<p>Agnostic but I hate it how so many christians are sooo narrow minded. I prefer other religions which are more open minded</p>
<p>I was born a Roman Catholic and although I haven't been to church for a very long time, I still consider myself Roman Catholic on applications.</p>
<p>I have a very general belief in God. I believe that he was the agent for evolution and other natural occurences and that he has some control over everyone's destiny. </p>
<p>I find comfort in "praying" to him when I don't find support elsewhere. ie Please God, make me do alright on this final...</p>
<p>My friend says I'm an agnostic, but I hesistate to call myself one, simply because I don't like the term (for personal reasons).</p>
<p>I do believe in Jesus, the Prophets, and the stories in the Bible to an extent. I don't take them literally however. Aesop made up fables about animals to encourage people to behave the best they could, and that's how I feel about the Bible. Plus, I know that the Bible is a translation and therefore the translator's interpretation so that you must take it with a grain of salt; read it for religious comfort not literal meaning.</p>
<p>nope, I don't believe in God.. mostly an atheist.
but I do follow Buddha's teachings, and am attempting to follow the eightfold path..</p>
<p>Atheist here too. fun stuff.</p>
<p>Semi Hindu/Agnostic. Take out good stuff from where I can. Check out my blog:</p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.mit.edu/Sagar%20Indurkhya%5B/url%5D">http://blogs.mit.edu/Sagar%20Indurkhya</a></p>
<p>and the "Deterministic Universe" Thread I made in the MIT forum. Fun discussion.</p>
<p>I'm agnostic, or I guess some would call me a "weak atheist"....If I had to pick a religion, it would definitely be Buddhism. It seems to be one of the few religions that is accepting and tolerant of the beliefs and lifestyles of others, while many other religions preach kindness and acceptance, yet shun others and condemn them to hell or some other eternal suffering......</p>
<p>McLover3, how do you "KNOW" that such things like agnosticism and atheism are "absurd and wrong"?</p>
<p>I'm stuck somewhere between weak atheism and strong atheism. On the one hand, I don't believe in God for the usual reason: I regard God as an unnecessary hypothesis. I'm also extremely disillusioned with all the oppression and murder that religions have caused over the centuries. On the other hand, I feel strongly compelled to disbelieve in God for the following reason:</p>
<p>If God is an omnipotent entity that rewards and/or punishes people based on their actions (i.e. heaven/hell), then there is no freedom, since it is impossible to escape the judgment on an all-powerful being. One might argue that we are "free" to disobey God's law, but I liken that argument to saying that we are "free" to disobey the laws of a totalitarian regime--we do not regard the freedom to disobey Stalin as true freedom (free from punishment), and thus, If God exists, then there is no freedom.</p>
<p>Therefore, even if you could scientifically prove the existence of God, I still would not believe in Him (or try not to, at least) because I want to be a free individual. I'm somewhat torn on this issue, for I assign great value to the search for truth, yet I would rather have the illusion of freedom than the knowledge that I can never get it.</p>
<p>I am impressed by the honesty and lack of judgement of others beliefs displayed in this thread. Bravo</p>
<p>What exactly does Taoism entail?</p>
<p>God doesn't punish you. You punish your self...christianity is partly based on karma. However; that eternal lake of "fire" is only to those that dissobbey the rules of God. God promises eternal life to those that do follow his "rules". After all; we were created by God, and we have no power whatsover, if he wants to end our lives, so be it...</p>
<p>hmm....although i am a believer of scientific truths and no proof exists, i still like to have faith in the idea of god........faith gives me mental strength :)</p>
<p>Even more interesting; Major Universities are religious.</p>
<p>Why would a fish need to develop the capacity to breathe on land if it is a sea-bound organism? If this theory were put in reverse, then human sailors would spontaneously begin to develop gills in their multi-millenial preparation to become fish. You see, evolution can't explain what spurs the conceptual development of a certain organ. For example, how did the eye first evolve? Did the organism say to itself "Hey, I think things could be a lot cooler if I could see." So did the pea-brained organism began to sponatneously develop an eye, did it just happen to pop up over many generations like an irritating pimple? Did this organism just happen to know that it must somehow convert photons into electricity so that it's nervous system might be able to send those images to it's brain? This is like saying a video camera, which mimics the eye's function, gradually built itself, with no planning and no supervision. If organisms evolve things to help them survive, how do they survive while they are actually evolving those mechanisms? Look at the respiratory system: How does an organism breathe while it is evolving a respiratory system? The same goes for the reproductive system: how does an evolving organism reproduce with a semi-formed, non-functional reproductive system? Since we all allegedly came out of the water, at what point did we stop being born in eggs and began being gestated in the uterus? There has to be a specific break in gestation modes, a break where the one passed over to the other. And all this with random, unplanned, trial and error-based evolution!!!! The theory of evolution cannot explain these problems so it conviniently overlooks and ignores them. I have read lot's of literature both for and against evolution and my opinion is that Life on Earth is just too amazing and creative to be the product of random, chaotic natural selection. Cheers.</p>
<p>The theory of evolution claims that all matter was formed by chance. By some extraordinary feat of magic, inorganic and unconcious matter "developed" the ability to come together and form life. If this holds true than the ability for me to suddenly evolutionise (if circumstance permits) into a giant spiky eyeball also becomes a likely reality.</p>
<p>If evolutionists bring together the elements that constitute the building blocks of life: carbon, nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, and add as many amino acids and proteins (of which one has the formation ability of 10-950) and mix these in a big barrel, the only thing that's formed is a sodding heap.</p>
<p>The law of Thermodynamics claims that natural conditions always lead to disorder and degeneration of information. Therefore it flies in the face of an evolutionary possibility.</p>
<p>The Fox experiment conducted by Sydney Fox (which was a continuation of Miller), was devised to prove that inanimate matter has the ability to generate life. He delved with a croc of ******** investigations regarding the formation of proteins.</p>
<p>According to him, the early amino-acids must have been dragged, (or perhaps walked! LOL) to some cliff near a volcano right after their formation in the great primordial soup. The water containing such amino acids must have evaporated when temperatures reached boiling point, thus the amino acids which were "dried" could have combined to form proteins. One major underlying point here is that amino acids cannot endure temperatures exceeding boiling point, hence should have been destroyed.</p>
<p>Another point is that in order for a protein to be formed by chance, it must [a] have the right types and sequence of amino acids ** all amino acids must be left-handed and [c] they should all be united by the peptide bond. Even then, the probability of the formation of a protein by chance is equal to the multiplication of the probabilities of realisation of each of these conditions.</p>
<p>For an average molecule comprising of 500 amino acids, the probability of amino acids being in the right sequence are slim. Look at it this way:</p>
<p>There are 20 types of amino acids used in the composition of proteins.</p>
<p>The probability of each amino acid being chosen correctly among this number is =</p>
<p>1/20</p>
<p>The probability of all of these 500 amino acids being chosen correctly thus,</p>
<p>= 1/20(500)
= 1 chance in 10(950)</p>
<p>If you look at it that way, than there's probably more probability that I'll sprout green moss on my butt.</p>
<p>In my opinion, Fox was the equivalent of a broken joystick. He wanted to prove to the world that he was a great man by trying to form and isolate protein molecules. That's right, I said form as in create. How can one obtain meaningless proteinoids and expect them to come to life in laboratory conditions? Newsflash, duh, but protein molecules cannot be produced. Also, the probability of a protein being formed by chance is zero, therefore the probability of me turning into a deviant bodysnatcher to devour his guts (although unfortunate) is zero too.</p>
<p>Also, homology is a myth.</p>
<p>thesloc:
Stalin doesn't punish you. You punish your self...Stalin's law is partly based on karma. However; that eternal lake of "fire" is only to those that dissobbey the rules of Stalin. Stalin promises eternal life to those that do follow his "rules". After all; we were created by Stalin, and we have no power whatsover, if he wants to end our lives, so be it...</p>
<p>Although the last part's a bit of a stretch, I could just as well make a clone in my basement and call it my "creation." That doesn't give me the right to kill it, since it's a living, breathing, independent, sentient person.</p>
<p>Also, your views on evolution are seriously flawed, but I really don't want to turn this into a stupid evolution debate. I'll just say that your argument against natural selection is dubious at best, since it takes the simplistic straw-man stance that an eye would have to develop all at once, and because of some "choice" to see, which directly countermands the very principles of evolutionary theory.</p>
<p>Your argument using the Second Law of Thermodynamics is utterly inane; any basic science course will tell you that the UNIVERSE tends towards disorder, and this doesn't necessarily apply to open systems.</p>
<p>Your next argument, which attempts to "prove" that a functioning protein could never form, is a very weak probabilistic argument that has been refuted many times. First of all, you grossly overestimate the number of amino acids necessary for a functioning protein. Secondly, you do not take into account the vast time that is available for proteins to form. Thirdly, you don't recognize that proteins can be generated using many, many different combinations of amino acids. Fourth, and most significantly, you don't address the many alternative explanations for abiogenesis, including those involving RNA, PNA, etc.</p>
<p>Intelligent Design fails one of the basic tests of a scientific theory: falsifiability. There is no way I could disprove your assertion that life was somehow "designed," even given unlimited technology. Your argument is akin to this "theory":</p>
<p>My friend Larry created the Universe 3 minutes ago. All of your memories have been implanted. Prove me wrong.</p>
<p>No matter how many clever, oversimplified analogies you can come up with, it only reinforces my argument that the appeal of creationism is based on ignorance; a simple, though demonstrably false, explanation attracts many people, and thus, the "theory" stays afloat.</p>
<p>I'm not even going to address the numerous unsubstantiated assertions that you brought up, for I still don't want to turn this into an evolution thread (although I fear I may have done so).</p>
<p>yup, i do and i am proud</p>
<p>God...nah...</p>
<p>I've practically been terrorised for proclaiming that Darwin has more holes in his theory than a leaking boat, but the only reason morons negate me is because their concepts are flawed and outdated and they know it.</p>
<p>Even though scientists were harping on about there being a link between invertebrates and fish, no transitional evidence has really ever been found. You know this, I know this, but obviously the only way to make scientists understand this is by throwing bricks at them.</p>
<p>Everyone knows that invertebrates and fish have different structural differences. Such an enormous "evolution" would have taken billions of steps, so there should be a wide array of transitional fossils to back this up. But, the custard pie truth is, there isn't.</p>
<p>Scientists hypothecised that some fish needed to pass from sea to land because of feeding problems, which quite frankly, moistens my gussets with laughter. The main reasons for this being impossible are thus:</p>
<p>Weight</p>
<p>Sea dwelling creatures have no problem in carrying their own weight. However, most land-dwelling creatures consume, say, thirty-forty % of their energy just lugging their bodies around. Creatures making their transition from water to land would have had to suddenly develop new muscular and skeletal systems (!) to meet the required energy need at the same time, which is impossible to have been formed by chance mutations, unless you're a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle.</p>
<p>Heat Retention</p>
<p>We all know that on land, temperature fluctuates, however, remember that land dwelling creatures have a bodily mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes without them suddenly self combusting and blowing up in everyone's face. In the sea, the temperature changes slowly and the change doesn't occur within such a wide range. A living organism that has a body system regulated in accordance to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protection system to ensure minimum harm from the temp changes on land. So it's kind of proposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations (which aren't spurred by any suspect catalyst) as soon as they stepped onto land.</p>
<p>Use of water</p>
<p>Yes that's right: water, H20, sea-blood. This is essential to metabolism. Water and even moisture need to be used restrictively due to scarcity of water on land. Eg, an organism's skin has to be designed to permit losing water to a certain extent while also preventing excessive evaporation. Therefore, the land-dwelling creatures will have a sense of thirst, something which sea dwelling organisms don't have. One has to remember that sea-dwelling animals don't have skin which is suitable for a non-aquatic habitat... well... unless you're a little mermaid.</p>
<p>Kidneys</p>
<p>Sea dwelling organisms can easily discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, in their bodies by filtering them through gills, and since there is plenty of water in their habitat they're a-okay. On land though, water has to be used economically. This is why living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the almighty kidney, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea, meaning minimum amount of water is used during excretion. In addition to this, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. That means that in order for the passage from water to land to have occured, living things without a kidney would have had to suddenly develop a kidney system. LOL.</p>
<p>Respiratory System</p>
<p>Fish breathe by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they frantically pass through their gills, so they cannot live for more than a couple of minutes out of water. In order to live on land, they'd have to acquire a perfect damm system too.</p>
<p>Now you can see why it's impossible that all these dramatic psysiological developments could have happened in the same organism at the same time and by chance!</p>
<p>Have you read The Descent of Man?</p>
<p>Darwin is also a ****ing racist as explained thus:</p>
<p>" The break between man in a more civilised stat, as we may hope, even than the Caucasion, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and gorilla."</p>
<p>Apparently, social darwinism proposes that existing human races are located at different rungs of the evolutionary ladder. Not only were his ideas theorised and not fact, but they also provided an important scientific platform for racism. So, a black man is actually more closer to a gorilla than a whitey. Hear that homie?</p>
<p>Just another nail in the coffin of evolution: Since evolution says that species gradually evolve, this means that there are organic links that denote a specific geneology. For example, when a dog breeder wants to develop a specific canine breed, he will keep on mating and mixing various dog breeds until the desired specifications are met. So in between the original dog and the "new" dog, there are about (usually) 70 generations, each one slightly different than the last, you can actually see the new breed evolving before your very eyes.</p>
<p>With evolution, it is the same, if specific species evolved out of others, then there should be a **** load of "in-between" fossils all over the place that show the step-by-step evolution of that species. These are called "inter-mediary" fossils. For every fully formed species, there should be millions of quarter-formed, half-formed and three quarters-formed species. The only problem is, they are NOT being found, even though they should FAR outnumber the number of fully-formed fossils. You might have heard of this little problem for evolutionary theory, it's better known as the "missing link" problem.</p>
<p>Just one more thing: towards the end of his life, Charles Darwin himself had grave misgivings about the theory he developed, he often couldn't sleep trying to explain how the eye, an organ that converts photons into electrical impulses that constitute images in our brain, evolved. He wondered, how does an organism know it needs an eye, how does it know how it will work and how will it survive in the meantime without a fully formed eye. He also worried a lot about reproductive systems: since reproductive systems also had to evolve, how did a half-developed reproductive system function? Did the organism have a back-up reproductive system? Who supervised the construction of this system?</p>
<p>Don't believe everything you are taught, the truth is much more complex and profound than you may think................</p>
<p>From your post, it is evident that you don't comprehend the basic principles of evolution, so there's really no point in continuing this. Your argument is full of straw-mans, oversimplifications, and ad-hominem attacks.</p>
<p>Get your head out of the kool-aid bowl.</p>
<p>I think it's my turn to pervasively screech, "DO YOU PEOPLE READ ANY SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AT ALL?!"</p>
<p>There is unsatisfactory evidence of evolution; much of which is hampered by the fact that evolutionists have countlessly lied about discovering breath-taking new fossils in order to complete their mind-boggling claims that primitive humans evolved from ape.</p>
<p>Something interesting to consider is how evolutionists also claim that human bipedalism (two-walk stride) evolved from the quadripal stride of monkeys. It's impossible for a bent ape skeleton fit for quadripal stride to evolve into upright human skeleton fit for bipedal stride.</p>
<p>Here is why:</p>
<p>First of all, bipedalism is not an evolutionary advantage. The way in which monkeys move is faster, easier and more convenient than a human's bipedal stride. Humans are disadvantaged in that they can't run and jump like chimps. This means that humans are an unprotected species in comparison to apes. As evolutionists claim we evolved from apes, why should there have been a need for human bipedalism to have evolved from efficient ape quadpedalism?</p>
<p>According to the supposed "logic" of evolution, monkeys should not have evolved to adopt a bipedal stride : humans should instead have evolved to become quadpedal.</p>
<p>The transition from quadpedal to bipedal would have meant our ancestors having to endure the "in between" stage of being half-bipedal. Robin Crompton proved that apart from being an evolutionary advantage, such a stride was not possible because of extreme energy consumption. How would it have been logical for a certain animal to suddenly evolve into a creature which uses it's energy resources so unwisely; a stride invariably superior to humans?</p>
<p>Please consider a newborn human baby. This is a frail little creature that has just spent the last 9 months in it's mothers womb. During that time, it has gradually devloped i.e. evolved from a single-celled organism into a complex mammal. Human (and other) gestation provides an excellent example of why natural selection and evolution is improbable. Why? Read on.</p>
<p>When an egg is fertilized by a sperm, a new life is created. This life begins, as a tiny but rapidly multiplying group of cells. I assume you all know this. Now, as time passes, these cells begin to form (as per a pre-recorded program i.e. DNA) more and more complex structures i.e. organs, limbs, ect. As the foetus gradually develops i.e. evolves into a fully formed human, it's vital organs (brain, heart, lungs, kidney, ect) gradually develop inside it. Got that?</p>
<p>Now, what would happen if a few months old foetus was taken out if it's host's (mother's) body? Anybody? BZZZZZZZZZ!! Times's up! It would die!!! Why? Well, because it's vital organs are only half-evolved and therefore practically usesless. So then, how does this foetus stay alive inside the womb with no functioning brain, heart, lungs or kidney system to speak of? Simple. The host does all that for it. Namely, the mother's heart beat's for the fetus, the mother's lungs breathe for the fetus (no smoking while up the duff, ladies!!!), the mother eats for the fetus and nourishes it via the umbilical cord (that's where your belly-botton came from). In other words, the host is the fetus' life support system, it keeps the fetus alive while the foetus is developing i.e. evolving it's own vital organs, without the host, the fetus is dead ! Got that???</p>
<p>Now lets apply that to the theory of evolution: evolution says that all organisms gradually evolve to adapt to their surroundings and basically to survive. Since more complex organisms have complex bodily organs, these to had to evolve, right? And we're talking like tens of millions of years here!!</p>
<p>So the question must be asked (for like the 100th freaking time!!): What life support system did these evolving i.e. developing organisms have? What kept them alive while their hearts, brains, lungs, ect. were still being constructed? These organisms didn't have the benefit of a nice cozy womb, no, they lived out there in a cruel dog rape cat world. Do you see what I'm getting at? No? Let me explain. Evolutionists want you to believe that evolving organisms with effectively no brain, no heart, no lungs, no kidneys i.e. no vital organs lived healthy and productive lives. Have you ever seen a guy with no brain, no heart, no lungs walking around, pinching woman? NO! WHY? BECAUSE IT'S PHYSICALLY AND BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! Understand??????</p>
<p>So until evolutionary scientists come up with a feasable explanation as to to how evolving life forms with non-functional vital organs managed to keep themselves alive and healthy for all those tens of millions of years, I will continue to say "You guys are full"</p>
<p>Now, what are the basic principles of Evolution?</p>