Celtic Heroes

The Official Forum for Celtic Heroes, the 3D MMORPG for iOS and Android Devices

Re: A Discussion About Religion: The [Threequel]

#91
Plus3 and Vraelean, I have no idea why no one has shared evidence with you yet, but here it is.

Here are a couple of sources that I've found recently and would like to share:

http://www.ucg.org/science/10-ways-darwin-got-it-wrong/

Here is a link if you are into Darwinism for some reason...

http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolut ... out-bible/
http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scie ... ry-of.html

Just a note: I'm not trying 100% to disprove evolution - rather I claim that there may be something that incorporates an aspect of evolution, but we are simply not studying that theorem. I'm open minded if need be.

http://www.equip.org/articles/biblical- ... the-bible/

I am much, much more of a scientist and mathmetician rather than a historian, and that is why I love this first link since it has given me biblical historically correct accuracies found outside of the Bible.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html

This link is a reminder that everything that we are fed should not be taken as true until research is done, because slight inaccuracies can change the meaning of something forever. I am not spoonfed nor have I ever been. I participated in public schooling until only 2nd grade - enrolled in the Target program at the time even - that it is not the best system rather far from it. And so I began independent schooling in 3rd grade after sticking it out another year and was given textbooks by my mother who wanted the best curriculum for me and read reviews online about certain textbooks and giving me secular textbooks for Science and math and Christian textbooks for English, usually. Until I was about 12, I believed the Big Bang and evolution to be true and my mother wasn't very harsh about, since at that time she was not much of a Christian herself. My family and I went to chruch occassionally at the urging of others and on Christmas, and that is how I learned about God. I was not taught about Hell or the Devil, and to my knowledge in most denominational churches that is not taught until higher church.

One day, when I pondered God creating the unviverse, I wasn't apt to believe it of course since my mother hadn't raised me up to be a believer at that time. But, after a couple of weeks of pondering, I took another look at my solar system on my room wall. There were astronomical statistics listed at the bottom, and the ones relating things such as the solar system shown were the ones I looked at. And naturally I wondered, why? Why did energy create itself? Why did time create itself? Logic? I walked to the library and read books about theorems of how the universe was supposedly created, but of course I had theorems of my own at that point, but they circled back to why every time. I finally asked myself a final why - why there are laws to the universe at all? That was it for me. I finally did believe in God - something I thought would never happen because I felt smug in my position anyway.

My parents told me one Sunday later that year and told me that they had decided to start taking my family to church more often. I was excited, because no one had asked us to go to church in quite a while, and I wanted to learn more about this "God character" that had supposedly created the universe that I had thought of as father time as a child back then.

I accepted Christ into my heart at the age of 13... And I let go of Him at age 17... but once again acknowledged Him at 23. That is my brief background regarding Christianity.

I pray for you Vralean and Plus3 that you would let science and Christianity coexist, and they can because I am a minor scientist, also. I accept theories if I see that they are true. (I disagree quite strongly with about only two views - evolution and the Big Bang Theory.).
x*Warrior Tank*x
x*Arawn*x
x*BadaBing*x

Critical thinking greatly intrigues me.

Re: A Discussion About Religion: The [Threequel]

#92
^^^Looked at these cites and have a couple issues of issues

A: They are all sponsored by churches and "religious groups of the world." Not saying its all wrong, just seems a bit biased.
B: Almost all of the "faults" with evolution aren't about evolution, they are about where Darwin wasn't correct. Indeed, he didn't know everything about the cell and other subjects and was wrong in some hypothesises regarding them. However, most of the problems have since been worked out.
C: The third sight is wrong about a lot of things. Would take way to long to discuss for me atm, but it makes little sense.

Not taking a side just yet, just pointing out some issues with these sources.
Last edited by Gladier on Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gladier
Relentless

Re: A Discussion About Religion: The [Threequel]

#93
Aggra_Tetch wrote:Plus3 and Vraelean, I have no idea why no one has shared evidence with you yet, but here it is.

Here are a couple of sources that I've found recently and would like to share:

http://www.ucg.org/science/10-ways-darwin-got-it-wrong/

Here is a link if you are into Darwinism for some reason...

http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolut ... out-bible/
http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scie ... ry-of.html

Just a note: I'm not trying 100% to disprove evolution - rather I claim that there may be something that incorporates an aspect of evolution, but we are simply not studying that theorem. I'm open minded if need be.

http://www.equip.org/articles/biblical- ... the-bible/

I am much, much more of a scientist and mathmetician rather than a historian, and that is why I love this first link since it has given me biblical historically correct accuracies found outside of the Bible.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html

This link is a reminder that everything that we are fed should not be taken as true until research is done, because slight inaccuracies can change the meaning of something forever. I am not spoonfed nor have I ever been. I participated in public schooling until only 2nd grade - enrolled in the Target program at the time even - that it is not the best system rather far from it. And so I began independent schooling in 3rd grade after sticking it out another year and was given textbooks by my mother who wanted the best curriculum for me and read reviews online about certain textbooks and giving me secular textbooks for Science and math and Christian textbooks for English, usually. Until I was about 12, I believed the Big Bang and evolution to be true and my mother wasn't very harsh about, since at that time she was not much of a Christian herself. My family and I went to chruch occassionally at the urging of others and on Christmas, and that is how I learned about God. I was not taught about Hell or the Devil, and to my knowledge in most denominational churches that is not taught until higher church.

One day, when I pondered God creating the unviverse, I wasn't apt to believe it of course since my mother hadn't raised me up to be a believer at that time. But, after a couple of weeks of pondering, I took another look at my solar system on my room wall. There were astronomical statistics listed at the bottom, and the ones relating things such as the solar system shown were the ones I looked at. And naturally I wondered, why? Why did energy create itself? Why did time create itself? Logic? I walked to the library and read books about theorems of how the universe was supposedly created, but of course I had theorems of my own at that point, but they circled back to why every time. I finally asked myself a final why - why there are laws to the universe at all? That was it for me. I finally did believe in God - something I thought would never happen because I felt smug in my position anyway.

My parents told me one Sunday later that year and told me that they had decided to start taking my family to church more often. I was excited, because no one had asked us to go to church in quite a while, and I wanted to learn more about this "God character" that had supposedly created the universe that I had thought of as father time as a child back then.

I accepted Christ into my heart at the age of 13... And I let go of Him at age 17... but once again acknowledged Him at 23. That is my brief background regarding Christianity.

I pray for you Vralean and Plus3 that you would let science and Christianity coexist, and they can because I am a minor scientist, also. I accept theories if I see that they are true. (I disagree quite strongly with about only two views - evolution and the Big Bang Theory.).


As I have said there is less evidence for the scientific theory of gravitation than evolution. In fact we have just seen our first evidence of gravity waves only this last week and still have not isolated or detected gravitons which are the exchange field particles of gravitation.

Let's look at this hilarious religious attempt to 'debunk' the fact of evolution. Cause it is basically the textbook bs going around.

1 the warm pond theory.

Without providing evidence that Darwin thought life came possibly from a warm pond they assert that this is not only wrong it is proven wrong.

Well first off the origins of life have nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is how life adapts and changes not is created. But if you look at how the leading scientists today think life may have originated one version is porous hot vent areas where basic building blocks of life naturally occur and could possibly have formed a far more primitive version of a cell.

So Darwin may not have had 21st century science (which still does not have the answer) but for someone 150 years ago to guess a pretty similar scenario to what is a plausible mechanism is genious. The exact opposite of the religious bollocks.

No one thinks life started out highly complex everyone thinks it started out supremely simple and the diffusion of evolution through possibility created complexity over time. The bollocks argument of complexity from nothing is complete and utter ignorance of facts and reason.

2. And 3. Both deal with Darwin's supposed lack of knowledge about what information is contained within a cell. So? DNA wasn't discovered for 100+ years later. His insight was actually proven to be correct. You can't wait for 99% of the puzzle to be filled in someone else would figure it out first. Science is about using evidence to guess what is going on then failing to disprove it through every effort. And Darwin was right even if he did not have 21st century science knowledge.

4. The gaps in fossils. Only religious people see each new intermediate fossil as doubling the gaps in the record. The probability that any creature is preserved is quite low it is remarkable we have S much as we do. Doubly so in Darwin's time without modern technology and 150 more years to explore. It was quite natural to be concerned over those gaps. Luckily we have filled in an amazing amount and have DNA evidence as well. It takes an obtuse and intellectually dishonest mind to not see the transitions in fossils AND the DNA record.

5 here they try to say that Darwin was wrong about evolution because all evolution is just variation in species. It is complete bs and is not even scientific. In fact you can have speciation occur with enough time under the right circumstances. There are examples of this happening in nature today as well as fossil as well as DNA evidence. It's religious propaganda.

6. They try to say because Darwin may not have understood how speciation took place in the Cambrian period (and here they use examples of science and evolutionary principles to make thier case lol) that somehow evolution is wrong. The man lived 150 years ago and had just figured the whole thing out. Just because he didn't know or because we don't have an exact picture of what occurred 542 million years ago dosent disprove anything about evolution. It was likely a combination of many factors including increased oxygen and other environmental changes, developmental and ecological changes. We have only just developed sophisticated scanning and DNA analysis tools. What we will uncover in our lifetimes alone will be amazing. Leave it to religion to bad mouth knowing most of what went down 542 million years ago instead of all of what happened.
7 possibly the first actual critique of what darwin thought about evolution is here his theory of homology. He thought that similar structures in creatures was evidence of common ancestry. This is partially true but because of how things function similar features are often evolved seperately such as the eye. So not all creatures with eyes share a close common ancestor. But the general idea was close to the mark. Actually a good guess in my opinion. Again it has nothing to do with what we understand today.

8 here they try to say that humans and chimps do not share a common ancestor. They have no actual scientific evidence for this and try to spout nonsense instead of peer reviewed literature. Basically not even a logical scientific argument. They try to argue that chips and humans are similar because they share a common designer. Like god is stupid and lazy and didn't have an imagination. Lol. Just religious ignorance and denial of science facts.

9 here they try and say that the prediction of all life from a common ancestor 'the tree of life' is wrong with no evidence presented whatsoever except some out of context anectdotal quotes. Hilarious. Also completely unscientific. It's religious bollocks. Which brings us to

10 the main objection is Darwin's rejection of biblical creation. Which is actually right on the money. There are more holes in the biblical account of creation than all the Swiss cheese in Wisconsin. Evolution is a fact and some people just can't handle reality. Well keep on denying obvious facts and truths and see where it goes.


Overall it is complete religious nonsensical drivel designed to fool the layperson who dosent really do much thinking on thier own or who really dosent understand science at a 7th grade level. No evidence is presented outside of bad anectdotal stories that actually disproves any evolutionary theory.
Member of Aeon - Taranis - 24 boxer
220+ toons
Ravenleaf druid - Silverstring ranger
Stormsong warrior - Nwerb Mage - Eventide Rogue

Toon histogram:
Level_____|200+|150-199|100-149|50-99|20-49|1-19|
# of toons|_5__|___16___|____3___|__11__|__21_|407|

Re: A Discussion About Religion: The [Threequel]

#95
Magixal wrote:The majority of the stuff said in that link has little to do with evolution itself. And a site like "godnews" is gonna be a wee bit bias.


All of the links are junk science drivel that can be shown to be false by providing evidence. The major problem is some people can't handle reality and do thier best to disbelieve in facts. What people believe only affects thier perception. It has absolutely no effect on reality.

I kind of think it would be fitting punishment to make these people live for a few weeks with 0 technology. No textiles no metal no anything and throw them into nature first hand. It may give them an appreciation of what the scientific method gives us. That is if they don't die outright or suffer life altering injury or disease.
Member of Aeon - Taranis - 24 boxer
220+ toons
Ravenleaf druid - Silverstring ranger
Stormsong warrior - Nwerb Mage - Eventide Rogue

Toon histogram:
Level_____|200+|150-199|100-149|50-99|20-49|1-19|
# of toons|_5__|___16___|____3___|__11__|__21_|407|

Re: A Discussion About Religion: The [Threequel]

#96
Plus3 wrote:
Magixal wrote:The majority of the stuff said in that link has little to do with evolution itself. And a site like "godnews" is gonna be a wee bit bias.


All of the links are junk science drivel that can be shown to be false by providing evidence. The major problem is some people can't handle reality and do thier best to disbelieve in facts. What people believe only affects thier perception. It has absolutely no effect on reality.

I kind of think it would be fitting punishment to make these people live for a few weeks with 0 technology. No textiles no metal no anything and throw them into nature first hand. It may give them an appreciation of what the scientific method gives us. That is if they don't die outright or suffer life altering injury or disease.


It would probably make me appreciate more the beauty of God's creation an convince me more that those amazing things could not have been made through random chance.
Psalm 46:10 He says, "Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth."

Solumbum-200
WeldenS-36
BlodgarmS-35
EragonS-27

Junior Journalist of the Dal Riata Daily Enquirer

Proud Clansman of Divergent

Re: A Discussion About Religion: The [Threequel]

#97
Solumbum wrote:
Plus3 wrote:
Magixal wrote:The majority of the stuff said in that link has little to do with evolution itself. And a site like "godnews" is gonna be a wee bit bias.


All of the links are junk science drivel that can be shown to be false by providing evidence. The major problem is some people can't handle reality and do thier best to disbelieve in facts. What people believe only affects thier perception. It has absolutely no effect on reality.

I kind of think it would be fitting punishment to make these people live for a few weeks with 0 technology. No textiles no metal no anything and throw them into nature first hand. It may give them an appreciation of what the scientific method gives us. That is if they don't die outright or suffer life altering injury or disease.


It would probably make me appreciate more the beauty of God's creation an convince me more that those amazing things could not have been made through random chance.

So you thank god for giving you illness and death? Also, are you ever going to reply to the fact that the common cold evolves every year or just ignore the truth? Because I have brought it up numerous times and you seem to ignore it simply on the basis that your precious church disagrees with what we can see with a £30 microscope.

Re: A Discussion About Religion: The [Threequel]

#98
Solumbum wrote:
Plus3 wrote:
Magixal wrote:The majority of the stuff said in that link has little to do with evolution itself. And a site like "godnews" is gonna be a wee bit bias.


All of the links are junk science drivel that can be shown to be false by providing evidence. The major problem is some people can't handle reality and do thier best to disbelieve in facts. What people believe only affects thier perception. It has absolutely no effect on reality.

I kind of think it would be fitting punishment to make these people live for a few weeks with 0 technology. No textiles no metal no anything and throw them into nature first hand. It may give them an appreciation of what the scientific method gives us. That is if they don't die outright or suffer life altering injury or disease.


It would probably make me appreciate more the beauty of God's creation an convince me more that those amazing things could not have been made through random chance.


Wow really? Have you ever been camping with minimalist gear away from civilization? Have you gone without food and water in a primitive setting?

I'm betting that is what you think now but only 24 hours in you would be reconsidering. Nature is beautiful when you are mowing it down with your SUV or easily conquering it with your aluminum and titanium and electronic gear comfy in space age textiles.

It is brutal when you are dying and have no help and no modern tools. I've almost been there through bad planning when I was nub and I can say first hand you stop seeing the beauty pretty fast.
Member of Aeon - Taranis - 24 boxer
220+ toons
Ravenleaf druid - Silverstring ranger
Stormsong warrior - Nwerb Mage - Eventide Rogue

Toon histogram:
Level_____|200+|150-199|100-149|50-99|20-49|1-19|
# of toons|_5__|___16___|____3___|__11__|__21_|407|

Re: A Discussion About Religion: The [Threequel]

#99
So I was going to make a post about the information but then it seems that Plus3 got that for the most part. However, my main problem starts with the sources, which as Gladier mentioned, are all church sponsored and attack the weak but unrelated parts of the larger theory.

Most notable is that all of those sources are a one person discussion where they mention random issues that are almost conspiracy theories regarding all areas of science.

Their education levels are also problematic. The point is not that they are stupid but the fact that they are drawing conclusions without empirical proofs and it is one person alone per article without any peer review.

First link: Not empirical. No evidence of any experimentation or investigation. Targeting a foundation, not the full present theory we have today.
Conclusion: Invalid.

Second link: Not empirical. No evidence of any experimentation or investigation. Opinions are presented as facts, which regard fossils as inadequate evidence. However, this source fails to consider the larger scope of possibilities which include how fossils are formed, the probability that they are uncovered, the time period in which fossils are from, etc.
Conclusion: Invalid

Third link: Not empirical. Every fact within this article is incorrect and clearly distorted through opinion/belief. The author chooses to, as people say, place words in scientist's mouth and attempts to find error in knowledge but rather only demonstrates error in their own understanding.
Conclusion: Invalid

Fourth link and fifth link: Discussion of texts and events relating to the bible. I will not say they are all coincidences, as the universe is rarely so lazy, but it only proves that the bible was written long in the past and people managed to combine actual historical events with distorted interpretations and unrealistic details. The proof for the bible using other scripture and old texts is faulty due to the fact that not only are they equally if not more unreliable but it is the important details that are different among them. Some events within the bible may have actually occurred but there are too many irregularities to make it reliable and, most importantly, suggest the existence of a god.
Conclusion: In order to make something believable, one could mix lies with some small truth but the cost would be in reliability. With enough patterns and sources of this type we can predict that an event occurred but we can never be sure of its true nature. Therefore, these sources are invalid and the argument made is invalid.

Aggra_Tetch wrote:This link is a reminder that everything that we are fed should not be taken as true until research is done, because slight inaccuracies can change the meaning of something forever. I am not spoonfed nor have I ever been. I participated in public schooling until only 2nd grade - enrolled in the Target program at the time even - that it is not the best system rather far from it. And so I began independent schooling in 3rd grade after sticking it out another year and was given textbooks by my mother who wanted the best curriculum for me and read reviews online about certain textbooks and giving me secular textbooks for Science and math and Christian textbooks for English, usually. Until I was about 12, I believed the Big Bang and evolution to be true and my mother wasn't very harsh about, since at that time she was not much of a Christian herself. My family and I went to chruch occassionally at the urging of others and on Christmas, and that is how I learned about God. I was not taught about Hell or the Devil, and to my knowledge in most denominational churches that is not taught until higher church.

One day, when I pondered God creating the unviverse, I wasn't apt to believe it of course since my mother hadn't raised me up to be a believer at that time. But, after a couple of weeks of pondering, I took another look at my solar system on my room wall. There were astronomical statistics listed at the bottom, and the ones relating things such as the solar system shown were the ones I looked at. And naturally I wondered, why? Why did energy create itself? Why did time create itself? Logic? I walked to the library and read books about theorems of how the universe was supposedly created, but of course I had theorems of my own at that point, but they circled back to why every time. I finally asked myself a final why - why there are laws to the universe at all? That was it for me. I finally did believe in God - something I thought would never happen because I felt smug in my position anyway.

My parents told me one Sunday later that year and told me that they had decided to start taking my family to church more often. I was excited, because no one had asked us to go to church in quite a while, and I wanted to learn more about this "God character" that had supposedly created the universe that I had thought of as father time as a child back then.

I accepted Christ into my heart at the age of 13... And I let go of Him at age 17... but once again acknowledged Him at 23. That is my brief background regarding Christianity.

I appreciate you opening up, as that is difficult to do on a public forum, however, your story seems more like you did not know the answer and instead of seeking it out, you chose to just accept an idea from your family. All I can really say is that I encourage you to look at new ideas or even old controversial ideas and follow it through logically and independent of any belief. Do not assume that God exists or does not exist but simply examine the idea independent of everything but logic and pattern.

Aggra_Tetch wrote:I pray for you Vralean and Plus3 that you would let science and Christianity coexist, and they can because I am a minor scientist, also. I accept theories if I see that they are true. (I disagree quite strongly with about only two views - evolution and the Big Bang Theory.).

For now, science and Christianity can coexist. You just have to change the theory to match the evidence, not the other way around. Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are based off of all the evidence we have available. Many people who are Christians believe in both ideas and they simply changed their beliefs in order to match the evidence of the Big Bang and Evolution.

I do not mean to seem harsh about what I am about to say but you are not a scientist. You disagree with evolution and the Big Bang due to your belief in Christianity, not any evidence. Only the scientific ideas that seemingly contradict the bible are debated by you and other such religious people. A scientist is one who looks at all available evidence and changes an existing theory or makes a new one. You on the other hand choose to look at some of the evidence and then fit it into an old idea.

I actually have an analogy for that whole line of thinking. It is like trying to keep an old computer running by adding and replacing what you can. However, an old computer, like many religions, has some parts that simply can not be replaced or modified. As time goes on, new technology is developed (that is the new evidence) but you can only pick and choose certain new technologies in order to keep the same old computer running.

The point is, you need to either replace the entire computer with a new computer that manages to incorporate most if not all of the new technology or replace larger parts of it because that computer is a part of a larger network or chain that is humanity and, as they say, you are only as strong as your weakest link.

Edit: One slow computer on a network does slow down some of the processes. That is what the mention of "weakest link" is referring to in relation to the potential of religion to slow down some of humanity's processes and progress.
Last edited by Vraelan on Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image

Re: A Discussion About Religion: The [Threequel]

#100
Magixal wrote:
Solumbum wrote:
Plus3 wrote:
All of the links are junk science drivel that can be shown to be false by providing evidence. The major problem is some people can't handle reality and do thier best to disbelieve in facts. What people believe only affects thier perception. It has absolutely no effect on reality.

I kind of think it would be fitting punishment to make these people live for a few weeks with 0 technology. No textiles no metal no anything and throw them into nature first hand. It may give them an appreciation of what the scientific method gives us. That is if they don't die outright or suffer life altering injury or disease.


It would probably make me appreciate more the beauty of God's creation an convince me more that those amazing things could not have been made through random chance.

So you thank god for giving you illness and death? Also, are you ever going to reply to the fact that the common cold evolves every year or just ignore the truth? Because I have brought it up numerous times and you seem to ignore it simply on the basis that your precious church disagrees with what we can see with a £30 microscope.


The standard issue reality denial argument is the common cold just exhibits variation that was imbued within it by god at creation. Why god would help viruses infect and kill everyone from the most pious to the most detestable is beyond me. Just more evidence of gods all loving benign plan for us all. Or not lol.

Of course it's complete bs but hey if you deny facts that's all you are really left with.
Member of Aeon - Taranis - 24 boxer
220+ toons
Ravenleaf druid - Silverstring ranger
Stormsong warrior - Nwerb Mage - Eventide Rogue

Toon histogram:
Level_____|200+|150-199|100-149|50-99|20-49|1-19|
# of toons|_5__|___16___|____3___|__11__|__21_|407|

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests