| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Apple Macintosh tool of the Devil ? | |
|
||
| Time: 11:49 EST/16:49 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Adrian Latinak | ||
|
Another reader has informed me of another link between Apple and the forces of darkness that my initial research missed. Apparently the Darwin OS is not the original creation of Apple Computers but is instead based off of an older, obsolete OS called "BSD Unix". The child-indoctrinatingly-cute cartoon mascot of this OS is a devil holding a pitchfork. This OS -- and its Darwin offspring -- extensively use what are called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.) which is a program that hides in the background, doing things without the user's notice. If you are using a new Macintosh running OS X then you probably have these "daemons" on your computer, hardly something a good Christian would want! This clearly illustrates that not only is Macintosh based on Darwinism, but Darwinism is based on Satanism. -The first personal computer sold by Apple priced by Steve Jobs at $666. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 170 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:55:17 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 4379 (66.54.164.122) at 7/18/2002 12:20:34 PM |
| How is this funny? Bad bad joke, if that... |
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/18/2002 12:53:40 PM |
| Yeah, this nutbag has been at this for over a year... and now he's afraid of the eMac because evolution is a word which also starts with an "e." So is elephantitis of the balls! Jesus christ! (oops, don't want his legions coming after me.) Thank Jebus my decendents actually did evolve millions of years ago out of the primordial sludge that these fundamentalists still wallow in. |
| #3 By 1124 (165.170.128.65) at 7/18/2002 12:57:57 PM |
| This is the kind of stuff the register writes about Microsoft. Stupid |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/18/2002 1:04:54 PM |
| I think it's funny. Sad thing is, he probably believes it. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/18/2002 3:48:36 PM |
| He does believe it, soda, and he actually thinks he's persuasive. This guy and another similar Creationist have been at this for a while. Slight tangent: Have you seen the episode of the PBS Evolution series where they follow the creationist movement, even follow some young Christians from the Bible Belt to college where they struggle with their own turmail--trying to reconcile reality with the crap their illiterate parents have fed them? Anyway, it's a fantastic show--you should all watch it. I think it's good to reming yourself that people can really, really be much, much more stupid and irrational than you can come to imagine. I personally think this gives perspective to things like the Reg--you do realize they are just having fun and are trying to be @ssholes most of the time right--this guy actually believes this and thinks you should too. |
| #6 By 1868 (68.9.46.160) at 7/18/2002 7:22:54 PM |
|
Wow!
Sodajerk you are dumber than I thought(and I have read most of your posts[and SodaBlue seems to always, ALWAYS, bring forth better agruments), and I have withheld judgement until now! Use the brain that God gave you, and think before you go posting??? Anyways, pickup the book "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" or "He is There and He is Not Silent" read them and get back to me on Evolution being perfect. Honestly, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God. Heck, trusting evolution is like trusting Steve Jobs and Bill Gates |
| #7 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 7/18/2002 8:29:18 PM |
|
Zeo01 - "Honestly, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God. "
I won't disagree there. It is very easy to believe in God, you simply suspend all logical and rational thought and don't ask questions. *poof* everything is easy. I guess I always find these arguments somewhat silly, because I tend to have faith in science and understand the nature of theories. The creationists want people to defend evolution, but I won't do that because it's only a theory. It may very well be wrong. The small amount of evidence that we have today points to it being likely, but there's nothing conclusive. Perhaps the Earth was landscaped and populated by space Aliens? It's just as likely as any other theory. We simply don't know, and while some people are curious to understand how and why, it's really just not important to our current and future existence. Although I suppose if we were deposited by space aliens, they might be coming back. So we should start preparing now for the second coming. |
| #8 By 2332 (165.247.4.73) at 7/19/2002 8:47:07 PM |
|
#10 - "Honestly, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God."
HOLY CRAP NO IT DOESN'T. You ASSume it takes more "faith" to believe in evolution than to believe in God only because you are IGNORANT of the VAST evidence that supports the conclusion that life evolved from basic amino acids (probably built on the scaffolding of silicon, but that's a different topic). Faith is the belief in something WITHOUT EVIDENCE. To believe in something WITHOUT REASON. The belief in evolution is a result of nothing BUT reason. Evolution is a scientific FACT, just as much as gravity or thermodynamics is a scientific fact. See, fact, as far as science is concerned, is anything that best describes reality at the current point in time. If tomorrow we discover, for instance, that there is a biological organism (or organ for that matter) that is too complex to have evolved from a less complex form ("irreducible complexity"), then we shall have to say that evolution may not be a fact. What is not as solid a fact (although it has MASSIVE evidence to support it) is natural selection. There is some disagreement on the details, although nearly all scientists believe in one form of it or another. At any rate, the belief in God is 100% faith. If you believe in God, I assert you must also believe in ANYTHING ELSE for which there is NO EVIDENCE to the contrary. For instance, if you believe in God, you must believe that I have a Dragon in my garage (to borrow a classic argument from Sagan). You have no evidence that there isn't a dragon in my garage; therefore you must believe there is one. If you insist on seeing it, I will insist it is invisible. If you insist on touching it, I will insist it is ethereal... etc. Sound silly? Yup, and so is the belief in God. "Anyways, pickup the book "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" or "He is There and He is Not Silent" read them and get back to me on Evolution being perfect." I've read both of them, actually, and while some points are quite valid, most are just a rehash of classic creationist drivel. Irreducible complexity, the fallacy of the "violation" of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and, of course, "I cannot see how..." arguments... argument from person incredulity. I also love how people who believe that because the universe appears "designed", therefore there must have been a designer. But when asked "who designed the designer", which is a perfectly valid questions considering that if the universe is complex, and God created it, God must be AT LEAST as complex as the universe, they say "he always was and always will be." Why not skip a step, and just let the universe exist on its own, without God? Don't have an answer for that, do you? I would say 90% of the people who don't believe in Evolution are simply ignorant of the evidence that supports it, or don't think critically about the arguments against evolution. Again, if there actually was evidence that suggested otherwise, I would be a fool to not take that into account, but there is no such evidence... yet, at least. I suggest YOU read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, as he thoroughly crushes these ignorant (and often purposefully misleading) arguments. Sorry for the harsh reply, but it is irresponsible to make statements like the one you made when we live in a world where people believe in ESP, UFOs, and God, but not in Evolution. |
| #9 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 7/19/2002 9:58:54 PM |
|
Yeah, I'll say that was a harsh reply. I respect your opinion on the matter RMD. I do take objection to your last statement.
I'd also like to add that it is possible to believe in both God (from a Christian perspective that He is the creator) and believe in evolution. There are not mutually exclusive ideas. Many people that believe in God believe that He acts according to law. These folks say that miracles are simply God using laws that we don't yet know. This is much like us accepting the law of gravity, and yet we fly in airplanes. After we understood physics better we understood that we could make things fly and that graivity was still a law (but that there were other laws too). So here are the assumptions: God exists, God obeys all laws (if He broke laws He would cease to be perfect and therefor cease to be God), Evolution as currently accepted was the means whereby life came to be on earth. On could argue (and I've heard this argument several times from those that believe in God) that God created life on earth by the means of evolution. Roughly this is the possibility that Charles Darrow introduced to William Jennings Bryant in the Scopes "monkey" trial. I don't think it is irresponsible to believe in God. I don't think it is irresponsible to believe in evolution. I also don't think it is irresponsible to believe in both. I do think it is irresponsible to attack other people because they believe differently than you do. That is not just irresponsible, but it is quite offensive. |
| #10 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 7/19/2002 10:00:46 PM |
| Oh, thanks to tripod not letting me read this article because the site has exceeded its bandwidth I don't know what "evidence" the author has the Apple is from Satan. I do, however, not believe that Jobs or Gates are Satans henchman. I'll even add that I don't think Ellison or McNealy are either (though I do have a large amount of personal dislike toward them). |
| #11 By 2332 (165.247.4.73) at 7/20/2002 3:21:59 AM |
|
#14 - "I'd also like to add that it is possible to believe in both God (from a Christian perspective that He is the creator) and believe in evolution."
Yeah, I suppose it is. Then again, it's also possible to believe in my Dragon. :-) "Many people that believe in God believe that He acts according to law." And many children believe in Santa. "These folks say that miracles are simply God using laws that we don't yet know." Funny, 500 years ago, people thought lightning was God getting pissed off. As we learn more, "miracles" because very much less miraculous. It's called learning. I suspect many tribal peoples would view a TV or computer as a miraculous machine, but we know better. At least I hope we do. Just because we don't understand something, doesn't lead, logically, to a supreme being causing it. "This is much like us accepting the law of gravity, and yet we fly in airplanes." Well, airplanes fly very much in accordance with gravity. Read up on air density, fluid dynamics, and Mr. Bernoulli. "So here are the assumptions: God exists, God obeys all laws (if He broke laws He would cease to be perfect and therefore cease to be God)" Wha? Why is that an assumption? Why does he obey laws? Who made those laws? Who made God? What evidence do you have that God exists? "On could argue (and I've heard this argument several times from those that believe in God) that God created life on earth by the means of evolution." Ya, and I can argue there is a Dragon in my garage. There is equal evidence of both. Which is exactly my point. "I don't think it is irresponsible to believe in God." I do. I think it's irresponsible to believe in ANYTHING without reason or evidence. At best, it's harmless, at worst; it causes war and holds back human progress thousands of years. "I do think it is irresponsible to attack other people because they believe differently than you do." I attack their beliefs, not them. Granted, I poked a little fun here and there, but the substance of my argument is based on attacking his beliefs, not him. If somebody's life is guided by the belief in something for which there is no evidence, is it not irresponsible to let them continue to believe there are no other points of view, or that their point of view is valid? That's another thing that religion brought us... the idea that we shouldn't judge or question. Baloney. At the very LEAST, we should be skeptical about the big things in life... and where we came from is a pretty damn big thing. The belief in anything without evidence or reason is the antithesis of skepticism. This post was edited by RMD on Saturday, July 20, 2002 at 03:26. |
| #12 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 7/20/2002 6:09:12 AM |
|
Very interesting RMD. I think your characterization of religion and religious people is much different than my own. I believe in God. Personally the jury is out on evolution. I accept that other people believe in it including church going, God believing folks that I know.
I must say that I consider myself a very religious person. I also consider myself one who judges and questions most things. It is for this reason that I don't accept the theory of evolution as fact. I accept that it is a theory and more study is required. I am very skeptical of big things - including religious things. I think it is very important for a person to examine information before they decide to accept it as fact - scientific fact or religious fact. I think that your statements to the effect that there is no evidence that God exists and is the type of being that I've described is not accurate. I could elaborate on that, but I hardly think this news group is a place for such things. (No offense AW staff.) Many very sensible people believe in God. I'll certainly agree with you that evil people have brainwashed others in the name of religion (opium of the masses and all that). That doesn't mean that there isn't a God. |
| #13 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 7/20/2002 6:35:17 AM |
| Well I have finally been able to read the article. Perhaps I wouldn't have been so bothered by your comments RMD had I been able to read the article first. For the record, I don't think I agree with a single conclusion that Dr. found. I'd say he has no evidence for any of his statements. It would be easier to prove that you indeed do have a dragon in your garage than to prove that his conclusions are accurate. Yikes! This man is not a representative of any religion with which I am associated. It seems to me that he gives sensible believers in God a bad name. |
| #14 By 2332 (165.247.10.97) at 7/20/2002 1:41:36 PM |
|
#20 - "I don't have time to argue here, suffice to say, Evolution is a fairy tale with no sciewnce behind it whatsoever, God indeed does exist and there is plenty of evidence."
Nobody ever seems to "have time". If you believe that there is no evidence to support evolution, I truly feel sorry for you, as you are completely devoid of scientific understanding. "are also wrong on politics, you seem to like socialism." Actually, I'm a Libertarian... about as far from socialism as I can get. I try to argue both sides of economic issues so I can better understand them, but I'm certainly not a socialist. I think socialism can (and has, and does in many places) work, but I also think capitalism can work. "You are also wrong on Nader, he is not a nice guy, he is one of the most evil communist minded politicians I've ever known." Well, I see you're trying to ignore the issue, but at any rate, Nader has done a lot of good. He has fought against some pretty evil stuff, like Ford, so it's kind of ironic you would call him evil. I think, economically, he is insane... and I've always said that. Now, for your first article: "The first surprising thing Denton points out is that there has always been a dissident faction of highly distinguished scientists, of impeccable credentials and no religious motivations, who have declined to concede that evolution has been proved." Sigh... another confused writer. Many scientists disagree on HOW evolution happened, not that it happened. I know of NO respected (or even qualified) scientists that suggests evolution itself didn't happen, although many disagree on how, as I've said. "The first big problem with evolution is that the fossil record increasingly does not, honestly viewed, support it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology."" Sigh again... the fossil record "problem" is a classical fallacy. Think about it, we have only a small fraction of species as fossils, yet we should somehow expect to have a point by point connection between species? We do have MANY intermediate species, yet you ignore those. Another problem with that argument is the fact it doesn't think about WHY species diverge. Species diverge because of DIFFERING environmental conditions, so chances are, you aren't going to find a lot of closely related species (that evolved from each other) in the SAME place... the next species in the "chain" of evolution almost certainly won't be found together with it's predecessor. This makes logical sense, and is completely inline with evolution. "But it doesn’t. Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time." Exactly, just as if the species had existed for quite a while in a DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT (across a mountain range, on an island, etc.), then was reintroduced into the original environment, or at least an environment which was suited for fossil preservation. Get it? In fact, Darwin HIMSELF mentions this in the Origin of Species. If you plan on judging evolution to be false, don't you think you should read the keystone book on it? Continues on next post... |
| #15 By 2332 (165.247.10.97) at 7/20/2002 1:42:26 PM |
|
Continued from previous post...
"The usual response of evolutionists at this stage in the argument is a theory they call punctuated equilibrium, Gould’s great contribution, which basically says that evolution occurs not gradually but in spurts." Punctuated Evolution is EVOLUTION NONETHELESS. Many think it somehow contradicts Darwin, but it doesn't, it is exactly inline with what I've explained. You would EXPECT to see this kind of evolution because of WHY natural selection takes place. Read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, he explains it quite well. "Basically, computers have shown that the neat evolutionary trees that get drawn up are in fact based on imaginary relations of similarity and difference that owe more to the human mind’s tendency to perceive patterns than to the raw biological data." Actually, Taxonomy has existed LONG before computers were around. In addition, most taxonomical work today is done at the level of the gene. "Evolution also suffers from the problem that many putative sequences which look logical based on the progression of one set of anatomical characteristics suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set." Again, taxonomy is done at the level of the gene today. Unless you can argue that we are mistakenly "perceiving" patterns in DNA across species, this argument is silly. "Another problem with evolution that continues to worsen is that it remains incapable of explaining how anything could evolve that doesn't make biological sense when incomplete." Ah yes, as I said, this is the argument of "irreducible complexity" that people like throwing around. As I said, if you can find me JUST ONE example of a biological organism or organ that is so complex, it would not work in a slightly less complex form, evolution is out the window. But there is no know example of that. "wings of birds are the classic example: what good is half of one?" You're kidding, right? How about flying monkeys? Even seen em? They have flaps of skin from their arms to their torso. They give them the ability to jump very long distances from tree to tree, and gives them a huge advantage over their "flapless" counterparts. There, argument dismissed. Have another? "Another similar example: one of the things that has happened since evolution was first proposed is that biology has achieved a precise cataloging of the thousands of different proteins that make up organisms. It was hoped that a thorough crossspecies comparison of these would reveal the kinds of relationships of graded similarity that evolution implies." What? So the fact that all life on earth shares the same genetic library (ATCG) doesn't suggest we're linked? What the hell is this guy talking about? What about the fact that Chimps share 98%+ the same DNA as we do? "As recently as the early 50's, it was still possible to hypothesize that discoveries would reveal the existence of entities intermediate between singlecelled organisms and complex lifeless molecules." Another classic misunderstanding of the lengths of time we're talking about. This is around 4 BILLION years, and that is not a time span that humans can easily comprehend. As I said, there are many theories on how acids turned into DNA or RNA. Problem is, to test the theories, we have to wait a very long time, because a great deal of this is chance... thanks to quantum physics. (Go read on up quantum physics before you start talking, please.) This doesn't invalidate the massive support for evolution; it simply means we're not sure how evolution started. Continued on next post... This post was edited by RMD on Saturday, July 20, 2002 at 15:00. |
| #16 By 2332 (165.247.10.97) at 7/20/2002 1:43:01 PM |
|
Continued from previous post...
"There are even distinguished philosophers of science, like Sir Karl Popper, a man of impeccable credentials and no religious ax to grind, who have openly questioned whether evolution is a science at all..." He objected to evolution because he didn't believe it could be tested (like the existence of God can't be tested, ironically)... be he is mistaken. I've already pointed out exactly HOW it CAN be tested. Show me something that is irreducibly complex, and evolution is out the window. ALL of the points that article brought up have been addressed MANY times over. In fact, Dawkins' book (publish about 30 years ago), addresses them almost in the SAME ORDER that your article brings them up. Behe's book is focused on the same fallacies... ones that would disappear if he actually understood evolution. In addition "Behe suggests that it can only be the product of "intelligent design." shows that he can't be thinking all that hard... as I've pointed out, if the universe is designed because it is complex, who designed the designer? So, as you can see, I'm not wrong on many subjects. I've thought long and hard about these things, and it is obvious to me that you have not. This post was edited by RMD on Saturday, July 20, 2002 at 15:02. |
| #17 By 2332 (165.247.10.97) at 7/20/2002 3:13:18 PM |
|
Ironically, while visiting my favorite science news web site, http://www.bottomquark.com, they had two stories about evolution.
One about a new transitional fossil being found: http://www.msnbc.com/news/782289.asp?cp1=1 And one about scientists using biological evolution and quantum mechanics to build super strong alloys: http://www.psigate.ac.uk/spotlight/issue5/revolution.html Wow... I guess they're doing quite a bit with stuff that's a "fairy tale", huh mhfm? |
| #18 By 2332 (165.247.10.97) at 7/20/2002 8:03:37 PM |
|
#25 - Ok... let's talk about the things you've mentioned:
1.) Eye I wear glasses. That means my eye isn't quite correct... it's not a "perfect" eye. But I can see (20/400 vision), and therefore I can avoid predators. (Well, on coming cars, etc.) Are you telling me that an eye that can only see with 20/400 vision is useless? How about an eye that can only detect movement? How about an eye that can only detect light sources in general? There are countless examples throughout nature of eyes that are both better and worse than our own, all of which give some advantage to those creatures that posses them. Get it? In fact, our eye has evidence of its own evolution built into its "design". The photo receptor cells in the back of our eyes are facing the WRONG direction (resulting in our blind spot - which one can hardly argue is a good thing), suggesting they were originally used for a different purpose or in a less "evolved" form, but were slowly adapted into their current form. The octopus has an almost identical eye to our own (evolved independently over millions of years - this kind of evolution is called "convergent" evolution - different paths, same result), but its receptors are facing the correct direction (no blind spot!), so there is no reason why ours shouldn't if it was, in fact, "designed" by a God. At any rate, clearly, the eye is NOT irreducibly complex. 2.) Ear Again, apply the same logic. We can hear in a range of 20hz to 20000hz, but many creatures have far better or far worse hearing. They also have completely different ways of hearing things. Bats, for instance, use their ears to see! Echolocation is incredible, and gives them and incredible advantage - being able to fly around and eat at night. So why would an ear a little less evolved not be useful? I know many people who have trouble hearing, but they would certainly agree that some hearing is better than none. What about an ear that can only detect really loud sounds, or an ear that can only detect really low frequencies? They would all be at least somewhat useful, and could clearly give an advantage (no matter how small) that would add up over time. 3.) Cell Again, same argument. A cell is simply a protective "house" that keeps the molecules and protein inside a little safer than outside. Now, imagine a cell started off as just a collection of DNA and protein that suck together. Some of the protein sticks to the outside perimeter, and that grouping of "stuff" survives a little better than the grouping of stuff that has the protein on the inside instead of the outside. That grouping goes on, replicates, and slowly but surely forms a more structured cell wall. At each stage, the wall is a little better, and so on. Eventually, the cell forms little power plants to process carbohydrates and oxygen (called mitochondria), and that gives another advantage. We have plenty of examples in nature of "incomplete" cells, cells that have very thin walls, cells that don't have mitochondria, etc. We also have examples of various building blocks that live with no cell wall at all. So, obviously, none of these things you mentioned are irreducibly complex. In fact, if you just THINK about it for half a second, you can see why. Seriously, get "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins... it's one of MANY books that cover these topics in great detail. (And he is my favorite biology author.) These "problems" with evolution are simply a misunderstanding of both evolution, and the evidence that supports it. This post was edited by RMD on Saturday, July 20, 2002 at 20:07. |
| #19 By 2332 (165.247.10.97) at 7/20/2002 8:13:00 PM |
| 664 |
| #20 By 2332 (165.247.10.97) at 7/20/2002 8:13:18 PM |
| 665 |
| #21 By 2332 (165.247.10.97) at 7/20/2002 8:14:17 PM |
|
666
There.... 666 posts - I couldn't resist! What does it mean!? Am I the Devil!? muAHAHAHAHAH |
| #22 By 2332 (165.247.10.113) at 7/21/2002 1:15:49 PM |
|
#30 - " I'm talking about an eye that can't see anything."
Um... ok... then that wouldn't really be an eye, now would it? I agree. Something that does nothing would not be useful. "You have to have the right "wiring" for your brain to register something." Actually, you don't need a whole lot if you simply have a photo-sensitive cell - a cell which is actually quite common in nature. And even that cell, as I mentioned in my "cell" portion of my previous reply, would be just as likely to evolve as anything else if it provided benefit. If you have a cell that responds to light by emitting a small electrical charge alone a neuron, then all that would have to happen in the brain is for it to recognize that charge as meaning "light!". This is single step evolution... a creature has a mutated cell that is sensitive to light (step 1), and the brain of that creature evolves the ability to process that charge as "light" (step 2). Since step one would likely not result in anything bad for the creature (while still not giving it any benefit), the photo-sensitive cell would not become wide spread, but would also not disappear... giving it time for the second step to occur. Once that occurred, it would spread like wildfire. Get it? I'm not sure you're really trying to think about this, because it seems fairly clear that even a slight improvement in the ability to detect light (the kind of improvement that could happen in one random mutation) would give an advantage to that species over their sightless counterparts. "The problem is that you want to explain everything naturalisticly. I'm sorry but this is narrowminded. How can you be so sure there is no supernatural ? I mean just because the science cannot prove it doesn't mean it's not there." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (to quote Sagan)... BUT, it's certainly not the basis for a reasoned belief, either. Actually, I think you're being narrow-minded. I do not believe in ANYTHING for which there is no evidence - that is the POINT of science. It's not that science cannot prove God's existence, it's that nobody has ever offered ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE whatsoever of any kind of super natural being. As I said before, if you believe in God, then you must, logically, believe that there is a Dragon in my garage. I cannot disprove the existence of God, and you cannot disprove the existence of my Dragon. See how silly that is? "I think there is more than enough evedince that there is a God. How about the Resurrection of Jesus ? That is a fact. Or are you telling me that the deciples just made it up and let themselves be martyred for this "lie" ?" Your "evidence" is circular. You believe in God because the Bible says he exists, and you believe that the Bible is the word of God. You have no evidence that either is true. You say the resurrection of Jesus is a fact because the Bible says it happened, but the only "proof" you offer is the Bible, which is hardly proof. If I write down on a piece of paper that there is a Dragon in my garage, does that prove he exists? The Bible is a collection of stories which was put together over the time span of hundreds of years, and the selection of the stories was made by the already established church in an effort to support their existing claims. They tossed countless stories that didn't support them. Continued on next post... |
| #23 By 2332 (165.247.10.113) at 7/21/2002 1:16:19 PM |
|
Continued from previous post...
In addition, the Bible is soaked with erroneous "facts" which can be easily proved wrong (see the Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879759267/), and countless contradictory "laws", with Leviticus being my favorite source of insanity. If this is the word of God, don't you think it would have been error free? Seems to me that the Bible is a collection of parables designed to teach lessons, not something that is to be taken literally. The last time a large portion of the population took the Bible literally was between around 750 CE and 1200 CE... aka, the Dark Ages. "Here is the best evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, and I don't think anybody can refute that: This proves not only that God exists, but also that Jesus is God." Sigh... a bunch of quotes from the Bible. Don't you see why that's not evidence? No matter how many times you write something down, it doesn't necessarily make it true. The evidence for evolution (and any other scientific idea) and be reproduced independently by observation and experiment. I also love how people believe that the Shroud of Turin is some kind of proof, when it has been debunked COUNTLESS times... yes, I dare say PROVED to be a fake (in many cases, since there are dozens of shrouds floating around), and in others proved to be very ordinary. (See Joe Nickell and John F. Fischer's analytical article in the Spring 1985 issue of The Skeptical Inquirer., or check out this article: http://www.skeptictank.org/shroud.htm) Please... you obviously don't care about the "truth"; you only care about preserving your sense of self, which you have defined through religion. That's fine and dandy, but don't go around telling people they're wrong, and that Evolution is baloney, and that you have the "truth". Unless you really critically examine your beliefs, it is irresponsible to spread them like some kind of meme disease. |
| #24 By 2332 (165.247.10.113) at 7/21/2002 3:40:45 PM |
|
#33 - Well, if you would provide me with a single spec of evidence to counter my beliefs, I might have reason to doubt them. Again, I believe in things because of the evidence that supports them.
#34 - "You do believe that Abraham Lincoln existed, don't you?" You bring up an excellent point. (Your first, by the way.) I believe in Lincoln because of the quantity of disparate accounts of his existence. There are so many different sources of history that say he existed, it makes sense to believe, unless somebody provides some evidence otherwise, that he existed. Jesus, on the other hand, has one source - a source that is made up of documents which are all related (and often quote each other liberally), and all have a single goal - to support the views of Christianity. "Christianity started long before the Bible as we know it existed." Well, the first mention of "Christianity" was around 200 CE. The documents that make up the Bible started to appear around 100 CE (although most insist it was closer to 60 CE... but the only evidence they have is their "faith"... in fact, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest it was closer to 100 CE for the "letters", etc... see "Jesus, 100 Years before Christ" by Ellegard. There is, of course, much better support for the general belief that Jesus existed, but very little to support the idea that he was the son of a supernatural being who knocked up a virgin. At any rate, history is far from science... and there is always a much larger margin of error when dealing with historical information. You have to be as careful as possible when forming opinions about historical fact, and if you insist on relying on a book created specifically to support one point of view (and, during that process, the destruction of the documents that didn't support that point of view), you're not being very careful. "it's based on the testimony of people who lived with Jesus and saw him alive in person after his Crucifiction." Actually, it's based almost entirely on 2nd and 3rd hand accounts. There is a guy down the street who insists that HE is Jesus... shall we believe him? "They would not die for something like this if they knew it wasn't true." Really? Ever heard of Heaven's Gate? Those guys drank poison coolaid and died for what they believed in... does that make it true, and therefore they are flying high with Haley's comet? "It woulfd have been easy to disprove Christianity if they produced the dead body of Jesus." What makes you think anybody tried? Again, all your "evidence" comes from a single source compiled by people with a very specific goal. You disregard the many mistakes the Bible makes, ignore those things that are difficult to follow, and concentrate on those things that support your pre-defined world view. |
| #25 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 7/22/2002 9:11:09 PM |
|
mhfm, as I've said I consider myself a very religious person. Having said that, I would say that you can't prove that Jesus is the Son of God, that God exists, etc. If these things were so provable and obvious, it begs the question why doesn't everybody know it (not believe it, but know it). Faith is very much a part of Christianity. I disagree with RMD that there is no evidence of God, but at the same time, I wouldn't say that it can be proved that there is a God. Mind you, I believe that there is, but I would say very few people know there is a God.
As for the shroud of Turin, Mary's apparitions, and so forth, I don't believe in them. Martyrdom doesn't imply truth. It implies conviction. I'm not trying to attack your faith, I just want to point out that it is faith, not sure knowledge. Despite how RMD and many of the scientific folk portray themselves, essentially, they have faith not knowledge as well. When he says scientific fact is something that can change when new evidence indicates old facts were wrong, then I wouldn't classify them as facts. I would say they are "as far as we know and understand it happens like this for this reason." I'm quite confident that there is a God and that when this life ends RMD and I will probably have a chat. He'll show me that much that I was skeptical of in physics was wrong, and he'll see that there is a God as I've described. Until that time, if God wants to judge him it is His right, but it isn't mine. I don't judge you either, but I also in large part don't agree with you. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 170 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:55:17 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
