Sign in to follow this  
MusicLover_2007

Death threat against South Park creators about depicting Allah

Recommended Posts

sorry, i know this was all directed at brady, but i want to throw something out there.

the reason that creationists are laughed at is that well, they have NO evidence. science is based on fact, as in thorough experimentation and testing of each new hypothesis. creationists say, "hmm well we have this book here, see? and we believe what is written here in the first page or so is fact. so all of your previous research must be wrong!"

science says "huh ok, here why don't we test it out some..." and the creationists say "oh wait. we forgot to tell you. its a faith based theory. so there's no real way to test it. just trust us, we're totally right."

.. and science laughs.

can i ask you something bltwp? (i'm going to anyway, so i hope you just said yes! Smiler) why does the theory of evolution contradict the bible? i was actually a devout christian up until a few years ago, and still i never understood the debate. see, the bible says god created us in his image, right? so why is it so offensive to christian beliefs if we evolved into his image? same difference, just way more creative and interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by Be like the water, people.:

you're saying atheists cannot say that there is a right or wrong?

ummmm...kind of. there are morals, of course. incest, murder, rape, etc- these are all understood to be wrong on the most basic level. things that are generally considered "right" are things that just so happen to also aid the survival of the species. but no, atheists do not generally deal in absolutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Brady--I say Evolution is far-fetched because of the simple fact that, according to the information available, something came from nothing. According to Atheists, what we observe now is all there is, since there is no intelligent creator to set it in motion. You like to jump into the timeline at the big bang. But what started it? Time and space came about at the big bang. So how could it have happened without a cause that does not rely on time or space? Impossible. So maybe you don't like the God of the bible. But, as it stands, you cannot account for the big bang's... bang (or all the bangs that came before it--test runs that came before this life, and apparently we can assume will continue after we implode [or whatever]). explosions don't just initiate themselves.

Actually, I've heard of a theory that can explain how the big bang was sparked. It was actually in a parallel universe theory...excuse my extremely crude description of a theory that is about to come...and one possibility is that there are many universes that exist and they are like sheets of paper lying atop one another.

The physicist who I heard explaining this theory stated that he believed that the universes oscillate like taut strings above and below one another and that the big bang was caused by a collision in two concentric universes. The massive amount of energy that such a collision would involve could easily produce matter (E=mc^2, so m=E/c^2).

The collision would also have given off heat energy and kinetic energy in addition to the production of mass, which could thereby explain the origins of matter in our universe as well as the expansion that has been taking place since the big bang.

P.S. You guys, I'm so happy this discussion can happen without people getting really nasty. I love the 'stix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^i love that, too, Ezra Pound! i've seen so many religious/atheist discussions get out of hand *cough* youtube *cough* with name calling and all that. This place really is one-of-a-kind Smiler

So, there wasn't nothing before something, so much as there were places that blew up to become our place? is it safe to say that we don't know anything at all about these universes' qualities? There had to be time, though, or they would have been suspended in... eternity, where nothing can change, because time is not passing, and every moment is the same moment. Or do i have that wrong? And if there was time back then, did it start all over when our universe came into being (i'm rfering to the finite-ness of time.)

That theory doesn't account for how orderly our world is... i mean, we can literally measure it! what does that say about the explosion of these finite/infinite universes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by good > perfect:

why does the theory of evolution contradict the bible? i was actually a devout christian up until a few years ago, and still i never understood the debate. see, the bible says god created us in his image, right? so why is it so offensive to christian beliefs if we evolved into his image?

I agree with you. Actually, I've always sort of thought that since I started learning about science in elementary school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by good > perfect:

sorry, i know this was all directed at brady, but i want to throw something out there.

totally fine! Smiler

quote:
the reason that creationists are laughed at is that well, they have NO evidence.

You're right that we don't have a telescope that lets us see God, but there is support for the existance of a god.

DNA is a language, right? it communicates information. Languages don't come from chaos, they come from systems, from intelligent communicators.

i've heard the story: "let's say you're a teenager, and you come downstairs for a bowl of Alpha Bits cereal. when you get to the kitchen, you see the box knocked over, and on the table the cereal spells out, 'take out the garbage -Mom', what are you going to think? The cat knocked the box over? Earthquake shook the house? Or maybe, even though you didn't see it, you know that an intelligent being spelled out that message."

and i doubt that i need to explain how much more complex DNA is than a simple (rather inventive) reminder about your chores!

quote:
science is based on fact, as in thorough experimentation and testing of each new hypothesis. creationists say, "hmm well we have this book here, see? and we believe what is written here in the first page or so is fact.

so all of your previous research must be wrong!"

When did we make the jump beween creationists disputing facts, and creationists disputing a theory?

quote:
science says "huh ok, here why don't we test it out some..." and the creationists say "oh wait. we forgot to tell you. its a faith based theory. so there's no real way to test it. just trust us, we're totally right."

.. and science laughs.

You don't have to believe the bible if you don't want. that is clearly a matter of faith. What is not up for discussion is whether this world is here by accident--it's orderly, and finite. You can't believe that natural law created us if, at the time of creation, there did not exist a natural law to create us. it's like saying that your great-great grandmother created everything.. obviously she didn't, because she wasn't around if there was /nothing/ to start with.

quote:
can i ask you something bltwp? (i'm going to anyway, so i hope you just said yes! Smiler) why does the theory of evolution contradict the bible? i was actually a devout christian up until a few years ago, and still i never understood the debate. see, the bible says god created us in his image, right? so why is it so offensive to christian beliefs if we evolved into his image? same difference, just way more creative and interesting!

The bible clearly states that we were created already in God's image, and other animals and creatures were created, too. We didn't all come to life from some kind of goo, then slowly become alive (i have yet to hear an explanation of life), and finally we became how we are now.

I believe that people have evolved, sure. I know that we used to be a lot bigger, and our brains were apparently larger. That sort of thing. What i can't get my head around is a human being evolving from anything but a human being. Breed all you want. You're not getting people from monkies, or any other non-human creature.

I don't understand why there aren't more missing links around? Upstanding apes, maybe? that's the connection that really gets me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by Be like the water, people.:

So, there wasn't nothing before something, so much as there were places that blew up to become our place? is it safe to say that we don't know anything at all about these universes' qualities? There had to be time, though, or they would have been suspended in... eternity, where nothing can change, because time is not passing, and every moment is the same moment. Or do i have that wrong? And if there was time back then, did it start all over when our universe came into being (i'm rfering to the finite-ness of time.)

That theory doesn't account for how orderly our world is... i mean, we can literally measure it! what does that say about the explosion of these finite/infinite universes?

We don't know if there truly are other universes or not. I, for one, believe that there must be simply due to the infinite nature of space but parallel universe theories haven't garnered a lot of acceptance since we, at the moment, don't know how to prove or disprove them.

Keep in mind that all of the things that I am about to say are only my ridiculous, I'm-only-a-third-of-the-way-through-an-undergrad-degree-in-physics theories. But anyways...

In the other universes, the laws of physics would remain the same as in our own. Some may be made up of antimatter, in which case their time probably runs backwards (at least that's a very common interpretation of what negative mass means), which, as strange as it may seem, does work out in all of our equations. But the physics would still work the same for everything from the large scale ideas like gravitational lensing to the small scale like particle interactions.

I don't believe that either space or time are actually finite, we just can't grasp that they can be infinite because our specific universe has been around for a limited amount of time and has a border since it is still expanding. I don't believe that there is a beginning of time, only time as we know it, or an end to space, simply where our universe ends.

And just to clarify, I would assume that the other universes are separated from our own by higher dimensions...at least the fourth spacial dimension...which is why we can't observe them. We can't even conceive of which direction the fourth spacial dimension is. (And to note, even higher dimensions are a subject of much dispute. It's split whether physicists believe in them or not.)

As for not accounting for the orderliness of our world, the world is orderly due to the physics. The major theories in physics that have been proven to be true have had this beautiful symmetry about them. Everything fits together and, even if the mathematics behind them are complicated, they have a stunning sort of simplicity. (This reason is actually why I don't believe in the standard model. It doesn't have the coherence of the other great theories.) In my opinion, the world is orderly because physics is orderly.

I honestly do believe that there is some higher power out there (hiding somewhere in the higher dimensions maybe? Physics nerdery forces me to consider these things)...I guess I'd be considered sort of an Agnostic Theist like RJ Lupin...but I don't think whatever it is that is out there is controlling what happens. Has anyone ever heard the analogy likening God to a clockmaker? That belief appeals the most to me. Whatever higher power there is set the laws of physics and let things progress how they would naturally. I don't necessarily believe that there always has been matter and energy, but I think that space and time have always been there.

I think I'll stop my ramble now because I seriously doubt that I am making sense. Haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by Be like the water, people.:

When did we make the jump beween creationists disputing facts, and creationists disputing a theory?

the word theory in science lingo means that it is a hypothesis that has been thoroughly tested by the scientific community and we have not yet found results that contradict it. theory, in the science world is as close as you can come to fact. the only true facts that exist in the scientific community are simple observations like "the apple falls to the ground" as opposed to "gravity pulls the apple to the ground."

quote:

We didn't all come to life from some kind of goo, then slowly become alive...

god created adam by breathing life into dust, yes? sorry, i guess i am still not seeing the contradiction here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
I say Evolution is far-fetched because of the simple fact that, according to the information available, something came from nothing. According to Atheists, what we observe now is all there is, since there is no intelligent creator to set it in motion. You like to jump into the timeline at the big bang. But what started it? Time and space came about at the big bang. So how could it have happened without a cause that does not rely on time or space? Impossible. So maybe you don't like the God of the bible. But, as it stands, you cannot account for the big bang's... bang (or all the bangs that came before it--test runs that came before this life, and apparently we can assume will continue after we implode [or whatever]). explosions don't just initiate themselves.

First off, I would suggest looking into Evolution before you criticize it. The Big Bang is an entire different theory concerning cosmology, not Biology. The two are complete different and seperate theories, on two different branches of Science. But if you want to debate the origin of the cosmos I would love to do that as well.

As far as what started it- Many physicists consider the possibility that our Universe is just one bubble, in a foam of Universe's, all of which have their own different laws and constants. In direct response to what you said please look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

But I will put that aside and deal with this head on.

First off, there are many conceptual problems associated with your argument. How do we define nothing? You really cant. If it has properties doesn't that make it something? The Universe is expanding, but if the Universe is all there is then what is it expanding into? Please keep in mind that there are particles called virtual particles that just pop in and out of existence all the time.

What Darwinism does is to raise our consciousness to the power of Science, to explain how complex things and entitys, the human brain is one, can come into existence from simple beginnings. Because with Evolution complexity does not just happen, evolution teaches us to seek out graded ramps of slowly increasing complexity. It completely shatters the idea of design in Biology and teaches us to not only be suspicious of the idea of design in Biology, but in Cosmology and Physics as well.

God if he exists, would have to be a very very very complex thing indeed. We now see that however difficult the theory of the physicists may be, the theory of the theologins: that the first cause was a complicated/complex cause, is even worse. We need a crane not a skyhook to explain how complexity aries, because only a crane can gradually work up from plausible simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity. However difficult those simple beginnings may be to accept, they are a whole lot easier to accept than complicated beginnings. Which is what theists are trying to propose. Theists are now postulating something far more than that of which they are tyring to explain.

quote:
See, you've taken scriptures out of context, and then accepted your interpretation as fact.

That is exactly what YOU did. It says the EARTH is immovable. That is what it says. I have the exact literal words of what that verse says on my side. You are trying to get out of that by putting a different interpertation of it.... I am not trying to offend at all but all I am saying is that your putting a different meaning on the verse, because it's exact words are that the earth is immovable. The Bible also says that the Earth is placed upon pillars, and yes I have the verse/verses...... Are you going to keep what you said about him refering to his heart now? Or use yet another different interpertation?

quote:
So, back it up. the bible presents scientific facts that, thousands of years after the fact, we are discovering to be true. Can you explain this from your perspective, please?

As I said earlier I fully accept that The Bible has scientific facts in it, and scientific errors.

How Science differes from The Bible when it comes to it's scientific accuracies is that Science will make a claim, and then present the evidence supporting the fact. The Bible just shouts it, sometimes its right and sometimes its wrong.

quote:
If this were the case, then how do yuo account for people who kill without remorse?

Thats a point I should make in my case. God just forgot to give them a conscience? Anyways I think deep down, everyone feels guilty after murder. They may not show it but they are. During a trial when an African American son was killed by a white supremist the killer did show remorse at all up until the trial. I don't remember all of the details but I think someone hit a softspot and he just bursted out crying apologizing to the mother asking her to forgive him. I think deep down, every person who kills feels guilt. They will a lot of the times try and make up some excuse that there killing is justified, one of the excuses sometimes being a religious one.

quote:
i think you're dead wrong about something. So no offense, okay?

LOL none taken one bit. Smiler

quote:
The earth was flat. FACT. people weren't allowed to sail too far, or the sea monsters would get 'em, or they'd fall off of the globe. Whichever came first. Then this guy comes along and goes, "hey wait. nope, the earth is round, after all, guys! we had it wrong. Whoops." And he was killed? or ridiculed.... he was a clown, Brady.

Uhhhhh that was never a properly formulated scientific theory.

The church taught that the Earth was the center of the Universe, someone came along and argued with that and was placed under house arrest(Galileo). Corpernicus, had to publish his sun centered Universe model on his deathbed because he knew what the Catholic Church would do to him. The church taught that we are some special creation, that everything revolves around the Earth. We now know the opposite. We now know that we live on a worthless spec of dust orbiting a very average star in a very average galaxy. Some special creation huh?

quote:
That theory doesn't account for how orderly our world is

Black Holes? Quasars, gamma ray explosions, collapsing stars, million of destroyed solar systems, colliding galaxies,(Our galaxy is on a collision course with andromeda galaxy) The Unvierse is anything BUT orderly....this is some design isn't it?

quote:
DNA

Please don't use DNA as evidence for God. It is one of major mechanisms and evidence for Evolution. I shall go into depth with this if you want me too. Big Grin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this