Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Arch

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    953
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Arch

  1. Arch

    The Blasphemy Challenge

    I'm not sure what you're asking, or what you think I was saying. I didn't bother to watch any of the videos. I was put off by the thought of watching people swearing and taking God's name in vain. Just didn't appeal to me. But if Loungehead is right, that's not what I would have seen. I didn't mean anything by my statement. Regards, Arch.
  2. Arch

    The Blasphemy Challenge

    *Puts foot in mouth*
  3. Arch

    Irreducible Complexity.

    Lol, it's okay Ryyker, the English was fine I don't think I've had any problem understanding the concept. I just don't think Behe got it right. I rejected it because I don't think it applies to evolution. No, if you go back through a lot of my posts you'll see I've been trying to clarify the two definitions and work out which one should be used. I'd consider that an attempt to reveal what IC actually is, not an attempt to obscure. What smoke? I've been completely upfront. There's two definitions and I don't agree with the one you're using. Despite that I've stated I'm willing to test your definition against evolutionary theory and see where we go. Seriously, can we stop the pointless finger pointing for five minutes and actually talk on the same level? Regards, Arch.
  4. Arch

    Darwin Said This !

    Sorry Jason, I misread your post. Somehow I managed to miss the word 'coral' in the second paragraph and thought you were still talking about peacocks. Clearly I need more sleep or coffee Java! I demand beans at once! Regards, Arch.
  5. Arch

    Evolution And Atheism

    Well it's certainly one of the factors, although not the main one. If science was to come into it, I'd say the geological record would be the main scientific reason I'm an atheist. Regards, Arch.
  6. Arch

    Random Misconception

    You're a little right and a little wrong Ike, but for once I wanna concentrate on the part I think you're right about Natural selection does require a degree of intelligence. The animal is selected based on how well it can adapt to it's environment. If it is smart and resourceful, it has a much better chance of surviving. So working naturally, natural selection can use intelligence as a driving factor. I mean to say, that was one of the main factors in humans becoming the dominant species. Regards, Arch.
  7. Arch

    Darwin Said This !

    This statement completely contradicts itself. Regards, Arch.
  8. Arch

    The God Theory.

    Not at all It occurs often enough and I know I've been guilty of blocking out other possibilities before, so it's hardly an unfair assumption to make. Again, I don't think having a slightly different philosophical approach should change the science being done. It will of course offer a difference in bias But it seems as though you're fishing for someone to give a definition of creation science philosophy, which I'd also be interested in learning. So I think I'll stop arguing the point and see if someone can fill us in on this, rather than making my own assumptions Regards, Arch.
  9. Arch

    Literal Evolution.

    Sorry for the two posts, but you raised a lot of good points I wanted to cover. Back to it ... I've been over this with you before Ike. Here and FRDB are the only debate sites I have an account at. And I only made an account at FRDB when Adam decided to have that official debate. Feel free to search me if you don't believe. I don't know if FRDB keeps dates for signing up on the account anywhere, but if you can check it you'll find I'm telling the truth. My internet alias is always Arch, ArchDragon or Firebrand as I can't be bothered remembering alternative names. You can also find those same names on Deviantart and World of Warcraft. Even my personal website is Arch-dragon.com So go nuts. I have nothing to hide. (On that note there is another Arch at FRDB who I was identified with early on. I made sure people knew we weren't the same person within my first few weeks here). Does he? I read The God delusion recently and he definitely offers it as a plausible alternative, but never stated it was what he believes happened. Of course, that book is a couple of years old now. I disagree, and I think the forums here and even at FRDB will back me up for the most part. I doubt I would have too much trouble finding 2 or 3 passages that restrict woman from preaching. What do you do when you have conflicting messages like this? Also, how useful is using every word in the interpretation? Wouldn't you need to understand ancient Hebrew for that to work? Sorry that's a little unfair of me, do you understand Hebrew? Or Greek? I'm sure other people have similar methods of testing their interpretations against Biblical writings, and I'm sure they think their method is foolproof too. My point is that your method is just another way of interpreting and I don't see how it's more accurate than others. You can point to a lot of stories in the Bible that show woman in preaching roles, but on the other hand you have a couple of passages that explicitly state they can't. Which do you choose? That said, I think you have a fairly solid method and I definitely agree with your interpretation Regards, Arch.
  10. Arch

    Literal Evolution.

    Yes, of course. Tolerance is often required, especially when religion is involved. Or football The problem is Ike that you don't like it when others make this kind of remark, but feel justified to make them yourself. I prefer the practice what you preach tactic. You know, lead by example? Yes Ike, I think I do understand. What you don't seem to understand is that this kind of thread only insights the anger, rather than trying to douse it. That's great, but you assume that others have been around this debate as long as you have. There is every chance others haven't heard the answers to these questions. I know I haven't. But instead of trying to educate newbies like me you get on your high horse and make posts like this one. I know you're probably bored of answering the same question again and again, but if you want to teach people that's the only way to go about it. People come to a forum like this looking for answers (we hope) and instead they get rants on evolution teaching people to kill the retarded. Other than allowing you to vent, who do you think this helps? Yes more than likely. But I thought that's the point you were trying to get across? That this is what evolution teaches as a whole? I don't see the point in picking on the occasional crazy person who preaches death in the name of evolution or religion. If it's not how the majority feels then it's not what's being taught. I'd still be interested in seeing the crazy nut-job who's going around saying we should kill off the retarded because evolution demands it. And here you go again with your absolutes. This atheist would not have said religion was to blame. You're talking about some very troubled individuals. Probably in some way mentally retarded themselves. If they didn't blame evolution, they'd blame religion. If not religion, video games. You know, as long as it's not their own fault. I'm not talking about any other time Ike, I'm talking about this time. And what would that prove Ike? I can do the same thing reading Christian blogs. We both agree that it's wrong, right? So why do you repeat it here? I can't speak for every site, but I've seen it done here and at FRDB. Sorry Ike, but if you're going around saying that evolution teaches people to kill the retarded then I've got no problem with you being banned. Regards, Arch.
  11. Arch

    Literal Evolution.

    I disagree. But perhaps colony would be a better word. A while ago I started reading a book that delved into this territory. Take for example ants. No one tells them to build giant nests, but still they do it (the notion that the queen ant gives the orders isn't actually true. If fact, there are some who look upon the queen as a slave of the colony and not its head). Humans are the same. At what point were we told to build cities? To share food and shelter? To develop governments? The way ants build a nest bares many resemblances to how humans build cities and at no point did a single individual hand out instruction sheets. That is herd mentality. Regards, Arch.
  12. Arch

    Boxing The Creator Out

    Hey totten, sorry it's taken so long to respond. I found your post quite enlightening, and wanted to mull it over longer than usual. Not at all. Of all the posts I've read I find yours and Bex the most compelling. Strangely the two of you would be the first to admit a lack of knowledge in regards to evolutionary theory and history. I don't think an in-depth understanding of sciences makes you any better at preaching There's a story I heard many years ago that seemed appropriate. A child asked his mother if he could have lunch in the park one day. His mother agreed and gave him a packed lunch and send him on his way. When he got to the park he met an elderly lady, who asked him what he was doing out on his own. The two got chatting and the little boy shared his lunch with the woman. When he got home his mother asked him what he'd done all day, to which he replied "Today I had lunch in the park with God, and she's a woman". Upon arriving home the elderly woman's husband asked her the same question, to which she replied "Today I had lunch in the park with God, and he's a lot younger than I realised". This story highlights what I believe, and that is that God exists in all of us. He is the name we give the good in us. So when you say that God is with you, that I believe. Regards, Arch.
  13. Arch

    Irreducible Complexity.

    Rykker, is seems to me your entire point rests on your definition, which I think is flawed. I don't see why I should accept it just because you want me to. The definition you have given of IC, I believe is real, however I don't think it applies to evolution in the way you think it does. However, there is no reason we can't still go ahead and test evolution using your definition. Perhaps once we start applying it it will become apparent where it is flawed? Absolutely. But you seem intent on using your definition and no other, regardless of what others say. This learning and discussing thing needs to be a two way street, and not just you trying to tell the rest of us what you believe is right. If you want to test evolution with your definition I'm ready and willing Regards, Arch.
  14. Arch

    Darwin Said This !

    As much as I disagree with the opinion (and be careful, I've heard a few 'quotes' like this supposedly from Darwin that turned out to be a lie), each to their own. Who cares? Because mutations have a bad connotation that they don't necessarily deserve. Regards, Arch.
  15. Arch

    Did God Create Evil?

    Good example larry I like that one. To disobey God would be a sin, however it is not necessarily an evil act. Which is a concept I find interesting. It is possible to be disobedient to God but still be a perfectly good person. What do you think larry? When the time comes for judgment should people be judged on whether they lead sinful or evil lives? Obviously there's going to be a lot of overlap here; in fact most of it probably overlaps, but there's definitely gaps and I think that's where things start to get interesting Well I agree with the sin = not complying with God part, but I'm not sold on the evil one. In the old testament God ordered the killing of countless people, including their woman and children so the land could be delivered to His chosen people. In this extremely rare case I'd say that acting for God was evil. Again it comes down to perspective, and God's isn't the only perspective. Regards, Arch.
  16. Arch

    The God Theory.

    Sorry Loungehead, but I don't see the need to differentiate. Regardless of the field you are in there are certain methods that need to be upheld for it to be called science. I don't see why secular science should have different rules to creation science. They're both science after all. It may not always be apparent in my writing, but I do. As you said later in your post "you probably still won't agree with the conclusions, but it will give you insight." When I first came here I was interested in finding out how the 'other side' thought. I couldn't for the life of me believe that all creationists were wack-jobs, like is so often portrayed. And after reading through many months of posts I still don't agree with the creationist perspective, but I can at least appreciate how one might be lead there. No doubt, and I know I've been guilty of doing as such. Probably more often than I'd like to admit Again I want to reiterate that I don't see why two sciences should rely on solely different methodologies. And if they do, how will we ever reach a unanimous conclusion? If creation science has ways of testing for the supernatural I don't see any reason why secular science couldn't use the same methods. Regards, Arch.
  17. Arch

    Beginning, And Fine-tuning Of The Universe

    Sorry Elohim, that's not actually true. The Big Bang is a description of what happened at the beginning of the universe, but it says nothing about what came before. Whether or not anything existed before the bang is a mystery. A common conception, but one I don't fully agree with. I prefer to think that life is extremely fine tuned to exist in the universe, not the other way around. There isn't a great deal of difference between the two phrase, but the wording you're using implies that the universe was specifically set up to host life, rather than life managed to find a way to survive despite the odds. By the way, I don't think I've said hello to you before. So...hi Regards, Arch.
  18. Arch

    What If There Were No Mutations

    Hey Adam. Unfortunately I heard this one from someone else on the forum, so I can't provide a link, but I believe there is a family who have passed on the genes of incredibly strong bones to their children. To my knowledge there is no adverse effects. As for the living forever, I think we'll need some very impressive, human induce gene therapy to achieve that. But I also don't think it's impossible. I love sci-fi Regards, Arch.
  19. Arch

    Did God Create Evil?

    I guess this kind of depends on which God you follow, but the promised land has been given to more than one people by their God. Now in all likelihood only one (or neither) God exists and only one promise has been made. But how exactly does man go about proving which promise is the real one? That is the implication I see with philosophik's reasoning. Regards, Arch
  20. Arch

    Did God Create Evil?

    I agree with the statement Ike, but I'm wondering if you've considered the implications? If good and evil are perspective based, then sin is simply evil from God's perspective. I'm not sure what implications this has exactly, but I think it's an interesting line of thought to go down. It seems philosophik has already started considering some things. Regards, Arch.
  21. Arch

    The God Theory.

    Yes, maths or fossils could be applied to God, and if found accurate could be claimed as scientific. I agree these things shouldn't be limited to evolution, or even natural sciences. Could you please show the God formula, His bones, or any other evidences you consider empirical? Agree. This has been mentioned before, so I assume you are talking about supernatural possibilities? The problem is that no one has ever found a way of identifying or studying the supernatural. By definition I don't think it's possible. How exactly should science go about considering these other possibilities? I don't quite buy the idea that science and religion are separate. I think it's unfortunate, but there is definitely overlap. This certainly isn't the first time a science has written off a god. Zeus was no longer needed when lightening was explained. Ceres when fertility and photosynthesis was studied. Aphrodite when biological chemicals were discovered...etc etc. Indeed. That similarity (although I wouldn't say it's foundational) is the explanation for humanities creation, and life's diversity. Umm...that's exactly what I was saying . By your logic, yes it does. But I don't agree with that logic. Regards, Arch.
  22. Hey Jason, For obvious reasons my praying might be a little wasteful (dishonest?), but I recognise that an overdose of pride is only going to do you harm in the long run. My thoughts will be with you. Good luck -Arch
  23. Too right, and it's my own fault on that one. I was using 'evolution' in a much broader sense of the word, and not specifically referring to biological evolution, micro or macro. My mistake, I really should have clarified this. With the "Change + heredity + selection, must = evolution", I've personally found it easier to think of it in terms of machinery. Take car manufacturers. You start with an old fashion car, design 1. Then the next generation of cars come out. They're mostly the same as design 1 (heredity), but some subtle changes have been made. This is design 2. When they go to build design 3, some of design 2's functions are selected as being beneficial to the schematics. These are inherited with even more changes. Looking back over the generation of cars we often refer to its 'evolution'. I also think this applies to micro-evolution, which as Rykker quoted is "something everyone agrees occurs". Does this make things any clearer? Also, in the interest of keeping this thread moving there's a question I've asked before but which no one has answered to my memory. Assume for a moment that we have infinite time to play with. What process is it that stops micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution? Obviously creationists think there is no proof for such a phenomenon, but logically what prevents it? Regards, Arch.
  24. Arch

    Literal Evolution.

    "no atheist" Ike? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant the atheists on this other thread, because I can point you to quite a few examples of atheists listening to Christian views on this site. Javabean in particular has the patients of a saint. One sided finger pointing? Ike, the thread you linked had someone suggesting the Bible shouldn't be taken literally. You're response was to say evolution teaches people to kill those who don't agree with the majority. How is this one sided? Lets see, there were two points where I tried to reverse some guilt (share the guilt actually). Here's what they were in response to: "Why not also put evolution to it's literal teachings and understanding?...Kill off the weak and retarded. Or at least sterlize them" You're going around telling Creationists that evolution teaches this? What poppycock. Could you please show me where you read this, and how it is not just your imaginings? The other point I was making is that you only started this thread because you didn't like what was being said in the other thread. So you don't like it when people rat on your beliefs either. Sounds like exactly the point you were trying to make here. So...neither Christians or atheists like it when others get stuck into their beliefs. I don't think anyone is surprised by that. All atheists think what way? That we should kill the retarded? We should allow kids to take guns to school and hunt each other? Which psycho is saying that? Look if anyone, atheist or otherwise is saying these things I'll gladly speak up. But I have a hunch you're pulling some of these out of thin air. And I'll eat my hat if that's how the majority of atheists think (for the record, I don't own a hat ) You'll have to be more specific about the "majority view". If this view bares any resemblance to the points you listed in the OP then I think you're way off. I've been keeping my eye on some threads at FRBD and I gotta say it's not the jerk-fest you've painted it out to be. There are a few bad eggs like Occar, but the majority over there tell him where to go. If you think his opinions are the majority view then you're sadly mistaken. There is one atheist belief. "There are no gods". Anything beyond that is the individual, and not part of an atheist belief. As I said, the only atheist belief Dawkins has is there is no god. So yes, all atheists will agree with him on that point. They wouldn't be atheists otherwise. But as to the rest of his beliefs, such as scouring the world of religion...no I don't agree with everything he says. Java has said the same. In fact, most atheists I meet don't agree with that. So 'zero' is a long way off. Ike, one of the first things we learned in English class was that you can't read a document without bringing bias into it. Every passage you read you interpret. Still, you've sparked my interest. How exactly does the Bible confirm your interpretation? I'd love to discuss this further with you at some stage. I agree with your interpretation of Mary's preaching, but I don't think that's what the Bible says as a whole. Still, it makes me incredibly happy that you think woman should be able to preach Yay! I can end on a happy note Regards, Arch.
  25. Arch

    What Designed The Designer?

    Why the extra step? Why not just energy = matter?
×

Important Information

Our Terms