Frumpus
-
Posts
231 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Frumpus
-
-
drugs
(**EDIT umm, OK... only after LOOKING at this did I actually see what I just wrote. See my avatar there? THAT... is a Drûg... (a Drúadan). . . ... ok, so maybe I'm the only one who thought that was a wierd coincidence?)
-
Thanks for the explanation of those theories, MarkT!
@Murchad: I think since we can't "prove" these things, we have to go by what evidence we have left.
"Gravity is not the truth if you don't believe in it, you must first accept something in order for it to be real."Umm, ever tried jumping off a 20 story building and "believing" you won't fall?...
(Only joshin', of course, Elf. I love philosophy too. The point is, facts/Natural Laws don't DEPEND on your "BELIEF" for them to remain facts. You may believe or disbelieve as you wish, but that won't change nature.)
-
CodeOptimist, I think you make a good point (one that I've heard before - the airplane out of the junkyard), and here is an evolutionist's AGREEMENT to your point:
Even though I don't believe there's evidence to support Evolution, I was listening to a broadcast on an atheist online radio network: http://infidelguy.com/ (I'd recommend it!)
"Dr. Pigliucci" was speaking about Evolution.
At one point (23 mins. into it) he was talking about the similarity of chimpanzee DNA to humans - something like 98% the same - amazing... and that this shows overwhelming evidence for Evolution. Creationist Duane Gish told him, howver, that a both a cloud and a watermelon are made up of over 90% water... so according to "evolutionary logic", they are closely related.
Yeah, I know... Gish's reasoning WAS lame, and Pigliucci showed the difference: CHEMICAL COMPOSITION vs. ORGANIZED INFORMATION. Example: if you take two books that have over 90% of the same text... you'd expect plagiarism, correct? However, if you just compare two books with the same the raw materials (i.e. paper, ink, glue), you can have MANY diferent combinations without them being similar in the end.
Using the same logic, however, I still think that 98% similarity in human/chimp DNA could support EITHER Creationism OR Evolution, so Pigliucci's point isn't very strong in suport for Evolution, yet it is very strong to show how weak Gish's reasoning was.
....ANYHOW...
"... when I see a car, I see raw elemental materials synthesized for eons and eons in the forge of time, then combined with other elemental materials, humans, to create a new substance."First of all, this type of reasoning doesn't match up with the law of Entropy.
Second, Adam, I think you are using the same flawed logic as (Creationist) Gish did. It appears you are saying that, because the chemical composition of items are the same, then that will somehow generate the same information - given enough time, by random chance, without a designer - when really you are talking about something MUCH more complex: information exchange.
"The car is part of universal matter that has been around for eons and eons, "I'm willing to admit that I now believe that the Creation story - as told (in two slightly different accounts) in Genesis - may be more metaphorical than historically accurate. However, the "spontaneous origin" theme is EXTREMELY similar to the Big Bang theory! (I remember even finding biblical references in Psalms, etc. to back this up - something about "spreading out the stars/heavens").
We HAVE evidence of the Big Bang - that the universe is expanding at a steady rate, pointing back to a moment in time/space when all matter was in basically the same spot with unimaginable density, and then BURST open and has been spreading outwards ever since.
Like it or not, The Big Bang gives more credence for a Creationist's depiction of a spontaneous "The Beginning" than someone's theory which avoids the question of "ultimate origin" (i.e. theories which try to imply that matter has "always" existed, and yet can't solve the question, "where-did-this-matter-come-from".)
At least theistic theories have an answer for this question.
I agree with Jeru's #2: A belief in Creationism does NOT necessitate (sp?) a belief in "Judeo-Christianity".
However, Jeru, can you explain why you believe #1? I disagree completely - please "re-educate" me.
(of course, other than the semantic difficulties with using the word, "prove".) -
Umm, what's an "E"?
When I was in school, there were %ages, or... A,B,C,D, and F - a fail (less than 50%).
-
(What he [Murchad] said.)
-
Yeah!! LMAO at that ending line by Kirk!! That was killer.
-
-
"Spammy"? not quite sure what you mean
(ROFL! ...Ok, I ACTUALLY laughed out loud at that! Nice one, dude! If irony were water, you'd be drowning.
) -
Happy B-Day, DA!!
-
Wow, ElfTH. I think that's about the BEST and most concise explanation I've heard on this issue!
(Help me!! I'm feeling the urge to go to the old forums and copy the thread here... does anyone object?)
Also, I think three issues are paramount here:
1. Inherent "magical" abilities endowed to powerful figures.
2. Abundance of time to gain knowledge and to practice.
3. The ignorance of the masses to "think" what they saw was supernatural.
=
1. Yes, I think there are some things which can ONLY be explained by a supernatural connection between the person and nature (i.e. Elrond's flooding of the river near Rivendell) or a created object (i.e. Sauron's "invisibility" ring).
2. (**I know I'm repeating another thread here, but...) The "most" powerful (most "magical") figures in Tolkien's stories were the immortal ones: elves, valar, maia, (and perhaps Ents?). Example: Are you skilled in something? Anything? i.e. throwing a ball accurately. Now, take a natural human baseball pitcher... In their lifetime, they will - with NUMEROUS hours of practice - become VERY skilled at what they do, so much that you and I may marvel at the "talent" (which is mostly practice). Now imagine having NO LIMIT on the amount of practice you had available. ?!?!?! Now, when I see a scene like that of Legolas' astounding archery in the film version of TTT... as an archer, I KNOW I'll never be able to do this, but I'll have less than 100 years (maximum). He had, what, 20 TIMES that much? Given that time span, those long-shots no longer look so unachieveable.
3. In our own history, the unschooled masses have recurrently been amazed (and often afraid) when scientists, alchemists, and other brilliant minds have advanced technology "too quickly" for ignorant minds to absorb. These minds would see such things as Saruman's fireballs as "obviously" magical,... but I think some form of gunpowder fits the description quite well.
-
Well, I think we'll never have a definitive answer on this question (unless the Estate decides to publish more?), ...but I still like to "solve" these enigmas, too!
I really can't make up my mind between Maia and Nature Spirit; they both have strong arguments.
-
I voted for Gameplay Articles, because it's probably the part of the game I'm "least" familiar with. I really don't have near the background in RTS games that alot of guys here do; it'll be nice to see what ideas are floating around/made concrete.
-
I wish there were plans to show them in Canada, but... it wouldn't be in my city anyway (because it's not Toronto or Vancouver, of course).
-
I played the demo - and liked it. But when there were alot of battles on-screen, my system severely lagged (2Gig AMD, 512 PC133 RAM, 64MB GeForce3 Ti200)... so I doubt I'll buy it.
-
My friend says he'll buy it for XBox (he got TTT). I'll play-test it with him, then "probably" get it for PC.
-
Ok, did anyone else see this?
"Battle vicious boss monsters including Shelob, the Witch King and the final showdown with the Dark Lord Sauron."...and is anyone else as concerned as me that PJ will have Sauron "in-the-flesh" for the climax of RotK?
:thumbdown:
-
The ONE overwhelming commonality with all major religions is this: The goal to better one's self (sp?); they ALL have that in common. After that though, you simply can't say, "All religions are the same" unless you really haven't looked at each religion in-depth.
Personally (though I'm not a Christian), the big difference I see between Christianity and ALL the other major religions is this:
The goal of most religions is for its followers to ty to "reach God", or Nirvana, or Enlightenment, etc. With Christianity, however, the opposite happens: God reaches out to mankind.
(Not even Judaism can really tout that line; the Old Testament is full of hoops you had to jump through in order to "gain" favour or to be "pure".)
This is the main reason I see Chrisitanity is different, and why I "hope" the bible is true (but I see far too many shortcomings to believe).
-
Boy, it's been a couple years since I went into researching all that stuff. However, I read a book - I think it's called something like, "Don't Know Much About The Bible" - I can't find it now. It's not scholarly, but written for the everyday person. I made about 40 pages of notes ONLY when I found things that concerned me... things that gave me serious doubts about the validity/historicity of the bible... items such as the census "error" you stated above. But not "all" of these things can be so easily brushed off as "translation errors" or otherwise.
I really wish I could find the book and the notes I made. (I'll take a look again.) However, the one thing I didn't like about this book was its lack of bibliography - I couldn't cross-reference his findings.
-
Nah, Wijit. This was a fun ("fun"?) read. Keep 'em coming.
It IS creepy how many of these things have come to pass in the 40+ years since publication.
-
evolution can come after creation.
Exactly!
Bible and evolution do not contradict.I disagree entirely. If you took a closer look at the bible, you'd see why. Even something as simple as, "Let us create man in our own image," cannot be compatible with evolution. Evolutionary theory is directed by "chance", whereas the biblical perspective places emphasis on "design" by a Creator. Therefore, in the evolutionary view, you are worth NO more than a worm, or a serpent, or a virus, etc., (BTW, a serpent is NOT the "image of God" as far as the bible states.
)BTW, I heard that "Lucy" was a scam - made from different skeletons - not that it matters much though. The fact is, for evolutionary theory to have secure evidence, we would have to have THOUSANDS or MILLIONS of transitional species (like "Lucy") in order to make the steps between species... organisms that "tried" to make the adaptive/mutative jump to the next level, but failed, and died as a result. The fossil record simply doesn't have enough of these to support evolution at all.
As I stated in this thread http://forums.wildfiregames.com/wfg/index....st=0entry2974 I hear scientists ARE finding evidence to substatiate The Big Bang theory, BUT I also believe that ....
The Big Bang theory is one of the STRONGEST evidences for creationist thought!
Think about it: A single "event" in time's past where EVERYTHING "began" to exist?
Now, I don't understand how the Evolution theory has come to be intertwined with the Big Bang theory, but... they aren't the same theory.
-
Well this is a logical question, but the answer of something divine does all but answer it. Because then you have to question where the divine came from"
I disagree entirely.
Also, I have some major intellectual difficulties with applying "Entropy" (2nd Law of Thermodynamics, correct?) to either evolution or a Big Bang. It doesn't fit.
(**BTW, I personally believe that the "Big Bang" DOES have solid evidence, and yet fits a Creationist/theist view MUCH more effectively than a non-theist perspective.)
Entropy = nature going from order-to-disorder, unless a system of intelligence overcomes the process.
The difficulty lies in the "start" (as was stated above):
All things which began to exist MUST have a cause. i.e. the Big Bang, by definition, HAD a beginning, and so must have had a cause. We may not know what "caused" this beginning, but it's plain there must have been a cosmic event, and it must have been caused by ... "something".
And just WHAT would exist way back then... with the design/power/motivation to set things into motion? The Law of Entropy tells us that Nature - on its own - is incapable to organizing "dumb" matter on its own without intervention.
So what are the properties of this "intervening force" ?
It had to be different from "matter" itself in an essential way:
This forcemust have existed OUTSIDE the bounds of time/space... in order to CREATE that time/space.
The difference between "matter" and this "foreign entity/divinity" is that...
...you don't HAVE TO answer the question, "Where did the divine come from?" because the whole reason to search for the "Beginner" of the Universe (for me, at least) is to look for an intellect, a being who DOES NOT HAVE a beginning, and therefore is not affected by the laws of physics (because "it" was the maker of such laws).
I hope I haven't muddied these waters even further. Plus, if my thinking is flawed, please let me know. I currently don't have any fixed opinions re: the other qualities of this "Force" - other than it being outside space/time - so I'm open to ideas.
...Hmm, come to think of it... I guess I'd be closer to a "theist" than an "agnostic" right now.
It makes absolutely no sense to me that such a divine "singularity" would have passions and feeling, especially for individuals!I don't see a problem with this at all. (Do you mean, you don't belive that a vast being which created the whole universe would be interested at all in something as puny as a human?) Can you expalin why you think this is outrageous? Also, I don't think you should make the leap from "creationist" to "Christian" so quickly; one can be a creationist/theist without believing the bible.
heliocentric universeWhat is this? (sorry for my ignorance) And what is "String theory"?
Every atom composing my body did not just "spontanteously" generate itself - it all comes from somewhere.Hmm, ironically I think this is quite a profound statement of "creationist" thought. Things do not "come into existence" by themselves.
-
Heh! I remember listening to "Odyssey" episodes on long drives in the car as a kid.
-
Granted, it's a horrible thing, but I don't think it's up to my government to "level the playing field" if you will, but rather is up to the individual :/
...people are greedy - there's nothing that can be done to change that."
I agree with Render re: the contradictions. The problem is the double-standard: The U.S. has no qualms with using this rhetoric in places like Iraq, but as has been said, it was about power/oil-money. I didn't used to believe this, but now that the whole "Weapons of Mass Destruction" issue was a lie, they changed the focus to "free-ing the Iraqi people" and "nation-building".
The difference between Hussein and Hitler is... Hussein wasn't a threat to the world, though he CERTAINLY was a threat to his own people!
I don't see them "leveling the playing field" with such "Good Samaritan" tactics in starving African nations, though... there's no money in that.
(BTW, I have dual Canadian-American citizenship.)
In one sense, I think the BEST thing the U.S. can do is what Robin Williams suggested: Closed the borders to foreigners. Stop playing police. Stay focused on national issues.
Not only would this help with the "anti-Americanism" that is rampant in basically everywhere else but in the U.S.A., and... it would REALLY show the critics of America just HOW helpful they are!! When other nations come crying for help, the U.S. could say, "Been there; done that! Been "bashed" for doing that; sorry." Then the world "may" get a better appreciation of exactly how the U.S.'s current policing actions have been either helpful, OR unhelpful.
(BTW, Adam, I'm in no way angry with YOU personnaly... It's the American mentality, AND the politics that seem so ridiculous.)
"They don't want peace in the world, they don't want everyone to have a good life."I agree!
See Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" movie for more (but also take a sack of salt with you for his "manipulations"!)
On another note: War. It ALWAYS has civilian casualties; I don't understand why people can't "get" that. Yes, it's bad, and should be avoided, but it happens.
...
World Peace? ...um, I doubt we'll ever see it (other than in our dreams).
-
Currently I'm agnostic (i.e. 'don't know, & don't know IF we can "know"'), but for 25 years of my life I was a Christian, and I'm open to new discussion.
Though it seems like evolution could - in theory - account for the process of "developing" all the different life forms on earth, this theory has two main flaws IMO:
1. How did evolution start in the first place? If it was a Big Bang, or some other cosmic event, "What started it all in the first place? Methinks there HAD to have been "SOME" powerful and intelligent initiator that is not affected by the bounds of space/time... set quite apart from the "creation".
2. How come we don't see VAST amounts of transitional species (Darwin said his evolution theory depended on scientists would find such deposits within 100 years after his death. They have found shockingly little)
I think Cougar's points about the culural evidence for Christ's life are the most convincing of any, but as far as the rest of the bible, I have found more and more evidence to doubt it. In the "Christian culture", my "doubts" weren't always address, and it wasn't until I took my own journey in research that I became aware of some serious troubles (theological, archeological, cultural) with the bible.
I agree with the rest, also, that it can't be "proven" if God exists, or does NOT exist. In the end - once all available evidence has been looked at carefully - it'll still become a "faith-based" decision EITHER way (like a jury's).
People also belive what they WANT to be true... but it's intellectual suicide do believe something (or NOT to) just because of its moral implications.
I'll sum it up by saying, "I "hope" there is a God, but I'm not sure at this point in time."
How Did You Reach The Wfg Forums ?
in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion
Posted
About 1.5 years ago I was working on a Tolkien-mod for Jedi Outcast (it never came to be). A fellow team-member showed me the TLA site, and I've after a 6 month absence, I started to post, and then joined the team.