finger on what disturbs me about this, but something strikes me as being a little off, will have to think on it. Maybe you can spot a 'soft-spot' in this statement and clearify it? The position of a hypothesis in science seems to be close to what keeps me from accepting this at first glance. Will think about it some more, and see if that clears me up.

Quote:
"The burden of proof must lie with the persons who make assertions, not their opponents."

True, but 'opponents' can also offer alterantive explinations and point out data that disproves assertions.
The problem with religion and this view is that it lies outside the realm of science, extrapolating the assumptions that I stated in my original post.
This is my conclusion to the original satement, that science can't prove or disprove a diety(s). You can't yell look at evolution, geologic history, or the laws of physics to change a believer's mind, you have to find something else. But conversely, you can't change an athiest's mind to believe by quoting the Bible, Tora, Greek Mythology. For 'a non-believer' to 'convert' and a thinking 'believer' to maintain thier faith, it would take something outside of science. Ask the believers to explain it, I haven't experienced it.



------------------
"Power does not corrupt; it merely attracts the corruptable"

	27-12-1999 05:04									#55
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Eggman: With the title of this thread you have to expect these kind of posts.. as long as they stay in this one thread.. no damage done.

Atahualpa:

quote:
"The Big Bang was the result out of a vacuum. And created our universe. Or better was the origin of our universe."

My reply depends on what you define a vacuum as. If you are saying a vacuum as we typical mean one.. as an area of space with 'nothing' in it. then my original statment on this holds. If you are referring to 'vaccum' as what existed 'before' the Big Bang.. No one knows, the best speculations usually invoke High enegy fields of some kind, but even these are near impossible to define, since space and time no longer have meaning 'before' the Big bang. It is out of the range of human conception. but no scientfic speculation I am aware of just 'poofs' the Big Bang out of absolutly nothing. The most scientific thing science has to say about it is: we really don't know.

Definatly read some Hawking, It's some good stuff, and he doesn't make the illusion that science knows exactly what it's talking about

On Tiny 'Invisible' Pink Unicorns and 'Invisable' dogs: As long as they don't also fall under the assumptions in my earlier statements (that they are out-side the realm of science) this makes for some fun brian exersises. Invisable pink unicorns on my desk.. (other the the possible contidiction of something being inviable and pink at the same time ) I could detect these by: feeling around for them, being quiet and listening for them to make a noise, spreading flour on my desk and looking for tiny little footprints, smelling for them.. (hmm what does unicorn crap smell like) etc.. ect.. etc...

DO I exsist: Ask Decartes, that was more his field "I think; therefore, I am."

Pokeman: Occultist,Satanic? don't really see that. but.... I am totally surprissed that the SPCA or someone like that hasn't jumped all over this thing. I raise and train my pokemon, then have it fight with another until one is no longer standing.. Sounds like a dogfight or a cockfight to me, replace pokemon with a real animal and.... hmmm.. maybe it a insidious plot to help promote the legalization on dogfighting.

------------------
"Power does not corrupt; it merely attracts the corruptable"

	27-12-1999 06:57									#56
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The pokemon's aren't hurt if I am correct.

------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

	27-12-1999 11:14									#57
	Remove this text

The pokemon's aren't hurt if I am correct.

I don't like Pokemon because I don't like Pokemon, but I might as well think of something.:-) Since the monsters are not hurt after engaging in violent conduct, it teaches infantile intellects who actually enjoy the horrid marketing scam that violence doesn't hurt anyone and is thus okay.


Can I get back to persuading the creationist that my truth is truer?:-)

------------------
St. Leo
http://ziggurat.sidgames.com/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

	30-12-1999 15:51									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Eggman on 12-24-1999 12:39 PM ONE LAST TIME: Take the evolution/ creationism/ big bang/ religion debate over to OFF-TOPIC where it belongs. For all of you that can't figure out what Off-Topic is, it is the last forum on the list where subjects not relating to any particular forum are discussed at length.

Eggman - While you are telling everybody to go OFF-TOPIC, you aren't practicing what you preach. That's hypocrisy. Please don't do it again next time or I will be forced to take off my kid gloves.

Regarding the mechanisms you propose: no, none works. For example, I have already pointed out that the Mesozoic Era, esp during the Jurassic and Cretaceous Ages, was much hotter and more humid than now. So you can't get the sea level much more since most of the water was in liquid form.

Another example: how big a comet would it take to raise the sea level by a meter? No comet we have seen is THAT big.

Please read what I had written before firing off knee-jerk responses.

As for what the majority of Christians think, maybe you can do some exercises to see what you find. That could prove enlightening.

By the way, please do not take my words out of context. Thanks.
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited December 30, 1999).]

	30-12-1999 20:17									#59
	Remove this text

Biddles: I saw a Star Trek: Voyager episode awhile back where they met a race of dinosaurs who has escaped Earth before the asteroid hit. I haven't seen this anywhere else.

When will people stop blaming fake violence in cartoons for the ills of the world. When my dad was a kid in the 40's they had some very fake violent cartoons (Bugs Bunny, Road Runner etc etc etc) and no one ever blamed them for anything. Get a grip, it's not the cartoons, it's the PARENTS!!

	01-01-2000 03:51									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Sorry for my late answer. I just can't come here every day.

Bblue, why do you say I’m preaching fundamentally? Having reread my post carefully, I haven’t said anything fundamentalist. On purpose, I remained vague on the subject:

“I want proof. And nothing, nothing, supports the idea of a sudden creation.
Though far from everything about evolution is known, there is some scientific evidence.”

Here I’m saying I absolutely don’t believe creationism. BUT I’m not saying I blindly believe in evolutionism. So yes, I do think about the subject, contrary to what you might think, and I do take all that scientific theories I read with a grain of salt (does that expression exist in English?). I did say there is a bigger chance that evolutionism is right and creationism isn’t.
The rest of the post is an explanation of what Genesis 2 is really about.

So please, point me one fundamentalist word in my post.

Bkeela:

What?! You're saying evolutionism provokes racism? I propose you read your cherished bible something better. I've heart that, after the flood, Noah sent his three sons to each another continent to resettle humanity.
One to Europe, one to Asia and another to Africa.
The one sent to Africa had laughed out his father once and therefore he was sent to that continent for punishment. In the future, his offspring would be inferior people.
So the bible encourages racism against black people.

BTW, that was how slavery of the black was justified in the Renaissance.
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited January 01, 2000).]