Are there any other agnostics on CC?

College Confidential Community
81

<p>look up argon levels icarus...argon is an inert gas, so its presence in the atmosphere doesn't matter (considering that it's <1% of the atmosphere)...but watch carefully...it isn't in dynamic equilibrium because it's still moving in a particular direction</p>

<p>and as for your laugh, I don't see why you find it so amusing that it takes three evolutionists to take down one creationist lol</p>

<p>I have to do homework, but I'm not about to back down...I'll get back to you on Monday, once I'm done with all my essays</p>

<p>other stuff to chew on...
OK, so maybe I can't prove evolution false, but that doesn't promote it beyond the level of religion...
I'm gonna switch to offense...since you've been asking me to explain so many things, why don't I return the favor?
explain spontaneous generation to me, please, especially since Louis Pasteur proved otherwise
explain to me why you personally believe in evolution...is it because all the "smart people" say so?
explain to me how the Grand Canyon was made
explain to me how the geologic column could be inverted
explain to me who decides what is right
explain to me the motivation to do good
explain to me the purpose of life</p>

<p>most importantly, explain to me the evolutionist double standard
need I remind you of the time when evolutionists found a tooth and enthusiastically reconstructed a "missing link" hominid, while simple tests proved it was a pig's tooth?
what about the time when they found a skull that matched "missing link" predictions and were so excited that they somehow failed to notice that it was held together with bubble gum?
and yet, evolutionists are quick to scrutinize every creationist idea for the slightest flaw</p>

<p>ok, so Dr. Hovind is a little paranoid, but I'd prefer paranoia over racism...need I remind you that Darwin subtitled Origin "On why the Negro man is inferior to the white man"?</p>

<p>the reason so many people believe in evolution is that people are unwilling to express other ideas in the scientific community...I mean, look at me...I post a motion to open-mindedly discuss the existence of God, and evolutionists immediately jump on me and mock me...no wonder people aren't willing to speak up</p>

<p>it's about time I introduced the concept of hell...forget the images of the "lake of fire" for a moment...I believe hell is total sensory deprivation, an infinite void where you feel nothing except perhaps the passage of time...perhaps you're right about the afterlife, or at least the worse half of it lol...
of course, there's the notion that "The mind in itself can make a hell out of heaven and a heaven out of hell"...but I'm not conceited enough to believe that my mind is nearly strong enough to do that...</p>

<p>--Second, the bible never comes out and says "the earth started on this date, blah blah blah" - you extrapolated that age. So yes, i think there is a need to "reinvent the wheel" as you say.
well, I'm sorry, I thought the writers of the bible could assume that people knew how to count</p>

<p>--thank you icarus and plaidcalico... i just don't like stubborn people who don't have their facts straight.
oh, the utter HYPOCRISY...</p>

<p>thanks newt for managing to give level-headed responses...this was supposed to be an "open-minded" discussion, but it seems that's gone out the window...I must claim some responsibility for that, I'm sorry...</p>

82

<p>Pshh....I'm an aethist, and I have made my own religion not concentrating on gods and stuff......</p>

83

<p><a href="http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch30/default.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch30/default.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.creationdesign.org/If%20you%20believe%20in%20evolution.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.creationdesign.org/If%20you%20believe%20in%20evolution.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>remember, ALL sources have bias...you need to differentiate between being "unbiased" and being "biased in a way you like"</p>

84

<p>I can get to the other things later, but for now - the simple fact of the complexity of life and the universe does not disprove evolution, as that second site suggests.</p>

<p>I think this is a pretty good debate as it is - I don't think it would take three "evolutionists" to argue with you, but perhaps the reason you are the only one taking the view that you are is that relatively few people actually believe it.</p>

85

<p>If there were another way of reasoning, another lifeform whose logic told them 2+2=5, we might not be able to know who is right and what is true anymore. They would have to have been created that way and both of us would know just as clearly what 2+2 equals. While we say we would be right because we know what truth is, they would say they know it's right because they know what truth is. Truth isn't a standard just out there that we can find, we only know truth through God - if God decided to create a flawed organism that thought 2+2=5, they'd never be able to conceive that they're wrong.</p>

86

<p>You're still missing the point, limon - in fact, the entire "other lifeform" thing is way off base for this.</p>

<p>I'm saying that for us (humans, with our definitions of the words two and five, etc. etc.), God could never make it true that 2+2=5... thats all i'm saying, and I'm trying to get the point across that this holds true for all points of logic. God cannot define logic, just like he cannot define morality. Sure, we believe that God is a perfect, all good being, so he would command things that were morally right. However, he cannot define what is morally wrong or right. Again, my example - if God were to say tomorrow that murder is morally right, it wouldn't be.</p>

<p>These two things at least are outside of God's control. Thomas Aquinas and many other great theologans who are way more knowledgable about these things than we are accept this as truth.</p>

87

<p>I think the point of mine that you're missing is that it doesn't matter - where does this argument lead?</p>

<p>If there is a standard ABOVE God then God is no longer the greatest thing you can conceive of, thus he is not God. Then that standard simply becomes God. God's essence is to be perfectly true and good and powerful. Sure, you can separate the elements of God - think of power or truth or goodness - but they do not exist outside of God. These are all parts of God, he is the sum total of all perfections. He still does not depend on truth, he IS truth. Truth is his nature. Why say that his nature is greater than he is? You don't say God is perfectly good and worship goodness - goodness is God.</p>

<p>Regardless - whether God defines goodness because it's good or it's good because God defines it as such - it IS good. And God still is right because he is the only standard. He also cannot change his mind or randomly change the rules simply because he is a constant, perfect being.</p>

88

<p>it's kind of funny- i just had this conversation with my crazy christian friend. She basically told me I will burn in hell because i don't believe in jesus. but yet some horrible mass murderer, sexual molester etc. will go to heaven if they "believe" in jesus. i hate how all religious people think that they are better than everyone else. I really like this site: <a href="http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>As to the bible showing "good" lifestyles- is it right to treat women like they're inferior? i know the bible was written a long time ago with different customs etc but the bible is sexist.</p>

89

<p>It can't be proved wether some higher being does or donesn't exist because he/she/it supposedly lives in some other dimension according to believers. However, every single religion that man has made up can be disproved because they all contain stories about things that happened on earth that completely contradict modern science and common sense.</p>

<p>If you say God and/or gods and/or goddesses exist, that's fine with me. You can't prove it and I can't disprove it. However, if you say the world is 6,000 years old or that some guy managed to get two of every spieces on a boat to save them from global flood, I'll laugh at you.</p>

90

<p>You can't prove it and I can't disprove it. However, if you say the world is 6,000 years old or that some guy managed to get two of every spieces on a boat to save them from global flood, I'll laugh at you.</p>

<p>Good point. Probably could have been said better, but good point nonetheless lol.</p>

<p>Tanonev, I had typed out responses to your questions, then accidentally closed the window, so I'm going to try to retype them quickly.</p>

<p>--I dont' understand why i need to explain spontaneous generation to you - have I said anything implying that I believe it? I agree, I think Pasteur pretty well disproved that idea a while ago.
--no, I believe in evolution because every single piece of evidence points to its validity.
--it is difficult to say exactly how the Grand Canyon was formed, but the best explaination is a combination of the Colorado River, vulcanism, and other geologic events occurring over millions of years.
--I don't know what you mean by the geologic column being inverted. Elaborate, please.</p>

<p>Now those last three questions are quite difficult to answer. No one decides what is right - and certainly God doesn't; he just knows what is right.
I dont know how well I can answer the purpose of life or the motivation to do good. I can get back to you on those things if you like.
Also, what is your reason for bringing up the "concept of hell"?</p>

91

<p><i>You can't prove it and I can't disprove it. However, if you say the world is 6,000 years old or that some guy managed to get two of every spieces on a boat to save them from global flood, I'll laugh at you.</i></p>

<p>two of every <i>kind</i>, not two of every <i>species</i>...it's something called "limited variation," also known as microevolution, which is the only form of evolution that has backing (and is generally accepted)...for example, dogs, wolves, dingoes, etc. came from one pair on the Ark...and there's no reason to believe that Noah didn't take some dinosaurs as well</p>

<p>explanation of the dinosaurs:
lizards grow all their lives
hyperbaric conditions allow organisms to live longer and better
antediluvian world had hyperbaric conditions (separate water from water)
conclusion: in the antediluvian world, lizards grew to huge sizes and left what we call dinosaurs (the fact that their DNA doesn't match present-day lizards exactly comes from limited variation/microevolution)</p>

<p>the "geologic column" is the listing of rocks as "Cambrian" or "Triassic" or whatever based on their composition and fossil contents; however, a full geologic column would have to be over 100 miles thick...it is not found in its alleged entirety anywhere on earth, and in some places (I can't remember where, though...look it up) the rock layers are reversed</p>

<p>remember that radioactive dating is based on the <i>assumption</i> that the average atomic mass of the elements has remained constant...a dangerous assumption</p>

<p>I don't quite get how the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon when the Colorado River enters the Canyon nearly 1 mile below its top, nor do I get how the Grand Canyon's sides are formed in ways that would imply its being gouged out by an extremely rapid body of water</p>

<p>people who say "there is no God/afterlife" usually do it because of hell, not because of heaven
the irony is that the afterlife will probably be exactly what people imagine it to be</p>

<p><i>However, every single religion that man has made up can be disproved because they all contain stories about things that happened on earth that completely contradict modern science and common sense.</i></p>

<p>"every single religion" includes evolution...like I said, in order to have evolution you have to have spontaneous generation in one form or another</p>

<p>common sense, huh? are you implying that people have more common sense now than they did before? people didn't go into the "millions of years ago" thing until about 150-200 years ago</p>

<p><i>the simple fact of the complexity of life and the universe does not disprove evolution, as that second site suggests.</i></p>

<p>you wanted cold, hard science, and I gave you the cold, hard science of mathematics</p>

<p>so you admit my argument before that evolution is backed by coincidence...again, evolution cannot advance beyond the level of religion</p>

<p><i>As to the bible showing "good" lifestyles- is it right to treat women like they're inferior? i know the bible was written a long time ago with different customs etc but the bible is sexist.</i></p>

<p>and <i>The Origin of Species</i> is racist...take your pick...</p>

<p>it's right to treat women like they're <i>different</i>, not <i>inferior</i>. We give them separate bathrooms, don't we?</p>

<p>remember that countless scientists in the 1700s and 1800s produced "irrefutable evidence" that "the Negro man was physically and mentally inferior to the white man"...so evolution's "irrefutable evidence" should be looked at in that light</p>

<p>what's wrong with a 6000-year-old world? didn't we prove that the speed of light was variable, that coal can be made in an hour, and that the Earth's surface can change extremely rapidly, especially if some catastrophic incident (meteor meets ice barrier) were to occur?</p>

<p><i>it's kind of funny- i just had this conversation with my crazy christian friend. She basically told me I will burn in hell because i don't believe in jesus. but yet some horrible mass murderer, sexual molester etc. will go to heaven if they "believe" in jesus. i hate how all religious people think that they are better than everyone else.</i></p>

<p>"believing" in Jesus isn't necessarily in the form of a deathbed conversion..."faith without works is dead"...
anyways, the Creator of the game gets to set the rules...</p>

<p>our attempts to rationalize God fail because human logic itself is limited...that's why my game theory thing has so many holes...reliance on human logic alone ultimately leads to nothing but paradoxes and dilemmas...proof that something higher exists</p>

<p><i>I believe in evolution because every single piece of evidence points to its validity</i>
name one...remember, I want evidence pointing to macroevolution, cosmic evolution, etc., not microevolution
i have a feeling you might cite the 4K background radiation of the universe...but that doesn't prove the age of the universe because it assumes at the speed of light is constant</p>

<p>--If the Flood is just a fairy tale, how come every single religion has a flood story?</p>

<p><i>He also cannot change his mind or randomly change the rules simply because he is a constant, perfect being.</i>
Yes, He is a constant, perfect being (probably laughing at all of us right now for this conversation)...but say for a moment that He were to change the rules, so that 2 + 2 = 5...do you really think that if He did so, He would let you remember a time when 2 + 2 = 4? If He were to change a rule, He would also change all of our memories and our pasts as well.</p>

<p>directed towards atheists, not agnostics:
if there is no God, then how can you be sure? you can only be sure if you knew everything, at which point you yourself would effectively be God...since you can't truly be sure, atheism is effectively agnosticism...</p>

<p>I'm typing up a report on 3D computer analysis, so I may not be able to respond immediately</p>

92

<p>ok well once again, my math examples aren't working quite as I had planned. Even God couldn't make it so that if I took two rocks, then added another two rocks, I would have five rocks. It's simply out of Gods control that 2+2=5. If, like you said, he made it that 2+2=5, the definition of "5" would have to change to be "4" lol. And also, you say that he "would" not let us remember a time when... or that he "would" change our memories, etc. like you know what God would do. But God doesn't have to conform to what you think he would do. I still maintain that logic/morality is outside of God's control, and I back that up with logic itself, and many other great theologians who agree with me.
I thought it was a simple example for a simple concept - guess not.</p>

<p>Anyway, since we don't seem to be getting anywhere with the scientific arguments (you just keep saying that my scientific evidence is incorrect, and back it up with your own "science"), so let me ask you a question.
Why do you take the entire Bible completely literally? (I'm going to leave this as open-ended as possible)</p>

93

<p>The bible is definately not supposed to be taken with a literal, each-word-as-it-is, approach. A lot of it has to do with symbolism. However, the underlying message behind it is true. A few example of such symbolism include the visions in Revelations as portrayed by John and the love passages in Song of Soloman. </p>

<p>As 2 timothy 3:16 states: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" -- even if the words are not to believed literally, there is a message behind them.</p>

94

<p>I have a question as well: even if you don't believe in a god, is there a better way to live life than through modeling one's life after Jesus Christ?</p>

95

<p>I think it's important to make the distinction between living a Christ-like life and modeling your life after Jesus.</p>

96

<p>Ok, I think I see what you're saying, but care to clarify? I'm not talking about literally doing the exact same things, but rather the mindset, morals, etc as Christ.</p>

97

<p>Sure - I think you had the right idea - i'm just nit-picky. I was saying that it is certainly possible to live (or at least strive to live) a Christ-like (pertaining to the lifestyle he taught as it is recorded in the Bible) life without ever knowing about Jesus. (which is why I don't understand or accept the protestant doctrine of having to consciously "accept" Jesus to gain salvation)
But no, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a better, more caring way to live.</p>

98

<p>But again, let me add this disclaimer - Jesus isn't the only one who taught a moral lifestyle (others, such as the Buddha and others also taught an equally good lifestyle), so we shouldn't let ourselves get into an elitist mindset like his (Jesus') is the "best" or only way or anything.</p>

99

<p>I think the reason why people accept Jesus is because they accept the fact that he is divine. Sure, if he was only a man there would be no reason to do this, but I think that is not the case.</p>

<p>I would encourage you to examine the facts for yourself about the divinity of Christ and why one would accept him to gain salvation, critically but with an open mind. Sometime when you are free, you should pick up a copy of "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, a lawyer who attended Yale Law School and was a skeptical atheist before examining all the possibilites as to the nature of Christ. It is an excellent and compelling account of all the evidence he found that made him believe in Christ.</p>

100

<p>My previous post was made before I saw your disclaimer, however, there are key differences in Buddhist and Christian doctrine that separate Christ and the Buddha (although I don't claim to be an expert on either topic). </p>

<p>Sure, the buddha was a moral person, but morality is not the only issue here. I do not believe that one can find true and absolute satisfaction in life through buddhism --there is something in the relationship with Christ that no other religion can offer. Then again I'm not buddhist and I know I am ignorant to a certain level. Hmm... where am I going with this again? :p</p>