JtPv

Did you expect for the thread to actually accomplish anything? I simply enjoy the debate, I don't expect to really change anything by it, thought. There is something to be said for the fun of the argument.

I just wanted this thread to go somewhere, not spiraling into the ground, crashing and burning.

Evokutions 'assumptions' have evidence, creationists don't.

I won't call anyone idiots as long as I'm not called a coward or whatever colorful insult Christians are calling people in the abortion debate.

I still think it's stupid. But I guess I won't call people idiots.

 

In their face.

 

Also, I didn't mean to do that all caps 'IDIOT' thing. Sorry about the malicy behind that one. I don't hate you, I am just annoyed at those beliefs.

What do you expect? Unless one religion/theory(for the world's creation) gets something that can 100% prove that it is right and that the others are wrong, these arguments will go on and on without anything new being brought to the table,

This thread is going nowhere.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the reason this thread should die: Stubbornness, pointless arguing, and a clear advantage (For Evolution, obviously) If you were to go to a room full of (smart) Christians, say 50, with 5 evolutionists, who would win?    I say, let it die. That's the reason I left.

Back. Give me your worst.   

I give up. I honestly do. Goodbye, thread! 

Hola. Nice to meet you, Justin. 

What are some holes in the theory? I'm sure there is probably some, but it fills much more then it doesn't.

Okay, now that you've had you fun with religion...

I wrote the following article many years ago, and it has now been through two revisions. Thanks to Phil Gaskill for working on the latest revision and providing additional updated information.

1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. 

A system that is irreducibly complex is one in which all the components work together and are essential to perform the system’s basic function. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) It is not possible to build such a system gradually, one component at a time, since it cannot function unless all components are present.  Many living systems exhibit such irreducible complexity (e.g vision, blood clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. Yet living systems are vastly more complex than a watch. Darwin considered this fact one of the most serious challenges to his theory of evolution.  The magnitude of this challenge has increased exponentially since Darwin’s time as the details of living systems have been uncovered down to and below the level of the cell.  The incredible machinery of life exists in networks so complex and interdependent that they could not have arisen gradually or through random chance – they simply had to be designed and created.

2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. 

According to information science, information can only be produced by intelligence. Highly complex information must originate from a highly intelligent source.  DNA is by far the most compact and complex information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead-sized amount of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive, can contain multiple copies of all the information necessary to build and maintain things as complex as the human brain and body, and is self-replicating.  However, the proponents of evolution believe that random chance, not intelligence, gave rise to all of the information found in DNA.  Ironically, evolutionary scientists involved in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project search the sky with massive radio telescopes, hoping to detect even simple patterns in radio signals which might be a sign of otherworldly intelligence, all the while ignoring the clear evidence of intelligence built into the incredibly complex DNA patterns of every living creature right here on Earth. 

3. Mutations do not increase information, as required by evolution. 

Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information.  Mutations can only change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information.  The vast majority of mutations are harmful or have no apparent effect.  Over 100 years of fruit fly experiments have clearly demonstrated that mutations only result in normal, dead, or grotesquely deformed fruit flies – they are still fruit flies!  Even mutations which are in some way beneficial (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or wingless beetles on windy islands) result from the loss of information.  This is the opposite of the vast increase in information required to get from amoeba to man, as proposed in the theory of evolution.

4. Natural Selection is conservative, not creative. 

The concept of natural selection was originally developed by natural theologians, who thought that it worked to preserve distinct created types.  Darwin argued that natural selection, if given enough time, could actually create new types.  However, field and laboratory observations of natural selection in action confirm that it only changes the relative abundance of certain already-existing characteristics, and doesn’t create new ones.  For example, Darwin observed that the average beak size of finches increased in dry years, but later observers noted that this trend reversed in wet years.  This is very different than the kind of changes that would be required to transform a finch beak into some other structure or a finch into a completely different kind of animal.  In other words, scientific studies of natural selection demonstrate, without exception, that Darwin was wrong. 

5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true. 

If evolution were true, we should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don’t see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between every major “kind” of life.  Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been.

6. Pictures of ape-to-human “missing links” are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists’ already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. 

The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be “reconstructed” a hundred different ways. Many supposed “ape-men” are very clearly apes, and most fossils hailed with much fanfare as “missing links” are later quietly reclassified as simply extinct varieties of non-human primates.  Evolutionists now admit that other so-called “ape-men” were fully human.  The body hair and the blank expressions of the supposedly primitive humans in these models don’t come from the bones, but from the evolutionary assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone’s eyes based on a few old bones.  The “missing links” are still missing.

7. The radioactive dating methods that evolutionists use to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are based on questionable assumptions and give unreliable results. 

Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine a rock’s age assume that the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can be accurately estimated, that no isotopes moved into or out of the rock after its formation (closed system), and that radioactive decay rates have always been constant.  However, the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can rarely be estimated with reasonable accuracy.  In addition, it is commonly acknowledged that hydrothermal fluids (hot, mineral-rich water) often transport both parent and daughter isotopes from one rock to another, invalidating the closed system assumption.  In fact, this process is often cited as a reason for rejecting dates that don’t fit the evolutionary timeline.  What is not commonly known is that radioactive dating methods usually give a number of different results for the same formation and often even for the same rock!  In practice, geologists choose the “correct” age from among these different results based on the age expected from the evolutionary timeline.  This is a classic case of circular thinking!  Also, different methods give different results, with heavier isotopes consistently giving older ages than lighter isotopes for the same rock.  This pattern should not exist if radioactive decay rates have always been the same.  Furthermore, lava flows with known historical ages often date as millions or even billions of years old.  If radioactive dating methods can be off by so much for rocks of known age, how can they be considered reliable for rocks of unknown age?

8. “Leftover” body structures are not evidence for evolution. 

Evolutionists point to vestigial organs (supposedly “leftover” body structures with no know function) as evidence of evolution. However, it’s impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there’s always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. In fact, over 100 organs formerly thought of as vestigial are now known to perform essential functions. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs and only a small number are still considered vestigial. It is increasingly clear that vestigial organs are not the result of evolution but simply examples of scientific ignorance.  It’s also worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. Proponents of evolution need to provide examples of developing organs that are not yet fully functional but can be shown to be increasing in complexity with each succeeding generation.  No such examples exist.

9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology. 

When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called “spontaneous generation.” Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). “Chemical Evolution” is just another way of saying “spontaneous generation”—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five “heads” in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it’s given, non-life will not become alive.

10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. 

There are two types of science.  Operational science deals with the present, and arrives at conclusions based on repeated observations of existing phenomena.  Historical science deals with the past, which is not repeatable.  Investigations of origins clearly fall within the scope of historical science, and therefore cannot draw definitive conclusions.  Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. This interpretation is greatly influenced by one’s prior beliefs.  If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible’s teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God’s revealed Word.

 

(jkjk I'm too bored)

 

The leading scientists at LHC are going to create an experiment that may create a black hole that will swallow the Earth (Just an example, not true).  But they have faith it won't. That means didily SQUAT. That /faith/ is no a basis for an arguement. It's the same FAITH that children have in Santa Claus.

 

Also, I've said. If a god came down and said 'Yes, the bible is my teachings.' I'd accept that that is true but I don't thnik I'd follow the teachings of the bible. I'd rather to go Hell then prosecute gays, or if the Mormons are right (Which makes me smirk just thinking about it) blacks. And women. And my daughter. Like if she's raped I will have to stone her to death. Yeah, nah d00d.

 

I don't deny evidence and logic. That's the fact that makes me an atheist.

 

Also also, WHAT SCIENCE NEEDS FAITH? We have these 5 'faith' driven rules. Stuff like 'This is a material world and not just some matrix ****.'

Like I said, not all churches follow Sola'Scriptura. And.....

1. We don't prosecute gays. We are fine with gays. They are Gods children too. It's just we believe they are called to a life of celibacy.

2. It's not a matter of "Which religion is right". It's a matter of "Which way do we worship him".

3. (I would like to point out I am catholic for this next part) We don't go around prosecuting or killing ANYONE. We don't believe in Sola'Scriptura. <That's very important to understand.

4. Space, we have multiple reportings of God. Have you heard of The Secrets of Fatima? One RECENT example. (The first two came true, BTW. Although most people think the third was a lie to protect us) 

Because this is an important debate. We'll never get anywhere if we deny all the evidence that says the world is BILLIONS, not a few THOUSANDS of years.

Space, you seem to be very ignorant about Christian science.  Plus, this statement shows much Hypocrisy. If you are THAT stubborn to accept anything besides what you believe to be true, this debate will never end. It doesn't matter what you believe for one reason: Faith. The one thing that has failed to been mentioned on this thread. Christians have faith that God is real. Also, Redbaron, not all churches follow the teaching of Sola'Scriptura. Especially the Roman Catholic church. Anyways, back to my point. Christians have faith that their is a God, that Jesus was real, that his teachings are true, and we are sinners. Without faith, we could never even had believed in a God. No science can destroy faith, because science requires faith. Can you prove, 100%, that everything in Evolution is true? Just like we can't prove God is 100% real. See the comparison?

I only know you as Borgtrek, from the lands of OOC. :P

OR, copy everything from .minecraft in a new folder on your desktop, delete original, use vanilla for server, and switch back and forth.

This guide....is amazing. It really is a slap to the face for the regular players, and should help new players.

7/10 Meh. Usual stuff, but links to debates and games saved you from a 3/10

What's the opposite of a curtain rod?

 

/thread

If you want to get technical about it, nothing. Since a curtain rod is something, nothing would be the opposite. :P

@JtPv

 

Before I answer this question, I would like to ask you a few questions.

1. Does cold exists?

2. Does darkness exists?

3. Does evil exists?

 

All these questions are really about opinion. For example, Owls are nocturnal, therefore they can't see "Darkness" as us humans. I can also resist cold even better then my american relatives, and most fish don't feel "Pain" so they can't fell cold either. 

 

'Evilness' is also about opinion, for example, you might think the people in the middleast are evil, but they might think themselves as good.

Well, technically correct....BUT YOUR'E MISSING THE POINT! The point is, Cold does not exist, but we can feel it. Cold is but the absence of heat. "Cold" is a term humanity created to describe how they feel. Darkness does not exist, but we can, er, see it, if you like. Darkness is the absence of light. How do you measure the darkness of a room? You measure how much light is there. Darkness is simply, again, a term to describe what we see. Now, the last one. This was the original question. Evil does not exists. Evil is simply the absence of Goodness. Evil or Sin is a word humanity created to describe a separation from God. God did not create sin, it was created when God created goodness. Everything has an opposite.

((I know what all these are. I was the first to support your mathic age theories. (Although I did kinda shoot it down...sowwy Ptah! :/ ) ))

But God created the concept of sin in the first place? Unless it existed before Him? Please, someone clarify this for me.

 Before I answer this question, I would like to ask you a few questions.

1. Does cold exists?

2. Does darkness exists?

3. Does evil exists?

Thanks JtPv, I understand that magic users might be a little annoyed, but honestly whats a party of for the sake of cognitive meaning Knights vs one or even two evil Mages? I have a feeling the Guild might be a little pissed...

BTW I want to add that I don't plan on forming this until my character has learned swordsmanship, he is only 15 as we speak and I want to actually get him trained before I even attempt this beyond my IRL brother joining the Legion. Also, names are always welcomed! I am very bad with names as even my Character name is inspired by Game of Thrones' John White.

Hm..if you want, you can adopt my name for an unused character. Seth Sylveri

Might I suggest something in my personal beliefs? Why can't there be a god, and the bible just be completely untrue. Just because there is a god doesn't mean there has to be a book with first hand accounts on it. Now, I'm personally Agnostic and I believe there is a higher power, but not some vengeful god that wants to punish you if you tell a lie or forgive you for murder if you tell a priest. Why couldn't this higher power have set evolution into place? There's no reason why not. 

Why does everyone assume He wants to punish you if you sin? God hates the sin, but loves the sinner. 

Hm...I have yet to see a witch-hunters guild. I like this idea. Although, I could see problems with it. There are already very few magic users as is, and this would simply stop people from caring about magic. (deleted for possible offense)

I have the same problem, except mine is only on the forums. My IG tag works fine.

NICE TO MEET YOU! Which section would you like to be classified under? 

*goes through mountains of paperwork*

Hm...I like it alot. There is one thing that does confuse me though. Let me get this straight: A cognat, after much meditation, is allowed access into this "other" mind, that is like a god-like figure? This other mind then enhances their ability of thought and imagination. Did I get that right? Also, what happens if you fall completely into the other mind? The way you phrase it makes it seem like the cognat has to always keep a balance. But what happens if they fall into one or the other? Do they lose the ability forever? Or do they go insane? Or, even, do they forget their past personality and become someone else? This is unclear for me. Another thing, can the cognat use this to remember something forgotten by watching a vision of it? (EX: They want to get back at the people who destroyed their town, but can't remember who they were/ they use a vision to see it again, most likely being traumatized in the process)

1. There is no such thing as "Darwinism" There's natural selection, but no "Darwinism" Considering it's not a religon.

2. I don't know much about the school system in america, I myself go to a public school in scandinavia. But I think there is a big problem about the tons of "Christian" schools that are popping up in the US, those schools are free to learn their students whatever they want, and by a young age can brainwash them into christianity, I mindly afraid that they do not give proper time to teach about Islam or Hinduism, and if they do, underedrucated people, claiming to be "teachers" will just yell a lot of bias and hoax's about Islam because they personaly do not like it, you can already see the effects of Fraux "News"

1. Neo-Darwinism is a thing.

2. This is bias, unfair, under-educated, and a very rude thing to say. Christians teach freedom. I personally go to a christian school, and religion influences their beliefs. It does not resort to brainwashing. And we do study other religions as part of our philosophy and theology class. We do touch on these things. I personally have not gotten the chance to be in these classes, but I will. And the teachers are very informed. Some very famous and genius people have graduated from our school.  You can't take away religion no matter how hard you try. Faith will always be there. Whether it be correct or not. Sorry if this was random, but yeah :P

Banned for amazingness siggie.

MC Name: _JtPv_

Desired Character’s Name: Takala'Ishbala

Skype Username (Highly Recommended): MrJtPv

Relation to Others in the Tribe (must have permission from existing character. This is optional):Takala’Sahkonteic - Michael (Mercen)

Amount of time played each day: Usually 1-3 hours on weekdays and 8 hours on weekends

Time Zone: PST