The more and more I learn about the sordid history of religion the less I believe in the writings of the men who wrote the religious texts, where our entire faith comes from.
Did religion create man or did man create religion.
Sorry MeanDean I was so looking forward to your reply and proof science is faith based but you enlightened nothing whatsover. As with Gizmo I am going to be blunt, what a load of crock you waffled, tangents and all.
I could quote you sentence by sentence and post so many links it would take readers weeks to go through them all but basically what you do is put the onus of proof back onto us and onto science when we don't have to prove something exists just because someone says it does.
Quoted from MeanDean
Prove it. Prove there is no God. Don't give me evidence that I can just continue to say "Yeah... but prove there is no God," to. I feel like the world got divided into teams and that the debate took a wierd tangent long before I was ever born and now it is itself a subtle war... and look back on your posts boomslanger... you are cocky but accuse those who believe something you do not of being the same.
It is not up to us or anybody to prove there is no God, that is completely disengenous in the extreme. You can't come out and claim something exists but have absolutely no evidence for its existence and then say to everyone prove it doesn't exist.
There is a giant boomslanger living in the sky, no better still there is a Rainbow Serpent and the tail of this serpent formed the rivers of the world and scooped out the earth and made it rain so the indentations filled to become the oceans, and it caused the earth to shake so mountains rose up out of the earth. It now looks over the beautiful planet it created and is saddened as the ape creatures have risen up and are destroying it. Prove the Rainbow Serpent doesn't exist?
The Big Bang is fact and proven. I could post so many links and the maths that prove it. Hubble can look back to the moment 8-12 minutes after the Big Bang, when particles and light formed. Nothing can look back further than that but maths and physics can calculate it to the finest degree from the very first particles and energy that Hubble does see. It's just tracing backwards what the physical evidence shows, like forensics. What do you hear when you tune between radio stations or what is the snow and noise between TV stations? That is the sound of the background radiation of the Big Bang itself, the background of the Universe. Physical tangible evidence that everyone on the planet can see and hear.
The very shape and makeup of the Universe, the way galaxies cluster (super clusters), the bubble shapes of apparent emptiness inbetween the clusters (dark matter mostly) are the exact stuff of something that went bang, it cannot get the way it is by any other means.
Evolution is fact and proven. Just how long do you want this thread to be. Just search the web or go to the library or any science faculty of any university (except fundamentalist Christian ones and some others in the US). What is in dispute for evolution is not that it is absolute fact, but just certain fine machinations of adaptation and mutation.
What science is doing bit by bit is proving the unknown and the unknowable, which is what has the church so upset and running this background campaign against science, and why Intelligence Design started and tried to be legally established as a science. You state that science cannot know everything, that is not quite correct, apart for what created the first singularity and what set it off, there is nothing else that science given time, resources and technology cannot eventually solve. They are doing it all the time, things only a few short years ago the church were claiming as proof of God as they were unfathomable are now taught to secondary school science classes as quantifiable fact.
The only agument you didn't come up with and I expected you to was "Divinity". If people are interested in this line being pushed by the Christian church I can give a brief explanation and an excellent link from the Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05048b.htm
PS. Snakeboy does offend me, as you intend it to be offensive. I chose boomslanger as an avatar and alias because the name grabbed my attention a while back, then when I read up on the boomslang I thought what a cool animal, so took the name, and I use it in the motorbike forums I'm a member of.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
As with most things in life, we have good and bad elements. Religion, politics, the list is endlless. Making generalisations that religion (i.e. man) caused this, that and the other is one of those generalisations. Claiming alcohol was the reason for Mel Gibson's tirade against the Jewish people is another generalisation. Replace generalisation with excuse, as I think you'll find man (Mel in the case expressed here) is responsible for all of the above.
You decided to offend, and to offend on merit of my username, Snakeboy.
I was expecting this one and you are true to form.
The way of the devout:
1. Invoke faith whenever the opposition asks something of your religion that cannot be answered, is illogical or has no proof.
2. At the next invoke Divination. There is absoluely no retort to that premise at all. The greatest debaters and philosophers have not been able to counter divinity.
3. Finally attack personally.
I have the greatest respect for someone's faith and admire those who follow their beliefs devoutly without violence or attempting to impose that faith on other faiths or non-believers. I have no greater respect for anyone than a person who through their faith gives their whole life over to helping mankind.
I have absolutely no respect whatsover for those who use their faith as a recourse to violence or attempt to convert others, especially when these others are the poor and destitute with no other hope (the greatest bulk of Christianity and Islam btw). The affluent and relatively well off in the world tend to be non-religious or only tokenistic towards their religion.
I also have no respect for those who use religion to discount solid and proven science and those devout who attack the sciences, and worse attempt to impose their religion onto school children as science.
Finally I have no respect for anyone who resorts to personal attacks in an attempt to win an argument or to divert attention from their weak premises. I never personally attacked you, your right to faith or your religion, but several times now you have come out and attacked me. You came up with "Snakeboy" as a derogatory put down even asking if I minded, then when I said I did, you use it as a single come back as a deliberate attempt to denigrate me.
You started this debate saying on several occassions, in fact averring it on each occassion, that science is based on faith. That is what I am attempting to confute in what I think is a logical and non-disparaging way. Either debate that or religion but leave the personal out of the computer please.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
You decided to offend, and to offend on merit of my username, ***.
MeanDean, . . . No need to debate with somebody who hits below the belt and turns it into a personal attack. Talk to me instead.
As a long time lover of all science and not being half bad at it at school . . I have a question for 'believers' in evolution . . and it starts with the amazing giraffe.
If such an animal came from the evolution process I want to know how it survived its first 'day'. . .you see, it has a valve in its lower neck that regulates blood pressure. . .with such a long, high neck the pressure the heart needs to push the blood to its head is tremendous. Now think about what would happen if that giraffe suddenly puts his head in a downwards position to have a drink at the river. . . the blood pressure (if unchecked) would blow his head off!. . The valve allows him to stand tall for tree meals. . and bow low to drink. If the first giraffe had not 'evolved' that valve then he would have died before pro-creating . . thereby not allowing time for 'genetic mutation' to take place for the benefit of 'evolving' that valve.
I ask anyone who professes a faith in evolution to show me one example of 'genetic mutation' of any mammal that has even one benefit.
I throw that simple challenge open now.
DEMOCRACY = Voters deciding by Poll on who will be the local member that "Big Business" will push around.
Edit: For clarity when reading, that this was being typed before your last post and I've only done a little editing to adress that a little and to make this one more clear, but this insertion is probably better.
Quoted Text
God created man; man created religion
Quoted from boomslanger
Great one Paula, succint and says it all. I like it a lot.
I'm supprised my last post wasn't deleted. Anyhow, fark, if I make a weekly apology it will be in it. I just now noticed this what I quoted though... and I don't get it... I am a Christian but in all honesty this is the only angle I was driving at. How did we spend so much time on something when this was acceptable to both of us? Why do you accept the possiblity of God here then if you think that science has zero faith with it?
I came to the site just now specifically hoping that the thread would still be open with the intention of putting back out more clear and emotionally sane argument and then noticed that... what the hell?
Here's basically how it was going to go down though, since I'm not too confident you're not disagreeing still that there is faith involved in science so here it will be if that is the case: 1. Accept somewhat the analogy of the Giant boomslanger and the Rainbow serpent but point out that although the spagetti monser is a religion, very few people ever looked around in awe of anything and said "it must have been the rainbow serpent" and that it's less likely that people get angry with the rainbow serpent for creating war and suffering.
2. Note that in your second to last post second paragraph you used "us" and "we" in referance to science and enquire if that was the result of an informal association implying "you all" stereotyping me to the retards associated with running some Churches, that comes later in the post or if that refers to yourself as a part of the scientific community and if so, ask what your qaulifications are so that we can narrow it down to something less condecending and use comparison of how ludicrous it would be (although less broad) to say "us" and "we" when talking about the Free Software Foundation when my contribution is real but miniscule, then illustrate that there are about 10 gigabytes on my computer, that this is a drop in the buckut and that bucket is just a drop in much bigger bucket, and so on compare again the size of this to just one field of science, state that the one field would be bigger, then again hassle you for clarification but in such a way to not look like an a** in case you have a degree that qualifys you in something we've hit on.
3. Point out frustration but accept to a degree what you are saying about not having to prove God but point out that in these debates you people (point out usage of 'us' and 'we' again) tend to expect me to offer proof on my end... make off colour remark about hippocracy then take it further off centre bitching about 'you people' often refering to me as a hippocrite and objecting to religion on the basis of hippocrasy which is something that we all come with. Attempt to bring it back to to accepting your opinion that you don't need to offer proof but only to then make referance back to my tangent and break it down. 3. a. That everything in there is valid thinking and can not be ignored, that science throws all those questions at us, then ask you to answer those questions. State that since we both know that there is no other answer that either of us would ever come to other than to say that they are ridiculous assertions and questions, which is easy to do but it doesn't solve anything because this attitude discounts the science, and solid supporting mathmetics of that science, and we just can't do that. Point out that the only other answer is that "We just don't know and we can't say that we ever will" and state that this clearly offers room for faith and even demands either faith, denial, or delusion when put in the perspective that unified theories of everything can not themselves ever be proven (argue that all good logic has me thinking it would take separate a labratory that IS a universe, to do so). Point out also that the reason there are people working to come up with, and that have presented, theorys of everything is for a couple of reasons probably ego being the bigger one but that also refusal to accept God can exist plays a big part in there and denial of God or refusal to accept it as a possibility seems to be a requirement for that sort of motivation. Either that or they are trying to assign equations to Him. 3 b. Remind us that wer'e still on the tangent, ask you explicitly to tell me if you can or can not answer all of those questions and address those wondering thoughts with authorty and if not to make a firm statement about if they will ever be known. Point out also that this is just one single thing that comes about from one principle of an entire field that deals in things from mathematics (experiments sold separately and coming much later) which is pretty solid, and point out that my wandering tangent is just the tip of the iceberg. 3 c. Point out that although the field is supported by mathematics, that no one in their right mind can claim to really understand the paradoxal nature of what the implications of that math is in reality, and since also no one can look at that math and understand what it's represtenting when it comes to say apples and oranges and that one is often forced to abandon logic as we understand it and take for granted when dealing with these things, that dealing with them requires some " 'faith' " for the moment or else we would either walk away from it as absurd or go insane or something.
4. Point out that you are the fist of your kind (refer to 'us' and 'we' assertions again) who discounted Godel as having been on to something that didn't allow for God within a strict evironment of science.
5. Disagree again about evolution being proof. State that it is not an exact science, state that it can not be reproduced to test at a level high enough to be proof. Link to an ariticle of my choosing that offers scientific process in the strict sense that I understand it.
6. Remind you again, using bolded and capital words to emphasise annoyance with your refusal to get it, that I'm not arguing with the Big Bang or Evolution, and state that if it is not an exact science (having armed myself with the said link) then there is obviously an element of faith involved with it. Maybe also if I'de gotten myself worked up enough like last time, point out that I'm not an idiot when it comes to it and don't need to be treated like one by listening to your explanaitions (yet while somehow also trying to ask for a link to the bit that explains the bubble shaped formation of stuff since I didn't know it had a model).
7. Use Snakeboy again if I was angry, which I am not (although I am annoyed) and then go on to explain that my username was thought up before I had an internet count, that it wasn't meant to imply that I am mean but to be stupid since it is rarely true and that where I can be a d**k is coincidence.
8. Hit the edit button at least 4 times because I forgot things I wanted to include (probably forgot a lot here too). Hit Edit 3 to 5 more times to correct things like mistyping "don't beleive" for "beleive" by getting ahead of myself and leaving words out and correct spelling. Hit edit to remove something I had quoted but then decided not to use.
9. Hit edit, add or remove something insulting depending on my mood.
Edit: 10. Add in there somewhere that Godel's proof comes down to the idea that science can not prove science and attempt to draw some weird correlation to religion does not prove religion. Back it up and say that even without wierd religion statement that just made me look stupid, your attitude is silly given Godel's proof and that this alone, as old as it is, should be enough to introduce the idea that there are elements of faith in science.
I only qualify for one of those things you have no respect for but as stated already, you have treated me as if I qualify for more on your list and that was insulting to me and I veiw that as a bit of an attack and I see that it started there. I've been far more blunt about it and that has not been good. I've perceived your attitude all along as being "Us" and "We" and felt you were categorsing me and being a little cocky toward me throughout this by taking that attitude, I did state that and you denied it but now appears that you have indeed revealed yourself.
I sincerly apologise as it seems I am being a little too precious and have read things into your posts that your last one have clarified. I believed from the way you had written and by putting meanings into my posts that were never there in the first place, you were couching this as an us and them, that I got that wrong I apologise.
No you insulted mine first and I can post the chronology of posts, and I didn't directly insult your alias, I said after you bought up me being mean (again reading into my post meanings that aren't there) and the snake avatar, that it wasn't me who had Mean in my alias, that was it. It was you who went on about the Snakeboy bit even asking me if I minded to which I replied I would take it as an insult, so you went ahead and used it. I only referenced your alias once as an aside, yet you continue to personally insult me after I specifically asked you not to.
So please can you get over it, drop the Snakeboy insult and continue arguing the religious debate this thread is about?
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
As a long time lover of all science and not being half bad at it at school . . I have a question for 'believers' in evolution . . and it starts with the amazing giraffe.
If such an animal came from the evolution process I want to know how it survived its first 'day'. . .you see, it has a valve in its lower neck that regulates blood pressure. . .with such a long, high neck the pressure the heart needs to push the blood to its head is tremendous. Now think about what would happen if that giraffe suddenly puts his head in a downwards position to have a drink at the river. . . the blood pressure (if unchecked) would blow his head off!. . The valve allows him to stand tall for tree meals. . and bow low to drink. If the first giraffe had not 'evolved' that valve then he would have died before pro-creating . . thereby not allowing time for 'genetic mutation' to take place for the benefit of 'evolving' that valve.
I ask anyone who professes a faith in evolution to show me one example of 'genetic mutation' of any mammal that has even one benefit.
Sorry Gizmo you again seem to have evolution happening in an instance. Your examples really don't hold up to any scrutiny whatsover. Giraffe neck evolution happened over a very long time, from a ground browsing animal (deer) to one that could reach a food source only tree dwelling animals were utilising. Though there is an hypothesis that the long neck evolved from sexual selection. http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm
Sauropods of the Jurassic developed very long necks to access a food source other browsing animals could not, they also evolved from short necked ground browsing animals just as the Giraffe evolved from the deer species.
Giraffes have caused controversy in science as there is very little evidence found on its long neck.
Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx.
The first giraffids were Climacoceras Drawing(very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx(also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns.
From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
I sincerly apologise as it seems I am being a little too precious and have read things into your posts that your last one have clarified. I believed from the way you had written and by putting meanings into my posts that were never there in the first place, you were couching this as an us and them, that I got that wrong I apologise.
No you insulted mine first and I can post the chronology of posts, and I didn't directly insult your alias, I said after you bought up me being mean (again reading into my post meanings that aren't there) and the snake avatar, that it wasn't me who had Mean in my alias, that was it. It was you who went on about the Snakeboy bit even asking me if I minded to which I replied I would take it as an insult, so you went ahead and used it. I only referenced your alias once as an aside, yet you continue to personally insult me after I specifically asked you not to.
So please can you get over it, drop the Snakeboy insult and continue arguing the religious debate this thread is about?
Yeah man. I'm not really too happy with where it's taken me and you seem like a nice guy too. I feel a bit emabarrased. I apologize.
So true, as do you (seem to be a good and very knowledgable bloke). Now the mutual admiration society has closed, back to the debate:
Getting some stuff together in reply to your last but I don't want to turn this thread into massively overlong posts of quotes and replies, so am trying to condense it all without losing the thread of my argument.
Be back.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Logged
Talk to me instead. 
