How can anyone not believe in evolution?

[Runnin]

I went to a zoo today, first time in a long time. It was not even a particularly big zoo, but still the strangeness of some of the animals was almost too much to believe. Either they evolved erratically in nature or somebody was having some fun in God's workshop. Especially the monkeys and the cats. There are so many odd varieties than is just makes no sense for them to be here other than by evolution. The giraffe is so strange it doesn't even look real.

Of course God could've created evolution, the self-perpetuating "survival of the fittest" system, and the animals certainly play their part in the food chain. They would have to be varied in species and specifically tailored to their environments, etc. I don't really know what I'm trying to say, but seeing all those strange animals just makes one wonder.

[yeezus]

People who don't believe in it at this point are just in denial. It's really, really silly to not believe in it just because you think it disagrees with your religion (for which there's zero evidence).

[BedellBrave]

People who don't believe in it at this point are just in denial. It's really, really silly to not believe in it just because you think it disagrees with your religion (for which there's zero evidence).


By the way, how old are you? You've got to be a jute.

[yeezus]

By the way, how old are you? You've got to be a jute.

Let's stay on topic :)
Evolution - do you believe?
If not, how old are you? 11 and still forced to go to church every sunday?

[Runnin]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7C8ouolLG2g/TblJkZPSe-I/AAAAAAAABVs/2bWNrMb4ESQ/s400/funny%2Bmonkey%2Bpic%2Bfor%2Bblog.jpghttp://cdn2.damnfunnypictures.com/FunnyMonkeyFace001.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/26/article-1380746-0BC6A34800000578-164_634x715.jpg

[BedellBrave]

Let's stay on topic :)
Evolution - do you believe?
If not, how old are you? 11 and still forced to go to church every sunday?


Like I figured your a kid and need a little more evolving.

[yeezus]

Like I figured your a kid and need a little more evolving.

*you're.
Do you not believe in evolution though?

[Gary82]

Like I figured your a kid and need a little more evolving.

So you do believe in evolution.

[Gary82]

By the way, how old are you? You've got to be a jute.

Did you just call him a long, soft, shiny vegetable fiber that can be spun into coarse, strong threads?

[Carp]

Sure I believe in evolution/adaptation. I am not quite sure that I buy the theory that I am the retarded offspring of 5 monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel.

[weso1]

Sure I believe in evolution/adaptation. I am not quite sure that I buy the theory that I am the retarded offspring of 5 monkeys have butt sex with a squirrel-frog.

Well, you are a special case.:elefant:

[Krgrecw]

Hasn't the Vatican basically conceited That evolution Is true?

[zitothebrave]

Hasn't the Vatican basically conceited That evolution Is true?

Not really. Though they seem to be going intelligent design route.ANd Catholicism is pretty damned progressive compared to many of the protestant sects. Especially some of the ones down south.

[Krgrecw]

Not really. Though they seem to be going intelligent design route.ANd Catholicism is pretty damned progressive compared to many of the protestant sects. Especially some of the ones down south.




They've actually gone away from Intelligent design and they say it shouldn't be taught in schools, since it's not science.
Catholic Church admits to evolution. The smaller Protestant sects should follow behind them in acknowledging the truth on. evolution

[The Chosen One]

They've actually gone away from Intelligent design and they say it shouldn't be taught in schools, since it's not science.
Catholic Church admits to evolution. The smaller Protestant sects should follow behind them in acknowledging the truth on. evolution

Have you not learned anything from being a staunch supporter of the Neo-Conservative/Republican Party in this country?

[acesfull86]

Love going to the zoo

[50PoundHead]

I mean, of course there's evolution. Didn't anyone here ever watch George of the Jungle?

http://www.cartoonscrapbook.com/01pics-L/georgeofthejungle_L30.jpg

[gilesfan]

Sure I believe in evolution/adaptation. I am not quite sure that I buy the theory that I am the retarded offspring of 5 monkeys having butt sex with a squirrel-frog.

I buy the retarded part.

[gilesfan]

First time you ever been to a zoo, Runnin?

[Metaphysicist]

Sure I believe in evolution/adaptation. I am not quite sure that I buy the theory that I am the retarded offspring of 5 monkeys having butt sex with a squirrel-frog.

But how does Noah's Ark fit in?

[zitothebrave]

But how does Noah's Ark fit in?

Noah's ark evolved from noah's boat, which evolved from noah's canoe which evolved from some driftwood.

[Runnin]

First time you ever been to a zoo, Runnin?
No. As I wrote in my first sentence, "first time in a long time", but in a way it felt like the first time probably because it was the first time since I've stopped believing in the Bible version of events, which hardly gives a mention to these amazing creatures.
http://www.factzoo.com/sites/all/img/mammals/monkeys/mandril.jpg

[zitothebrave]

https://33.media.tumblr.com/7e988709be92114bfd900488d41dab9d/tumblr_n250whFugQ1sb9xnco2_250.gif

[Runnin]

Don't know if this is true or not but I'll post it anyway.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/1920095_275799319268617_481708502003460482_n.jpg

Okay, according to this 50% of Americans believe humans evolved, either with or without God's help.
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qlkv1bjc1ewmyfp0xrqvhg.png

[BedellBrave]

*you're.
Do you not believe in evolution though?


Dang it. You got me. It all depends on what you mean by "evolution." But to cut to the chase - aspects of some theories of it (or if you prefer aspects of the theory). Course I'm no scientist.

[BedellBrave]

Did you just call him a long, soft, shiny vegetable fiber that can be spun into coarse, strong threads?


Double dang it! You got me too. Meant "yute." Oh, well.

[ESP47]

Double dang it! You got me too. Meant "yute." Oh, well.

Yute is Spanish for a long, soft, shiny vegetable fiber that can be spun into coarse, strong threads.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/es/yute

[goldfly]

he is going my cousin vinny on youth

thought we all know knew that

but maybe my sarcasm meter is broken right now

[Runnin]

I'm sure most know that humans are no longer believed to have evolved from apes, but that they only have a common ancestor.

Here are a couple of so called facts I stumbled across tonight in an ESL textbook:

-the common ancestor of humans and apes walked upright, so apes lost this ability as they evolved to the trees.
-DNA wise, humans have more in common with chimps than horses do with zebras, or sheep with goats. Ouch.

[Gary82]

he is going my cousin vinny on youth

thought we all know knew that

but maybe my sarcasm meter is broken right now

haha, it didn't even cross my mind. i haven't seen that movie in years.

[50PoundHead]

Available as a t-shirt.

http://www.tshirtgalleries.com/wp-content/uploads/98-percent-you-tshirt.jpg

[Runnin]

http://serious-internet.biz/resize/700/-/1360/doctor-happy-cute-baby-monkey-1360793727.jpg

[BedellBrave]

Yute is Spanish for a long, soft, shiny vegetable fiber that can be spun into coarse, strong threads.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/es/yute


From the classic, My Cousin Vinny:

Vinny Gambini: It is possible that the two yutes...
Judge Chamberlain Haller: ...Ah, the two what? Uh... uh, what was that word?
Vinny Gambini: Uh... what word?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Two what?
Vinny Gambini: What?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Uh... did you say 'yutes'?
Vinny Gambini: Yeah, two yutes.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: What is a yute?
Vinny Gambini: [beat] Oh, excuse me, your honor...
[exaggerated]
Vinny Gambini: Two YOUTHS.

[Carp]

Guess no one picked up on the South Park reference.

[50PoundHead]

Guess no one picked up on the South Park reference.

Haven't watched South Park in a long time, but I scrolled back and saw your previous entry and although I missed that episode, it sure sounds like those guys. Cartman quote?

[zitothebrave]

Guess no one picked up on the South Park reference.

I picked up on it. Just don't care to comment on it.

[Carp]

Haven't watched South Park in a long time, but I scrolled back and saw your previous entry and although I missed that episode, it sure sounds like those guys. Cartman quote?


Mrs. Garrison


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRBHxJBUv_A

[Krgrecw]

Can a Christain follow Jesus and God and Thier teachings yet still believe in evolution or is it contradictory?

I don't think you can. You either believe in this or that but you can't intermingle the two.

[yeezus]

Can a Christain follow Jesus and God and Thier teachings yet still believe in evolution or is it contradictory?

I don't think you can. You either believe in this or that but you can't intermingle the two.

Why not? Someone can't believe in the whole "creationism" BS and also believe in evolution (which is tragic, because one is backed by so much evidence and fact and the other...zilch. And people won't believe in evolution and fight it for the sole fact that they've been brainwashed and HAVE to believe creationism). But I think you can believe in god and take the bible as a guide book and not as factual stories (as it should be looked at) while also acknowledging that yes, evolution happened.

[Metaphysicist]

Can a Christain follow Jesus and God and Thier teachings yet still believe in evolution or is it contradictory?

I don't think you can. You either believe in this or that but you can't intermingle the two.

The vast, vast majority of Christians do not regard the Bible as a work of literal history, at least in terms of the old testament creation myth. Likewise, the theory of evolution proper does not make any claims about the origin of creation. There does not need to be a conflict.

[Gary82]

Can a Christain follow Jesus and God and Thier teachings yet still believe in evolution or is it contradictory?

I don't think you can. You either believe in this or that but you can't intermingle the two.

Christians must believe that Jesus was/is God...and/or son of God...and/or son of Man, or whatever and worship God through him. That's the only stipulation.

I don't know many who take everything else in the Bible literally.

[goldfly]

Can a Christain follow Jesus and God and Thier teachings yet still believe in evolution or is it contradictory?

I don't think you can. You either believe in this or that but you can't intermingle the two.

why couldn't a Christian say evolution was Gods plan?

after all, why would you understand Gods plan?

[zitothebrave]

Christians must believe that Jesus was/is God...and/or son of God...and/or son of Man, or whatever and worship God through him. That's the only stipulation.

I don't know many who take everything else in the Bible literally.

I know some who do, and they're much worse off for it.

[Runnin]

You can believe anything. It's amazingly easy to do.

The Christian Man's Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-christian-mans-evolution/)

[mossy]

I know some who do, and they're much worse off for it.

In what way?

What does the "THEORY" of evolution do for me except tell me I'm nothing but a mistake or a coincidence?

This is an age where men must answer only to themselves, mainly out of selfishness, an attitude precipitated by the "theory" of evolution.

I believe in micro-evolution for sure. The world has changed for sure. But after I hear things being explained in "billions and billions of years ago, I find it tiresome. The minute I hear that talk, my first response is "that's your way of saying 'I don't know and I can't explain it".

"Theory" of evolution. You have can it.

I'll stick with intelligent design/creation. If you want to believe you were once a monkey, or a shark, or a donkey, you truly have my pity.

I'm not suggesting Christians are perfect. My own behavior here at times has proven my own imperfections. I'm human, but I've also asked your forgiveness.

This man has his faults, I don't agree with all he suggests in his other presentations, but he used to be an evolutionist who turned Christian after finding way too many holes in the "theory/religion" of evolution.
A spade Unearths the Truth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOwA9L0IY3I)

[BedellBrave]

Can a Christain follow Jesus and God and Thier teachings yet still believe in evolution or is it contradictory?

I don't think you can. You either believe in this or that but you can't intermingle the two.


You can't be an orthodox Christian and hold to an atheistic version of evolution.

[BedellBrave]

Why not? Someone can't believe in the whole "creationism" BS and also believe in evolution (which is tragic, because one is backed by so much evidence and fact and the other...zilch. And people won't believe in evolution and fight it for the sole fact that they've been brainwashed and HAVE to believe creationism). But I think you can believe in god and take the bible as a guide book and not as factual stories (as it should be looked at) while also acknowledging that yes, evolution happened.


Yute given to rash overstatements and bold balderdash.

[BedellBrave]

The vast, vast majority of Christians do not regard the Bible as a work of literal history, at least in terms of the old testament creation myth. Likewise, the theory of evolution proper does not make any claims about the origin of creation. There does not need to be a conflict.


I'd nuance it a bit more, as would be expected; but, basically this ^^^.

[BedellBrave]

Christians must believe that Jesus was/is God...and/or son of God...and/or son of Man, or whatever and worship God through him. That's the only stipulation.

I don't know many who take everything else in the Bible literally.



Not quite. Basically the truths found in statements like the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, etc., have set the core doctrinal commitments of Christian orthodoxy (i.e., you profess those beliefs then you have the historical right to call yourself a Christian - if not, you don't).

Of course many Christians (like myself) believe that such a profession and acts of outward piety only say something external about whether one is a Christian and that to be one at heart means more than just assent to a list a doctrines and the performance of certain duties - it means a true trusting in Jesus as one's Lord (King) and Savior.

I describe the difference as being a Christian in name (a good thing) and a Christian in heart (and even better thing). But recognize the latter includes the former.

[zitothebrave]

I love when people throw theory in quotes. Like it diminishes what it is. Scientific Theory is something that has been proven, it's been repeatedly confirmed through tests and observation. Evolution exists. If you want to say God did it that's fine you can as no one knows how the whole shebang started.

As far as humans go, you're not a mistake or coincidence. Evolution doesn't say that. What evolution says is that changes occurs out of necessity. Why did humans develop stronger brains than other animals? Because it was necessary to survive and thrive.

I don't get though why you don't believe we descended from other animals? Do you think humans just magically poofed onto earth? We know for a fact the earth is much older than the oldest human fossil. We know other animals were around before humans. If poofing creatures on this earth happened back then why hasn't it happened in the last 3 centuries?

Humans share many common genes with Monkeys, Bananas, Zebrafish, Fruit Flies, and basically everything in existence. How can this be explained without evolution? Again if you want to believe that God had his hand and guided things along then fine, I can't disprove that. But I can disprove much of the old testament, because of what we know today about ancient mythology.

[BedellBrave]

why couldn't a Christian say evolution was Gods plan?

after all, why would you understand Gods plan?


It could have been (and in part was) - or God could have used all kinds of ways - including snapping "his finger" and everything material is in existence with apparent age. I mean after all, omnipotence (rightly understood) is part-n-parcel with the idea of God.

We certainly can't understand God's plans, ways, actions, thoughts, etc., comprehensively; but only insofar as God reveals such to us in a way we can understand.

The question under consideration what the God of the Bible is revealing in Genesis (taking for granted of course that there is a God, and such God reveals himself to man, and has done so in/thru the Bible - given presuppositions of Christians - so those of you who aren't please bear with me). Are those early chapters what I would call a flat historical account, written according to some modern norms for historical accounts and a sort of quasi-scientific textbook (as ironically both the Ken Hams and Richard Dawkins of the world read it - such "fundies")? Or are they Ancient Near Eastern apologetic, literary stories of origins written against the backdrop of Egyptian and Canaanite stories of origins from the basic same time period, though containing both historical and "scientific" implications? As is obvious, I think the latter.

As the latter, what is being addressed is that Yahweh, the God who has entered into a covenant with man (particularly the Hebrews) is the Creator God. It's an attack on various other world views - atheism, pantheism, polytheism - and especially the polytheism of the Egyptian and Canaanites. it presents origins theologically and covenantally. Does it have historical implications? Sure. Scientific ones? Sure. But those aren't the point and greater care needs to be given when drawing out such implications, imho.

I think the Ken Hams and Richard Dawkins of the world miss the point and in an idiotic-silly fashion apply foreign norms and rules to the text. I wouldn't apply the norms of Metaphysical poetry to a textbook on basic biology. I wouldn't demand that a haiku be understood in keeping with Western writing of jurisprudence.

[BedellBrave]

I know some who do, and they're much worse off for it.


i'd add a caveat - I think we work with an overly simplistic notion of "literally." Most, particularly when talking about subjects like this, mean a sort of wooden idea of the word "literal." They mean a sort of meaning of writing devoid of literary figures, sort of like a list of ingredients for a recipe. I think a better way of using that term is to mean that the meaning is in keeping with the literary genre of the piece in question. for instance, when someone says that "B.J. Upton sucks," they most likely mean that they believe his present baseball skills aren't great, not that he's out there sucking on a baby bottle or something similar. Or another for instance closer to the subject, when we are told that "Jesus is the door" in the NT, it doesn't mean he is made of wood and has hinges.

Genre needs to be considered. And some genres use more literary figures than others and to believe in a literal meaning, ought to in my opinion, mean that those literary features are taken into account.

[BedellBrave]

I love when people throw theory in quotes. Like it diminishes what it is. Scientific Theory is something that has been proven, it's been repeatedly confirmed through tests and observation. Evolution exists. If you want to say God did it that's fine you can as no one knows how the whole shebang started.

....


Though I understand what you are saying, I think you have to be careful with your use or understanding of "proven." One way and a common and unfortunate way imo, that word is used is with finality, presenting a sort of closed-mindedness which actually inhibits scientific pursuit. There should always be an openness for correction, refinement, advance in our knowledge. I like this definition better:

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."

Note the italicized phrases.

[BedellBrave]

As far as humans go, you're not a mistake or coincidence. Evolution doesn't say that. What evolution says is that changes occurs out of necessity. Why did humans develop stronger brains than other animals? Because it was necessary to survive and thrive.




It would be a fairly straightforward implication of atheistic evolutionary theory and personifying the theory doesn't make it a less valid philosophical point.

[BedellBrave]

I don't get though why you don't believe we descended from other animals? Do you think humans just magically poofed onto earth? We know for a fact the earth is much older than the oldest human fossil. We know other animals were around before humans. If poofing creatures on this earth happened back then why hasn't it happened in the last 3 centuries?



"Poofing" creatures as you put it is posited by all in some form or fashion, no?

Also, isn't your 3 centuries time frame too small of a sample size for either "poofing" or "transpeciation"?

[BedellBrave]

Humans share many common genes with Monkeys, Bananas, Zebrafish, Fruit Flies, and basically everything in existence. How can this be explained without evolution?


Because it was created by a God who desired that there be common traits - that's an alternative. Commonality doesn't prove or disprove common descendent any more than it proves or disproves a common Creator. It's a inference you draw based on your presuppositions.

[BedellBrave]

But I can disprove much of the old testament, because of what we know today about ancient mythology.


Only by assuming and using a fundamentalist mindset.

[yeezus]

Yute given to rash overstatements and bold balderdash.

You wouldn't be a christian is you weren't raised that way. You'd be Muslim if you were born in a lot of other countries. You wouldn't believe in god the way you do if it were brought to you at a reasonable age to determine your own beliefs. Most of the people that become religious later in life (at least that I know) are addicts in a X-step program. It happens, sometimes people are looking for something to get them through. But, for the most part, no one would rationally believe that unless it was drilled in to them at a young age.

[yeezus]

"Poofing" creatures as you put it is posited by all in some form or fashion, no?


No, not really. Little forms of life are all over the place, microscopic forms. We came from them over billions of years. All life did. They don't just come from no where on an existing planet. This is like science 101. This is why creationism cannot be taught in public schools. It's detrimental to society.

[yeezus]

Though I understand what you are saying, I think you have to be careful with your use or understanding of "proven." One way and a common and unfortunate way imo, that word is used is with finality, presenting a sort of closed-mindedness which actually inhibits scientific pursuit. There should always be an openness for correction, refinement, advance in our knowledge. I like this definition better:

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."

Note the italicized phrases.

So it's been tested repeatedly and has strong evidence to back it up.
Creationism has neither. Not even remotely close.

[yeezus]

Yeah, there's definitely a god up there somewhere who cares what you do. If anything, he's an asshole. I'm a good person. I help people out, I do things for other people. I work hard and take care of my business. But I'm going to hell because some raging, selfish, ego-maniacal god needed me to praise him more. Ok bro. I don't even wanna be friends, you're a dick.

I also love the whole "forgiveness" thing. "Ask god for forgiveness for your sins. Oh you did something wrong? It's ok, god forgives." How about you strive to do the right thing because you're a moral human, not because "god" wants you to? There's no one forgiving me for my sins except me. If I do something wrong, I have to live with it and make peace with it on my own. Talking to myself doesn't make it OK.

[BedellBrave]

You wouldn't be a christian is you weren't raised that way. You'd be Muslim if you were born in a lot of other countries. You wouldn't believe in god the way you do if it were brought to you at a reasonable age to determine your own beliefs. Most of the people that become religious later in life (at least that I know) are addicts in a X-step program. It happens, sometimes people are looking for something to get them through. But, for the most part, no one would rationally believe that unless it was drilled in to them at a young age.


Again, such overstatements of utter confidence which you can't prove. Silliness. I can turn that whole claptrap back on you. But what good would it do? Sure folks can merely believe what they've been taught. Sure folks can believe as a coping mechanism. Doesn't mean they do and it doesn't mean that you are somehow immune.

And your understanding of "rationally" just flows from your own worldview.

[BedellBrave]

No, not really. Little forms of life are all over the place, microscopic forms. We came from them over billions of years. All life did. They don't just come from no where on an existing planet. This is like science 101. This is why creationism cannot be taught in public schools. It's detrimental to society.


You are begging the question... 'This is like philosophy 101.' Just stop with the childish retorts.

[yeezus]

Again, such overstatements of utter confidence which you can't prove. Silliness. I can turn that whole claptrap back on you. But what good would it do. Sure folks can merely believe what they been taught. Sure folks can believe as a coping mechanism. Doesn't mean they do and it doesn't mean that you are somehow immune.

And your understanding of "rationally" just flows from your own worldview.

Were you raised christian?
I was raised methodist.

[BedellBrave]

So it's been tested repeatedly and has strong evidence to back it up.
Creationism has neither. Not even remotely close.


What exactly has been tested? Going from nothing to something? Going from non-organic, non-living matter and energy to organic life? Transpeciation? Mutations? What exactly?

As a philosophy for why there's something and not nothing - not so much.

[BedellBrave]

Yeah, there's definitely a god up there somewhere who cares what you do. If anything, he's an asshole. I'm a good person. I help people out, I do things for other people. I work hard and take care of my business. But I'm going to hell because some raging, selfish, ego-maniacal god needed me to praise him more. Ok bro. I don't even wanna be friends, you're a dick.

I also love the whole "forgiveness" thing. "Ask god for forgiveness for your sins. Oh you did something wrong? It's ok, god forgives." How about you strive to do the right thing because you're a moral human, not because "god" wants you to? There's no one forgiving me for my sins except me. If I do something wrong, I have to live with it and make peace with it on my own. Talking to myself doesn't make it OK.


You prove in this thread that you are not. You evidence being a brat who stomps his feet a lot, says cruel things and basically is an arsehole. Hey, but cheer up - we are both worse than we think we are...

[BedellBrave]

Were you raised christian?
I was raised methodist.


How old are you again?

[BedellBrave]

Were you raised christian?
I was raised methodist.


Which proves people can choose something other than they were taught. Hey, It happened to me too. Disproving your talking point.

[yeezus]

You prove in this thread that you are not. You evidence being a brat who stomps his feet a lot, says cruel things and basically is an arsehole. Hey, but cheer up - we are both worse than we think we are...

You have no idea what kind of person I am, though. I'm not stomping my feet at all. I just don't delude myself. Honesty is ok**.

**something most christians I know seemingly don't agree with.

[yeezus]

Which proves people can choose something other than they were taught. Hey, It happened to me too. Disproving your talking point.

The vast, vast, VAST majority of christians were raised and taught from childhood to be so. Do you agree or disagree?
Far more people move on from christianity than join when they grow older. Agree or disagree?

[BedellBrave]

You have no idea what kind of person I am, though. I'm not stomping my feet at all. I just don't delude myself. Honesty is ok**.

**something most christians I know seemingly don't agree with.


If your online interactions are any indication of who you are, then I'm afraid I do. And you just keep reinforcing my understanding. Y, you are an angry young man (or woman) whose anger is directed at those who call themselves Christians and toward the God I suppose you would say you actually don't believe in. I get it. Believe me I do.

[BedellBrave]

The vast, vast, VAST majority of christians were raised and taught from childhood to be so. Do you agree or disagree?
Far more people move on from christianity than join when they grow older. Agree or disagree?

The vast, vast majority of secularists were raised and taught from childhood to be so. Whoop-d-damn-do.

And there you go again saying things you don't know.

[yeezus]

If your online interactions are any indication of who you are, then I'm afraid I do. And you just keep reinforcing my understanding. Y, you are an angry young man (or woman) whose anger is directed at those who call themselves Christians and toward the God I suppose you would say you actually don't believe in. I get it. Believe me I do.

I'm far from an angry person, but uh, thanks for your concern.

[yeezus]

The vast, vast majority of secularists were raised and taught from childhood to be so. Whoop-d-damn-do.

And there you go again saying things you don't know.

You don't find the first statement significant at all?
Do you think more people convert to christianity than stray from it?

[BedellBrave]

I'm far from an angry person, but uh, thanks for your concern.


I'm not overly concerned, to my chagrin.

[BedellBrave]

You don't find the first statement significant at all?
Do you think more people convert to christianity than stray from it?


Not any more so than my counter statement.

Yes.

I also don't think all that claim to be Christian are at heart.

[BedellBrave]

Oh, and I want to interact a bit on your idea of forgiveness, but I've got some work to do - maybe later. Cheers.

[Hawk]

I'm a Christian.

I was raised on (Southern Baptist) creationism and subsequently taught evolution in high school. Somewhere in there a soft buffer of intelligent design was injected.

Having little interest in the 'life' sciences to begin with (they truly bore me -- I'm a space cadet, anyways,) I really never cared about evolution until a few years ago when an ex-gf basically ridiculed me for my beliefs. I had never been in a setting where I had to attempt to explain the bridge, in my mind, between evolution and creationism.

Her assertion (quite pompously slathered on), that evolution was this wholly unassailable truth and creationism was a mythic fallacy, bothered me.

So I thought about it.

I reconciled that evolution, in its entirety, was an issue of faith. I don't care how I was made -- I'm more concerned with how I'm living ... right here, right now. If people want to get embroiled (and needlessly inflamed) over the difference between the two theories that's their prerogative but it seems pointless to me.

[BedellBrave]

...I also love the whole "forgiveness" thing. "Ask god for forgiveness for your sins. Oh you did something wrong? It's ok, god forgives." How about you strive to do the right thing because you're a moral human, not because "god" wants you to? There's no one forgiving me for my sins except me. If I do something wrong, I have to live with it and make peace with it on my own. Talking to myself doesn't make it OK.


I think you've got a misunderstanding of "forgiveness." Maybe it's because you were reared Methodist. ;-)

You certainly mischaracterize the Christian view of it, trivializing it. It's no light matter or a sort of free pass - go do all the rotten things you want to because you are either forgiven already or can get easy forgiveness, with no calls to repentance and to holiness.

Sin, in the Christian worldview, is heinous. It's self-destructive, it's harmful to others and it is against the very One who gives us life and breath. It is a violation of His holiness and his standard of righteousness. It isn't something to be winked at. It is something to be convicted of, something to be confessed, something to turn from. It deserves punishment. The Christian message is though that it is not the final answer. It can be forgiven, not considered to be ours. It can be punished but that eternal punishment not falling on us but upon God himself, in his Son, Jesus Christ. This way both his holiness and his mercy may be honored - in that sin is punished in Jesus and mercy & forgiveness extended to the one who confesses, seeks forgiveness, and repents - seeking moral change. And the one who then has experienced that forgiveness, doesn't then want to rush out and do it again or do worse, but out of humble, amazed, gratitude desires to render thanks by seeking to follow Christ as a disciple. Anything else is a mischaracterization of forgiveness.

Will the Christian who thus views forgiveness this way then not have to live temporal consequences of sin? No. They've wrestled with guilt and they often have to face collateral damage from their sins, but their record before God is that of His Son.

What exactly do you do with your guilt?

[BedellBrave]

I'm a Christian.

I was raised on (Southern Baptist) creationism and subsequently taught evolution in high school. Somewhere in there a soft buffer of intelligent design was injected.

Having little interest in the 'life' sciences to begin with (they truly bore me -- I'm a space cadet, anyways,) I really never cared about evolution until a few years ago when an ex-gf basically ridiculed me for my beliefs. I had never been in a setting where I had to attempt to explain the bridge, in my mind, between evolution and creationism.

Her assertion (quite pompously slathered on), that evolution was this wholly unassailable truth and creationism was a mythic fallacy, bothered me.

So I thought about it.

I reconciled that evolution, in its entirety, was an issue of faith. I don't care how I was made -- I'm more concerned with how I'm living ... right here, right now. If people want to get embroiled (and needlessly inflamed) over the difference between the two theories that's their prerogative but it seems pointless to me.


They sometimes come across like reformed alcoholics don't they?

[zitothebrave]

"Poofing" creatures as you put it is posited by all in some form or fashion, no?

Also, isn't your 3 centuries time frame too small of a sample size for either "poofing" or "transpeciation"?

No. Evolution explains things pretty clearly in regards to your explanation aside from mutations.

It is a pretty small sample. But considering people who wouldn't believe in evolution would think it happens all of the time. For example eventually humans won't have a little toe because of shoes. That's evolution baby.

[BedellBrave]

No. Evolution explains things pretty clearly in regards to your explanation aside from mutations.

It is a pretty small sample. But considering people who wouldn't believe in evolution would think it happens all of the time. For example eventually humans won't have a little toe because of shoes. That's evolution baby.


No, you still believe in "poofing" - there has to be some organism that is a first living organism, right? One moment before - not a living organism and then poof, the next, living.

[zitothebrave]

Because it was created by a God who desired that there be common traits - that's an alternative. Commonality doesn't prove or disprove common descendent any more than it proves or disproves a common Creator. It's a inference you draw based on your presuppositions.

Well how do you explain homo habilis, africanis, etc. then. Mistakes between Adam and Eve? You could argue a million ways. But one is using observation the other is fighting observation .

[BedellBrave]

Well how do you explain homo habilis, africanis, etc. then. Mistakes between Adam and Eve? You could argue a million ways. But one is using observation the other is fighting observation .


You could explain it similarly. My point is that commonality doesn't demand what you say it does.

[zitothebrave]

No, you still believe in "poofing" - there has to be some organism that is a first living organism, right?

Yes of course there was a first organism. But as far as poofing that I don't believe in. Matter is neither created or destroyed. First living being may have been created by god. I don't care about that. I really don't. My contention is that we know that the creation story is a myth. THe earth isn't 6000 years old. WE know it wasn't made in 6 days. We know these things which is what creationists would believe. They would have you believe that we just magically appeared with the billions of life forms on earth which simply isn't what happened. WE have records of that.

[BedellBrave]

But you do believe in poof "there was life" - a point that non-living material was then living. That's my point. So, I don't really see the value in ridiculing "poofing."

I've already addressed the other stuff.

[zitothebrave]

But you do believe in poof "there was life" - a point that non-living material was then living. That's my point. So, I don't really see the value in ridiculing "poofing."

I've already addressed the other stuff.

Well we know that molecules act in certain ways around each other. For example when sodium meets chlorine it makes salt. I don't think it's out of the scope of reality that ove ra billion years or so that the right combination to make organic material was achieved then replicated. Again you can go further back and say how were molecules were created and blah blah blah. I'ts easy to be contrarian. I could conversely sit arond and force you to prove your point and you'd be in the opposite argument because there is very little known that's truly certain that's proven beyond 100% true if you fight it from a certain angle.

[weso1]

I think a better question is who cares if someone doesn't believe in evolution? Honestly, what does it really matter? Seems pretty harmless.

[weso1]

By the way I've found that most folks who claim to know something as fact due to science don't actually know anything about the actual science. They just put their faith in what they think scientists are telling them. Sound familiar doesn't it?

And I personally believe the bible and especially the old testament is mainly a metaphor and not a true story of creation. I mean there are a lot of metaphors within the overall metaphor in and of itself. So why shouldn't we believe the main events in the bible aren't metaphors?

[Gary82]

By the way I've found that most folks who claim to know something as fact due to science don't actually know anything about the actual science. They just put their faith in what they think scientists are telling them. Sound familiar doesn't it?


you should not have faith in science, faith leads to religion. faith requires no evidence.

conversely, science is based on evidence and observations. You can defer to scientists, but if you don't agree with them you can do your own homework.

[Gary82]

I think a better question is who cares if someone doesn't believe in evolution? Honestly, what does it really matter? Seems pretty harmless.

If they're deciding how children are educated, it matters. Otherwise, I don't give two ****s.

[weso1]

you should not have faith in science, faith leads to religion. faith requires no evidence.

conversely, science is based on evidence and observations. You can defer to scientists, but if you don't agree with them you can do your own homework.

But if you defer to a scientist without knowing the science then you are in fact putting faith in that scientist. I'm not saying folks shouldn't do that, but maybe some should consider that fact before they belittle those who also put faith in something or someone else.

The internet though is kind of a petri dish of haughtiness... well... and naughtiness now that I think about it.

[Gary82]

But if you defer to a scientist without knowing the science then you are in fact putting faith in that scientist. I'm not saying folks shouldn't do that, but maybe some should consider that fact before they belittle those who also put faith in something or someone else.

The internet though is kind of a petri dish of haughtiness... well... and naughtiness now that I think about it.

faith in science and faith in religion are not the same thing. in fact, it's not faith in science. it's reasonable expectations based upon real world observations and data that has been scrutinized.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be respectful of each other, no matter what the person believes in, but do not equate the two.

[AerchAngel]

I believe both are entwined. You have to have both to fulfill what we have today.

Big Bang is incapable of bringing forth living "breathing" matter, it just can't. How can anything living come from a gas? a molecule and have a conscience? A higher power had to allow this and steer it in that direction.

[Gary82]

I believe both are entwined. You have to have both to fulfill what we have today.

Big Bang is incapable of bringing forth living "breathing" matter, it just can't. How can anything living come from a gas? a molecule and have a conscience? A higher power had to allow this and steer it in that direction.

Just because your mind can't understand how something can be living, let alone having self awareness, doesn't mean there is a creator, nor is it evidence that there is/was a creator. I can't understand it either, but I think in time we will figure it out.

We're all star dust, man. Like whoa.

[AerchAngel]

Just because your mind can't understand how something can be living, let alone having self awareness, doesn't mean there is a creator, nor is it evidence that there is/was a creator. I can't understand it either, but I think in time we will figure it out.

We're all star dust, man. Like whoa.

That is how I see it as well.......the evolution part of it.

[weso1]

faith in science and faith in religion are not the same thing. in fact, it's not faith in science. it's reasonable expectations based upon real world observations and data that has been scrutinized.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be respectful of each other, no matter what the person believes in, but do not equate the two.

I'm not saying it's a faith in science. It's a faith in scientists. Faith and science don't mix. Sure you could rationalize the reasoning in which you accept your faith in scientists, but you could do the same in regards to religion. If you don't understand the science or especially if you don't care to understand the science then it's faith in which you are placing your beliefs.

[Tapate50]

By the way I've found that most folks who claim to know something as fact due to science don't actually know anything about the actual science. They just put their faith in what they think scientists are telling them. Sound familiar doesn't it?

And I personally believe the bible and especially the old testament is mainly a metaphor and not a true story of creation. I mean there are a lot of metaphors within the overall metaphor in and of itself. So why shouldn't we believe the main events in the bible aren't metaphors?

I've seen that episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia too.

[BedellBrave]

faith in science and faith in religion are not the same thing. in fact, it's not faith in science. it's reasonable expectations based upon real world observations and data that has been scrutinized.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be respectful of each other, no matter what the person believes in, but do not equate the two.


Gary, I think it goes further though with the "faith in science" thing. Unfortunately, too many - not all but too many, go beyond what is reasonable to posit via the scientific method and really promote ideas that go beyond that, intertwining philosophical and even religious views all the while cloaked in the garb of "science." And usually without realizing it.

[BedellBrave]

Well we know that molecules act in certain ways around each other. For example when sodium meets chlorine it makes salt. I don't think it's out of the scope of reality that ove ra billion years or so that the right combination to make organic material was achieved then replicated. Again you can go further back and say how were molecules were created and blah blah blah. I'ts easy to be contrarian. I could conversely sit arond and force you to prove your point and you'd be in the opposite argument because there is very little known that's truly certain that's proven beyond 100% true if you fight it from a certain angle.


Does salt breathe?

An infinite regress isn't going to solve your problem. That's like saying that if I go back far enough I'll come up with some sort of inanimate object that all of a sudden animates itself.

In other words Z, "poof" - And that's okay!

[zitothebrave]

Does salt breathe?

An infinite regress isn't going to solve your problem. That's like saying that if I go back far enough I'll come up with some sort of inanimate object that all of a sudden animates itself.

In other words Z, "poof" - And that's okay!

What evidence do you have of something just poofing. How do you know that it wasn't done another way? What if a rock evolved into a bacteria? Can you prove that cannot happen?

[BedellBrave]

What evidence do you have of something just poofing. How do you know that it wasn't done another way? What if a rock evolved into a bacteria? Can you prove that cannot happen?

When the rock changes to a bacteria - that's "poof." When salt begins breathing, that's "poof." When a pre-biotic molecule becomes a living, replicating biotic molecule, that's "poof." A moment before no life; a moment after, life. That's all I'm saying. Again, I don't see what's gained ridiculing the idea as you did.

[BedellBrave]

Just because your mind can't understand how something can be living, let alone having self awareness, doesn't mean there is a creator, nor is it evidence that there is/was a creator. I can't understand it either, but I think in time we will figure it out.

We're all star dust, man. Like whoa.


And that is a faith statement. A dogma, if you will.

[zitothebrave]

When the rock changes to a bacteria - that's "poof." When salt begins breathing, that's "poof." When a pre-biotic molecule becomes a living, replicating biotic molecule, that's "poof." A moment before no life; a moment after, life. That's all I'm saying. Again, I don't see what's gained ridiculing the idea as you did.

You have a different definition of poof. Change over time isn't poof. Poof is something from nothing. It's the idea of magic creating or destroying something from or into nothing. A magician disappearing then reappearing. Not a magician walking from one side of the room to the other. A molecular change over billions of years isn't poof to me. Of course you may have a different definition than me I don't know. What I do know is your attack has failed because your whole basis of attacking my statement was on something you cannot prove or disprove so you moved the goal posts. When my statement was about humans not being there then magically they were there.

[zitothebrave]

And that is a faith statement. A dogma, if you will.

Everything is faith if you look at faith in the loosest way possible.

[BedellBrave]

You have a different definition of poof. Change over time isn't poof. Poof is something from nothing. It's the idea of magic creating or destroying something from or into nothing. A magician disappearing then reappearing. Not a magician walking from one side of the room to the other. A molecular change over billions of years isn't poof to me. Of course you may have a different definition than me I don't know. What I do know is your attack has failed because your whole basis of attacking my statement was on something you cannot prove or disprove so you moved the goal posts. When my statement was about humans not being there then magically they were there.


First, it's not an "attack." Don't think of it as such. I think we are talking past one another. But I don't think you will concede that there was a moment in time when there wasn't life and a moment later there was. That isn't a controversial statement. Not sure why you think it is.

[weso1]

I've seen that episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia too.

I've actually never watched that show. Maybe I should write ****coms.

[BedellBrave]

Everything is faith if you look at faith in the loosest way possible.


Sometimes you don't even have to have the loosest possible definition, you just recognize whether a statement is one that conforms to scientific method or goes beyond it. We all go beyond it. Sometimes we just don't realize that we do and when that lack of awareness is coupled with a poo-pooing of "faith" it can be annoying.

[AerchAngel]

First, it's not an "attack." Don't think of it as such. I think we are talking past one another. But I don't think you will concede that there was a moment in time when there wasn't life and a moment later there was. That isn't a controversial statement. Not sure why you think it is.

Basically some think there is no power out there to create life from non life and evolution has a part of it. Science cannot prove or never will prove when life or consciousness began out of nothing.

Big Bang was rock and gasses and where did IT came from? Carbon is part of life, but how can life and consciousness come from carbon?

[zitothebrave]

First, it's not an "attack." Don't think of it as such. I think we are talking past one another. But I don't think you will concede that there was a moment in time when there wasn't life and a moment later there was. That isn't a controversial statement. Not sure why you think it is.

But that's hardly comparable to what I was talking about and you know that. You're just being contrarian for some reason. Probably cause I said creation myth and you don't like that.

[BedellBrave]

But that's hardly comparable to what I was talking about and you know that. You're just being contrarian for some reason. Probably cause I said creation myth and you don't like that.


But it is. You just don't like that it is. By the way, when any Christian creationist speaks of the creation of living humans they don't talk of creation ex nihilo. That's obviously not the message of Genesis. The creation of matter? Yes, ex nihilo - out of nothing. The creation of living humans? No, fashioned, formed, brought into existence from matter - I'd even say energized matter.

I'd say that's the case with all living things. Others might not.

The word "myth" doesn't bother me - depending on your definition.

[zitothebrave]

Sometimes you don't even have to have the loosest possible definition, you just recognize whether a statement is one that conforms to scientific method or goes beyond it. We all go beyond it. Sometimes we just don't realize that we do and when that lack of awareness is coupled with a poo-pooing of "faith" it can be annoying.

I don't think faith is a bad thing. I think without faith we're largely not human. Whether it's faith in a god(s), faith in your fellow man, or faith that maybe today things will be different. Without faith we wouldn't be rooting for the Braves or any other sports team. Hell at the simplest faith gets us up and gets our butts out the door instead of us just giving up and dying. You can argue that it's a primal nature that's built into us and I'd agree it's part of what made us evolve to be THE apex predator and dominate the globe in a way no other creature has done it. We bend nature to our will (sometimes to entirely disastrous results) but we're great for a reason and I think what you describe as faith (and it is the definition) is a big reason for that.

[Gary82]

And that is a faith statement. A dogma, if you will.

I think it's reasonable expectations. Maybe I'm an optimist.

[BedellBrave]

Basically some think there is no power out there to create life from non life and evolution has a part of it. Science cannot prove or never will prove when life or consciousness began out of nothing.

Big Bang was rock and gasses and where did IT came from? Carbon is part of life, but how can life and consciousness come from carbon?


Yes, and there's really only two answers - either matter is eternal (which in a sense is no answer) or there is a non-material Creator with the power of being.

[BedellBrave]

I think it's reasonable expectations. Maybe I'm an optimist.


You are full of faith. :-)

[Gary82]

You are full of faith. :-)

Each day that goes by, the less there is.

[zitothebrave]

Yes, and there's really only two answers - either matter is eternal or there is a non-material Creator with the power of being.

Actually I'd say there are billions of answers in reality. Just only a few us humans can comprehend at this moment.

[BedellBrave]

Each day that goes by, the less there is.


I'll pray for you. :-)

Btw Gary - thanks for always interacting with me in a cordial way. Much appreciated!

[BedellBrave]

Actually I'd say there are billions of answers in reality. Just only a few us humans can comprehend at this moment.

I think they all logically end up in either of these two places, minus a bunch of fancy terms.

[zitothebrave]

I think they all logically end up in either of these two places, minus a bunch of fancy terms.

But isn't that a matter of faith not fact :cooter:

[Runnin]

I have complete faith in the natural and inevitable process of life/death, and no faith at all in anyone who claims to know about God.

[BedellBrave]

Okay

[BedellBrave]

But isn't that a matter of faith not fact :cooter:


"Philosophical conjecture" :-)

[AerchAngel]

Okay

lol

[AerchAngel]

Each day that goes by, the less there is.

With our world going more liberal without morality, I see the same. Orwellian Dystopia here we come.

[zitothebrave]

With our world going more liberal without morality, I see the same. Orwellian Dystopia here we come.

I don't think you got the point of 1984. A real liberal wouldn't be moving that way.

[sturg33]

My issue with evolution or non/creationism is that nobody can really explain how the first dot was plotted.

Like AA said earlier, with the big bang, a bunch of gases and rocks and dust, how were they formed? Matter can't be created or destroyed, so how did they become existent to begin with?

Maybe it's because my human brain is too stupid to understand anything more complex. But here's how I look at it:

I cannot comprehend everything starting from zero. That does not seem scientifically possible.

I can comprehend an all-powerful intelligent designer who set all of the wheels in motion. This is actually more rational (to me) than everything starting from NOTHING.

I generally hold the worldview that God created the substance needed to give us our universe today. And from there, science took its course (as designed).

[goldfly]

With our world going more liberal without morality

this makes zero sense

[Gary82]

My issue with evolution or non/creationism is that nobody can really explain how the first dot was plotted.

Like AA said earlier, with the big bang, a bunch of gases and rocks and dust, how were they formed? Matter can't be created or destroyed, so how did they become existent to begin with?

Maybe it's because my human brain is too stupid to understand anything more complex. But here's how I look at it:

I cannot comprehend everything starting from zero. That does not seem scientifically possible.

I can comprehend an all-powerful intelligent designer who set all of the wheels in motion. This is actually more rational (to me) than everything starting from NOTHING.

I generally hold the worldview that God created the substance needed to give us our universe today. And from there, science took its course (as designed).

Just because you can't comprehend something, doesn't mean God did it. In that sense, you're creating a god to bridge the gap between your understanding of the world and what you do not know.

I'm not saying there isn't a God. I'm just saying, that's not good enough.

Of course it's easier to say God did it.

[sturg33]

Just because you can't comprehend something, doesn't mean God did it. In that sense, you're creating a god to bridge the gap between your understanding of the world and what you do not know.

I'm not saying there isn't a God. I'm just saying, that's not good enough.

Of course it's easier to say God did it.

I'm not arguing otherwise. But scientifically, starting from zero is impossible

[Gary82]

I'm not arguing otherwise. But scientifically, starting from zero is impossible

Is it?

[sturg33]

It is based on science I've been taught and my limited understanding. Can you prove otherwise?

[AerchAngel]

I don't think you got the point of 1984. A real liberal wouldn't be moving that way.

lmao!!!!

brainwashed, you are.

[AerchAngel]

this makes zero sense

considering your stance on things and blinded, I am not surprised.

[AerchAngel]

I cannot comprehend everything starting from zero. That does not seem scientifically possible.

I can comprehend an all-powerful intelligent designer who set all of the wheels in motion. This is actually more rational (to me) than everything starting from NOTHING.

I generally hold the worldview that God created the substance needed to give us our universe today. And from there, science took its course (as designed).

+ infinity

to argue that something came out of nothing is foolishness, it is not possible. When everything began, you and I do not know it, but it sure in hell is not the Big Bang.

[Gary82]

An all powerful intelligent designer that transcends time; a being that created us in its own image on a planet somewhere in the boondocks of the universe is more plausible?

Who did all of this? Obviously a man. A male human god being that is omnipresent and all knowing.

I mean...it's possible.

[AerchAngel]

An all powerful intelligent designer that transcends time; a being that created us in its own image on a planet somewhere in the boondocks of the universe is more plausible?

Who did all of this? Obviously a man. A male human god being that is omnipresent and all knowing.

I mean...it's possible.

Then God is a racist and there is no such things as aliens, if that is the case.

[zitothebrave]

+ infinity

to argue that something came out of nothing is foolishness, it is not possible. When everything began, you and I do not know it, but it sure in hell is not the Big Bang.

This is why I love you as a poster AA. We don't know how it started but it sure as hell didn't start this way. If the Big Bang couldn't have happened why is the universe still expanding?

[zitothebrave]

It is based on science I've been taught and my limited understanding. Can you prove otherwise?

No one can truly prove otherwise. We can discuss what we think happened but no one will know with 100% certainty.

But you should probably relearn the big bang theory. It discusses creation of matter as we know it.

[57Brave]

No one can truly prove otherwise. We can discuss what we think happened but no one will know with 100% certainty.

But you should probably relearn the big bang theory. It discusses creation of matter as we know it.

Do you have a favored book - writer?

[zitothebrave]

Do you have a favored book - writer?

Not particularly off the top of me head. I mainly read publically available papers. I don't recall where I read them from, I'm not Metaspergers

[BedellBrave]

Just because you can't comprehend something, doesn't mean God did it. In that sense, you're creating a god to bridge the gap between your understanding of the world and what you do not know.

I'm not saying there isn't a God. I'm just saying, that's not good enough.

Of course it's easier to say God did it.


I try to be careful in these sort of discussions with the word "comprehend" formal it has a formal meaning of complete knowledge. We really can't have a comprehensive or total knowledge of anything. Else we are de facto, God.

And just because you can explain things on one level doesn't mean there are depths of meaning. In philosophical terms we talk about primary, secondary causes, etc. So, to think that when we have a mathematical formula or scientific theory that fits phenomena well, doesn't mean that we've exhausted the meaning - or in this case ruled out a divine cause working thru secondary causes.

And I'd also add Gary, that when you do that sort of thing, you really have locked yourself into a mechanistic box that while pleasing on one level, is fraught with other problems.

But then to your point, to say that God is the creator, shouldn't keep us from then exploring how God created. It really doesn't have to be an either/or. It hasn't been in much of the history of science - thankfully.

[BedellBrave]

An all powerful intelligent designer that transcends time; a being that created us in its own image on a planet somewhere in the boondocks of the universe is more plausible?

Who did all of this? Obviously a man. A male human god being that is omnipresent and all knowing.

I mean...it's possible.


An all-powerful, transcendent, immanent, all-wise, non-material, gracious, triune God who creates all material and energy and time, including a planet in our part of the galaxy and orders the very laws by which this material world operates and through whatever means brings organic life into existence, and which in turn bears the mark of his being in some form or fashion, and who condescends to reveal himself to humanity in ways they can understand - doesn't seemed far-fetched to me at all.

And to my mind less far fetched to say that everything boils down to eternal inanimate matter that has the power of being within itself which in turn in part becomes at some juncture life.

[BedellBrave]

No one can truly prove otherwise. We can discuss what we think happened but no one will know with 100% certainty.

But you should probably relearn the big bang theory. It discusses creation of matter as we know it.


"Creation"?

[zitothebrave]

"Creation"?

http://static.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1535/15358569/2499461-1394410947285.jpg

[BedellBrave]

Well you really can't use that word for it implies a Creator, or something prior to matter.

[zitothebrave]

Well you really can't use that word for it implies a Creator, or something prior to matter.

Don't you go talking about implying.

[BedellBrave]

Ah, why not?

[zitothebrave]

Ah, why not?

Cause there are several posts above that put you on the other side of that mister mister

[BedellBrave]

Okay, that's fine. Saying "creation" still has implications.

[Runnin]

Okay, that's fine. Saying "creation" still has implications.
We have to come from somewhere and you have to call that "somewhere" something.

[BedellBrave]

We have to come from somewhere and you have to call that "somewhere" something.


But where did the "somewhere" come from? And where did these "dimensions" (i.e., space - "somewhere") get the ability to produce things to go in them? How did it get that ability? Why did length, width, depth, and height get that ability? And dimensions - what are they a measurement of exactly?

[Dalyn]

http://verticalviv.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/57dd6_orig-5df78_orig_cringe.gif

[AerchAngel]

http://verticalviv.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/57dd6_orig-5df78_orig_cringe.gif

Thanks for making me spill my coffee Dal.

[BedellBrave]

http://verticalviv.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/57dd6_orig-5df78_orig_cringe.gif

Calling "nothing" "somewhere" really doesn't solve anything.

[Dalyn]

Calling "nothing" "somewhere" really doesn't solve anything.

That was a post for the whole thread, not your post in particular.

[AerchAngel]

That was a post for the whole thread, not your post in particular.

That is what I got from the gif and knowing you I pictured this from your face perfectly.

[Metaphysicist]

What evolution says is that changes occurs out of necessity. Why did humans develop stronger brains than other animals? Because it was necessary to survive and thrive.

What? No. This is 100% wrong.

[Metaphysicist]

No, you still believe in "poofing" - there has to be some organism that is a first living organism, right? One moment before - not a living organism and then poof, the next, living.

This is outside the scope of the supported (as you would have it) Theory of Evolution; I will grant you that many people want to take that extra step, but they are drifting into ontology and abiogenesis, fields which are much more up for debate.

[Metaphysicist]

I think a better question is who cares if someone doesn't believe in evolution? Honestly, what does it really matter? Seems pretty harmless.

I don't care... until those people try and implement public policy based on their beliefs. People only have these internet arguments because folks keep trying force garbage science into schools. If people wanna home school their children to think dumb things, more power to them. Leave the rest of us be.



But if you defer to a scientist without knowing the science then you are in fact putting faith in that scientist. I'm not saying folks shouldn't do that, but maybe some should consider that fact before they belittle those who also put faith in something or someone else.

"Science" isn't a book of facts that individual scientists add things to. People don't defer to "a scientist," people defer to a consensus of a massive number of scientists who all work with empirical data. Science is a process, one with extremely visible fruits, and one where there is an enormous incentive to disprove any established tenets. Comparing trust in that process with faith in a divinity is more than a bit of a stretch.

If a blind man asks 100 people what color his shirt is, and they all tell him blue, he is indeed taking it on "faith" that his shirt is blue. But that is a completely different category of faith than religious faith, which entails embracing apparently paradoxical ideas as equally true.

[Metaphysicist]

Last thing, the Big Bang is NOT something coming from nothing. The main idea is just that the universe is expanding. What happens when you go all the way back to the beginning is fairly conjectural, but... the prevailing gist is that originally everything was contained in one point that was infinitely dense... or something. But there was still... stuff. What happened before that or where that matter came from... who knows?

[The Chosen One]

Meta just keeps on rollin'.

[BedellBrave]

This is outside the scope of the supported (as you would have it) Theory of Evolution; I will grant you that many people want to take that extra step, but they are drifting into ontology and abiogenesis, fields which are much more up for debate.


A point I've been trying to make I think.

[BedellBrave]

Last thing, the Big Bang is NOT something coming from nothing. The main idea is just that the universe is expanding. What happens when you go all the way back to the beginning is fairly conjectural, but... the prevailing gist is that originally everything was contained in one point that was infinitely dense... or something. But there was still... stuff. What happened before that or where that matter came from... who knows?


And either that itsy-bitsy stuff is eternal or created....

[zitothebrave]

What? No. This is 100% wrong.

How could I forget the inevitable post from metaphysistbiologistastrophysicistengineersabermet ricandwhateveryoucallwastingyourtimestudyingancien tgreekwriting would come into play. Must be hard living your life pitying us who don't have a degree from Google. Apparently in your mind Natural Selection has no part in evolution. Which is cute.

[zitothebrave]

Last thing, the Big Bang is NOT something coming from nothing. The main idea is just that the universe is expanding. What happens when you go all the way back to the beginning is fairly conjectural, but... the prevailing gist is that originally everything was contained in one point that was infinitely dense... or something. But there was still... stuff. What happened before that or where that matter came from... who knows?

Maybe you should read more. Many theorize against singularity. Of course singularity is the past prevailing theory but many are against it.

[goldfly]

considering your stance on things and blinded, I am not surprised.

uh, your post pretty much said, liberal have no morals

not sure where that would mean i am "blinded" etc

it makes zero sense to say that and then to insinuate that "conservatives have morals"

[Metaphysicist]

Maybe you should read more. Many theorize against singularity. Of course singularity is the past prevailing theory but many are against it.

Ay, mane take your own reading advice. Here's what I said:

"What happens when you go all the way back to the beginning is fairly conjectural, but... the prevailing gist is..."

That caveat pretty much covers what you are saying.

[zitothebrave]

Ay, mane take your own reading advice. Here's what I said:

"What happens when you go all the way back to the beginning is fairly conjectural, but... the prevailing gist is..."

That caveat pretty much covers what you are saying.

And my point about reading has to do with the seeming (though granted I don't read every one) prevailing theories now are that singularity probably didn't exist.

Actually many no longer even bother discussing what happened at the start of the universe before rapid inflation because no one can really know. Singularity point you brought up is old.

[weso1]

I don't care... until those people try and implement public policy based on their beliefs. People only have these internet arguments because folks keep trying force garbage science into schools. If people wanna home school their children to think dumb things, more power to them. Leave the rest of us be.

That sounds great and all, but I'm still not sure why it matters specifically about evolution. And you didn't really answer that. Generally speaking, sure you're right but I wasn't typing generally.


"Science" isn't a book of facts that individual scientists add things to. People don't defer to "a scientist," people defer to a consensus of a massive number of scientists who all work with empirical data. Science is a process, one with extremely visible fruits, and one where there is an enormous incentive to disprove any established tenets. Comparing trust in that process with faith in a divinity is more than a bit of a stretch.

If a blind man asks 100 people what color his shirt is, and they all tell him blue, he is indeed taking it on "faith" that his shirt is blue. But that is a completely different category of faith than religious faith, which entails embracing apparently paradoxical ideas as equally true.

That's a great point. My point, and I admit I'm not good at all about stating my position, is that those who don't understand the process put their faith in scientists even though they don't understand that process. I think that's a better way to state my position. I think there are a lot of folks who just state... "Well scientists state this..." but they don't really understand what science really is and how it works. So my post isn't really for you or most folks that post on this forum who understand science, but the dbags who belittle intelligent religious folk like Bedell, but don't really understand the science they themselves blindly accept. Hopefully that makes more sense.

edit: I have another post in that quote there you may not have noticed. Still really horrible at the internet.

[Runnin]

Almost everything one does in modern life is done with complete faith in science and scientists. If not you wouldn't be able to start a car, use public transportation or even plug in an appliance, much less get on a plane and travel around the world. People are perfectly willing to trust the science of modern convenience a thousand times a day, but when new information all of a sudden endangers long-accepted religious views these scientists are said to be evil, untrustworthy and acting from a liberal agenda.

[Metaphysicist]

And my point about reading has to do with the seeming (though granted I don't read every one) prevailing theories now are that singularity probably didn't exist.

Actually many no longer even bother discussing what happened at the start of the universe before rapid inflation because no one can really know. Singularity point you brought up is old.

Thus the "... or something." You are being pedantic, which is fine when you are right, which you aren't. I elided over any and all details of "first point of time" because it isn't relevant to my point. As I stated, the theory of the big bang is about the expansion of the universe, not the creation of the matter from nothingness.

[Dalyn]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t1.0-9/10386756_732484353475654_86301965550033282_n.jpg

[Metaphysicist]

That sounds great and all, but I'm still not sure why it matters specifically about evolution. And you didn't really answer that. Generally speaking, sure you're right but I wasn't typing generally.

What specifics are you looking for? Do you want me to go cite the well-known examples of creationists attacking science curriculums? Do you really not understand why people care about what their children are taught?

I mean, I would agree that this is overblown. This is one of those issues, like gay marriage, that has been exacerbated by folks trying to rile up political bases. But that exacerbation has had real world effects.


That's a great point. My point, and I admit I'm not good at all about stating my position, is that those who don't understand the process put their faith in scientists even though they don't understand that process. I think that's a better way to state my position. I think there are a lot of folks who just state... "Well scientists state this..." but they don't really understand what science really is and how it works. So my post isn't really for you or most folks that post on this forum who understand science, but the dbags who belittle intelligent religious folk like Bedell, but don't really understand the science they themselves blindly accept. Hopefully that makes more sense.

I would surely agree that there are plenty of people, we'll call them all "Zitoes," who lecture with their butts about things they don't understand. But those people are just being stupid, not exercising a religious kind of faith. The word science literally just means "knowledge." The empirical scientific process is just a fairly simple means of compiling collective knowledge (look, write down, guess, test, repeat). Most people can understand that, and everybody can see the results. The faith is not blind; the faith is predicated on extremely strong evidence. This is true even for Zitoes who are always wrong about the actual facts. They can use their Android phones to look up nudie picks of British chicks eating mustard and correctly think "Damn, thanks for making this possible science." This kind of trust in the scientific process is induction, not faith.

Bedell is mostly just trolling these Zitoes anyway. He knows enough to know that they don't know what they are talking about, so he's just amusing himself to pass the time.

[zitothebrave]

Thus the "... or something." You are being pedantic, which is fine when you are right, which you aren't. I elided over any and all details of "first point of time" because it isn't relevant to my point. As I stated, the theory of the big bang is about the expansion of the universe, not the creation of the matter from nothingness.

If that's all it's about then why bother discussing the creation point if it isn't relevant?

[AerchAngel]

uh, your post pretty much said, liberal have no morals

not sure where that would mean i am "blinded" etc

it makes zero sense to say that and then to insinuate that "conservatives have morals"

Did I say that?

No. They have no morals either.

[BedellBrave]

What specifics are you looking for? Do you want me to go cite the well-known examples of creationists attacking science curriculums? Do you really not understand why people care about what their children are taught?

I mean, I would agree that this is overblown. This is one of those issues, like gay marriage, that has been exacerbated by folks trying to rile up political bases. But that exacerbation has had real world effects.



I would surely agree that there are plenty of people, we'll call them all "Zitoes," who lecture with their butts about things they don't understand. But those people are just being stupid, not exercising a religious kind of faith. The word science literally just means "knowledge." The empirical scientific process is just a fairly simple means of compiling collective knowledge (look, write down, guess, test, repeat). Most people can understand that, and everybody can see the results. The faith is not blind; the faith is predicated on extremely strong evidence. This is true even for Zitoes who are always wrong about the actual facts. They can use their Android phones to look up nudie picks of British chicks eating mustard and correctly think "Damn, thanks for making this possible science." This kind of trust in the scientific process is induction, not faith.

Bedell is mostly just trolling these Zitoes anyway. He knows enough to know that they don't know what they are talking about, so he's just amusing himself to pass the time.


There are parts of this ^^^ that I like. Carry on.

[AerchAngel]

Reminds myself never to get in an argument with Meta. After the dress down I would feel like I am back in 1st grade.

[weso1]

What specifics are you looking for? Do you want me to go cite the well-known examples of creationists attacking science curriculums? Do you really not understand why people care about what their children are taught?

I mean, I would agree that this is overblown. This is one of those issues, like gay marriage, that has been exacerbated by folks trying to rile up political bases. But that exacerbation has had real world effects.



I would surely agree that there are plenty of people, we'll call them all "Zitoes," who lecture with their butts about things they don't understand. But those people are just being stupid, not exercising a religious kind of faith. The word science literally just means "knowledge." The empirical scientific process is just a fairly simple means of compiling collective knowledge (look, write down, guess, test, repeat). Most people can understand that, and everybody can see the results. The faith is not blind; the faith is predicated on extremely strong evidence. This is true even for Zitoes who are always wrong about the actual facts. They can use their Android phones to look up nudie picks of British chicks eating mustard and correctly think "Damn, thanks for making this possible science." This kind of trust in the scientific process is induction, not faith.

Bedell is mostly just trolling these Zitoes anyway. He knows enough to know that they don't know what they are talking about, so he's just amusing himself to pass the time.

Yeah, it's way overblown which is my point. It's fairly trivial knowledge and everyone makes such a stink about it.

I disagree with the induction thing. You give folks too much credit.

[goldfly]

Did I say that?

No. They have no morals either.

i didn't say you said it. i did say that the statement insinuates that though

[goldfly]

Reminds myself never to get in an argument with Meta. After the dress down I would feel like I am back in 1st grade.

this is my reaction to reading Metas posts:

http://replygif.net/i/1049.gif

[BedellBrave]

Meta, dude, you've got you some fan boys. :)

[zitothebrave]

Meta, dude, you've got you some fan boys. :)

The Cult of Meta is really cute. I used to be a fan of Meta. Until I realized that Meta is the anti-AA. While AA is all that's great about the internet, Meta is all that is tiresome and annoying. It's not even worth arguing with him because he will out google you and fight you on the most pedantic details. It's not even worth trying I forget that sometimes.

[Metaphysicist]

I love that Zito's big criticism of me is that I bother to gather knowledge about the subjects I talk about.

[zitothebrave]

If I felt like Googling things for hours before every post I'd consider that worthy. Otherwise who cares. I post as if I'm having a conversation, it's my style I don't spend tons of time looking up everything in person, nor should I hear. Sue me for not taking the internet seriously.

[Hawk]

If I felt like Googling things for hours before every post I'd consider that worthy. Otherwise who cares. I post as if I'm having a conversation, it's my style I don't spend tons of time looking up everything in person, nor should I hear. Sue me for not taking the internet seriously.

Some of us really care about being perceived as intelligent.

[weso1]

Zito with the surprise left hook. Meta staggering a bit.

[zitothebrave]

Some of us really care about being perceived as intelligent.

I prefer to be perceived as a drunk. It really makes me seem cool on the internets.

[Metaphysicist]

If I felt like Googling things for hours before every post I'd consider that worthy. Otherwise who cares. I post as if I'm having a conversation, it's my style I don't spend tons of time looking up everything in person, nor should I hear. Sue me for not taking the internet seriously.

I think it is a hilariously lame criticism; it's not even an insult: "you care enough to check the veracity of your own statements." Sick burn brah.

But since you are doubling down on it, I'll point out that it is also bizarrely inaccurate. What in this thread do you think I spent a bunch of time googling? I think the only thing I looked up was how to spell "abiogenesis," because, dude, that's a hard word to spell.

Here's what literally happened in this thread: I gave a very brief, off the top of my head synopsis of the Big Bang... Zito attempts to correct me, and complains that I should do more research, while missing my point entirely. I respond with literally zero extra information. He then complains, saying I do too much research.

????

Honestly Zito, you are my favorite; you are consistently wrong and even wear it as a badge of honor. It's almost admirable.

Zito logic:

1. Say wrong thing
2. Be corrected
3. Double down on being wrong
4. Complain that people knowing things is bad
5. ???
6. Mustard titties

[Metaphysicist]

Some of us really care about being perceived as intelligent.

I prefer to be perceived as well-endowed, but it's harder to convey with words.

[Carp]

I really like it when Meta is ripping on someone other than me and Noah's Ark.

[zitothebrave]

I think it is a hilariously lame criticism; it's not even an insult: "you care enough to check the veracity of your own statements." Sick burn brah.

But since you are doubling down on it, I'll point out that it is also bizarrely inaccurate. What in this thread do you think I spent a bunch of time googling? I think the only thing I looked up was how to spell "abiogenesis," because, dude, that's a hard word to spell.

Here's what literally happened in this thread: I gave a very brief, off the top of my head synopsis of the Big Bang... Zito attempts to correct me, and complains that I should do more research, while missing my point entirely. I respond with literally zero extra information. He then complains, saying I do too much research.

????

Honestly Zito, you are my favorite; you are consistently wrong and even wear it as a badge of honor. It's almost admirable.

Zito logic:

1. Say wrong thing
2. Be corrected
3. Double down on being wrong
4. Complain that people knowing things is bad
5. ???
6. Mustard titties

Well the research quip was my own little dig but I don't really care if no one else got that. I amused myself and that's all I care about.

And remind me what did you go to school for? Biology? Physics? Astrophysics? Religion? Greek Classical Literature? Technology? Anthropology? It must have been so expensive to have become an expert in all of those fields while becoming a baseball stat expert and expert on beer.

I guess if I really only cared about what people thought of me I could be a strictly contrarian poster who posts highly infrequently. But where's the fun in that. There was a time when I thought burning people on the internet was cool. Then I graduated high school.

Me personally I just hope for the best from you, I can't imagine the student loan debt you're swimming to be so knowledgeable on so many things without Googling before your posts. In this thread alone you've flexed your Biology, Anthropology, and Astrophysics degrees, and indicated your knowledge of computer science, computer engineering, and transmitting information over radio waves. I can only imagine your knowledge potential when you hit 40. You'll be like Einstein meets Carl Sagan with a dash of Aristotle.

[BedellBrave]

Where's my popcorn?

[acesfull86]

Time out......

what's mustard titties?

[weso1]

Well the research quip was my own little dig but I don't really care if no one else got that. I amused myself and that's all I care about.

And remind me what did you go to school for? Biology? Physics? Astrophysics? Religion? Greek Classical Literature? Technology? Anthropology? It must have been so expensive to have become an expert in all of those fields while becoming a baseball stat expert and expert on beer.

I guess if I really only cared about what people thought of me I could be a strictly contrarian poster who posts highly infrequently. But where's the fun in that. There was a time when I thought burning people on the internet was cool. Then I graduated high school.

Me personally I just hope for the best from you, I can't imagine the student loan debt you're swimming to be so knowledgeable on so many things without Googling before your posts. In this thread alone you've flexed your Biology, Anthropology, and Astrophysics degrees, and indicated your knowledge of computer science, computer engineering, and transmitting information over radio waves. I can only imagine your knowledge potential when you hit 40. You'll be like Einstein meets Carl Sagan with a dash of Aristotle.

High heater.

[goldfly]

interesting theory working right now on the correct amount of things someone can have knowledge about i must say

[The Chosen One]

Both guys are already in midseason form. I've never seen zeets this much on the offensive/defensive before.

[BedellBrave]

Both guys are already in midseason form. I've never seen zeets this much on the offensive/defensive before.


Yeah, there is some pep in his step.

[AerchAngel]

Well I can join in with my perceived ROID rage I do exhibit on here, you know, the board best known hot head.

But I rather enjoy a migraine rather than get into a battle with Meta.

Zito has a point, his knowledge of disciplines are up there with the greatest that ever lived.

[AerchAngel]

i didn't say you said it. i did say that the statement insinuates that though

And I know where that came from.......my constant bashing of Liberals. I admit I do it, but they are in power now so they will bashed by me. When the Conservatives get in power and screw up like they normally do, I will treat them likewise.

No side is safe from Aerch "Carlos Zambrano" Angel. So Haterade coolers and Styrofoam cups be wary when I get a full head of steam.

[Tapate50]

And I know where that came from.......my constant bashing of Liberals. I admit I do it, but they are in power now so they will bashed by me. When the Conservatives get in power and screw up like they normally do, I will treat them likewise.

No side is safe from Aerch "Carlos Zambrano" Angel. So Haterade coolers and Styrofoam cups be wary when I get a full head of steam.

The best of the both worlds is styrofoam coolers. Those things F'n explode man... Especially when sat upon.

[zitothebrave]

Well I can join in with my perceived ROID rage I do exhibit on here, you know, the board best known hot head.

But I rather enjoy a migraine rather than get into a battle with Meta.

Zito has a point, his knowledge of disciplines are up there with the greatest that ever lived.

Why would you rather suffer pain than argue with someone online? Seems like your priorities are a little whacked there my friend :Bunchie1:

[AerchAngel]

Why would you rather suffer pain than argue with someone online? Seems like your priorities are a little whacked there my friend :Bunchie1:

Because dealing with him would cause worst than a migraine. Sledgehammer to the head maybe?

[zitothebrave]

Because dealing with him would cause worst than a migraine. Sledgehammer to the head maybe?

Either way you're taking the interwebs too seriously. Relax and have a homebrew instead.

[AerchAngel]

Either way you're taking the interwebs too seriously. Relax and have a homebrew instead.

Speaking of that, I bought a carboy today, cleaned out my Mr. Beer, going to try and make a strong 80 proof blueberry brandy for the carboy. I have about 10 pounds of frozen berries from last year and they farm notified us they are about ready to be picked.

I want to try hefenweizen this time around for Mr. Beer.

[zitothebrave]

I've been trying to think of what to brew. I may make tomorrow a brew day. Since it's the middle of July and I either need to do something fast like a quick blonde, or Session IPA. Or if I go something more fall appropriate like a IIPA. As summer ends quickly in New Hampshire.

[weso1]

Both guys are already in midseason form. I've never seen zeets this much on the offensive/defensive before.

You say it like they shouldn't be in midseason form. It is midseason after all.

[Dalyn]

Where's my popcorn?

http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/tumblr_mhnyr45pK51r4zr2vo2_r1_500.gif

[The Chosen One]

You say it like they shouldn't be in midseason form. It is midseason after all.

Meta has been out of action for long periods of time this year. This is pretty much extended spring training for him and I'm amazed he's been keeping up with zeets tit for tat as if he hasn't missed any action.

[Metaphysicist]

And remind me what did you go to school for? Biology? Physics? Astrophysics? Religion? Greek Classical Literature? Technology? Anthropology?

My school was so pretentious that we didn't even have majors, but the credit-hours were equivalent to a double major in Philosophy/History of Math and Science with a double minor in Comparative Literature/Classical Studies. So sure, we covered a lot of that stuff, save modern Astrophysics, "Technology" (is this a field I can get a degree in? I want one; sounds awesome), and Anthropology. If you care, here is the curriculum (http://www.sjc.edu/academics/undergraduate/undergraduate-academics/). But:

a) My school only covered old people astronomy, like Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton... but the Big Bang is middle school level astrophysics, and I have the certificates to prove I graduated middle school. And also I guess I read, like, books and stuff?
b) I know about "Technology" because it is the year 2014 and I am not 1000 years old
c) Anthropology is not a real thing


It must have been so expensive to have become an expert in all of those fields while becoming a baseball stat expert and expert on beer.

It didn't cost a nickel, that's for sure.


There was a time when I thought burning people on the internet was cool. Then I graduated high school.

Oh, snap, there are layers to this dig right here, like a mutherfuggin' onion up in here: A dig saying "I ain't dig cuz digging is lame..." but which is also a dig...???!?. THAT A MOTHERLOVING PARADOX = MIND BLOWN


I can only imagine your knowledge potential when you hit 40. You'll be like Einstein meets Carl Sagan with a dash of Aristotle.

Nah, that **** peaks early. In his twenties, Isaac Newton was like the smartest dude ever, but by 40 he was mostly sitting at home writing about how awesome alchemy and being a virgin were. Basically it is all downhill from here for all of us.

[zitothebrave]

I hate replying that way, too much work.

1. I can get you a degree in technology degree. How much you willing to pay for it? Big Bang isn't middle school astrophysics aside from covering the basics. The science behind it is at least advanced high school. And I'd like to see your middleschool certificate. Not a proof of live middle school participation. And who are you dissing Anthropology? Sterling Archer?

2. I'm glad you got such a bargain.

3. It has nothing to do with digs, and everything to do with caring.

4. I'm glad you have your map to your 40s printed out. Hopefully you kept yourself chaste like Sir Isaac.

[BedellBrave]

A link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/higgs-physics-universe-exist_n_5525030.html) - we shouldn't be here?

^^^ For my own reading pleasure later.

[Metaphysicist]

I hate replying that way, too much work.

1. I can get you a degree in technology degree. How much you willing to pay for it? Big Bang isn't middle school astrophysics aside from covering the basics. The science behind it is at least advanced high school. And I'd like to see your middleschool certificate. Not a proof of live middle school participation. And who are you dissing Anthropology? Sterling Archer?

2. I'm glad you got such a bargain.

3. It has nothing to do with digs, and everything to do with caring.

4. I'm glad you have your map to your 40s printed out. Hopefully you kept yourself chaste like Sir Isaac.

- We definitely covered the amount of information I gave about the Big Bang in middle school. Also I lied, I flunked middle school.

- NOT a nickel. It was many nickels. So not so much of a bargain.

- I dig caring.

- I'm actually getting my mid life crisis out of the way early right now, so my 40s should be pretty swell, even though I'll be turning into a dumb old man.

[zitothebrave]

1. Sorry to hear that. Glad you could winger your way through highschool and college.

2. Maybe there's an easier way we can keep track of money rather than nickels? Are you a fan of the rupee? Oh right no you aren't.

3 Hey, that's some word replacement there!

4. What if this was your midlife crisis as it's your midlife? Lord knows what diseases on can catch when hanging around the seedier parts of Thailand.

[BedellBrave]

From Dylan Thomas' A Child's Christmas in Wales:

"Get back to the Presents."

"There were the Useful Presents: engulfing mufflers of the old coach days, and mittens made for giant sloths; zebra scarfs of a substance like silky gum that could be tug-o'-warred down to the galoshes; blinding tam-o'-shanters like patchwork tea cozies and bunny-suited busbies and balaclavas for victims of head-shrinking tribes; from aunts who always wore wool next to the skin there were mustached and rasping vests that made you wonder why the aunts had any skin left at all; and once I had a little crocheted nose bag from an aunt now, alas, no longer whinnying with us. And pictureless books in which small boys, though warned with quotations not to, would skate on Farmer Giles' pond and did and drowned; and books that told me everything about the wasp, except why."

[BedellBrave]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t1.0-9/10386756_732484353475654_86301965550033282_n.jpg

[Dalyn]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t1.0-9/10513529_711029028932559_5707653035778063717_n.jpg

[acesfull86]

I'd rather learn magic than science, fwiw.

[zitothebrave]

I'd rather learn magic than science, fwiw.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/8dd3811fdc0742ceda62c87933e27f3b/tumblr_n6h14wr97G1qb6x7co4_250.gif

[BedellBrave]

Hey Dalyn buddy, at least mine had some humor value. :)

[Dalyn]

Hey Dalyn buddy, at least mine had some humor value. :)

I used it first a couple pages ago. :icwudt: