Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Everything's coming up Treehouse


You are not connected. Please login or register

Debate Thread

+23
SQUIGGLES
Top Hat Zebra
AwesomeMedic
Angua
Katls
Travelcube
Bowen
Packie
someguy3657
Ziggles
A Sinister Speaker
votecoffee
Messernacht
D-Munny
Samiam
Tacoline
Gorgro
JT_the_Ninja
Jonny
Tuomey
Dog Breath
AJ
Hollyღ
27 posters

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 15 ... 25  Next

Go down  Message [Page 6 of 25]

126Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:04 pm

Travelcube

Travelcube

I'm just going to go ahead and present a piece of evidence for evolution: the eye. It is a complex structure with many parts that must work together perfectly to function. Some say that this is clear evidence that it was designed, and could not occur randomly. But when we look in nature, we can clearly see how it would arise from natural selection.

The first evolutionary step towards an eye was simply an eyespot, or a patch of photosensitive cells, which had the ability to sense light due to these proteins. These cells can only tell if light is present and some can tell the intensity, but not all. The photosensitive cells and multicellular creatures then could better react to their environment, allowing them to survive longer.

These then evolved into an eye cup, where the patch of photosensitive cells on an organism sank down into it a little. Now the organism was able to react to what direction the light was coming from, if a little imperfectly, which was an improvement over only being able to tell if there is light or not.


This eye cup then evolved into a pinhole camera due to the eyecup becoming deeper and wider while the opening became smaller. the inside of this cavity was filled with water. This is the step at which the common concept of an eye begins, as it marks the first point at which they were seeing an actual picture.

Debate Thread - Page 6 Flatworm1
A modern day flatworm with eyecups

Then, a small film began to develop over the hole. It separated the photosensitive cells and the surrounding water for the first time, and now instead the cavity was filled with a transparent humor. It initially only protected the eye from harm, and did not magnify or do anything else to the light.

This thin layer over the eye eventually split into two separate layers, increasing field of view. Then, the one that was no longer needed to protect the eye began to thicken and formed the first true lens.

Finally, we have reached the human eye. This eye now has a fully functional lens, with two separate cavities in the eye and the ability to focus on a specific point. And it was just step by step to reach here.

Debate Thread - Page 6 330px-Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg

(going to add more organisms later)

http://justhellapornoallthetime.com

127Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:40 pm

D-Munny

D-Munny

My personal belief is that, yes, there is a God, but that God does not intervene with us. God created the universe, set stuff in motion, and then just sat back and watched what happened afterwords. There is no intervention, because the ultimate goal, for all life, is for us to learn for ourselves. Not necessarily achieve total peace or anything, because, while that would be awesome, is virtualy impossibe because there's still way more learning for everyone to be doing. There will always be those who are ignorant and those who are not so ignorant, and different factors like that are what make social experiments so intriguing.

So yeah, in my humble opinion, we are all part of God's great big social experiment.

128Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sat Aug 13, 2011 9:24 pm

Gorgro

Gorgro
Glorious Leader

Spoilered because I'm not going to force anyone to read my atheist rant if they don't want to. If you do read it, however, do try to reply with a reasonable and structured argument instead of getting angry about what I've written here. Feel free to throw in some "oh snap" moments of your own if you want, since I've taken this liberty myself, but don't just rant incoherently about how much you disagree.

Spoiler:

As a summary for those who chose not to open Pandora's box up there, this paragraph by Bertrand Russel kind of sums up how I feel about religion:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

https://treehouse.forumotion.com

129Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:57 pm

Tuomey

Tuomey
King Under The Bridge

Gorgro wrote:

Spoiler:


Because:
Spoiler:

130Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sat Aug 13, 2011 11:49 pm

Packie

Packie

Also thereI have seen many flaws in the "theory" of inteligent design (I put theory between quotation marks becouse it's not a valid scientific theory becous it's unfalsifiable).

For example, the main proteins that make up the cytoskeleton of plants and animals are the same (microtubuli and actine filaments). These have the function of rigidity and transport. In both cases the transport is linked to one of the proteins, but whereas in plants it is linked to the microtubuli, in animals it's linked to the actinefilaments. This hardly makes sense if one looks at it from a standpoint of ID, but is easily explained with the theory of evolution.

Also I find it hard to believe an inteligence is behind the insane variety of micro-organisms.

131Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 1:33 am

Jonny

Jonny
Prince of the Squirtle Squad

Gorgro wrote:"Never mind the evidence, this book said so!"

I think that pretty much sums up the majority of religious stances on issues like evolution: taking a book written thousands of years ago as gospel now and forever, in the case of some fundamentalists, seems somewhat short-sighted.

In fact, your comment reminded me of a picture on memebase. It's kinda big, albeit safe for work, so spoilered.
Spoiler:

Having read Dewmann's comments, I'm beginning to wonder if the answer to the creation and nature of the universe lies somewhere between the two extremes. Namely, that a powerful being of some form kickstarted the universe and then allowed it to go its own way, i.e. evolve and grow and change without any further intervention.

132Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:33 am

D-Munny

D-Munny

I'm Christian, but I figure why read the Bible?

A. Like everyone else has said, it was written a good while ago. It's not quite as credible as today.

B. And that's even if the Bible managed to stay unchanged throughout millenia. It's not like somebody would have it rewritten or something! (LawlKingJames)

Slavemasters in America would teach their slaves that "God wanted them to be slaves." I'm fairly certain a few creative edits of the Bible (At least, the ones in that specific area in that specific time) were taken there. And the fact that today they'd be more than a little inaccurate proves my point.

133Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:49 am

Gorgro

Gorgro
Glorious Leader

Cute Sparkly Hobo Wizard wrote:
Gorgro wrote:

Spoiler:


Because:
Spoiler:

Spoiler:

https://treehouse.forumotion.com

134Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 5:05 am

Tuomey

Tuomey
King Under The Bridge

Gorgro:
Spoiler:

135Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:18 am

someguy3657

someguy3657

You can't prove God exists.

You can't prove he doesn't, either.

Stephen Hawking, the most intelligent Atheist there is, even said, in his own words: "Science does not disprove religion."

I believe God exists, others will believe he doesn't.

136Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:14 am

Tuomey

Tuomey
King Under The Bridge

Very true.

137Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:53 am

Travelcube

Travelcube

Also, the pope has declared that evolution is correct. I'm going to side with the guy in the funny hat.

http://justhellapornoallthetime.com

138Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:01 am

Katls

Katls

someguy3657 wrote:You can't prove God exists.

You can't prove he doesn't, either.

Stephen Hawking, the most intelligent Atheist there is, even said, in his own words: "Science does not disprove religion."

I believe God exists, others will believe he doesn't.
I will say the only thing I will say in this entire discussion, amen to that. Chritains rely on faith, we belive that there is a God, and that you can't solidly prove phiscaly that he exists, but we stay faithful. I am not going to say any thing else.

139Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:56 am

D-Munny

D-Munny

"Maybe just believing in God makes God exist."

140Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:01 am

A Sinister Speaker



Gorgro wrote:Spoilered because I'm not going to force anyone to read my atheist rant if they don't want to. If you do read it, however, do try to reply with a reasonable and structured argument instead of getting angry about what I've written here. Feel free to throw in some "oh snap" moments of your own if you want, since I've taken this liberty myself, but don't just rant incoherently about how much you disagree.

Spoiler:

As a summary for those who chose not to open Pandora's box up there, this paragraph by Bertrand Russel kind of sums up how I feel about religion:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

I came on to say +1

141Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:43 am

Tuomey

Tuomey
King Under The Bridge

I sigh and once again put on my moderator hat.

Katls Nalcrato wrote:
someguy3657 wrote:You can't prove God exists.

You can't prove he doesn't, either.

Stephen Hawking, the most intelligent Atheist there is, even said, in his own words: "Science does not disprove religion."

I believe God exists, others will believe he doesn't.
I will say the only thing I will say in this entire discussion, amen to that. Chritains rely on faith, we belive that there is a God, and that you can't solidly prove phiscaly that he exists, but we stay faithful. I am not going to say any thing else.

Katls posted this.
Someone downvoted it.
Why? There isn't anything offensive or insulting here.
Come on guys.
So he believes in God and doesn't have anything else he wants to contribute. Big deal.

142Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:46 am

Guest


Guest

^^ I think Tuomey's right here: It might be best to leave this debate for another time - We don't want anyone getting offended or hurt.

143Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:11 am

Gorgro

Gorgro
Glorious Leader

I agree about what 2me said about the downvoting of that post. It was just a statement, and it wasn't exceptionally irrational or something like that, so I can respect that.

I think we can close this debate now and maybe start a new one unless anyone has something specific they would still like to add.

Also
Dewmann wrote:"Maybe just believing in God makes God exist."
Ooooh, a theory about God that doesn’t require looking into a telescope. Get back to work! (Futurama, if anyone didn't get that)

https://treehouse.forumotion.com

144Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:22 am

Katls

Katls

I would, that was immature of them. So I have conficting veiws with who did that, but am I throwing an insult or slur at you? No, I'm just saying I'm a Christain.

145Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 5:05 pm

A Sinister Speaker



You'd be surprised, once I told some person I was a pure atheist (he was Catholic) and he said I was the spawn of Satan and was going to hell and my parents should have aborted me, because that would have been better than to give birth to a person who didn't believe in God as well as calling me a Satanist.
Spoiler:

146Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:18 pm

Katls

Katls

Whoa, that came from a Catholic? I'm afraid how a Puritan would have reacted to that.
Dispite what some people think, most Christains are not voilent, the closest to being voilent would be the Puritains.
The Cursades was an imoral action of the Pope Urban II, who persauded the Chirstains of that time that all Muslums are evil( and they're not, it the readical ones that Al-Queda and the Taliban are composed of) and that all of sins that they had comited would be lifted for further modvation. I dispise all Cursaders, above all Pope Urban II, and I'm ashamed that the French pitched in. They are my blood, and I hold that dear, but it's things like modern and Cursader Franch that me ashamed aat times to have them in my blood.
And if it wasn't bad enough, more Cursades happened, and most of the Christains no longer look to purge the "infedles" off of the planet but for the loot. And it get worse.
One imfamus day, a group of Cursaders saw that the Muslums of the city that they ransacked where close enough to be as low as animals to have no isuse with canibalizeing them.
My heart is acheing so much from typing the monsterasity of the Cursades that I can't write further.

147Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:27 pm

A Sinister Speaker



Never, ever generalize and say PURITANS ARE HATEMONGERS or anything like that. Mr. Catholic chode-sucker was an asshole, and one of my best friends is Catholic. Things differentiate from person to person, and Garchomp is amazing.

148Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:39 pm

Katls

Katls

I'm not exactly gerealizing, it is actualy Puritain teaching to when you see a sinner, you make sure that they know that they are breaking God's law and that if they don't repent, they are going to Hell, and there is no exections to that teaching. They are the most adgessive agaist secular views and other religions of any Christain denomations.

149Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:21 pm

Gorgro

Gorgro
Glorious Leader

There are always extremes in almost any religious group. I couldn't really care less what anyone chooses to believe as long as they're not that type of person who immediately judges you for not having the same views as them. This is actually the type of people who my religion rantings are generally aimed at. The sort of people who would ban teaching evolution in schools, for example.

My school taught both explanations, but it did so by teaching us about creationism during our religion class (I went to a catholic school) and evolution during biology. They were taught as two separate things instead of something like "this one is the infallible truth of the LORD and the other is the alternative for heathens and sinners"

https://treehouse.forumotion.com

150Debate Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Debate Thread Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:23 pm

Jonny

Jonny
Prince of the Squirtle Squad

Gorgro, have you ever heard of Logicomix? It's a book about the life of Bertrand Russell and his interests in philosophy and mathematics. It's a really interesting book, and your Bertrand Russell quote reminded me of it.

Debate Thread - Page 6 Logicomix_102-103

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 6 of 25]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 15 ... 25  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum