Reply With QuoteAnd on John 1:28. I could say the Europe is the beyond the Atlantic Ocean. That's true if I live in the united states, but if you live in Asia you might think I dropped out of second grade. What's beyond what is a matter of perspective.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
I'm sorry for stepping into this part of a conversation but I have the need to correct things IMO.Originally Posted by Checkmate
We are animals. We are living breathing animals with a more developed brain. We have instincts, we have reflexes. We may not consider ourselves animals but everyone goes back to instinct when in danger. Lord of the Flies (I have not read it but have gotten many reviews from fellow people on this aspect of the book) explains in a surprising way what would happen when humans are separated from their civilization.
Animals have a conscience. It might not look like it, but they do. Octopuses can solve problems and have been proven to be almost as intelligent as us, opening jars and opening locks. An octupus at SeaWorld San Antonio learned how to escape from her enclosure, fall onto the floor, crawl across the floor, climb up a wall, break into a fish enclosure, eat the fish, and crawl back into its aquarium. It took about six days before the workers there knew what was going on (after all, a whole 4 gallon aquarium is missing fish). If that isn't intelligent for a less evolved species then I don't know what is...
Animals can tell right from wrong. They learn, like we do, what is right from wrong. That is how we know what's right from wrong, by learning. Rats have been trained to go through parts that don't cause them pain. Birds learn from other birds which insects are good to eat and which ones make them sick or kill. Dogs are being taught not to approach a rattlesnake from using a "dried" rattlesnake strike at them (this does not hurt the animal, scares it so that it will not get near a rattlesnake who has venom). Heck, snakes have learned to look like poisonous snakes so animals will leave them alone. I doubt a puma will go after a porcupine again after getting a face full of quills.
And yes, that was me who said that, Checkmate.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
And on John 1:28. I could say the Europe is the beyond the Atlantic Ocean. That's true if I live in the united states, but if you live in Asia you might think I dropped out of second grade. What's beyond what is a matter of perspective.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
a) an octupus pulling that stuff is impressive, for an octupus. Prisoners escape prison all the time. What call an impressive prison escape was the Great Escape in WWII. That was an escape!
b) you talked about a conscience and seemingly left the point before proving it. Rats avoid unpainful parts of a maze out of adaptation, something Sorovis and I agreed to from the get-go.
You probably know more about Lord of the Flies than I do, but stepping out on a limb (something I haven't really been bitten from yet) I would say that you're referring to canabilism as an act of survival. (I certainly could be wrong) Canabilism is a cultural tabboo. I'm not sure that it's in the Bible (though i might recall skimming over it in Levicticus) You're getting into unfamiliar territory with me, and I don't often debate in unfamiliar territory. That philosphy of mine is why we started discussing the Bible shortly after I joined this debate.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
O I forgot to ask you Jamirus? What's your thought on my theory that I gave Damien about his cockatrice, dragon, etc. claim? I'm interested.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Rambunctious, your point on Lord of the Flies is good, but it is only a book. It may be of a good writer who understands the human psyche, but still it is a book and some things would be handled differently (I've read and enjoyed the book, and for the most part I agree with you on your point). You also must understand Lord of the Flies had to do with young boys. If the people their had been adults, their sophistication would have taken a longer time to break away and they would have lasted.
Thank you Checkmate.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Not familiar with history, I'm sorry to say.
Adaptation? From the way this is written, you actually listened to your mother before touching the hot stove...unlike my brother. How else do you learn what not to do and what to do? It's not implanted in your brain to begin with on what not to do and what to do in the way you speak of (in this case, doing right from wrong). You have no idea what happens when you touch a hot stove until you do it and then you learn not to do it again (hopefully). Or, you learn not to throw rocks at dogs because hey, that dog could attack.
Penguins shove other members of their colony off a cliff to see if the water is safe or not. If the penguin begins the swim casually, then the rest follow. If the penguin starts to panic, the the rest of the colony stays on land. Though yes, this is partially instinct it is also how penguins learn about the world around them.
Adaptation is more along the lines of the animal becoming either more immune to the pain or the brain becoming larger, something that doesn't show up in the minutes a rat take to run a maze.
Also the part where they went insane and condemned their friend to be the sacrifical lamb (as my teacher puts it).
Though I heard the largest importers of Spam are ex-Cannibal tribes because they comment it tastes almost like human flesh 0.0
The Leviathan was most possibly a giant Great White that most possibly exists today (we've found a gigantic mollusk that was neither squid nor octopus in the Bermuda/off the coast of Florida [Kraken]). The reason I say this is because of the descriptions, a whale and a ship. Since I can hopefully assume that it was a monster and that a whale can be mistaken for this (and that I played a game that pictured the Leviathan as a huge shark) species of giant sharks. Also, the descriptions gave it huge scales and jaws lined with sharp teeth, a sharky aspect.
I'm not quite sure what a Behemoth is but from what I've got on (Here) it's a giant elephant that walked on two legs. This does not relate to any animal or prehistoric mammal that I know of, besides a most possible Megatherium but it doesn't fit the descriptions or live in the area. The only elephant-like animals most possibly alive during the time of this was the creature with the shovel mouth and short tusks. Though it says it could be a hippo with tusks...and now I think the creature was an animal seen once, standing on its hind legs to eat from the trees and people saw its massive size and large tusks, calling it 'Satan's demon.' Folklore got a bit out of hand and we have it now.
The Cockatrice was a chick hatched by a serpent or toad and supposedly the Death God. It is also called the Basilisk which takes several forms. One was the Harry Potter serpent, another was a dragon with wings and a lizard body that breathed flames, and another was the giant chicken with a reptile body that breathed fire.
Funny thing was that a 9-year-old rooster (term used so that it isn't censored) a accused of laying an egg during the days of Dog Star, and found guilty. They killed the chicken.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
I agree with Rambunctious on this one. Rats can learn and think, but their minds are not nearly as vast as ours. However, it was not conscious; but memory of previous pains.
In The Lord of the Flies, they did not kill the boy (Simon) for a sacrifice, but because they were in a frenzy and were not thinking. In the end, the sophisticated boys admitted it was murder and were ashamed, while the savages made excuses as to why they did it. Your teacher probably said sacrifice because Simon is often seen as the Christ figure of the book.
I agree with you on the leviathan and behemoth, though I've heard they could have also been crocodiles (leviathan) and any number of large land animals (behemoth).
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Also, a little note. If any of you would like some evidence from about as unbiased a source as they come on Christianity, I'm reading a book called the Case for Christ. It was given to me by a friend just today. It's about a guy who came to Christ by examining evidence.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Yes, I've read up on that same book and the guy who wrote it was an atheist trying to disprove Jesus's existence. Needless to say, things did not go quite as he had planned.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Argh dude if God can fix anything why have a Bible in the first place.
How do you expect anyone to come up with a flaw in the Bible if any of the uncountable flaws we can find are magically rendered irrelevant by God's almighty will?
I am sorry to word it like this, but this is a pathetic excuse to avoid getting into an intelligent discussion. It's using your own hypothesis as proof to support itself. It's like, suppose I'm Superman, right? Well, that means I really am Superman, because say, we supposed I was.
That is a bad argument. Period.
See, that is the kind of semantic differences between languages that can insidiously change the meaning of a text. As far as I know, the word "seek" in the original (hebrew?) could have meant both "seek" and "glance".God never once used the word 'glance'. He uses words like 'seek' (using the english bible that is) We are responsible to really want to know.
That's what you'd like to think.God won't teach anything to anyone if they don't want to know. It is evidenced by Sorovis' Bible that the mis-translation has been for the most part taken care of.
Actually, if the mistranslation is less obvious they may never realize it, and keep having a PARTIALLY wrong idea about the other person's intentions.And continuing my ridiculous analogy the German dignatary would clarify such a bold statement, or the German would react in such a way that would lead the Englishmen to make sure the message was properly interpretted. That's basically how you get past false translation and false teaching. (btw Do not misconstrue this analogy to imply that God is helpless against mistranslation)
You cannot always guarantee that any translation CAN be flawless. In many languages, words have dual meanings, and the equivalent words in other languages do not. Therefore, it may be impossible to translate perfectly, flawlessly, a sentence from one language to another.
In any way, all I'm saying is that the bible on your desk is not a flawless source of biblical knowledge, and that thus you must get it from the original source in order for it to be flawless by your own standards.
And of course you still have to show that the original bible is flawless, and both of you are doing a really bad job at it, basing most rebuttals on the hypothesis itself that the bible is flawless, rather on the likeliness of it. I mean, almost any logical flaw in any written work can be worked around by saying "oh yeah this person and that person are different even though the context tends to show they are not" or "well A happened before B here and B before A there but in fact the real order of events was A followed by B and then by A2 which is the same thing as A but once again, you know, so there's no contradiction" or "well they rounded it" or "well actually they are also counting that person from the sentence just before". In the end, that's just totally absurd. Why can't God have it so the bible is coherent and understandable?
You will have to realize sooner or later that pulling such statements out of your ass, without supporting them by factual or satisfactorily logical evidence, does make you look like an idiot.We are not animals. We have a conscience to tell us right and wrong. That conscience is something that is frequently manipulated and corrupted when a person commits an act so many times that it fails to be wrong or if a person justifies what they think is wrong. Animals do not have a conscience. They are guided by instinct alone. Animals can love, but they love by instinct. Either for mating purposes or they are symbiotic like a pet's love for its owner.
I doubt you even know what conscience is.
That's misleading, inexact, not to mention that it is irrelevant.We have invented several more things than all animals combined. (I mean putting things together, I'm not referring to mere tool using) So suffice it to say we aren't animals.
Assuming that what you say is exact, then it doesn't make us not animals. It only means that we aren't cats, and neither are we dogs or horses, just like cats aren't dogs and chimps aren't ants. Every animal species is different from each other, but that doesn't make any of them not an animal.
But of course, as far as we know, it may not even be exact. Animals may have invented a lot of things that we haven't, things we have not yet found out about. It's not because scientists don't understand animal intelligence that animals are not intelligent - if anything, it may be the scientists themselves who are too stupid, or too narrow-minded to understand anything.
And finally, how does it matter who invented the most things? How is the ability to invent things relevant to differenciate between an animal and a "non-animal"?
Okay so let's suppose the Bible says Steve died stabbed in the back by a butcher knife, but that I was actually there and saw Steve being decapitated by a chainsaw, I'm not a referee, and I have no more credibility than any bible believer who didn't even see the events firsthand like me?(not directed at me but I don't care) The fact that you are bisexual does not make you a referree. This is not a Hetero vs. homo debate. This is a BIble vs. Homosexuality debate. You are not both Christian and one who practices homosexuality. You are the latter but not the former. ...
You represent one side of the debate, but not the other. As do I, but for the opposite side.
I mean dude stop digging this isn't funny.
I really like how you totally pull that out of your ass while simultaneously showing that you never even thought about what conscience was.
What is conscience if not the memory of your past experiences relatively to your environment?
What is conscience without memory?
Can conscience exist without memory?
The answer is no. It is impossible to dissociate conscience from memory.
Conscience is the product of experience. You are conscious of your existence because you interact with other objects and people, and these interactions help you to build a conscience that is your own. You know what's right and wrong because of the experience of previous pains.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Brainstorm, because with free will people can choose whether or not to follow Him, which means directly appearing and forcing them to believe is something he will not do. Also, I wouldn't be talking about bad arguments.
That's what you'de not like to think.
God's Bible is coherent and understandable. I understand it and I'm willing to bet I'm not a genius.
Once again, you look like more of an idiot than Checkmate who is trying to deal with some ten people at once. A conscious is very different from simple memory a rat may use to survive. Checkmate is right: A conscious is what helps us know right from wrong. Since animals cannot sin, they cannot have a conscious to help them choose the right path. Instead of saying one person's explanation is stupid, how about you give yours and see what happens.
I laughed out loud when you suggested animals have invented more things than humans and they are just tricking us. If you want a stupid opinion, you've got one right there.
Brainstorm, your next point was just pathetic.
I really like how you insult people for what they write and yet post nothing yourself. If you want to see good debating tactics, look to Rambunctious or Damian. At least they support their points.
I already explained what conscious was. That takes care of your last point.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Conscience is not the product of experience. Conscience is defined in my dictionary '1993 World Book' as the sense of right and wrong; ideas and feelings within a person that tell him when he is doing right and warn him of what is wrong
That said nothing of experience. Also, forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't think you were indeed there when the Bible was written. (however I think you were in defense of Rusted One there)
Rusted One said himself that personal experience counted. I've already told you that I have personal experience, and the fact that the only points we haven't countered. (possibly two of Damien's) are two that we have yet to look into.
Here's the statement that I've basically made to Pokemaniac Bill. 'You can't find any flaws or contradictions in the Bible. Therefore the Bible must be true. If the Bible is true, then there is an almighty God. If there is an almighty God, then he is powerful enough to overcome the flaws of man.'
Now Brainstorm, I know you have presented evidence which gives me respect for you. However Sorovis downed all of your points. You then pled that translation errors made the Bible inaccurate. If I rewrote and paraphrased the entire Bible, that doesn't change the fact the Bible is right. My version of it isn't.
Now I get the point you make about the bible on my table. It's NIV and because it's NIV it's missing a very important comma in a key place. However, when that verse is cross-referenced with the rest of scripture you get the real meaning of the verse. No, you can't cross-reference the numbers, which why I plan on studying the original languages (though greek and probably not hebrew) because I seek the knowledge that is in the word. I don't glance. (and I know that not every word can be translated into another language but I'm pretty sure there are different words for 'seek' and 'glance')
And as far as animals, they do not have a sense of morals. They have a sense of instinct.
P.S. you hold a lot of respect from me for presenting your evidence. You may or may not care, but in the case that you do I'm asking you to use more intelligent vocabulary than the phrase 'pulling it out of your ass'. A lot of smart people talk that way, but there's something to be said for sounding intelligent and earning an opponent's respect in a debate.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
One last bit. Sorovis said animals can't sin. That's not because they're perfect it's because they do not have the intellectual capacity to know right from wrong. In other words saying that animals don't sin does not back the homosexuality debate.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Oops. No, I'll take the claim that he meant heterosexual and believe it, and put the error down to my misreading.
However, it is folly to suggest, as Checkmate does, that HIV is only spread through "amoral" sex - because again, you cannot define something as amoral if it doesn't hurt anyone and has no victims, and there are people who are married who do have HIV but don't know it, and risk spreading the virus onto their partner. They don't not exist - and to say so is fallacious.
We are animals - to say that we aren't is ignoring the very facts that science presents us with. We grow as animals do. Our bodies are made from the same things. Our metabolisms are similar. Our genes are similar.Okay Rusted One. Now you have to deal with me too.
First off, your thing with apes was countered about ten pages ago. Just because animals do it, doesn't make it right. We are not animals. We have a conscience to tell us right and wrong. That conscience is something that is frequently manipulated and corrupted when a person commits an act so many times that it fails to be wrong or if a person justifies what they think is wrong. Animals do not have a conscience. They are guided by instinct alone. Animals can love, but they love by instinct. Either for mating purposes or they are symbiotic like a pet's love for its owner.
And you don't think that love is instinctual in us, too? Why, then, do we feel depressed when we lose it, much like a dominant wolf in a pack would its mate? Why do we all go through it? Love is theorised by science to be an aid to reproduction on the one hand, and strengthening bonds on the other. A loving relationship only possesses the initial in love feelings for the first four or five years - and then it settles into a strong companionship. The point of it is, basically, that bonds will remain strong (unless the relationship ends on a sour note, but even that may not matter) - and this has benefits in terms of childrearing, if ever there is a need. A child doesn't necessarily need two parents - but as many authority figures that are around do ensure a more secure environment in which to mature. If the love that caused reproduction to take place wanes, but a strong feeling still remains, then each individual is able to raise the child through the years that are most needy of two parents, but then can go and have more children. It's about survival, and animals go through similar processes, depending on the species. Each parent remains with the other for a specified time, and then leaves and has more offspring with other individuals - increasing the natural variation in their offspring, and it is this which ensures survival of at least some if a natural disaster takes place.
It's true that chimps do conflict - group to group, individual to individual. That's not war. That's contest over rights to territory, not the senseless violence we see in such conflicts as that in Iraq.Also, someone said that humans aren't superior because we have war. Chimps have had war. Ask Jane Goodall. She has witnessed it. So war does not make us stupid. (though it also doesn't make us extremely bright) We have invented several more things than all animals combined. (I mean putting things together, I'm not referring to mere tool using) So suffice it to say we aren't animals.
Now, your next "point" seems to confuse you - how can you say that, because chimps have had "war", that we, because we have too, are superior? It makes little to no sense - and nor does claiming that we aren't animals - because we are. Those who claim we aren't are those that tend to think that humans are the paragon of the animal kingdom, and that we're better than all else - which we're not. All that reflects is human egotism and narcissism.
I'm biased as far as what I know from facts about myself. If someone asked you if you were a kind person, any of your answers, because you're the only one who truly sees you the way you do, will be biased to what you know of yourself. However, that's not bias on the lines of, "well, this is my belief on the issue, and I'll ignore the facts of one side and pick and choose what I do listen to."Now on to your more important points. As Rambunctious (I think) said, the only possible way we could have unbiased research would be if we employed a robot. Even the government is biased. You are also biased.
You're telling me what the Bible says - and I'm not telling you that it doesn't say that. I'm not trying to argue that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong - so whether or not I'm Christian doesn't actually have a role in this debate. I accept that you believe what you believe, and if you quote a passage of the Bible, or allude to it, I'm not going to sit here and tell you it's wrong, unless I know for a fact that it is. The fact that I'm bisexual does, however, have a role - because you're telling me that, because the Bible says something, it must be right, and when I know that for myself what the Bible says on that particular issue doesn't apply to me, then I am able to say it's wrong. You rely on the Bible, on something written by someone who had no idea what being homosexual or bisexual was/is like - and yet you still attempt to tell me what I must have done, given this person's ignorant statements, rather than actually listen to me when I tell you what actually is true for me. It's flawed logic - I'm the one who will know, not a book; and this is true of all homosexual/bisexual/heterosexual people out there. Did you choose to be heterosexual? I suspect you'll say, "no". So if that's true for you, why is it not true for a gay person? Because you've decided? Because a book that actually can't see into their head and see what they've been through said so? It's faulty. I'm not telling you that you chose to be straight, because I don't know - and you don't know that a gay person chose to be gay - so you have no right to tell them what they think, what they thought, what they feel, what they felt, what they're going through, or what they've been through. You can't tell them what it's like to be gay when you don't know and they do.The fact that you are bisexual does not make you a referree. This is not a Hetero vs. homo debate. This is a BIble vs. Homosexuality debate. You are not both Christian and one who practices homosexuality. You are the latter but not the former. (I do not restrict the the term 'practice' to have sex. Entertaining thoughts of dating a person of the same gender is considered practicing the way I use the term)
I present the side that I know is true for me - you can't say that you know for a fact that I chose to be bisexual. All you can do is cling loosely to something someone else thought was a great idea to write down milennia ago, and attempt to tell me that they know more about what my life is and was like than I do.You represent one side of the debate, but not the other. As do I, but for the opposite side.
Actually, what you call them in this case doesn't change what they are; all kinds of people go through this type of thing, and it doesn't mean they've been divinely inspired, does it? No. If you feel you were divinely inspired, placebo effect or not, I can't tell you that you didn't feel the effects. I can be skepticle of what actually caused it, because while you may believe it was your deity being nice to you, you can't tell me that "god" appeared before you and told you everything was okay (unless you just happened to miss that detail out of your story). Like I said, you can feel loved, but you can't ever be sure that you are, in fact, loved, by anyone - because you can't see into their mind. All you can see into is your mind - and you can feel your own emotions only, not someone else's. You can be sure of what you've been through, in terms of what you have decided to do, or what has happened to you, or what you've realised as you've grown up; but you can't see how these same things have affected someone else. You can report how you were affected by something to someone - and you can say, "I'm confident it was..." - and they can't tell you beyond what they believe that you are wrong, or right, or anything - because they can't see into your head. I can't tell you that you didn't feel uplifted, or that you just made up that story in your head so that you could report it to me in a weak attempt to "prove" me wrong - because you're the only one who knows. I can say, "I don't believe in "god", so it seems unlikely to me that "he" caused this" - and to be honest, you can't tell me for a fact that it was "god". All you can say is that you performed an action and felt something in connection with that - i.e., you felt something for yourself. You can't actually say that "god" listened to you and thought, "yeah, well, why not?", because like any mind, if "he" exists, you can't see into it. I'm aware I'm rambling, but my point is that you can't see into my mind, either - you can think what you like about what's in my mind, and experience what you will as a result of those thoughts - and I could do the same of your mind - but you can't tell me what is in my mind. Only I can do that. You can be certain in your own mind that "god" did something, but you can't purport to have seen into the mind of "god" - you can only say that you felt something as a result of what you take to be the effects of something. You feel one way; you can't tell how someone else feels. You can experience feelings of being loved, but you can't be sure you are loved. You can think your own thoughts, but you can't tell me how I feel - and you can't tell me what I've been through.Here's something for you to sink your teeth into. I'm a person too. I don't just believe the Christian faith because that's what I've been told to do. When I see what appears to be a flaw in the Bible I check it with people more mature in the faith than I am. I question God. Now here goes, Rusted One. I've been hinting toward this for a long time. Now, you're about to here my personal experiences.
When I was about 13 I got into some stuff (for my privacy's sake I will not be specific)I never should have considered. But a few months later I started dating a girl and talked to her so much on IM I could never have time to look online about the stuff I was getting into. (wasn't porn btw)
When I was preparing to do a play for my church on the 17th of a certain month, I was nervous the night before. I was reading a chapter a day of Proverbs for the month. I read the 15th chapter (bcuz I was a day behind) and then prayed to God for confidence. I then proceeded to read the 16th chapter and the third verse read "Commit to the Lord all that you do and your plans shall succeed" three verses after the prayer was prayed!
I was at a Christian Conference and didn't get the spiritual high I was expecting. I was actually a little depressed. I got a little privacy and that helped a bit. Then I went and got my Bible and read my favorite Psalm. Psalm 30. The very words lifted me up. And I didn't have the psalm memorized but I remembered I liked it. Five minutes later I was jumping for joy and praising God in the conference.
I have had overwhelming feelings of humility once or twice. The type that they get in the Bible.
I prayed that I could witness to a girl that I usually didn't see. By coincidence she just happened to drop by the place a couple of friends and I met together. We have more than an hour long conversation!
I was really discouraged last night by these forums. I begged humbly to God for encouragement. I read Psalm 30, 23, and 37 in that order. The only one I had memorized was 23 and I didn't think of the words of the 23rd psalm a whole lot before I read it. The words encouraged me immensely. Yes, I had a knowledge of what the psalms read, but the words matched my situation more perfectly than I imagined.
These are some of my personal experiences. Someone might call them placebo effects. But then who are you to say that I am wrong about my personal experiences. (sound familiar)
Was that at all clear?
No, like I said, no personal experience is wrong - you can be sure of what you felt, and nobody can tell you otherwise. You can tell me what you know, and I can't tell you otherwise. But you can't tell me that you know what someone else thought - you can only tell me what you perceive to be the effects of what you perceive to be their actions. You can't tell me that "god" thought this, and that's why you felt the way you do - you can only say that you prayed, and later on felt better for it - meaning that you believe that you were "touched" by "god". That is pure belief, because it isn't merely a personal thought - you require an outside force for it to be true. You can't influence that outside force, or pretend to control it, if it is at all there (and the effect is the same if it is or isn't - either way, you can't manipulate it for yourself) - all you can you is tell me what you felt, and what you believe it to be. I can't tell you that you don't believe something; I can say I don't believe in the same things, but you're the only person who can tell me what you know about yourself and what you think and what you feel and what you believe. The same is true for me - you can say you don't believe that there is no "god", as I do - but you can't tell me that my personal experience within myself is wrong, and that I must have done something that I know I haven't.So Rusted One, this puts you in an interesting situation. Either your personal experience is right and mine are wrong. Or mine are right and yours are wrong. I hope you recognize that by direct contradiction between your beliefs and mine we cannot both be right. So explain to me my personal experience.
It's tough to explain, but I hope I made sense. I suspect I didn't.
Also, Checkmate (and perhaps Sorovis), could you try not to double-post, but instead edit in your subsequent statements? Ta.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
That animals do not know right from wrong does not make them "unconcious". I've spent my whole life studying biology, and I can tell you, Human behavior and emotion is ALSO just "instinct" and "reaction to stimulus" (by the same definitions that are applied to animals). Those are fancy technical terms for everyday living. They have nothing to do with an animal's awareness or lack thereof. They may be born with certain knowledge but they do know when they're using it - you don't uncontrollably seek out food when you're hungry, do you?
Incidentally, a Rat has the mind of a two-year-old human child. Same disposition, too. My girlfriend of four years (we're just really good friends now) kept them as pets. They grow so attached to their human owners that they'lle fight eachother for attention and will mope if you ignore them too long. It's not just for food and water, they could have a bucketfull of food and will still be very visibly upset if you don't take them to hold them and play with them often enough.
It's not something I think myself, it's just "there" to me. It seems pretty obvious, and I know very few people who disagree with that interpretation. The word for "fruit" has been a common analogy for sex in many cultures. Why else would Adam and Eve suddenly feel shame for their nudity?scythemantis, I don't know how you think, but I see no connection between the tree of knowledge of good and evil and sex. Please tell me how you make that connection.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
What Checkmate means, Rusted One, is that we are different from animals in quite a few different ways. Our intelligence is beyond that of any animal, and walking on hind legs is almost unique as well. But we are too advanced to take after animals. We are not in their habitats, we do not suffer their pains, and we deal with things differently. So it would not be wise nor necessary to follow in their example.
If love is merely a strong feeling to increase companionship between an animal and its mate, then why is homosexuality not wrong? Love, according to you, is used to reproduce; homosexuality cannot reproduce, so therefore, it must be wrong. Love is this, but it can last for much more than five years; the attachment it brings is not what it leaves, but love itself. It does not wear away over time.
So chimps battling over territory is not war? Then what is war?
People are much different than other animals. Bring me a monkey that can have a debate, and I'll believe you. Our intelligence is what seperates us from animals. Our genes, build, and characteristics may be similar, but there is not an animal in the world who can measure up to our intelligence.
The Rusted One, you seem to be ignoring the facts on my side; not the other way around. I have shown you to sites that show homosexuals can change. I'd assume they know what it's like to be homosexual, and they've changed.
Once again, who are you to judge his personal experiences? He alone knows what he went through, you do not. Who are you going to listen to, someone who actually went through it or someone who thinks they know what the other ment. The rest of your post on that topic was pointless. As I've said before, homosexuals have become heterosexual, and I'm sure they know what they went through. Besides, if Checkmate had literally seen or heard from God, you would say he was hallucinating or something like that, even though you weren't there.
Yes, The Rusted One, you can only percieve to the effects. You don't know what Checkmate experienced, and cannot classify this.
Also, we double post so it does not become confusing, and the people we are addressing can tell right off without having to search.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
A conscious is knowing the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. An animal remembers that stepping on something before hurt it, and does not do so again. People can tell that murdering is wrong, that hurting is wrong, etc.. Animals cannot do this. When an animal battles but not to the death (mating rituals), it is because their instinct tells them not to, not because they know it is wrong to kill
Homosexual Books for First Graders
oooh. to call human emotion an instinct would be to eliminate possibilites of making decisions. such as the choice you have to answer this or not. oh, we can argue about evolution, origin of life, the historical accuracy of the New Testament, whatever.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
In my further defense, you're basically saying my personal experiences are right and yours are wrong. If you had a clearly defined point against this statement, it was lost in your rambling.
By your logic, you claim that you love the men in the same way that you love women. I could say that it just feels the same, but isn't. Could I not? (a question I'd bet you won't fail to answer)
Btw you seem to imply sight is the only sense a person has. (and that sight is infallable) I didn't see God, but I've felt him before. You also failed to neglect the striking similarities. Reading a verse 3 verses after praying for something almost exactly like that, the striking similarities between the Psalms I'm in and the situation I'm in now. And I did see the verses. Unless I was hallucinating. (btw I have utmost confidence that if I did claim to see God you would claim that I wanted to see him so bad my sight deceived me)
It boils down to this Rusted One. One of is right, and one of us is wrong.
Scythemantis, the Bible does not censor. There are stories in the Bible about rape and close to R rated stuff. Not to mention innumerable mentions of the word 'sex'. If they got kicked out for sex, God would have said 'You shall not have sexual relations with each other'. He also wouldn't have made it sinful to reproduce.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Let's see, my points I believe were insufficiently countered :
1-The Census. I already dismissed earlier the whole military argument (the romans did not use draft in any way, form or shape ; their legions were volunteer forces so they didn't need to "check the tribes" for the purpose of keepign their military working), so I am still waiting for your explanation there.
2-Daniel 5:2-22. You have yet failed to explain the ludicrous account of the babylonians king, despite claiming someone you knew had an answer for it. (Unless I missed it in the slew of posts from everyone else)
3-Daniel 5:31. You have failed to show any evidence whatsoever that Darius was a title and not a name (the Oxford English Dictionnary record as Darius : "Darius I, king of persia from 521 to (etc) BC" and make no mention of any title whatsoever).
Of course that was just a quick list of what I could put together at first. I can find more if you want them.
-----
yeah5 - disagreed. Human *emotions* are instincts. Fear is the survival instinct. Anger and jealousy and such are manifestation of the animal survivalist instinct of wanting to be on top. Love is the "pack" instinct found in many highly social animals.
That does not eliminate the possibility of making decisions : decisions are when we chose between (or against) our emotions. But our emotions are just manifestation of our instincts.
And final note Sorovis - most animals won't kill their own packmate, and those that do are driven out of the pack. Humans are the same - society is nothing more than a giant and highly organized pack.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
ah. i see you took the part about John 1:28 out.i found out that "beyond" the jordan river doesn't necissarily mean east of the jordan river.
1-what is the Census argument about? i read something on that a while ago and would like to know what you are arguing. if you are denying that there could have been a census soon after Jesus' birth, i will re-read that part of my book and answer you.
2-what is it that you want to know about Daniel's account of the king?
3-my bible says "Darius the Mede", therefore Darius can be the name and "Mede" is the title. "Mede" means "a native or inhabitant of ancient Media in Persia". Mede would not have to be a title of authority because "Darius the Mede" became ruler. so if he was "Darious the Mede" before he was ruler, it doesn't have to refer to power either. I never saw the bible refer to "Darius" as a title. maybe i'll read more and see if it does.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
You state this as fact when you have no basis for it. To bring up the octopus again, their brains are phenomenally complicated. The only reason they never develop the intellect of an adult human is that their lifespan is only a year or two. Plus, they do not seek out the company of their own kind except to mate. If they were longer-lived and prone to interaction with eachother, they would begin to develop a social structure and learn the use of tools and technology. This isn't a wild story; we know they have the capacity for it. So do some other animals, but they, too, have their individual limitations. Perhaps a divine creator is holding back these species, perhaps the chances of evolving over every hurdle are just that slim, but either way: just because we have what it takes to use our minds to their fullest does not mean our minds themselves are utterly unique.but there is not an animal in the world who can measure up to our intelligence.
yeah5 - no offense but you're not understanding what "instinct" actually is. The personal choices we make CAN be alluded to instinct. Science can find a biological explanation for absolutely, positively everything we do. That includes creativity, art, individuality, everything about us. Instinct is just what knowledge and understanding you are born with. It is not something you do uncontrollably. Birds don't migrate because something forces their bodies into motion...they migrate because it's getting friggin cold and they have wings. They understand what they're doing and they do have the ability to choose not to. They just rarely do, because, well, it's getting friggin cold.
I'm sorry, but what you describe is neither very special nor inexplicable. There are thousands of people of all religions who experience these sorts of profound, powerful waves of feeling and "know" beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have "felt" their respective god(s). As for the big coincidence - they happen. All the time. It has to happen to you once in a while. Other people who feel touched by god (buddha, allah, etc.) describe the same sort of events. It's quite mundane. I'm not saying your experiences are wrong, only that you can't simply assume they're just what you want them to be.I didn't see God, but I've felt him before. You also failed to neglect the striking similarities. Reading a verse 3 verses after praying for something almost exactly like that, the striking similarities between the Psalms I'm in and the situation I'm in now. And I did see the verses. Unless I was hallucinating.
Is this supposed to be an argument for your case? ANYONE sensible would question such a claim, regardless of their religious stance. If I were a hardcore christian I might even suggest the possibility that if you did see something it could've just as easily been Lucifer having fun with you (since the bible makes it clear that God does not make personal appearances anymore), let's not forget accidental drug intake or good old schizophrenia. My mom's friend Carla thinks that she's seen jesus. She also thinks her hairdresser uses mind-control rays to make her buy the wrong shampoo.btw I have utmost confidence that if I did claim to see God you would claim that I wanted to see him so bad my sight deceived me
That's a silly thing to say. There are infinite possibilities beyond yours, his, mine, or anyone else's takes on anything and everything. It's much easier to assume that everything we know and think has always been wrong and the real nature of the universe is entirely unlike anything any science or spiritualism could ever hope to describe.It boils down to this Rusted One. One of is right, and one of us is wrong.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
i'd like an answer to my last message, so i can tell you any more information i get or have. also, biology cannot explain everything in life. that may not be what you said, but it certainly cannot. biology can not explain irreducable complexity. yes, thats a real term darwin stated that his theory would "absolutely break down" if there was found an organ that could not have developed over time. you know that genetic mutations only take over in a species if they are helpful (by Darwinian evolution), so how do you explain the bacterial flagellum? it has a motor with several parts. any part alone is useless. the structure with any one part missing is useless, so how could it have evolved? Biology, by your definition, certainly cannot explain this.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
i'd like an answer to my last message, so i can tell you any more information i get or have. also, biology cannot explain everything in life. that may not be what you said, but it certainly cannot. biology can not explain irreducable complexity. yes, thats a real term darwin stated that his theory would "absolutely break down" if there was found an organ that could not have developed over time. you know that genetic mutations only take over in a species if they are helpful (by Darwinian evolution), so how do you explain the bacterial flagellum? it has a motor with several parts. any part alone is useless. the structure with any one part missing is useless, so how could it have evolved? Biology, by your definition, certainly cannot explain this.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
"1-what is the Census argument about? i read something on that a while ago and would like to know what you are arguing. if you are denying that there could have been a census soon after Jesus' birth, i will re-read that part of my book and answer you."
There were census aroudn that time, we know. HOWEVER what is nonsensical is arguging that the census required Joseph and family to go to Betlehem ; not only are there no other historical records (at least AFAIK, and I am completely a degree in history right now) of census requiring that, but also it makes no sense when one consider the logistical and bureaucratic nightmares of having every members of every family having to move back to the hometown of their families.
"2-what is it that you want to know about Daniel's account of the king?"
Simply put, the account of the kings in Daniel is wrong. I outlined it before, please try to look up the exact post. Essentialy the man Daniel name as Nebuchadnesar's successor was never even king, but a viceroy (ie, prime minister or so). Nebuchadnesar's successor was instead Awil-Marduk (Evilmerodach), which is not mentionned int that part of Daniel.
"3-my bible says "Darius the Mede", therefore Darius can be the name and "Mede" is the title. "Mede" means "a native or inhabitant of ancient Media in Persia". Mede would not have to be a title of authority because "Darius the Mede" became ruler. so if he was "Darious the Mede" before he was ruler, it doesn't have to refer to power either. I never saw the bible refer to "Darius" as a title. maybe i'll read more and see if it does."
The point here is that the king of Persia when Babylon fell (537 BC) was not even Darius, it was his father Cyrus. Darius I only became king of Persia in 521 BC. Checkmate claimed that "The Darius" was a title to explain the discrepancy, I'm asking him for evidence of this.
Edit : and I took the John 1:28 part out because I wasn'T sure wether Checkmate had dealt with it. If he hasn't, I'd like to see him develop in more detail your theory.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
One part was helpful to the earlier forms. Slowly it began to fail as species evolved and became better able to take down prey. A new part was added by genetic mutation. This proved usefull for a while...until species started following. And thusly more parts were added till the flagellum became completely dependent on all parts to survive.you know that genetic mutations only take over in a species if they are helpful (by Darwinian evolution), so how do you explain the bacterial flagellum? it has a motor with several parts. any part alone is useless. the structure with any one part missing is useless, so how could it have evolved? Biology, by your definition, certainly cannot explain this.
High top glider wings are like this. Without the special 'lock-in' feature, several creatures that glide without moving their wings (albatross) would have to rest constantly because of their mass. The lock-in wing was destined and the birds soon can't live without the many muscles that help keep the winged locked.
A reverse question would be "Why do we have an appendix? What's the use of having an organ that has no real function like tonsils?"
I laughed at that XD Great example there.
Let's see, why can't we do this...? Because animals don't understand our language, just like we don't understand theirs. Animals understand the tone of a voice and can recognize words when they've been taught them. Dogs are being trained to "read" signs to help with the disabled. This doesn't mean they can actually read, they just recognize the word with an action and get a treat. If a child was taught the canine language and not the human language, then the child would not know what the words we are typing are. He'd know how to bark, yip, howl, etc. Though this has not happened before entirely (Romolus and Remus were not even two by the time people took them back), it could happen.
Parrots as well. They have no idea what we are saying, they just have the vocal chords to imitate what we say. Though there was an African Gray that could count and write words with magnetic letters, he probably didn't understand this. Hey, free food would be my thoughts...
Homosexual Books for First Graders
1- well, here.in a document at A.D. 104, Gaius Vibius Maximus, a prefect of Egypt, sent
out a census form that said...
"Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt [says]eeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to thier own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the cencus and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments."
i got this info from "The Case for Christ", by Lee Strobel.
2-ill have to do some research
3- same
Homosexual Books for First Graders
well....there is in no way that any of these parts alone helps the organism. show me how. can you? a flagellum that doesn't spin isn't helpful. wouldn't it be dragging the tail behind? now look back at your argument. you just said that a helpful random genetic mutation produced one part and then another and so on until all of the parts, put together in a crucial order, built into a fully functional motor. now, that would seem as if all of the mutations worked towards a common goal. you know that is not possible.
this is why it is called irreducable complexity, which you can read about in Michael Behe's work (a scientist-do a google search, his name will come up). this organ simply cannot be slowly built over time by darwinian evolution.
as you see, the flagellum would not be helpful to the bacteria until fully assembled.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
No it's not useful until fully assembled for today's bacteria. What I'm trying to get out is that we have almost no data on how these creatures lived before we started to study them. The flagellum was most likely smaller and weaker than it is now, using very little "muscles" to actually move. The creature bgean to change, needing to move faster and thusly the flagellum grew longer and required more "muscles" to move.
Sound familiar? That's how legs came about.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
ok. past bacteria would still have had flagellums that required more than one part. how could even a primitive form function with only one part? even a primitive form of any of the parts of a flagellum, alone, would be useless alone. how would it help a bacteria?
when you see a perfect tower of bricks on the side of the road, would you assume that bricks fell randomly, perfectly in place, one by one, over time. or would you assume that a person stacked them? by assuming that life's complexity MUST be of natural cause, and that there is no supernatural, you are using methodological naturalism (real term).
you say that life started simple and gained complexity, but what life is truly simple? single celled organisms? they have DNA, right? how can you assume that thousands of bases combined in a perfect order to make the cells? unless you want to say that the first cells had no DNA. but if anyone said that...then how did DNA come about? without DNA, how would the first cells reproduce, or any other cells?
proteins are necessary for life. now, proteins are made of aminno acids, yet amino acids cannot combine into the proteins necessary for life without.....DNA.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Rambunctious, this is a good theory on the flagellum of bacteria, but it is just that; a theory. If there was more research on the development of bacterial flagellum, your argument would gather the basis it needed. For now, there are only theories and ideas which, as Damian has said of mine, need factual basis before being considered.
Good job, yeah5.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
"It never says that sex is evil? It's what got Adam & Eve kicked out of paradise. It's supposed to be the downfall of the entire human race. (I'm assuming most mature-minded people don't believe in a LITERAL "fruit" of knowledge. It's pretty friggin obvious that it was just sex.)"
to the person that typed that:
woah, woah, woah! "friut" means "friut" in that passage. if you think "fruit" was sex, then what was the tree it came from? why in the world would you say it means "sex"? The Bible says they ate from it. it mentions that adam and eve had sex in a passage that is after the passage where they ate of the tree and were sent out of the garden.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Get me the hell out of this string. *unsubscribes, that's the dumbest fricking option to leave as an auto-check*
I'm not really a jerk, I just can't get this freakin' foot outta my mouth.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
I didn't want to reply, because I kinda feel like it's hopeless anyway, but oh well.
That is what conscious means.con·scious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knshs)
adj.
1. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
n.
In psychoanalysis, the component of waking awareness perceptible by a person at any given instant; consciousness.
In french conscious is translated as conscience (and that is its very first meaning), which isn't really the same in english apparently, except for the obsolete meaning 3.con·science ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knshns)
n.
1.
1. The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong: Let your conscience be your guide.
2. A source of moral or ethical judgment or pronouncement: a document that serves as the nation's conscience.
3. Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct: a person of unflagging conscience.
2. The part of the superego in psychoanalysis that judges the ethical nature of one's actions and thoughts and then transmits such determinations to the ego for consideration.
3. Obsolete. Consciousness.
See what I meant about translation mistakes? I just made one, and it wasn't even intentional.
Anyhow, it's quite obvious from the definition that you need experience in order to be conscious. You can't be conscious of your own existence if you know of no other thing that exists. Your brain needs some input to function, or it's a big empty box.
Now what about conscience.
What is right, and what is wrong? How do you make the difference?
The answer is mathematical. Globally, on a strictly theoretical point of view, an action is "right" if it results into a globally positive payoff for the entities that are concerned by that action, directly or indirectly. An action is "wrong" when it tends to result in a globally negative payoff.
To put it more clearly, some actions tend to make people happy, and some other actions tend to make people unhappy. The theoretical right and wrong aims to maximize global happiness, and thus is theoretically relevant to mathematics, computer science and operational research.
However, practically, the computations necessary to correctly predict the evolution of a global system such as this one are both very hard to determine, and would require apocalyptical computer horsepower. It is thus necessary to proceed via approximation.
That is what conscience is. Conscience is an approximation of the expected payoffs of a select set of actions for a select set of targets. Conscience is a matrix of pre-calculated, approximated, mathematical functions, for use to determine at first glance whether a particular action is right or wrong. These calculations are the result of natural selection/evolution and experience.
In short, in your head, there's an array of simple values and formulas that one could expect to read, approximatively, as follow:
Murder: -10000
Stealing: -(value of the stolen goods) - 1000
Procreation: +10000
etc. You can see that murder would have a very negative value, and thus would be considered wrong. Procreation has a positive value and is considered right. Consequently, murder will tend to produce a negative feeling, whereas procreation will tend to produce a positive feeling, which helps to enforce a constructive behavior. Obviously, this is an extremely simplified view of what it would look like, but it is still pertinent if you want to understand how conscience can work on a purely mathematical basis.
Thus, everyone has a personal conscience, and a personal vision of what is right and what is wrong, all depending on which calculations are performed on which actions. This allows the person to expect the overall effect of several actions on the happiness of others, and thus to have certain feelings relatively to this, and ponderate his or her final actions accordingly.
Obviously, this system is highly approximate, sub-optimal, and subjective, but natural selection, may it be "truly natural" or human-enforced, would tend towards its progressive optimization.
Animals have the exact same mechanisms.
Also note that categorizing actions into "right" and "wrong" is the result of approximation. In a truly optimal context, many "wrong" actions such as murder or treason could result in high payoffs, therefore making them "right". The optimal action picking strategy has to work on a case by case basis - however, since it requires too much resources, we have to resort to grouping similar actions under a similar label.
Circular argument.Since animals cannot sin, they cannot have a conscious to help them choose the right path.
Do you really want me to bombard you with mathematical equations in order to define my perception of right and wrong?Instead of saying one person's explanation is stupid, how about you give yours and see what happens.
Never said more. I said many, and I said may. You are working with an anthropomorphic vision of invention. It is very possible for an animal to come up with inventions that we may or may not reckognize as inventions, but that in fact result from similar mental processes, and that may be sufficiently ingenious to be a source of inspiration for high-tech industries. Some insects produce some seriously awesome architecture.I laughed out loud when you suggested animals have invented more things than humans and they are just tricking us. If you want a stupid opinion, you've got one right there.
blah blah blah whine whine whine blah blah blahI really like how you insult people for what they write and yet post nothing yourself. If you want to see good debating tactics, look to Rambunctious or Damian. At least they support their points.
Actually it was conscience not conscious.I already explained what conscious was. That takes care of your last point.
Do you really believe that or are you just playing around?'You can't find any flaws or contradictions in the Bible. Therefore the Bible must be true. If the Bible is true, then there is an almighty God. If there is an almighty God, then he is powerful enough to overcome the flaws of man.'
I can write some awesome fictional stories without you being able to find any flaw in them.
I haven't bothered responding to every single one of them but I do not recall of any convincing rebuttal to any point I made.However Sorovis downed all of your points.
That is the same thing. Some pieces of complex math have been pre-calculated and are stored in an array in your brain for you to use them without having to perform them yourself.And as far as animals, they do not have a sense of morals. They have a sense of instinct.
No, I don't care.You may or may not care, but in the case that you do I'm asking you to use more intelligent vocabulary than the phrase 'pulling it out of your ass'. A lot of smart people talk that way, but there's something to be said for sounding intelligent and earning an opponent's respect in a debate.
What do you know of their intellectual capacity?One last bit. Sorovis said animals can't sin. That's not because they're perfect it's because they do not have the intellectual capacity to know right from wrong. In other words saying that animals don't sin does not back the homosexuality debate.
For the inventions aspect I can concede that they haven't come to our level of technological sophistication.
But for morals? Who needs intelligence to have morals? You don't think about morals. Morals are something you feel, something you experience. 90% of all people cannot satisfactorily explain where their morals come from, let alone understand the complex mathematical and biological processes that generated them. I mean, seriously, when people explain me why murder is wrong, I almost feel like crying. Most of them systematically fail to understand that murder is not inherently wrong, but approximatively wrong.
Cats are different from cows in quite a few different ways. One eats meat, the other eats grass. One's small, the other's huge. One is cute and fluffy, the other is just ugly. One says MEOW, the other says MOO.we are different from animals in quite a few different ways. Our intelligence is beyond that of any animal, and walking on hind legs is almost unique as well.
Anyhow, difference is not an argument.
But we are too human to take after animals, just like cows are too cow to take after animals.But we are too advanced to take after animals.
Engineered.
If we feel like doing what they do, then maybe it's natural for us to do it too.We are not in their habitats, we do not suffer their pains, and we deal with things differently. So it would not be wise nor necessary to follow in their example.
Bring me an human that is as socially apt as any social insect. They succeeded where we utterly failed (communism).People are much different than other animals. Bring me a monkey that can have a debate, and I'll believe you.
None of us can measure up to the cheetah's speed, the ants' socialism, the elephant's size, or a virus's resistance.Our intelligence is what seperates us from animals. Our genes, build, and characteristics may be similar, but there is not an animal in the world who can measure up to our intelligence.
None of us can measure up to AIDS.
Not to mention that there are quite a lot of ways to be intelligent, not all of which implying technological sophistication. Many animals are better than us in many aspects.
lolPeople can tell that murdering is wrong, that hurting is wrong, etc.. Animals cannot do this. When an animal battles but not to the death (mating rituals), it is because their instinct tells them not to, not because they know it is wrong to kill
Animals can tell that murdering is wrong, that hurting is wrong, etc.. Humans cannot do this. When an human battles but not to the death (fights at school), it is because their instinct tells them not to, not because they know it is wrong to kill.
See, I engineered your statement to make it say the opposite thing, but since it wasn't supported by any evidence, may it be factual or logical, it stayed exactly as valid.
An instinct is not a decision, but a hint towards the probability you have to take a particular decision.to call human emotion an instinct would be to eliminate possibilites of making decisions. such as the choice you have to answer this or not.
Pretty much all tenants of irreducible complexity either:biology cannot explain everything in life. that may not be what you said, but it certainly cannot. biology can not explain irreducable complexity. yes, thats a real term darwin stated that his theory would "absolutely break down" if there was found an organ that could not have developed over time. you know that genetic mutations only take over in a species if they are helpful (by Darwinian evolution), so how do you explain the bacterial flagellum? it has a motor with several parts. any part alone is useless. the structure with any one part missing is useless, so how could it have evolved? Biology, by your definition, certainly cannot explain this.
a) utterly failed their statistics course
b) utterly failed biology
c) lack imagination
d) use the ever so lame god of the gaps argument
Biology has already given a possible evolutionary part for the flagellum.
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/behe.html#six
The bacterial flagellum:
Ian Musgrave has suggested a very interesting evolutionary pathway for the bacterial flagellum. [26] First he casually points out that the major components of the flagellum, the filament, the hook, the rod and the motor are hollow. He then noted that there are major structural similarities between the major components of the bacterial flagellum and a type of bacterial protein secretion system called the type III secretory systems. The type III secretory system has a rivet identical to the rod of the flagellum. The switching/torque generation system also has homologs in type III secretary systems. Some type III secretory system even have tubular structures attached to the rod which resembles the filament of the flagellar system! In type III secretary system proteins are exported through the hollow motor ring and rod! Homology studies have also shown the proteins of the type III secretary system and the flagella are related, in fact in some bacteria these proteins are identical to each other!
Given these clues, he then suggested how the flagellum could have evolved. First the SMC ("Motor") rod pore is evolved forming the simplest secretory system. Then the proto-flagellum arose as part of the protein secretion structure. Finally an ion pump which initially was used for something else (such as keeping ionic cell balance) was incorporated into this structure which gives it perhaps some weak motility. This then is a case where a structure originally meant for some other purpose (protein secretion) evolved to a point where it could be used for another entirely different purpose (motility).
Now see how ludicrous the application of the concept of irreducible complexity is. Viewed as a flagellum, yes, you can't get any simpler than the motor, rod, hook and filament. Yet viewed as a secretory system most of the parts can be dispensed away with.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
How could a fish crawl onto land with a simple leg that had roughly three muscles and was at first just used for steering? It's the same thing. We may not think it like that though. Though the flagellum might be useless without all the parts in this bacteria's form because things change, it's inevitable. The flagellum could just be there at the moment, providing no use to the bacteria. Does this render the creature? Apparently not if it has survived this long. Does it help the creature? Probably not then but it does now. It provides movement in places where there is no outside force for these creatures lived in an ocean that forever moves with the moon's gravitational pull. In ponds, this benefits the bacteria as it can now move freely.
Heck, many people hate toes because they're there. They provide balance though, without one, we would have to relearn how to walk.
For an example of a crippling effect on animals, look at today's cheetahs. To keep up with their prey, they must be fast. Since prey is getting faster, the cheetahs must be faster. The cripple? Cheetah bones are becoming lighter and weaker. Several cheetahs are dying of broken legs since their bones are too weak to keep up with the speed. Hopefully, the lighter bones will die out to keep cheetahs from starving to death of just laying still while hyenas eat them slowly. The problem then would be that a cheetah's hunting average would drop from the low 1 out of 9 to maybe 1 out of 13 or 15.
Nothing is perfect.
No, I wouldn't. Several factors would take place, wind, erosion, vandalization. There are holes, yes, but we are finding them slowly. And no, people cannot stack bricks perfectly so I would not assume a person put it together. Even with technology, nothing is perfect.
I never said there was no supernatural. I believe in the supernatural, mind you, to an extent. I believe that somewhere there is a Loch Ness Monster, maybe not in Loch Ness, but somewhere in the world. There could be a bigfoot, we don't know. But yes, there could be a God, just not the one in the Bible. There could be thousands of Gods but then that would be assuming, wouldn't it? The point is, all we have of proof of a God is a book, one that could be made up. Darwin's theory is backed by the world around us and the world we can picture from fossils.
Ever heard of "freak accident?" Everything has an atom layer according to scientists. Atoms can become unstable, provoking changes in areas of the world. Nuclear weapons can cause dramatic change in a person's DNA, causing cancer, death, and several other diseases. By basic theory, atoms can be switched about in place, forming new types of atoms and thus, making a strand that could be considered DNA.
Or...we can use the "primordial soup," a thick substance that caused several changes to happen by what scientists are unsure of.
And your's is more of fact than a theory? Your's is a theory as well, it has not been proven completely yet. Mine is a theory as it has not been proven completely yet. None of us is right 100%.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Rambunctious, I'm going to have to leave the debate about the flagellum to you and yeah5. But by saying we were even on our theories, that's what I meant.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
"The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their nomes [Ed: An Egyptian administrative district] be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them."
The problem with this is that it says the citizens should return to their own home ; ie, where they lived, worked and woudl be taxed. Biblical evidence is quite clear itself that Joseph lived, worked (and therefore paid his taxes) in Nazareth.
Of course that the prefect woudl require anyone away from their home (and administrative district where they'd pay their taxes, ie the one they lived and worked in) at the time of the census is reasonable ; to have people go to the place of origin of their families is not.
Edit : on the other hand, further reading on the topic has brought before me the point that it would have been possible that Joseph would have owned some ancestral plot of land near Betlehem, requiring him in fact to travel there and register himself because he owned land in that area (which would then make the whole "everyone had to travel to the ancestral land of their family" or such a badly phrased thought rather than a deliberate lie). Since this *is* a sensible explanation, I will withdraw this particular census matter.
On the other hand, I would like to hear from you all on the Quirinius coins and wether or not Quirinius was governor of Syria during the reign of Herod the Great, which Matthew and Luke certainly imply put together.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
The right and wrong answer provided by Brainstorm is indeed wrong. Just because the majority of the population may agree that one choice is right, and a good thing, does not make it true. It is easy to manipulate, as there are too many factors for it to be truly effective. What if the media misleads people? What if the people participating are in some way being controlled, or mislead in some other way? It would never work, not with everything in the World. Not everything can be proven mathmatically, or by humans, for that matter.
Also, that negative feeling you get when you kill someone, where do you think it comes from?
The architecture created by insects is not an invention. In the evolution argument, this would be evolution. In any other, this would be an accumulated instinct (I believe that it is from an intelligent creator).
The 'mistakes' found in the Bible are like I said, generally simple ignorance (or manipulation of the results) from the writers. The ones which weren't were found and corrected translation errors.
Moral and instinct are NOT the same thing. And I would like a further explanation for all these mathmatical solutions you are giving which I have never heard of before.
Once again, I would like to see where you are getting all of these mathmatical answers. And yes, morals require intelligence. I already explained this; animals have no concept of right or wrong; they do not know that murdering is wrong. All they know is how to survive. Since our existance is not so primal, such questions of right or wrong fall on us. Not animals.
Yes, difference is an argument. Above I explained why we have right and wrong: that, along with our superior intelligence, makes us different. Not not animals, but different enough to where things do not apply to us in the same way they do to animals.
If we feel like doing what animals do, maybe I should turn around to kill somebody for food because I am hungry.
Insects succeed where we do not socially because they have no minds and no differing opinions or, for that matter, morals.
Intelligence easily is more important than size, speed, socialism. I can take a gun and even levels with me and an elephant.
Your engineered statement was wrong. Refer to any of my past or current points.
Humans have instincts, but they are not always the right way to follow, as we have higher levels of deciding on things (explained above).
I would like to note your last point was a theory. The man, Ian, proposed it may have happened based on what he saw.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Rambunctious, there is certainly other evidence pointing to the Christian God than that of the Bible. That is not the only thing we have, though it is the only thing (from God) that we follow.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Here's some more evidence for the Bible. At first there was doubt that Luke could get things right. But archaeological evidence that was later to be found proved otherwise.
"In Luke 3:1, Luke refers to Lysanias as tetrarch (that's a kind of regional governing official) of Abilene in about A.D. 27. For years scholars said Luke didn't know what he was talking about, because everybody knew that Lysanias was not a tetrarch but rather the ruler of Chalcis a half century earlier. Then archaeologists found an inscription from A.D. 14 to 37 naming Lysanias as tetrarch in Abila near Damascus- just as Luke had written. There had been to governments named Lysanias. Luke was right.
One prominent archaeologist/atheist carefully examined Luke's references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands and found Luke's writings flawless. This archaeologist, influenced by his findings, later became a Christian. Luke has been found to be one of the greatest historians of all time.
Damian, the Belshazzar point was confused with another point i discussed (the Darious the Mede point)
Posting Permissions