danielsangeo

Pascal's Wager is a logical fallacy, an extension of the false dichotomy. It assumes only two options: God exists and belief will get you into heaven and lack of belief will not....or God doesn't exist and belief doesn't really hurt anything. I assert that these aren't the only two options, which is why the wager is flawed and cannot be used as an argument. Let me put this option (which is one among many) out there: The real deity doesn't desire belief and believing in a deity is what causes suffering and lack of belief takes you to paradise. Or, another option: You're believing in the wrong deity and the correct deity, one no one has ever heard of, is upset at your belief in a false god and you'll burn more than if you hadn't believed at all.

Enh, I'm a relatively new poster. Need to post moar!

Thanks. Check it out: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Well, what I'd like is an answer to what "increased information" is.

How can you believe that a man came from a monkey and believe that god made the man (Pedant mode on)Man didn't come from monkeys! Monkeys and men came from the same common ancestral organism!(Pedant mode off) As for believing in God and "believing in evolution", some Christians say that God used evolution to make man from the dirt. In other words, they state that Genesis 2:7 ("the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground") encompasses the entire evolution of man from the time of the first life until the first man; several billion years. I never claimed that the whole Bible is true. I stated that the Bible is fiction with some factual things in it, just as Harry Potter has Kings Cross Station, just as Half-Life has New Mexico and MIT, and just as Star Wars has brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, fathers and sons. Nor am I claiming that the things in the Bible are "made up for no reason".

May I ask what you mean by "increase of data"? There's something called "duplication". Let's say the following (very oversimplified, but I think it works): You have genetic information for the word "cat". Let's just say that it's those three letters: C-A-T (again, vastly oversimplified, but let's go with it). The code is duplicated (mutation) during mitosis. So, now you have "catcat". Is this an increase in information? It doesn't kill the organism so this "catcat" continues through the generations. Eventually, one of the letters mutates into another letter. Now it's "catcap". Again, doesn't kill the organism and continues through the generations until mutation happens again and you have "catcip". Repeat. Now you have "catnip". Suddenly, from 'cat', you have 'catnip'. Something completely different from what it was. Is this "increased information"? Let's go one step further. From the ancestral organism with "catcap", you have a mutation. "Catnap". From the ancestral organism for "catcip", you get "catsip" than "catsup". From cat, you get "catnip", "catsup" and "catnap". Three organisms from one source. What do you mean by "increased information"?

Hasn't been released by Machinima yet.

Just curiosity. If the subject is driving (a car, a motorbike, an RV, whatever)...and I say that I'm not doing that, am I still driving? That's a bit vague, I asked specifically, the first people who wrote it, why and who was it? Anyways whatever the response is, What if history can prove this wrong and say that it was actually the apostoles of christ who wrote it and that each one of them existed. Then that the Christ himself existed. Or would you rather still believe in evolution if those can be proven? Like I said, the existence of certain people or events does not necessarily mean that they have a supernatural element to them. I can believe that people built a tower to try to get closer to what they thought was God and that said tower collapsed. If evidence comes out that this actually happened, then I'm more than willing to believe it happened. If you can prove that a person with the title of "Christ" existed and that he died on a cross, then I'm willing to believe that it happened. If you can prove, however, that the crucified person came back to life (evidence that Jesus purportedly provided to Thomas), then I'm willing to believe THAT. It is things like this that have no evidence for them. As for "rather believe in evolution"...I don't see a disconnect between "believing in God/Jesus/whatever" and "believing in evolution". I know many devout Christians that "believe in evolution".

Just as the Harry Potter books had the United Kingdom and Kings Cross Station in it, and I know that these places exist, doesn't mean I believe in magic. Half-Life was based in New Mexico. I know New Mexico exists but that doesn't mean that the Black Mesa Research Facility does. Just because certain events or places appear in a book doesn't mean that the book is nonfiction. And evidence of the BMRF (should any arise) doesn't necessarily mean that it was working on quantum teleportation or that creatures from the border world of Xen have invaded and it's only a matter of time before the Seven Hour War begins. If history and archaeology, however, can "prove" that specific SUPERNATURAL events happened (such as Jesus' resurrection), then I'll take a look at it. If I write a story about space aliens coming to Earth after to the 2008 US Presidential Election of Barack Obama and then further state that the space aliens proceeded to kill Osama bin Laden (trying to keep it current), would the evidence that Osama bin Laden was killed be evidence that my story about space aliens was factual? The Bible was written (and rewritten) by many people over many years.

We don't generally believe at all, we read the scientific newspaper and assume it's a fact ... Because these people have done the work and the outcomes are available for anyone to read. AND test themselves. If I tell you that if you hold a pen above your floor and let go, that it'll drop to the floor, will you test it before assuming it's fact? Probably not because you've seen things fall many times in the past. If I tell you that if you hold a pen above your floor and let go, that it'll swoop, do loop-de-loops, hover four feet off the ground, before jumping onto your table dancing to "Hello Mah Baby", then you won't believe me. In fact, you'll probably laugh at me. And you can test it for yourself by letting go of a pen above your floor. Yet this is better today than it was back then. People don't automatically assume that the speaker is correct or incorrect (well, outside some groups that I know of in the United States, at least, but I'll leave that to another discussion) simply because the speaker is speaking. In science, you can certainly investigate AND falsify people's work. In fact, the scientists WANT you to do that. They WANT you to try to falsify their work. They WANT you to check to see if it's right. They WANT you to do things for yourself and figure out the right answer. They WANT you to bring to the table hard evidence that destroys their life's work. I know that this sounds completely counterintuitive but that's how science actually gets stronger. Like I said before, my science teacher said that Beaker A had acid in it. Those that said that Beaker A had acid in it (agreeing with the teacher) were marked WRONG. Why? Because they didn't test the liquid in Beaker A. Had they done so, they would've seen that the liquid was an alkaline, not an acid. Assuming that the teacher was right is actually the WRONG COURSE OF ACTION and was marked as such on your grade.

Dude, if there was one scrap of evidence for religion that was unfalsifiable and demonsterable then I would accept religion. There is not, stop making up bullshit answers. Actually the difference is not evidence, it's that religion is studied in history/archaelogy while evolution lies in biology right now. Nah, history/archaeology have evidence. We can find the clay pots and the statues or drawings of deities such as Zeus or Ra. We can learn about the religions of yore through evidence. Just because we're talking about religion doesn't mean that there's no evidence. However, what we're saying is that there is no evidence that these deities actually EXIST and that there's not a shred of evidence that the religion, itself, is correct. History/archaeology sure. Those have evidence. Religion, however, does not. If someone can come up with a shred of evidence for the concepts in religion (such as deities or spirits or the afterlife), then I'm more than willing to listen and investigate said evidence. To date, none has ever been provided and I get nothing but dancing around the issue and dodging the question. Some are more truthful that they don't have the evidence and that they have "faith". I'm fine with faith. I just don't, and can't, believe without evidence. It goes a bit beyond that but this should be put into the evolution/creation thread, I think.

Not quite. danielsangeo thinking: Aristotle and modern man have DIFFERENT levels of smartness. Aristotle, for instance, believed in the five elements. This has been, FACTUALLY, proven as wrong. Aristotle wasn't stupid; he was going by the evidence of the time, but he wasn't "smart" as we would say smart. Intelligence is derived from many different factors and we're not getting stupider as time progresses; in fact, we are getting smarter. It's just that, on the timescale required for evolution of the human species, Aristotle and us are almost identical. Try to read what one types instead of what you think one types and assuming. You got my post wrong so you might have gotten others' posts wrong, too. Like I said, you can't compare the two on the basis of technology. Aristotle couldn't use a computer without training and a modern scientist couldn't make bronze out of Bronze Age tools without training. Aristotle is no more stupid than today's scientists and today's scientists are no more stupid than Aristotle. However, *MORE* people on the planet are now smarter than their counterparts from Aristotle's age. More people have understanding of the fundamentals of the Earth now than they did back then, for example. We don't generally believe that sick people have demons in them that must be cast out by a ritualized ceremony of chanting and throwing water at people when all they really have is a mental disorder.

Atheism isn't a belief.

I was there when the user title order was reversed. It was reversed mostly as a joke. Also, no one expects you to religiously do research, but if you're asking questions that are on the FAQ page or just a quick jaunt through the Wiki (like going to a Half-Life forum asking what Gordon's last name is), then you will probably get a playful roasting. The problem arises not with the regulars but with the newbies who feel they are "expected" to crush anyone newer than them...even though they aren't expected to do anything of the sort. "I have an idea: Release the mod!" or "When will mod releese" won't be looked upon too kindly, though. These are questions that have been answered religiously and it takes less than one minute to find your answer (you don't even have to register to search and the latter question is answered ON THE FRONT PAGE)....a shorter amount of time than it takes to register and post. But mostly, it's playful roasting and if you can ride through it, you'll be fine on the Black Mesa forums.

Okay, take this to the Creation vs Evolution thread and please be specific because the topic is very broad.

If that question was directed to me, Osama only.

And how do you know that? What claims have I been making that I haven't provided evidence for?

What evidence did you ask for? I must have missed it.

I wasn't saying "Do you, Leif, believe that 2+2=4?". I was saying "Do you, everyone, believe that 2+2=4?" The royal "you". The group "you". I should really substitute "one" for that kind of "you", huh?

What evidence is that? I keep getting told that I don't accept their evidence but whenever I ask for evidence, I never get it.

Leif: Agreed. Also, I find the very notion of "believing in evolution" to be......well, weird. I don't know why the word "believe" has to be used. I always go back to math because it's the easiest to understand. Do you "believe" that 2+2=4? Math aside, do you "believe" that the sun will rise in the sky tomorrow? Do you "believe" that your cat is alive? Do you "believe" that a baseball is round? Do you "believe" that adhesives are sticky? Why doesn't anyone use the term 'believe' for these things but "believe in evolution" is?

Philosophically, I'm on the side of being glad that bin Laden is gone. I've had a couple people tell me that I'm a hypocrite for saying this; that I was against those that were purportedly glad that 9/11 happened. I don't buy this argument for one large reason: Osama bin Laden is not the same as people living in New York and DC just going about their daily lives. Scientifically, OBL and the people in NYC and DC are the same species, sure, but, OBL's actions make him different from the NYC/DC residents. As for the innocent deaths that America is responsible for (yes, there is the blood of many innocents on the hands of America), I believe that's a different subject entirely. Also, I'm not sure if we're actually "celebrated OBL's death" so much as celebrating a return to justice. OBL didn't go down without a fight; he didn't turn his back and put his hands behind his head and a bullet was put into his brain. OBL hid behind a human shield and engaged in a firefight (according to reports I've read).

Three words: Nylon Eating Bacteria

Koocka: It's a fair point and one I missed. Aristotle lived in the 300s BC. We're currently in the AD 2000s...only about 2300 years between us. Humans have been around for over 50,000 years if not 100,000 years. If you're looking at a clock from noon to midnight, where noon is the beginning of Homo sapiens and we're talking at midnight, Aristotle was at around 11:35-11:40PM (if my math is correct).

The way I see it, I see some people looking at a television set and wondering how the pictures get onto the screen and suggesting that light can't travel fast enough to replace the image on a screen at a quick enough speed as to simulate moving pictures; that the human eye would be able to see the "stuttering" between the pictures, even at 100FPS, and then claiming that there's an invisible man sitting in every TV painting the pictures for you and then demanding the "invisible man theory" to be taught in science class. Or, tl;dr: Argument from ignorance (aka "No way!") is no replacement for debunking evidence. (Oh, and Bear Grylls is a human.)