PDA

View Full Version : I just watched "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"



narwhal
04-29-2008, 01:39 PM
So horrible. Biggest propaganda piece ever. Funny to watch though.

Download it for a laugh.

Bart, I think your head would explode from watching it.

narwhal
04-29-2008, 01:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/xGCxbhGaVfE

solvenskim
04-29-2008, 01:44 PM
whats so horrible?

narwhal
04-29-2008, 01:52 PM
Are you serious?

Conrad923
04-29-2008, 01:52 PM
to me this is actually interesting. I've been wondering about our existence and debating over how we really came to be for awhile.

SolvenCarlos
04-29-2008, 01:52 PM
We came here from crystals man, molecules on crystals.

Conrad923
04-29-2008, 01:53 PM
but why ben stein?

solvenskim
04-29-2008, 01:54 PM
Yea im serious. I havent watched it yet.

Conrad923
04-29-2008, 01:54 PM
We came here from crystals man, molecules on crystals.

i watched some program on the history channel about something sort of familiar to that, we were dust particles and some how formed to be what we are today

Scrub
04-29-2008, 01:55 PM
God i hate intelligent design and that stereotypical writing on the chalkboard was fucking disgusting. This is propaganda. I love how he states no facts, just says it might be wrong. Please show some proof besides hinting at some conspiracy of scientists. I love when the scientist who is supposed to bne "bad" say that as a scientist he is against this opposing doctrine. Of course he is, ID isn't science.

I neg rep ben stein

narwhal
04-29-2008, 01:56 PM
Yea im serious. I havent watched it yet.

Then watch it.

It's an actor trying to play scientist.

False absurd facts is the basis of the movie.

Conrad923
04-29-2008, 01:58 PM
God i hate intelligent design and that stereotypical writing on the chalkboard was fucking disgusting. This is propaganda. I love how he states no facts, just says it might be wrong. Please show some proof besides hinting at some conspiracy of scientists. I love when the scientist who is supposed to bne "bad" say that as a scientist he is against this opposing doctrine. Of course he is, ID isn't science.

I neg rep ben stein

thats what i mean. why is ben stein doing this movie, shouldn't we have a respected group of teachers/scientists make this, not some washed up actor doing game shows and eye drop commercials

Scrub
04-29-2008, 01:59 PM
For the uninformed, now that science is taught in schools and actual scientific facts are presented about the creation of life, the churches got butt-hurt and decided to create their own theory of creation which really has no basis except promote the belief in god through lies and misleading information. Then they took their "theory" of intelligent design and tried to push it into schools as science.....

Scrub
04-29-2008, 02:01 PM
thats what i mean. why is ben stein doing this movie, shouldn't we have a respected group of teachers/scientists make this, not some washed up actor doing game shows and eye drop commercials

well he is a very well known person, and often interest groups/ movie makers find these well known "scholar celebs" (think al gore) and use them to promote their lame movies. Or Ben Stein wants 15 more minutes.

Black
04-29-2008, 02:04 PM
So horrible. Biggest propaganda piece ever. Funny to watch though.

Download it for a laugh.

Bart, I think your head would explode from watching it.

Damn, this is disappointing. I was hoping for some valid new arguments for ID, to balance all of the science saying otherwise. Stein is a pretty smart guy, moreso in economics, but regardless. I was hoping he of all people would have some decent points.

I'll watch it for the sake of watching it I guess. Today won't be the day I convert I suppose.

narwhal
04-29-2008, 02:04 PM
I believe he's completely behind the movie.

BART
04-29-2008, 02:10 PM
to me this is actually interesting. I've been wondering about our existence and debating over how we really came to be for awhile.interesting?! haha it is the question, isn't it? i agree, in fact i consider the question almost everyday...

BART
04-29-2008, 02:20 PM
food for thought

http://www.coldhardflash.com/swf/alan_watts_appling.swf

Dzan
04-29-2008, 02:26 PM
It is hilarious to watch someone flush their credibility down the toilet in one project. Granted Ben Stein already lost his years ago, but this one was a power flush.

del-a-where?
04-29-2008, 03:15 PM
food for thought

http://www.coldhardflash.com/swf/alan_watts_appling.swf

haha that was interesting, until i saw who produced it.



edit: i take that back, they DO have some intelligent work, just express it in a childish manner.

Utah
04-29-2008, 03:33 PM
thats what i mean. why is ben stein doing this movie, shouldn't we have a respected group of teachers/scientists make this, not some washed up actor doing game shows and eye drop commercials
I haven't seen it yet so I have no comment on the movie, but Ben Stein has an academic background that goes way beyond "washed up actor doing game shows and eye drop commercials".

He was a defense attorney (defended Nixon on part of the Watergate trial. The portion that Stein defended, Nixon was not convicted for)

Was also a speech writer for Nixon and for Ford...



I believe he's completely behind the movie.
Yeah, he completely spearheaded the project. I heard him being interviewed about it. Not sure what inspired him to do it, but it was his project...

BART
04-29-2008, 03:36 PM
haha that was interesting, until i saw who produced it.



edit: i take that back, they DO have some intelligent work, just express it in a childish manner.alan watts is a fairly well known philosopher who died in the 1970's. just because whats their faces are fans and took audio from one of his lectures and animated it doesn't make the audio stupid.

narwhal
04-29-2008, 03:45 PM
I haven't seen it yet so I have no comment on the movie, but Ben Stein has an academic background that goes way beyond "washed up actor doing game shows and eye drop commercials".

He was a defense attorney (defended Nixon on part of the Watergate trial. The portion that Stein defended, Nixon was not convicted for)

Was also a speech writer for Nixon and for Ford...



Yeah, he completely spearheaded the project. I heard him being interviewed about it. Not sure what inspired him to do it, but it was his project...

It's a huge leap from lawyer to scientist.

Utah
04-29-2008, 03:46 PM
It's a huge leap from lawyer to scientist.
Oh I agree. I was just pointing out to him that he's not just a washed up actor...

Dzan
04-29-2008, 04:09 PM
It infuriates me when people want ID to get "equal time." These people have no idea how science works. There aren't two sides to every debate just because some group of people want there to be, there are only as many sides in the debate as the evidence warrants.

Since there isn't a single shred of empirical evidence to even suggest at intelligent design but there is mountains of unassailable evidence that evolution is fact, asking for equal time would be like people that didn't believe in Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion asking for equal time.

If Intelligent Design becomes a robust theory that can withstand peer reviewed scrutiny it will get all the time it deserves. Right now, it gets all the time it deserves, which is to say none.

RexSkimmer
04-29-2008, 04:34 PM
ID is really a backwards step for humanity

narwhal
04-29-2008, 04:50 PM
I listened to seveal interviews with Stein. So I am not sure if it was from that or the trailer.

But he is quoted to saying, "The study of Evolution has not advanced what so ever since the time of Darwin."

Wow, just wow.

Scrub
04-29-2008, 04:53 PM
It infuriates me when people want ID to get "equal time." These people have no idea how science works. There aren't two sides to every debate just because some group of people want there to be, there are only as many sides in the debate as the evidence warrants.

Since there isn't a single shred of empirical evidence to even suggest at intelligent design but there is mountains of unassailable evidence that evolution is fact, asking for equal time would be like people that didn't believe in Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion asking for equal time.

If Intelligent Design becomes a robust theory that can withstand peer reviewed scrutiny it will get all the time it deserves. Right now, it gets all the time it deserves, which is to say none.

+10000

narwhal
04-29-2008, 04:53 PM
Dawkins Thoughts (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins)

Adam Hayward
04-29-2008, 04:58 PM
For the uninformed, now that science is taught in schools and actual scientific facts are presented about the creation of life, the churches got butt-hurt and decided to create their own theory of creation which really has no basis except promote the belief in god through lies and misleading information. Then they took their "theory" of intelligent design and tried to push it into schools as science.....

boy im glad the "churches" finally got around to creating their own theory of creation. its about dang time.

to think all these years just blindly believing in nothing with no explanation...

thank you for informing the uninformed

narwhal
04-29-2008, 05:02 PM
Creationism is a new word since the late 20th century to fight science.

So he is mostly right.

Adam Hayward
04-29-2008, 05:08 PM
It infuriates me when people want ID to get "equal time." These people have no idea how science works. There aren't two sides to every debate just because some group of people want there to be, there are only as many sides in the debate as the evidence warrants.

Since there isn't a single shred of empirical evidence to even suggest at intelligent design but there is mountains of unassailable evidence that evolution is fact, asking for equal time would be like people that didn't believe in Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion asking for equal time.

If Intelligent Design becomes a robust theory that can withstand peer reviewed scrutiny it will get all the time it deserves. Right now, it gets all the time it deserves, which is to say none.


I dont understand what you mean by evidence? Like carbon dating bones? Because that is based purely on theory, and is consistently proven inaccurate. Not that I dont agree that fossils can be dated, I just dont believe it to be so accurate as to not allow any margin for debate, to sell it as indisputable evidence.

I believe in adaptation within nature absolutely, there is plenty of evidence of that without a doubt. And to take that and use it as a fact supporting the theory of the evolution of life without admitting that there may be other possibilities I would consider being closed-minded. But I'm not entirely sure thats what you're saying.

Dzan
04-29-2008, 06:12 PM
I dont understand what you mean by evidence? Like carbon dating bones? Because that is based purely on theory, and is consistently proven inaccurate. Not that I dont agree that fossils can be dated, I just dont believe it to be so accurate as to not allow any margin for debate, to sell it as indisputable evidence.

I believe in adaptation within nature absolutely, there is plenty of evidence of that without a doubt. And to take that and use it as a fact supporting the theory of the evolution of life without admitting that there may be other possibilities I would consider being closed-minded. But I'm not entirely sure thats what you're saying.

You use the word "theory" and clearly don't understand what it means. I would go into depth of why evolution is an assailable fact at this point, but since you don't even seem to understand basic scientific jargon- the definition of the word theory, for example- I'm not sure it wouldn't be a huge waste of my time.

skimcowboy
04-29-2008, 06:25 PM
My history teacher told me carbon dating was a lie. I told him "So is Jesus."

BART
04-29-2008, 06:35 PM
adam - i don't think it's about dismissing other possibilities as much as simply acknowledging what is scientific and what is not... the problem most science educators have with creationism/ID being taught as science is that it is not a scientific theory. personally i have no problem with creationism being a part of public school cirriculum, but it belongs in the appropriate setting, which is philosophy or a comparative religion class, where students learn about religous worldviews.

Dzan
04-29-2008, 06:35 PM
Yeah, I don't get that argument about carbon dating. If the science behind carbon dating was a widely accepted fraud there would be a Nobel prize just sitting there waiting for a decent scientist to come up and say "carbon dating is bs and here is my proof." Fortunately, that is not the case and anyone who claims it to be a fraud probably has no clue what they are talking about.

The problem comes from the fact that while the science is airtight, the practice is an artform. It is difficult to test the age of some bones found next to a cro-magnon camp 15,000 years ago and wonder if they were contaminated by cinders from the campfire, or a lightning strike or any number of other factors that could influence the dating. You have to make a few reasonable guesses, but assuming an abundance of material from the same site (assuming that not everything found at the dig could be contaminated) you can check against each other to find the answer and throw out the outliers. If 98 out of 100 objects found at a site date to the same period and 2 are widely different, that doesn't disprove carbon dating, it just proves that there was some kind of contamination to those objects which threw off the measurement.

skimcowboy
04-29-2008, 06:38 PM
all this carbon dating is making me wanna play Half Life

Aaron Peluso
04-29-2008, 08:01 PM
pos rep for dzan and bart.

I agree with Stein that in principle, scientists should never be ostracized for having a minority opinion. The exception being if their arguments have no scientific merit. In that case, their "scientific" carreer should come to an immediate and abrupt end.

I personally have never seen nor heard of any scientific evidence for intelligent design. Lets keep in mind what the scientific method is.

Observation
Hypothesis
Experimentation (tests must be reproducable)
Conclusion

For evolution, we can experiment and test.

Intelligent design wants to jump straight from Observation to Conclusion. That is not science. That is science fiction.

clif
04-29-2008, 08:23 PM
Intelligent design wants to jump straight from Observation to Conclusion. That is not science. That is science fiction.


i agree 100%

BART
04-29-2008, 08:43 PM
pos rep for dzan and bart.

I agree with Stein that in principle, scientists should never be ostracized for having a minority opinion. The exception being if their arguments have no scientific merit. In that case, their "scientific" carreer should come to an immediate and abrupt end.

I personally have never seen nor heard of any scientific evidence for intelligent design. Lets keep in mind what the scientific method is.

Observation
Hypothesis
Experimentation (test must be repoducable)
Conclusion

For evolution, we can experiment and test.

Intelligent design wants to jump straight from Observation to Conclusion. That is not science. That is science fiction.

and perhaps the most important criteria is falsifiability. a scientific hypothesis or theory is falsifiable. ID/creationism is not falsifiable. if someone told me my computer router works only because invisible faries wearing invisible pink tank tops carry electrons across the electronics one by one, there is no way i could prove that wasn't true. in fact, there is a probability that such a thing is actually true. it's certainly not impossible. but because such a claim/hypothesis cannot be falsified, it is not a scientific theory.

In the same way, "God did it" is not falsifiable.

from what i understand, this is similar to the problem with string theory. one could never produce an observation or experiment that would test string theory in the real world, therefore some physicists do not take it seriously as a natural theory.

Aaron Peluso
04-29-2008, 08:57 PM
thats not entirely true.

there are many scientific theories that are/have been untestable to some degree.

special and general relativity.
many facets of quantum mechanics.
most of string theory.
the big bang.
"what goes on inside a black hole"

and all those are physics... which is the most rigorous scientific discipline.

all of these things are scientific in nature because they are based on sound underlying scientific principles and indirect hypothesis testing. While not directly testable, are testable in the sense that theories should match all future observations.

God did it, always matches all observatons. Problem is, it is a cop out.

Adam Hayward
04-29-2008, 09:14 PM
I agree that there is no science proving intelligent design at this point in time. Until now people who believe in God are required to have faith, anyone can see that, so trying to prove what is written in the bible via scientific method would prove an obvious lack of faith. So it is my belief that scientists who have been involved in proving otherwise have been those "out of the box" curious individuals looking for something more. And those curious individuals spawned more curious individuals and so on and so on until there is so much momentum away from faith that the church may see the need to get involved in science and prove with concrete evidence that God created man.

Please understand I am no where near properly educated in Christian History, The Bible or Science (just finishing my first college science course) so this is not an argument or something I intend on "winning" so comments like Dzan's attacking my knowledge of science or whatever are not necessary. My entire life is based on faith and feeling, I am not a science person but I will definitely be the last to judge guys like you, I would much rather talk about it so I can understand better.

Adam Hayward
04-29-2008, 09:19 PM
Furthermore, I do not agree with the churches need offer their "creationism" as school curriculum, nor do I agree with the entire idea of trying to 'prove' God.

Adam Hayward
04-29-2008, 09:24 PM
thats not entirely true.

there are many scientific theories that are/have been untestable to some degree.

special and general relativity.
many facets of quantum mechanics.
most of string theory.
the big bang.
"what goes on inside a black hole"

and all those are physics... which is the most rigorous scientific discipline.

all of these things are scientific in nature because they are based on sound underlying scientific principles and indirect hypothesis testing. While not directly testable, are testable in the sense that theories should match all future observations.

God did it, always matches all observatons. Problem is, it is a cop out.


I dont understand what makes the big bang theory science and God a copout?

if both both always match future observations, who is to say which is a copout? and whats more, what would be the motivation of said copout? please dont say money.

RavesIsBack
04-29-2008, 10:12 PM
I dont want to get into a huge debate about creationism/ID vs evolution, but let me just say the answer to what would be the motivation is always directly or indirectly money.

Adam Hayward
04-29-2008, 10:23 PM
Just to be clear, I mean what would be the purpose of inventing God? Not creationism, or deviations from Christ such as Catholicism.

Pure Christ followers, people that I know and grew up with, are as much as dirt poor. I know people in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and South America that are living in no more that rural ghettos and work at the local church or wherever they feel needed for no more than food. Jesus said be a servant to the poor, give to the needy, for nothing in return. I simply dont see how a doctrine such as this would be one crafted for monetary gain. I just dont see it. That isnt to say organizations havent twisted it over the years to turn out a profit, that would be shying from the truth, but is simply to say; why create God, why Jesus?

Scrub
04-29-2008, 11:14 PM
to make the nice souls like you look away while they hold you upside down and ring out your pockets.

just playing devil's advocate......

hobo
04-29-2008, 11:44 PM
my new theory i made 30 seconds ago

there was a devine higher authority but he killed himself turning it into a bunch of dust and a giant space that keeps expanding


the end

$ilky $kim
04-29-2008, 11:52 PM
Just to be clear, I mean what would be the purpose of inventing God? Not creationism, or deviations from Christ such as Catholicism.

Pure Christ followers, people that I know and grew up with, are as much as dirt poor. I know people in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and South America that are living in no more that rural ghettos and work at the local church or wherever they feel needed for no more than food. Jesus said be a servant to the poor, give to the needy, for nothing in return. I simply dont see how a doctrine such as this would be one crafted for monetary gain. I just dont see it. That isnt to say organizations havent twisted it over the years to turn out a profit, that would be shying from the truth, but is simply to say; why create God, why Jesus?
Money, please. Instead of telling people to do what you want you just tell them to do what God wants, oh and by the way God chose you and your friends to speak for him. That's a reason to create God and whether or not God exists that's exactly the scenario that has been going on for thousands of years whether it's God or Allah or Zeus. That and to explain things that are otherwise unexplainable. Not saying everyone who believes in God or preaches has an angle but if God doesn't exist it would still benefit a lot of people to invent him.

BART
04-30-2008, 12:18 AM
thats not entirely true.

there are many scientific theories that are/have been untestable to some degree.

special and general relativity.
many facets of quantum mechanics.
most of string theory.
the big bang.
"what goes on inside a black hole"

and all those are physics... which is the most rigorous scientific discipline.

all of these things are scientific in nature because they are based on sound underlying scientific principles and indirect hypothesis testing. While not directly testable, are testable in the sense that theories should match all future observations.

God did it, always matches all observatons. Problem is, it is a cop out.i noticed the 'to some degree' in your post, but im going to respond anyway because i'm not clear what you mean.

my knowledge of physics is obviously more limited than yours, but at least some of these theories have been used to make predictions, and those predictions are tested, which provides an opportunity for falsification. the big bang model was used to predict the cosmic microwave background radiation before the CMB was discovered. if the CMB was absent, contrary to the predictions of the theory, that would weigh into the acceptance of that theoretical model, and it would need to be reconsidered. in fact that's sort of what happened to the steady state theory when penzias and wilson made their CMB discovery, isn't it, steady state was more or less abandoned?

sure general relativity can be falsified. the theory makes predictions, the predictions are tested, it's just that the outcomes happen to be consistent with theory. wasn't there a flurry of experiments for exactly this purpose after einstein published his theory?

special relativity can be falsified: demonstrate time dilation doesn't exist. the thing is that it has been found that it does, as the theory predicts, but the opportunity for falsification was there.

for string theory i believe you're right, which is why some old school physicists have scoffed at the new school, from my understanding. but as a layman i don't know if that means predictions will always be impossible to test, or if we simply cannot test them due to our own technological/scientific limitations.

as for quantum mechanics my knowledge is too layman. but i seem to recall that quantum mechanics can and has been used to make verifiable predictions. pretty sure various technologies work on principles of quantum mechanics, which is an opportunity for falsification.

black holes, beyond me, i don't know how to answer that. but my point is most of these things seen potentially falsifiable to me. maybe that's the needed word i was missing, potentially.

if you're saying the theories can be used to make some predictions that cannot be tested, i don't think that really matters. maybe im just a nieve history major.

for "god did it" there is no possibility of falsification, not even potentially.

Aaron Peluso
04-30-2008, 12:52 AM
falsifiable is good. I wasnt contradicting what narwhal said, merely tempering it.

some brief examples.

Einsteins special relativity uses what are still called the lorentz equations. Lorentz (hope I am spelling that right) developed them about a decade before Einsteins special relativity. The equations as originally postulated by Lorentz called for objects to physically shrink in one dimension, as they accelerated. This was postulated as a way to rectify the fact that Michelson/Morely had recently found the speed of light to be constant. Which called for a completely new spatial geometry. One of the side affects of objects shrinking, is that it effectively slows down time as well. Supposedly (from what I have read) any clock you can build will slow down if shrunk according to the Lorentz equations (along with everything else, atoms etc). Einstein came along and said "that theory sucks". (not actual quote) He said that its not the objects shrinking causing slower clocks, it is time itself that is relative. He took Lorentz's equations, made the size constant and the time variable. Nobel prize. (though I think he actually won for wavelength energy postulations)

The interesting thing is that to this day we dont know that one is right. Einstein's theory is more popular because it is far more elegant. But no one really knows that it is right and Lorentz was wrong. Some have theorized that perhaps both can be right concurrently. Not falsifiable but still scientific?

General relativity - breaks down for small objects
Quantum Mechanics - Breaks down for Large objects

i.e. they are both falsified already. We already know thay are incomplete (i.e. incorrect)

But they are still taught as sound scientific theories, cause they are. They are our current best answer.

string theory - an attempt to join the two above together. has lots of problems/challenges.

black holes - horrendously complicated. theories about them change constantly. yet current theory is almost always presented as current fact, until two years later when we observe something new, or when popular opinion shifts for other reasons.

Any physicist worth anything will tell you that nearly every (if not all) scientific theories are incomplete/incorrect.

That doesnt mean that they arent our best answer. It just means that they arent THE answer.

god is THE answer if you are willing to believe things blindly based on stories handed down verbally for generations.

lol

Aaron Peluso
04-30-2008, 12:57 AM
if both both always match future observations, who is to say which is a copout? and whats more, what would be the motivation of said copout? please dont say money.

the earth is not 10,000 years old. So Christianity doesnt match current observations. Nevermind future...

IMO religion makes people feel secure, happy and have a tendency to live positive lives (for the most part). It provides a social function for many many people. Perhaps thats why it was invented? Maybe one of the religions is correct. In that case, the rest were still invented. Why? I dont know for sure. Maybe you should become a social anthropologist Adam?

heavyheavylowlow
04-30-2008, 01:08 AM
the earth is not 10,000 years old. So Christianity doesnt match current observations. Nevermind future...

IMO religion makes people feel secure, happy and have a tendency to live positive lives (for the most part). It provides a social function for many many people. Perhaps thats why it was invented? Maybe one of the religions is correct. In that case, the rest were still invented. Why? I dont know for sure. Maybe you should become a social anthropologist Adam?

i read a book in my philosophy class about 4 years ago which stated that exact same thing and i totally agree with it.

Black
04-30-2008, 01:20 AM
for "god did it" there is no possibility of falsification, not even potentially.
Exactly. This makes the arguments of Christianity no more or less valid than those of atheists, as neither can be falsified. (hence the ever-growing agnostics)

And on the purpose of religion:

Religion was or could have been created for saftey, security, and hope thousands of years ago. Just like various sports were created and popularized by the Romans and other civilizations to keep the public's mind off of politics or the current leader's fallacies. It all has (subconsciously) trickled down to today, and after hundreds of years of tweaking by "brainwashed" civilizations, here we are stand.

narwhal
04-30-2008, 03:04 AM
i read a book in my philosophy class about 4 years ago which stated that exact same thing and i totally agree with it.

Aaron most likely wrote that book.

narwhal
04-30-2008, 03:13 AM
Rep for Aaron and Bart, good convo.

I find it laughable when zealots (yes I refer to ID defenders at zealots) use the debate of, "Well Darwinist can't explain a lot of things." When the fuck did Darwinism become 1-800-explain. Darwinism covers a little corner of a huge question and that alone has more evidence then anything Genesis provides.

Hey Bart

Did you watch the new video with Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss on Dawkins' site? It's one of his best, mainly because Krauss. But it is very broad sort of interview/little speeches. (goes into a crap load of stuff) Check it out, if you have not seen it yet.

Dzan
04-30-2008, 03:24 AM
This makes the arguments of Christianity no more or less valid than those of atheists, as neither can be falsified. (hence the ever-growing agnostics)


Well it depends what the argument is. If you are debating the existence of God you're right their arguments are pointlessly equal and exist just to exercise intelligence. But if they are debating the natural world, their arguments are anything but equal.

narwhal
04-30-2008, 03:31 AM
Also I think Black is misusing the terms of nonbelievers.

Atheist is such a negative term in the modern day that few people want to be associated with it. (more agnostics)

Also a vast misunderstanding of the what an "atheist" actually is. (more agnostics)

Dzan
04-30-2008, 03:32 AM
Pure Christ followers, people that I know and grew up with, are as much as dirt poor. I know people in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and South America that are living in no more that rural ghettos and work at the local church or wherever they feel needed for no more than food. Jesus said be a servant to the poor, give to the needy, for nothing in return. I simply dont see how a doctrine such as this would be one crafted for monetary gain. I just dont see it. That isnt to say organizations havent twisted it over the years to turn out a profit, that would be shying from the truth, but is simply to say; why create God, why Jesus?

Because sex is fun. Eating pork is delicious. And so on.

Unlike truly immoral things like stealing or killing which are illegal in every society on earth, in order to get people to stop doing things that are quite natural and quite good you have to convince them that God told them not to. No one will listen to a random person telling them to stop having sex, but they might listen to a religious authority who says that. It stretches my imagination to believe that God cared- or still cares- about dietary restrictions and took the time to order us not to eat pork. That restriction, like almost all the others are nonsense and are clearly man made. Maybe the guy who originally said God said pork was bad was mentally ill rather than a megalomaniac, but at some point the megalomaniacs ran with it.

Utah
04-30-2008, 04:57 AM
Just to be clear, I mean what would be the purpose of inventing God? Not creationism, or deviations from Christ such as Catholicism.

Pure Christ followers, people that I know and grew up with, are as much as dirt poor. I know people in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and South America that are living in no more that rural ghettos and work at the local church or wherever they feel needed for no more than food. Jesus said be a servant to the poor, give to the needy, for nothing in return. I simply dont see how a doctrine such as this would be one crafted for monetary gain. I just dont see it. That isnt to say organizations havent twisted it over the years to turn out a profit, that would be shying from the truth, but is simply to say; why create God, why Jesus?
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but do you realize how much money the Catholic church is worth? Hundreds of Millions of dollars...

narwhal
04-30-2008, 04:57 AM
I would go into billions.

gulfster813
04-30-2008, 09:17 AM
For a scientific perspective on ID/creation: http://www.drdino.com/

narwhal
04-30-2008, 09:31 AM
For a scientific perspective on ID/creation: http://www.drdino.com/

hahahahahahahaha

gulfster813
04-30-2008, 09:35 AM
Wow, you really gave that website a shot! :/

narwhal
04-30-2008, 09:44 AM
I gave it a 7 minute read.

and it was ridiculous.

There was no "science prospective".

Aaron Peluso
04-30-2008, 10:01 AM
Maybe the guy who originally said God said pork was bad was mentally ill rather than a megalomaniac, but at some point the megalomaniacs ran with it.


maybe he owned a beef business.

Aaron Peluso
04-30-2008, 10:16 AM
For a scientific perspective on ID/creation: http://www.drdino.com/

When man inspects the earth, the biosphere, the world around us, we formulate hypothesis as to how things came to be as they are today. After data is brought in and analyzed, we can test our hypothesis and see what outcomes we're given. Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).
Now, we can see that both Creation and Evolutionism have non-testable aspects about them, and also testable aspects about them as well.


LOL.

How is this scientific. Creationists already have the truth? The scientific evidence supports the idea of a young earth? How? Use math to show me how. Seriously. Math.

The scientific evidence not only doesnt support the idea of a young earth, it supports exactly the opposite.

heavyheavylowlow
04-30-2008, 10:19 AM
Aaron most likely wrote that book.

haha your right he did. just checked. nah but seriously what i meant was that they said something just like that.

BART
04-30-2008, 10:23 AM
dr dino = kent hovind, drdino.com = hovind's personal website. it once had kent hovind all over it, but it looks like his name and pictures have been taken off, for the most part. probably has something to do with his conviction last year and 10 year prison sentence, and he didn't want to his name to taint his cause.

as far as his scientific credentials go, he has none. the guy gets way over his head and because nobody in his church audience knows what the hell he's talking about they assume it's true and that in 5 minutes he's utterly destroyed the theory of evolution and proven the creation. the guy is dispenser of nonsense. he got his "Ph.D" from here (I shit you not):

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/166/patriotuniv2sk8.jpg

narwhal
04-30-2008, 10:25 AM
hahahahaha I seriously just spit up some water.

I wish I could rep you.

Black
04-30-2008, 12:34 PM
I would agree, it depends on how everyone defines the specific terms used.
I use atheist for those with the the belief that God does not exist. Not in the sense that one rejects theism. That to me falls under agnostic.
I use agnostic for those that believe that the human mind does not have the capacity to ever really know Truth, or if basically someone is unsure what to believe or not.
And obviously a believer is one that believes that his faith allows him to know God/religion.

I'll add how I use the term knowledge or know: in order to count as knowledge, a statement must be justified, true, and believed. True would mean able to be tested by anyone, resulting in the same answer.

I actually heard a new argument, from Roy Masters. It is along the lines of:

For awhile, we only had our five senses to know what is truth. At some point, God gave or allowed humans the "sense" of faith, with which we can use to know He is real.

This, of course, requires belief in God in the first place to believe the premise, to ultimately believe in the conclusion. (Thus voiding the entire argument)

Interesting, though.

lil chuck
04-30-2008, 12:42 PM
dr dino = kent hovind, drdino.com = hovind's personal website. it once had kent hovind all over it, but it looks like his name and pictures have been taken off, for the most part. probably has something to do with his conviction last year and 10 year prison sentence, and he didn't want to his name to taint his cause.

as far as his scientific credentials go, he has none. the guy gets way over his head and because nobody in his church audience knows what the hell he's talking about they assume it's true and that in 5 minutes he's utterly destroyed the theory of evolution and proven the creation. the guy is dispenser of nonsense. he got his "Ph.D" from here (I shit you not):

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/166/patriotuniv2sk8.jpg


that place seems legit......

narwhal
04-30-2008, 12:52 PM
I would agree, it depends on how everyone defines the specific terms used.
I use atheist for those with the the belief that God does not exist. Not in the sense that one rejects theism. That to me falls under agnostic.
I use agnostic for those that believe that the human mind does not have the capacity to ever really know Truth, or if basically someone is unsure what to believe or not.
And obviously a believer is one that believes that his faith allows him to know God/religion.

I'll add how I use the term knowledge or know: in order to count as knowledge, a statement must be justified, true, and believed. True would mean able to be tested by anyone, resulting in the same answer.

I actually heard a new argument, from Roy Masters. It is along the lines of:

For awhile, we only had our five senses to know what is truth. At some point, God gave or allowed humans the "sense" of faith, with which we can use to know He is real.

This, of course, requires belief in God in the first place to believe the premise, to ultimately believe in the conclusion. (Thus voiding the entire argument)

Interesting, though.

Your terms are a little off.

I will be back for edit in a little.

Work just picked up for some strange reason.

EvanSullivan
04-30-2008, 01:00 PM
Intelligent design wants to jump straight from Observation to Conclusion. That is not science. That is science fiction.

Said very well.

Dzan
04-30-2008, 02:31 PM
the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1.

Oh man. I love this one. If the universe was only 6,000 years old it would stand to reason that we should only be able to see stars in the sky that are 6,000 light years away or less. Since we can see stars that are billions of light years away I cannot imagine how anyone can possibly hold that the universe is any younger than billions of years.

The actual counter I heard to the star light argument was that when God created the universe he placed the light from the stars already in place between us so that we could see them despite the distance. LOL. A candidate for Ockham's Razor if I ever heard one.

And if you think, "well maybe that did happen" I have a counter to that. When you look at stars through a spectrometer you can see the different wavelengths of radiation admitted by the star, some stars produce a ton of heat but low light, or lots of light but low radio waves etc. The point is, the electromagnetic waves carry the properties of that star. If the energy wasn't emitted from the star originally it wouldn't have all the properties of the star itself.

RexSkimmer
04-30-2008, 03:11 PM
this is a good read

it seems to me a lot of people would rather not know the more complicated truth to things. they would rather have a simplified storybook version, ignoring any evidence to the contrary, because it's easier for them to understand and deal with. basically ignorance is bliss.

Dzan
04-30-2008, 03:45 PM
I thought of another one. Let's say the universe is 6,000 years old. We look into the sky and see a star go super nova. That star is 100,000 light years away. Even assuming God puts the light from the stars between us when he created the universe how could he put the light from a super nova? You can't make the light from a nova because that would mean the star was destroyed before the universe was created.

THE MIRACLE OF FAITH

Black
04-30-2008, 03:46 PM
this is a good read

it seems to me a lot of people would rather not know the more complicated truth to things. they would rather have a simplified storybook version, ignoring any evidence to the contrary, because it's easier for them to understand and deal with. basically ignorance is bliss.

Yeah. I went through a short phase when I was pondering whether it was even worth it to try to learn and understand as much as I possibly could, or just say ''fuck it'', and just live life and die not really caring. Eventually I came up with a new slogan to live by:

Ignorance is bliss...but knowledge is power.

Aaron Peluso
04-30-2008, 03:49 PM
I thought of another one. Let's say the universe is 6,000 years old. We look into the sky and see a star go super nova. That star is 100,000 light years away. Even assuming God puts the light from the stars between us when he created the universe how could he put the light from a super nova? You can't make the light from a nova because that would mean the star was destroyed before the universe was created.

THE MIRACLE OF FAITH


god put the supernova light in between us and the star too. duh....

Adam Hayward
04-30-2008, 03:50 PM
the earth is not 10,000 years old. So Christianity doesnt match current observations. Nevermind future...

IMO religion makes people feel secure, happy and have a tendency to live positive lives (for the most part). It provides a social function for many many people. Perhaps thats why it was invented? Maybe one of the religions is correct. In that case, the rest were still invented. Why? I dont know for sure. Maybe you should become a social anthropologist Adam?

"the earth IS NOT 10,000 years old" or, the earth is believed to be much older than 10,000 years?

IMO when Jesus came, no one who followed him felt secure, and believing he was the Messiah was far from socially acceptable similar to how it is now, except then; punishable by death. Following Jesus then required no more money than it does now, it was not profitable or comfortable to be an apostle of Jesus. To believe in Jesus then, would be to go against the government and/or head churches of the time and would certainly not be the creation of one who wanted to create a society of blindly obeying citizens. When Jesus when into the church and saw things being sold within, he was infuriated and destroyed the marketplace, wouldnt it be a better story if he told everyone that they were gifts from God and to buy them?

There is clear written record of Jesus and his teachings, just as there is of Julius Caesar or George Washington. That is how we know they existed, of course anyone can choose to believe one and not the other but there is proof, albeit shaky.


Social Anthropologist huh? haha I dont know about all that...

Adam Hayward
04-30-2008, 03:59 PM
Because sex is fun. Eating pork is delicious. And so on.

Unlike truly immoral things like stealing or killing which are illegal in every society on earth, in order to get people to stop doing things that are quite natural and quite good you have to convince them that God told them not to. No one will listen to a random person telling them to stop having sex, but they might listen to a religious authority who says that. It stretches my imagination to believe that God cared- or still cares- about dietary restrictions and took the time to order us not to eat pork. That restriction, like almost all the others are nonsense and are clearly man made. Maybe the guy who originally said God said pork was bad was mentally ill rather than a megalomaniac, but at some point the megalomaniacs ran with it.

Not eating pork is long, long lost in the old testament once Jesus said eat what you want to eat and drink what you want to drink.

Having sex is also completely fine and sometimes described in graphic detail in psalms i believe, but I think you are referring to pre-marital sex and well, besides the obvious reasons of why people shouldn't do that there are incredible advantages to waiting that are not seen with the naked eye. Speaking from direct personal experience.

Dzan
04-30-2008, 04:10 PM
Having sex is also completely fine and sometimes described in graphic detail in psalms i believe, but I think you are referring to pre-marital sex and well, besides the obvious reasons of why people shouldn't do that there are incredible advantages to waiting that are not seen with the naked eye. Speaking from direct personal experience.

Actually, people who wait until they are married to have sex are significantly more likely to develop sexual dysfunction, so there are significant disadvantages to pro-longed virginity just so you're aware.

Should people have indiscriminate sex with random strangers? No. But that doesn't mean they should deny their humanity against every instinct and genetic programming in order to live an unnatural life of chastity. Fuck for fun, but be smart about it.

Dzan
04-30-2008, 04:11 PM
Not eating pork is long, long lost in the old testament once Jesus said eat what you want to eat and drink what you want to drink.


Well Jesus doesn't speak for the Jews or the Muslims and those two together outnumber followers of Jesus so...

Aaron Peluso
04-30-2008, 04:14 PM
IMO when Jesus came, no one who followed him felt secure, and believing he was the Messiah was far from socially acceptable similar to how it is now, except then; punishable by death. Following Jesus then required no more money than it does now, it was not profitable or comfortable to be an apostle of Jesus. To believe in Jesus then, would be to go against the government and/or head churches of the time and would certainly not be the creation of one who wanted to create a society of blindly obeying citizens. When Jesus when into the church and saw things being sold within, he was infuriated and destroyed the marketplace, wouldnt it be a better story if he told everyone that they were gifts from God and to buy them?

There is clear written record of Jesus and his teachings, just as there is of Julius Caesar or George Washington. That is how we know they existed, of course anyone can choose to believe one and not the other but there is proof, albeit shaky.


Social Anthropologist huh? haha I dont know about all that...
IMO when David Koresh came, no one who followed him felt secure, and believing he was the Messiah was far from socially acceptable similar to how it is now, except then; punishable by death. Following David Koresh then required no more money than it does now, it was not profitable or comfortable to be an apostle of Koresh. To believe in Koresh then, would be to go against the government and/or head churches of the time and would certainly not be the creation of one who wanted to create a society of blindly obeying citizens. When Koresh went into the church and saw things being sold within, he was infuriated.


Maybe not entirely analagous, but you have to admit that you can see my point.

I am not sure what your fascination with money is. I dont think anyone here is arguing that religion exists for profit?


"the earth IS NOT 10,000 years old" or, the earth is believed to be much older than 10,000 years?
really? The age of the planet earth is not 10,000 years. Or 6000 years. Or any number of years measured in "thousands". Mankind knows this with about as much certainty as we know that the earth is not flat.

RavesIsBack
04-30-2008, 05:23 PM
There is clear written record of Jesus and his teachings, just as there is of Julius Caesar or George Washington. That is how we know they existed, of course anyone can choose to believe one and not the other but there is proof, albeit shaky.
this isnt the argument, its the same argument the Jews make that he lived and was a good man but not the Messiah. Jesus can be proven to have lived and can be proven to have taught but it wont change the faith of people.

Adam Hayward
04-30-2008, 05:27 PM
David Koresh=Jesus? Come on, Aaron. Some of your guys' religious knowledge is a ignorant as my scientific knowledge, and you're supposed to be the guys who have got it all figured out!

David Koresh's "being the Messiah" was not even 1% supported by the bible and therefore was discounted as a false prophet by anyone with half a brain, not to judge those who were fooled into following him. What I am trying to say is; Jesus was supposed to come, then he did and people saw him and saw his miracles and believed in him and still do. What benefit would anyone in those days or these see in making that story up?

I further included arguments for why money could not be the motivation for Christianity because 6 people (im not sure how you missed them) still suggested it. Including your buddy Raves that you like to pick on retarded Halo players with ;)

BART
04-30-2008, 05:28 PM
i once heard that the difference between the age of the earth according to scientific understanding vs. the age of the earth according to young earth creationists, is the equivalent of saying the distance from New York to San Francisco is only 24 feet.

Any young earth creationist is basically claiming that the scientific understanding of the age of the earth -- which seems consistent across multiple scientific disciplines -- is off by a factor of a hundred million. of course there is a margin of error in any scientific measurement, but it's usually a much smaller factor, say 0.05x (5%), or even 20%, or whatever. sometimes it's obviously higher and sometimes lower, but a factor of 1,000,000x (which is 100 million percent)? just seems kind of amazing to me. that is a serious error, so serious in fact that it just seems very very improbable to me. a fighter jet built to a margin of error of 100,000,000% doesn't even have its wings in the same state.

Adam Hayward
04-30-2008, 05:36 PM
Actually, people who wait until they are married to have sex are significantly more likely to develop sexual dysfunction, so there are significant disadvantages to pro-longed virginity just so you're aware.

Should people have indiscriminate sex with random strangers? No. But that doesn't mean they should deny their humanity against every instinct and genetic programming in order to live an unnatural life of chastity. Fuck for fun, but be smart about it.


that may be so, but nowhere in the bible does it say deny your sexual urges until you are forty then get married and sex it up. it says; 'if you have fallen for someone and cannot resist them, commit yourself to them for life and then give into those urges. people often married in their teens in those days and divorce was non-existant in comparison to today, not to mention abortions, deadbeat dads, abondoned children and the like.

Dzan
04-30-2008, 07:03 PM
So with all those modern issues I would suggest we need a more modern philosophy.

RavesIsBack
04-30-2008, 07:04 PM
So with all those modern issues I would suggest we need a more modern philosophy.
remember this line when Narwhal busts in with "the Founders meant this"

Aaron Peluso
04-30-2008, 07:21 PM
David Koresh=Jesus? Come on, Aaron. Some of your guys' religious knowledge is a ignorant as my scientific knowledge, and you're supposed to be the guys who have got it all figured out!

David Koresh's "being the Messiah" was not even 1% supported by the bible and therefore was discounted as a false prophet by anyone with half a brain, not to judge those who were fooled into following him. What I am trying to say is; Jesus was supposed to come, then he did and people saw him and saw his miracles and believed in him and still do. What benefit would anyone in those days or these see in making that story up?
You tell me.

David Koresh reffered to him self as a Mesiah, as did others. His name change was literally chosen to infer that he was the Messiah. He believed that he was chosen by god to father a child that would be "the chosen one".

Koresh's followers "did not feel secure", and their beliefs "were not socially acceptable".

It was not "comfortable not profitable to be an apostle of Koresh"

To believe in Koresh would be to "go against the popular churches and governments of the time".

Nothing I said has anything to do with the bible, therefore my knowledge of the bible is irrelevant. I never said that Koresh being Messiah had anything to do with the bible. Why? Cause I dont care. That wasnt the point at all... In fact, my point was quite the opposite.

I just took your own words and showed how they apply to both Jesus (if he ever existed) and Koresh (wackjob). You can make your own conclusions about what you said.



I further included arguments for why money could not be the motivation for Christianity because 6 people (im not sure how you missed them) still suggested it. Including your buddy Raves that you like to pick on retarded Halo players with ;)

you were the first person to mention the word money in this thread. Everything else was a response to that.

immediately after raves posted that everything is always about money. that is a just a general worldview. He didnt say that religion was created for personal profit. "You said, please dont say that religion was created for money". He immediately responded, "everything is about money". Get it?

One other guy made an offhand remark, which was spurred by your own comment, that the Catholic Church is a wealthy entity. He did not say religion was created to make people rich. He was merely marvelling at how successful one church has been at attaining it. (since you brought it up and all...)

Both were random one line posts.

I failed to find the other four people who mentioed money in here. (3 others if you include yourself)

CustomKO
04-30-2008, 07:24 PM
im jesus , thread closed

Adam Hayward
04-30-2008, 08:34 PM
You tell me.

David Koresh reffered to him self as a Mesiah, as did others. His name change was literally chosen to infer that he was the Messiah. He believed that he was chosen by god to father a child that would be "the chosen one".

Koresh's followers "did not feel secure", and their beliefs "were not socially acceptable".

It was not "comfortable not profitable to be an apostle of Koresh"

To believe in Koresh would be to "go against the popular churches and governments of the time".

Nothing I said has anything to do with the bible, therefore my knowledge of the bible is irrelevant. I never said that Koresh being Messiah had anything to do with the bible. Why? Cause I dont care. That wasnt the point at all... In fact, my point was quite the opposite.

I just took your own words and showed how they apply to both Jesus (if he ever existed) and Koresh (wackjob). You can make your own conclusions about what you said.



you were the first person to mention the word money in this thread. Everything else was a response to that.

immediately after raves posted that everything is always about money. that is a just a general worldview. He didnt say that religion was created for personal profit. "You said, please dont say that religion was created for money". He immediately responded, "everything is about money". Get it?

One other guy made an offhand remark, which was spurred by your own comment, that the Catholic Church is a wealthy entity. He did not say religion was created to make people rich. He was merely marvelling at how successful one church has been at attaining it. (since you brought it up and all...)

Both were random one line posts.

I failed to find the other four people who mentioed money in here. (3 others if you include yourself)

I said please dont say money, he said, in effect: i hate to say it but; money, that is the reason. True it wasnt directed solely on religion, but partially it was. At any rate I went back and actually counted and it was four people who were "playing the devils advocate". No matter, it is far from the point and I was simply including it in the discussion for those 4 whether I understood them correctly or not.

To get back on track, I am still stuck at; why make up a "fairytale" such as the Bible? That is to say, the entire Bible. Not renditions of the bible that exclude the new testament or any other religion or church organization. Simply the teachings of Jesus. Why?

David Koresh does not explain that for me. I see what you were trying to say by using his name with my words, very crafty, but kind of straying from the question that I was trying to answer with that paragraph.

Utah
04-30-2008, 08:36 PM
Bob Marley was considered a prophet for what its worth. They got his picture on the cover of the phone books in Jamaica. I tried to steal one and that didn't go over too well. True story...

Adam Hayward
04-30-2008, 08:45 PM
So with all those modern issues I would suggest we need a more modern philosophy.

Why? What I was trying to say is that, the old one works. The thing about Jesus' teachings is that what is laid out in the Bible are simple guidlines, his main request is that when dealing with things of this nature to ask him. That may sound rediculous to you I know, but his Holy Spirit is supposed to be your acting "conscience" that you go to for all your needs. I am telling you, in its pure form, it is foolproof.

Utah
04-30-2008, 08:47 PM
I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the means. But I have read small segments here and there throughout life and during this thread that all supposedly "prove" how the earth was formed along with life, etc... through science.

I personally was brought up in a Presbyterian Church and still attend somewhat regularly. Naturally I consider myself a Christian and believe in God (I'm getting the feeling the majority of the people posting in the thread dont) and that he created everything around us.

While I believe that, I can't dismiss the facts that science has discovered...

I can though choose to believe that God created the process that resulted in earth and life forming. By doing so, the facts that the scientist have discovered would still hold up along with my faith.

Can I prove this? Of course not, its faith... I've only skimmed through this thread, but someone else (Bart I believe) pointed out that he doesn't mind ID being taught in school as long as it is placed in the right category. I wouldn't mind that. I realize that science has a formula it has to follow, and ID (being that it is faith based) in no way follows that formula...

narwhal
04-30-2008, 09:03 PM
Why? What I was trying to say is that, the old one works. The thing about Jesus' teachings is that what is laid out in the Bible are simple guidlines, his main request is that when dealing with things of this nature to ask him. That may sound rediculous to you I know, but his Holy Spirit is supposed to be your acting "conscience" that you go to for all your needs. I am telling you, in its pure form, it is foolproof.

Jesus' Teachings consist of unoriginal thought. But numerous teachers offered the same instructions centuries before Jesus (Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius, Epictetus...), and countless scriptures discuss the importance of self transcending love more articulately than the Bible does, while being unblemished by obscene celebrations of violence that we find through out the Old and New testaments. I find it to be bullshit when people admire Jesus' Teachings.

There are far better people to cling to. Jesus himself said in John 15:6, "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned."

RavesIsBack
04-30-2008, 09:08 PM
Jesus' Teachings consist of unoriginal thought. But numerous teachers offered the same instructions centuries before Jesus (Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius, Epictetus...), and countless scriptures discuss the importance of self transcending love more articulately than the Bible does, while being unblemished by obscene celebrations of violence that we find through out the Old and New testaments. I find it to be bullshit when people admire Jesus' Teachings.

There are far better people to cling to. Jesus himself said in John 15:6, "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned."
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll15/UCDRaves/popedeathstarye3.jpg

Adam Hayward
04-30-2008, 09:15 PM
I agree with you on that, whatever scientists may prove or feel they have proven, will not budge actual faith because for people (including myself) to think that they can fully comprehend the their meager existence in the universe is almost laughable.

narwhal
04-30-2008, 09:17 PM
You base these beliefs on the greatest of all books.

junwin
04-30-2008, 09:36 PM
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2764/sciencevscreationismjd7.gif

RavesIsBack
04-30-2008, 09:38 PM
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2764/sciencevscreationismjd7.gif
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/93/poster18555535jv2.jpg

junwin
04-30-2008, 09:47 PM
hahahahahaha i lol'd

i saw it on digg and thought it was appropriate

BART
04-30-2008, 10:49 PM
I agree with you on that, whatever scientists may prove or feel they have proven, will not budge actual faith because for people (including myself) to think that they can fully comprehend the their meager existence in the universe is almost laughable.i agree, such a thing would be laughable. but from my experience, science-oriented people (or at least the ones I read) don't claim to 'fully comprehend their meager existence.' the fact that the nature of reality is completely bizarre and an open question (and is awesome), is what the passion in science is mostly about, IME. and not just science, this is what drives philosophy too. science and philosophy are methods of inquiry into the nature of reality. the assumption of the scientist is that the full nature of reality is unknown. but who does make claims that they understand how the universe works, why we are here, what happens after life, and speaks in absolutes?

another thing i wanted to mention is that it seems you're assuming a duality of theism OR materialism. this or that, and that scientists are materialists, and theists are not. but science is not materialist in its essence, the materialism comes afterwards as a philosphical interpretation by a materialist human. it's a philosophy. just because science is a tool which takes a certain form, doesn't mean that it neccessitates a materialist interpretation of the universe. and just because it doesn't, doesn't mean that the alternative has to be theism. the percieved duality between theism and materialism is sort of a cultural fallacy.

Adam Hayward
04-30-2008, 11:25 PM
hmm. good food for thought.

I think you are getting that impression from my side of the argument because that seemed to be the basis for the discussion; the ability to prove creation with concrete evidence vs. believing in creation based on faith. Or theism vs. materialism. Of course that is not directly the argument, because as Peluso stated, science doesn't claim to be unarguably correct. On the other hand, people who believe in God don't necessarily completely disagree with scientists, as Utah mentioned, and to do so would be incredibly closed minded. I also think you are getting that impression because I am discussing it with Dzan and Peluso, materialists from birth.

BART
04-30-2008, 11:55 PM
i see what you mean

GTA IV break

Dzan
05-01-2008, 03:06 AM
Why? What I was trying to say is that, the old one works. The thing about Jesus' teachings is that what is laid out in the Bible are simple guidlines, his main request is that when dealing with things of this nature to ask him. That may sound rediculous to you I know, but his Holy Spirit is supposed to be your acting "conscience" that you go to for all your needs. I am telling you, in its pure form, it is foolproof.

Well the old one does not work. One only needs to look at Africa and the AIDS epidemic to see there is a serious flaw with the Christian view on sex and contraception and that flaw is having disastrous real world results.

You conscience is not the "holy spirit." When you do something your brain tells you is a good thing, you get a dopamine release which makes you feel good. People learn their behavior based largely, but not exclusively, on what will get them the most dopamine release. There really isn't anything mystical about it.

Back to the original point, the chemicals in our brain tell us to do one thing and religion tells us that our brains are wrong. It isn't the devil tempting is, its called hormones and is perfectly natural. The natural human tendency is to have sex when you are a teenager and continue having it your whole life, and mostly for pleasure not procreation. If I have to choose what is "right" and my two choices are 300,000 years of human evolution and genetic programming and a 3,000 year old desert tribe's superstition I will go with the one my genes tell me is right.

Aaron Peluso
05-01-2008, 11:59 AM
as Peluso stated, science doesn't claim to be unarguably correct. On the other hand, people who believe in God don't necessarily completely disagree with scientists, as Utah mentioned, and to do so would be incredibly closed minded.

Yeah, to do so would be incredibly close minded. Thats what everyone is saying....


I also think you are getting that impression because I am discussing it with Dzan and Peluso, materialists from birth.

You have no idea who I am as a person, where I have been and who I have been. You dont know where I come from, and you dont know me.

Aaron Peluso
05-01-2008, 12:05 PM
To get back on track, I am still stuck at; why make up a "fairytale" such as the Bible? That is to say, the entire Bible. Not renditions of the bible that exclude the new testament or any other religion or church organization. Simply the teachings of Jesus. Why?

David Koresh does not explain that for me. I see what you were trying to say by using his name with my words, very crafty, but kind of straying from the question that I was trying to answer with that paragraph.
I already gave you a plausible answer for why religion has been invented quite a while back (which you conveniently ignored). I also point out that even if Jesus and Christianity is 100% right, religion has still been invented, in various forms, both before and since Jesus. Why is a good question. But that question does not remove the undeniable fact that religion in at least some forms, has been invented.

The David Koresh thing was not intended to explain why religion started. It was intended to show you how your argument could plausibly be applied to both Jesus and Koresh. In my opinion, that means your argument was not a good one. But I leave that to the reader.

Adam Hayward
05-01-2008, 02:33 PM
You have no idea who I am as a person, where I have been and who I have been. You dont know where I come from, and you dont know me.

true. that was supposed to kinda be a joke but i guess not a good one. my b.

narwhal
05-01-2008, 02:39 PM
remember this line when Narwhal busts in with "the Founders meant this"

If I remember we were talking about the FF's thoughts on Foreign Policy.

If the Founders' advice is acknowledged at all, it is dismissed on the ground that we no longer live in their times. The same hackneyed argument could be used against any of the other principles the Founders gave us. Should we give up the First Amendment because times have changed? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify foolish policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity of a non interventionist foreign policy.

Adam Hayward
05-01-2008, 02:45 PM
I already gave you a plausible answer for why religion has been invented quite a while back (which you conveniently ignored). I also point out that even if Jesus and Christianity is 100% right, religion has still been invented, in various forms, both before and since Jesus. Why is a good question. But that question does not remove the undeniable fact that religion in at least some forms, has been invented.

The David Koresh thing was not intended to explain why religion started. It was intended to show you how your argument could plausibly be applied to both Jesus and Koresh. In my opinion, that means your argument was not a good one. But I leave that to the reader.

Right, you gave me some suggestions as to why you thought religion was invented, and I gave you that paragraph about how believing in Jesus didn't match those suggestions. When you changed it to David Koresh, you were kind of going off on a tangent about HOW religion could be invented when the topic was WHY. In my opinion, that means your argument was not a good one. But I leave that up to the reader.

As far as some religions being invented entirely by man, that is obvious. I am not trying to defend any religion except for Christianity, actual Christianity.

Aaron Peluso
05-01-2008, 02:58 PM
Right, you gave me some suggestions as to why you thought religion was invented, and I gave you that paragraph about how believing in Jesus didn't match those suggestions. When you changed it to David Koresh, you were kind of going off on a tangent about HOW religion could be invented when the topic was WHY. In my opinion, that means your argument was not a good one. But I leave that up to the reader.

As far as some religions being invented entirely by man, that is obvious. I am not trying to defend any religion except for Christianity, actual Christianity.

Actually, the topic is intelligent design.

Your topic is "why would religion be invented if it wasnt genuine". Presumably, to support your conclusion that religion is genuine... (christianity in particular). I feel that this is your real topic. Much like creationists, you already know your conclusion and are fishing for facts that can support that conclusion. Good for you, but I am not buying.

Koresh was not "a tangent". I cant think of a more direct response than literally your own words with proper nouns replaced. If my response was about how (instead of why), then by extrapolation, your post was about how instead of why. How could I change the topic without changing any of the words? How can that possibly be a tangent or straying from the topic you presented? Are you for real?

And let me once again emphasize, that the topic here is intelligent design versus evolution, particularly in reference to education and the scientific method.

If there are any tangents present here, I would say that your insistence to talk about why someone would create a religion (which is somehow "THE topic" now) would be a top canidate.

Furthermore, as we both agree that religion has been created, you will now never be able to argue that no one would create christianity, therefore it is real. So why dont we stop this and resume the real topic, which is much more interesting anyway?

Adam Hayward
05-01-2008, 03:28 PM
Actually, the topic is intelligent design.

Your topic is "why would religion be invented if it wasnt genuine". Presumably, to support your conclusion that religion is genuine... (christianity in particular). I feel that this is your real topic. Much like creationists, you already know your conclusion and are fishing for facts that can support that conclusion. Good for you, but I am not buying.

Koresh was not "a tangent". I cant think of a more direct response than literally your own words with proper nouns replaced. If my response was about how (instead of why), then by extrapolation, your post was about how instead of why. How could I change the topic without changing any of the words? How can that possibly be a tangent or straying from the topic you presented? Are you for real?

And let me once again emphasize, that the topic here is intelligent design versus evolution, particularly in reference to education and the scientific method.

If there are any tangents present here, I would say that your insistence to talk about why someone would create a religion (which is somehow "THE topic" now) would be a top canidate.

Furthermore, as we both agree that religion has been created, you will now never be able to argue that no one would create christianity, therefore it is real. So why dont we stop this and resume the real topic, which is much more interesting anyway?

I didn't say the topic of the thread is why invent religion. I said the topic of that paragraph, making it clearly 'my topic'. You dont have to discuss it if you dont want to, I'm not trying to get you off track of the initial conversation. Its just that you said at the end of one of your arguments: "problem is, God is a copout." I asked you how is He a copout and further; why? You provided some possibilities and I responded with an example of how followers of Jesus didnt match those possibilities. And your rebuttal was the Koresh thing. That is not an argument for: "religion makes people feel secure, happy and have a tendency to live positive lives (for the most part). It provides a social function for many many people. Perhaps thats why it was invented?". Sure you replaced all the proper nouns, but it read the same thing: religion does not always meet your ideas of why it was invented.

Aaron Peluso
05-01-2008, 04:25 PM
Your response was quite clearly your interpretation of the early days of Christianity, and HOW it arose.

If you want my direct response to your interpretation, here it is. Jesus probably never existed, and if he did what you "know" about him probably isnt anything like how he was. To me, the bible is most likely a fictional document, so to argue within the context of the bible is about as relevant as arguing why characters in the Chronicles of Narnia made the decisions they made.

People are different and make decisions for different reasons. I posted sound reasons why religion has prospered in human society long before Jesus' time, and long after. You posting a depiction of characters in a book does not sway me from my direct observation. Even if it was as you say with jesus and followers early on, it still does not disprove my thoughts on the matter.

In a world with hundreds of millions to billions of people, getting a few hundred people to do/think just about anything is not only possible, its probable.

Why did all those people drink the kool aid? I dont know, cause they were weak-minded? Draw your own conclusions and analogies....

Your questions are good. I admit, my answer was incomplete, but not incorrect. I dont think a full answer to that question is even possible, and certainly not in one line on the skim online message boards.

DrD
05-01-2008, 05:53 PM
Movie title says it all, no intelligence allowed in the film.

narwhal
05-11-2008, 09:58 PM
Ben Stein was Fox News' Player of the Week this week.

Fucking sad.

Joey M.
05-11-2008, 10:21 PM
"People who are confident in their beliefs are open to criticism."

True. You wanna what else is true about confident people? They're so secure in their beliefs that they don't need to post circle-jerking thread after circle-jerking thread bashing the beliefs of others.

narwhal
05-11-2008, 10:30 PM
Do you just want to come out and say your thoughts?

I could do without the extreme bouncer tool bag threads.

After the bashing from believers for centuries on non believers...it's nice to have a few decades of seeing it switched around. But a verbal debate is always better than The Inquisition, which I bet you prefer.

I also understand the 2 threads which bash creationist and fundamentalist were posted in a 2-3 week period. i plan to fight the urge of posting anything like these for awhile.

narwhal
05-11-2008, 10:39 PM
Joey

Do you enjoy my threads? I see you viewing alot of them. I hope you enjoy.

Joey M.
05-11-2008, 11:13 PM
Do you just want to come out and say your thoughts?

1.) As a life-long Christian, I do believe in the existence of a higher power beyond that which any science or individual can predict or control. I do not disavow any belief in science or even in the theory of evolution, but I do believe that what human beings are today is simply too magnificent to be the product of random chance; there has to be some kind of interplay here.

2.) The Bible is not a literal account of the lives of its characters; you can't live inside of a whale's stomach, snakes don't talk, slavery is not okay, and people don't live to be 900+ years old. Taking the Good Book's words literally is both foolish and dangerous. Instead, I believe it is a collection of stories whose lessons serve as guidelines for leading an honest and healthy life. Even if the Bible is completely made up, what the Church teaches today is honoring yourself and loving your friends and family. I know you might think that's dumb, but it serves as a compass to guide the lives of most of its practicioners.

3.) Religion is not to blame for catastrophe; The Crusades, Northern Ireland, 9/11, etc. are products of human nature, not religion. Thousands of people die in car accidents every year, but does that mean cars are to blame and not the drivers? There isn't one thing in existence that cannot be used or manipulated to harm someone else, religion included. The aforementioned events occured because someone decided to missue religion as a tool of destruction rather than as a guideline for living a healthy life.


I could do without the extreme bouncer tool bag threads.

And I, along with many others, could certainly do without your circle-jerking troll threads popping up every week.


After the bashing from believers for centuries on non believers...it's nice to have a few decades of seeing it switched around.

Oh yeah, two wrongs definitely make a right, even if it lowers your integrity and character to the point where you're really no better than the people who oppressed you.


But a verbal debate is always better than The Inquisition, which I bet you prefer.

That's rich coming from a guy who goes out of his way to heckle people of faith. Just face it, Nar; you're no better than the people you hate.

SkimNate
05-12-2008, 03:28 AM
good response joey.

and i just saw Raves pic. haha +1

edit: owned.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RavesIsBack again.

narwhal
05-12-2008, 05:07 AM
The Bible is not a literal account of the lives of its characters; you can't live inside of a whale's stomach, snakes don't talk, slavery is not okay, and people don't live to be 900+ years old. Taking the Good Book's words literally is both foolish and dangerous. Instead, I believe it is a collection of stories whose lessons serve as guidelines for leading an honest and healthy life. Even if the Bible is completely made up, what the Church teaches today is honoring yourself and loving your friends and family. I know you might think that's dumb, but it serves as a compass to guide the lives of most of its practicioners.

See I find this defense humorous. First off if A through F represent the proven false hoods (or bad morals) of the bible and G represents the good part of Jesus' message. If A through F are wrong...what makes G and anything else right in the Bible? The entire religon is based on this book, you admit it's wrong. (or you can't take it literal, way to cover your holy book in shit) I find it as crazy as your entire faith is based on the Bible but all of a sudden it means nothing...all the rape, slavery, horrible moral tenants, unoriginal message....but hey I want to accept the Jesus part! Good for you!


3.) Religion is not to blame for catastrophe; The Crusades, Northern Ireland, 9/11, etc. are products of human nature, not religion. Thousands of people die in car accidents every year, but does that mean cars are to blame and not the drivers? There isn't one thing in existence that cannot be used or manipulated to harm someone else, religion included. The aforementioned events occured because someone decided to missue religion as a tool of destruction rather than as a guideline for living a healthy life.

That is a horrible fucking argument. First off our cars don't have clear cut lines as "kill the infidels" (or nonbelievers). It's one thing to say people take it too 'literal" but to claim religon is not to blame is laughable.




That's rich coming from a guy who goes out of his way to heckle people of faith. Just face it, Nar; you're no better than the people you hate.

Yeah last I checked, I have never physically confronted someone on their beliefs. (also my beliefs don't have such a huge sick track record)

RavesIsBack
05-12-2008, 05:29 AM
1. See I find this defense humorous. First off if A through F represent the proven false hoods (or bad morals) of the bible and G represents the good part of Jesus' message. If A through F are wrong...what makes G and anything else right in the Bible? The entire religon is based on this book, you admit it's wrong. (or you can't take it literal, way to cover your holy book in shit) I find it as crazy as your entire faith is based on the Bible but all of a sudden it means nothing...all the rape, slavery, horrible moral tenants, unoriginal message....but hey I want to accept the Jesus part! Good for you.

2. That is a horrible fucking argument. First off our cars don't have clear cut lines as "kill the infidels" (or nonbelievers). It's one thing to say people take it too 'literal" but to claim religon is not to blame is laughable.


3. Yeah last I checked, I have never physically confronted someone on their beliefs. (also my beliefs don't have such a huge sick track record)
ok I am just going to say this shit before i sleep so dont expect a speedy reply or a reply at all:

1. Christianity is based on the belief in Christ as lord and savior, not the Bible. The Bible is a teaching of His work but is not the religion hence why, as he put, a literal interpretation would be dangerous. What makes whats right in the Bible is opinion for any one no matter what you try to say. You may think its right or wrong, but you may think lots of things are right or wrong so thats a foolish point to make anyway. A to F might not even be wrong, maybe it is, maybe they are saying it is, maybe we dont know, maybe its your opinion what is right and wrong. The Bible tries to paint a picture of life guidelines about what is right and wrong, but its the individuals that are going to set the standard. Can all of us universally agree that murder is wrong? then what about those that murder? do you believe murder can be justified? Life is subjective.

2. You clearly missed the point again. His analogy was clear and made sense. Its not the vehicle (in this case religion) its the person driving the vehicle (people that use religion as a force of destruction.) Believe what you want and thats fine but his analogy was sound. and I do understand your point that the car doesnt preach kill while the religion does, but I dont believe the religion does so again falls on the people.

3. Your beliefs dont have such a sick track record? How many people who dont fear God or are atheists have gone and killed for whatever reason? If they had found God would it have been different? Plenty of atheists or agnostics have killed in the name of whatever (money, vengeance, power, etc.) but does it make a difference to those murdered? Saying you kill for religion makes headlines, saying you did it for God makes headlines. Plenty have killed in His name, plenty have killed for other reasons, your argument is solely based on the fact that we keep track of one and so you believe it to be worse.


I know this is just another religion argument we have already had, but I am just saying his points that were clear. We wont need to get into another debate about it, I know where you stand. Just looking at what Joey said and what you said this is how I broke it down and doesnt really need to be further drawn out, but it inevitably will :(

narwhal
05-12-2008, 05:50 AM
ok I am just going to say this shit before i sleep so dont expect a speedy reply or a reply at all:

[QUOTE]1. Christianity is based on the belief in Christ as lord and savior, not the Bible. The Bible is a teaching of His work but is not the religion hence why, as he put, a literal interpretation would be dangerous. What makes whats right in the Bible is opinion for any one no matter what you try to say. You may think its right or wrong, but you may think lots of things are right or wrong so thats a foolish point to make anyway. A to F might not even be wrong, maybe it is, maybe they are saying it is, maybe we dont know, maybe its your opinion what is right and wrong. The Bible tries to paint a picture of life guidelines about what is right and wrong, but its the individuals that are going to set the standard. Can all of us universally agree that murder is wrong? then what about those that murder? do you believe murder can be justified? Life is subjective.

The religon is based on the Bible. Am I wrong? I have been to several domination services at the services reflect the bible in most all cases. Not to mention most every domination bases it's entire beliefs system on quotes of the Bible.


2. You clearly missed the point again. His analogy was clear and made sense. Its not the vehicle (in this case religion) its the person driving the vehicle (people that use religion as a force of destruction.) Believe what you want and thats fine but his analogy was sound. and I do understand your point that the car doesnt preach kill while the religion does, but I dont believe the religion does so again falls on the people.

Humans are imperfect. I think we can all agree that. Certain religions when put in the hands of people can result in bad things. Religion has fueled violence for a long time. When the Chuch officially condoned the Inquisition, it was started on one phrase of the Bible.


3. Your beliefs dont have such a sick track record? How many people who dont fear God or are atheists have gone and killed for whatever reason? If they had found God would it have been different? Plenty of atheists or agnostics have killed in the name of whatever (money, vengeance, power, etc.) but does it make a difference to those murdered? Saying you kill for religion makes headlines, saying you did it for God makes headlines. Plenty have killed in His name, plenty have killed for other reasons, your argument is solely based on the fact that we keep track of one and so you believe it to be worse.

Last I checked atheism has never been used for senseless murder. People love to mention Mao or Stalin (even Hilter, which is the most humorous), which may have been 'atheist' but never did their killing in the actual name of atheism like you have seen in the name of Christ or Allah for centuries. Just because someone does not give a fuck on religious trivial, does not make them a atheist.

LAXitives288
05-12-2008, 12:52 PM
I'm not sure if this has been brought up because I didn't really want to read 5 pages of theological debate but in my limited(very) experience the best backing for ID that I have ever come across is "the Last Question" by Isaac Asimov. I say this because it is the only piece of information that has ever made me question the idea that there is no god.

http://www.swiftgear.com/last_question(short).html - Short Version

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html - Long Version


The long version is worth the read IMO.

DrD
05-12-2008, 01:28 PM
2.) The Bible is not a literal account of the lives of its characters; you can't live inside of a whale's stomach, snakes don't talk, slavery is not okay, and people don't live to be 900+ years old. Taking the Good Book's words literally is both foolish and dangerous. Instead, I believe it is a collection of stories whose lessons serve as guidelines for leading an honest and healthy life. Even if the Bible is completely made up, what the Church teaches today is honoring yourself and loving your friends and family. I know you might think that's dumb, but it serves as a compass to guide the lives of most of its practicioners.

This I can agree with, I believe the Bible was made to put certain rules in place. Whether they are right or wrong is up to each individual, some may follow all and others may only follow a few rules. It is interesting though to see how the Bible has effected our population as a whole (This includes religious people and atheist as well). Monogamous relationships are a cause of the Bible's teachings, as well as property (which is where marriage comes from).


3.) Religion is not to blame for catastrophe; The Crusades, Northern Ireland, 9/11, etc. are products of human nature, not religion. Thousands of people die in car accidents every year, but does that mean cars are to blame and not the drivers? There isn't one thing in existence that cannot be used or manipulated to harm someone else, religion included. The aforementioned events occured because someone decided to missue religion as a tool of destruction rather than as a guideline for living a healthy life.

Doesn't the Bible say to kill others who do not believe?

BART
05-12-2008, 02:02 PM
I'm not sure if this has been brought up because I didn't really want to read 5 pages of theological debate but in my limited(very) experience the best backing for ID that I have ever come across is "the Last Question" by Isaac Asimov. I say this because it is the only piece of information that has ever made me question the idea that there is no god.

http://www.swiftgear.com/last_question(short).html - Short Version

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html - Long Version


The long version is worth the read IMO.interesting story, i like asimov. this story reminded me of Kafka.

important to note that the AC is restarting the universe he evolved from. it is an interesting play about the ultimate product of cosmic evolution (basically an omnipotent God-like entity), an idea i play around with myself. it's also an interesting play with an endless cycle of the cosmos.

but for me, it really doesn't shine much light on the 'is there a creator' question because the universe was required first for the AC to evolve from, wasn't it? we're back to chicken or the egg debate, and this story does nothing to make an argument for one over the other (i don't think that was asimov's intent anyway).

Dzan
05-12-2008, 02:21 PM
Monogamous relationships are a cause of the Bible's teachings, as well as property (which is where marriage comes from).


Wrong. Humans have engaged in monogamy as far back as we have records of humans existing. Ancient Sumerians engaged in marriage 3000+ years before the Old Testament was written. Greeks engaged in marriage 1500+ years before the New Testament was written. "Heathens" in China got married for thousands of years before they ever heard of the God of Abraham. Aztecs, Incas and Mayans all practiced marriage in their happy isolation for thousands of years before hearing about Jesus and being killed by His followers.

People had private property before the Bible too, just as far back as we have records of humans existing. How you can suggest the Bible had anything to do with private property is beyond me.

Just wondering, what year do you think the Bible (old and new testaments) was written, and when in relation to that do you think human civilization started?

DrD
05-12-2008, 03:07 PM
Hmm, thought it was much older.

Dzan
05-12-2008, 04:50 PM
Hmm, thought it was much older.

Moses is purported to have lived in the 14th century BC, and as he is the primary "author" of the Old Testament he cannot have written it any earlier than that. Moses, however, did not write the Old Testament (nor did he even exist, to be fair) all of which were collected at a significantly later time than the 14th century. Modern scholarship puts the actual writing of the Old Testament to the 5th century BC, though many of the traditions were obviously oral and originated older.

To put it in perspective, when the Old Testament was first written (say 400bc to pick a round average number):

The city of Rome was already 400 years old
The city of Athens was already 1100 years old
The city of Memphis in Egypt was 2700 years old
The city of Akkad was 3500 years old
The city of Ur was 3700 years old

Marriage was practiced in all of these place from the very start.

Dzan
05-12-2008, 04:53 PM
And since our Orangutan ancestors are even more faithfully monogamous than we are, I'd say that marriage is older than the human race by millions of years, I'd probably even suspect that some dinosaurs formed monogamous life pairs.

Joey M.
05-12-2008, 10:36 PM
I'd probably even suspect that some dinosaurs formed monogamous life pairs.

Well DUH! Haven't you ever seen the show "Dinosaurs?!"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101081/