Conquer Club

ben kenobie wrote: ......
What do you mean when you say that there isn't a massive settlement? Do you mean that all of the history books would agree that a flood hit the world? If you do, then none of the history books have any record of a worldwide flood because the Scriptures were the only record of it. When the flood hit, Noah and his family, 8 people in all, were the only living humans on the face (or above the face) of the earth. They were the only ones who could record it. Later, one man (Moses) put it down in the book called Genesis. Read the entire Chapters 6 and 7 in Genesis and discover what I am trying to tell you.

Actually, many cultures have flood stories, and there is an ancient text, even older than the first recorded (written) Bible that gives a similar story.

A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

this is from the link posted on the previous page about the australian creationist dude...

...well if what this is true, then couldn't the opposite also be said. that this man has no clue what HE is talking about and the idea about a "Greater Power" could be a random anomoly created by a "accidental" brains...

Ken Ham is just a bad reference for everyone...

Ken Ham wrote:Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence). The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

I bolded his main points that have substance, and underlined the parts that are for the first part simply incorrect and the second both condescending and meaningless. The idea of evolving "correctly" is an inherently wrong one. Evolution isn't something tangible that can be correct or incorrect. It's simply change over time stimulated by the environment around us. That aside, our "correct evolving" or lack thereof doesn't lead to "correct" statements or questions. Just because everything wasn't predestined doesn't mean that a hole's been torn in the universe. Let's take for example a die. You want a random number between 1 and 20 (you're playing dungeons and dragons I guess) and it comes out with 2. You don't throw up your hands and cry "Oh my god, that number came out completely by chance! How do we know if it's correct? Up is down, left is right, and I don't know what to think any more!"

Ken Ham wrote:On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

Now he's just lying. Who says that? That would be like me saying "One time, after a debate in my Wednesday political science class, this guy I'd been arguing with came up to me and said 'I'm an anarchist, so I feel that laws are unimportant and that people should be allowed to do whatever they want.'" It's basically stating the stereotypical (and incorrect) view of anarchists opinions. Nobody actually feels that way.

there's this one time i was trying to evolve myself by closing my eyes really tight and concentrating really hard, but then i realized it was my sister moving the fucking Ouija board the whole goddamn time.

what always has bugged me about creationists speaking about evolution, is how (as pointed out in the previous post) they always claim evolution is suppose to be some giant plan working towards some perfectionistic goal...when evolution is just a random occurences of events...the reason it usually appears towards a better end is because the "poorly" evolved beings have died out...

just something i felt like adding for no apparently random/divine reason

Bavarian Raven wrote:what always has bugged me about creationists speaking about evolution, is how (as pointed out in the previous post) they always claim evolution is suppose to be some giant plan working towards some perfectionistic goal...when evolution is just a random occurences of events...the reason it usually appears towards a better end is because the "poorly" evolved beings have died out...

just something i felt like adding for no apparently random/divine reason

I wonder if these guys have heard of the wedge strategy.

edit

bradleybadly wrote:
Another kid who thinks he's the newest philosophical genius.

Seriously guys, you are wasting your lives trying to prove things that are obvious and easy to understand. I'm not sure if some of you are just doing it to try and make yourselves sound significant in front of others over the internet. 1 + 1 = 2, the earth exists, you all exist. I'm sorry but you're just going to have to deal with the fact that reality exists or you wouldn't all be on conquer club arguing about it in the first place!!

You're doing it again. Common sense is not automatically fact.

Yes, it's a pretty safe assumption to assume that I exist. But in what form? Take The Matrix as an example. What if we're all hooked up to tyrannical machines with very strange energy requirements? There is no way to prove otherwise, so it remains a possibility. Yes, I am aware that it is far simpler to assume that what you sense is real, but there is still no way to exclude the Matrix as a (very remote) possibility.

I'm not Anglican but I wholehartidly agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury when he said

"I think creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories ... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it,"

And the Early Church Father, Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185–ca. 254) when he said

"What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky? Who could be so silly as to think that God planted a paradise in Eden in the East the way a human gardener does, and that he made in this garden a visible and palpable tree of life, so that by tasting its fruit with one’s bodily teeth one should receive life? And in the same way, that someone could partake of good and evil by chewing what was taken from this tree? If God is represented as walking in the garden in the evening, or Adam as hiding under the tree, I do not think anyone can doubt that these things, by means of a story which did not in fact materially occur, are intended to express certain mysteries in a metaphorical way."

Neoteny wrote:I, like everyone else who uses the argument, am playing the devil's advocate role. We all believe in our own existence via some train of thought. Those trains of thought might be different or the same. The fact of the matter is, it is very difficult, nigh impossible, to really prove empirically to someone else that you exist. Particularly if they are doubtful of your existence. I don't think you are talking to one of those individuals now, but I think the point is an important one.

Alright, since you're just arguing to have fun I guess that's cool. I was starting to think you were really believing the stuff you were writing.

Carnifex wrote:And the Early Church Father, Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185–ca. 254) when he said

"What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky? Who could be so silly as to think that God planted a paradise in Eden in the East the way a human gardener does, and that he made in this garden a visible and palpable tree of life, so that by tasting its fruit with one’s bodily teeth one should receive life? And in the same way, that someone could partake of good and evil by chewing what was taken from this tree? If God is represented as walking in the garden in the evening, or Adam as hiding under the tree, I do not think anyone can doubt that these things, by means of a story which did not in fact materially occur, are intended to express certain mysteries in a metaphorical way."

Good find. I think that if a church leader who probably knew a guy who knew a guy who knew Jesus points out that Genesis is metaphorical that he can probably be trusted.

Neutrino wrote:You're doing it again. Common sense is not automatically fact.

Which I never said. I'm saying you're wasting your time arguing and asking for proof of the obvious.

Neutrino wrote:Yes, it's a pretty safe assumption to assume that I exist. But in what form? Take The Matrix as an example. What if we're all hooked up to tyrannical machines with very strange energy requirements? There is no way to prove otherwise, so it remains a possibility. Yes, I am aware that it is far simpler to assume that what you sense is real, but there is still no way to exclude the Matrix as a (very remote) possibility.

This is why it sucks arguing against fucking toddlers. What's next - Peter Parker and Spiderman analogies?

bradley, I'd rather appear to be somewhat insane but intelligent than outright dense.

bradleybadly wrote:
Which I never said. I'm saying you're wasting your time arguing and asking for proof of the obvious.

No, but you've certainly been acting as though it was. In fact, you did it in the sentence that I'm quoting here. You're using "common sense" to assign your "obvious" descriptor to your assertions. You have nothing to back up your claims, aside from the fact that it has never occured before (whatever "it" may be), i.e. common sense. You've never seen a pig fly, so you call it common sense that they can't.

bradleybadly wrote:This is why it sucks arguing against fucking toddlers. What's next - Peter Parker and Spiderman analogies?

Why not? Prove to me, right now, that Spiderman doesn't exist. He could simply be undercover, or all news coming out of New York (I think it was New York, anyway) could have been censored to remove any refrence to his existence for some obscure reason. Or a huge number of other suspisciously specific reasons. Fantastically unlikely? Yes. Provably wrong? No.

You don't like movie analogies? Ok then, what about the zoo hypothesis? A valid solution to the Fermi paradox and staple of paranoid schizophrenics the world over. Basically, it answers the Fermi paradox by stating that we can't see the aliens because they don't want to be seen. Prove it wrong. Not just scoff at the basic concept, prove.


Just a little disclaimer here: I don't actually believe that Spiderman exists or that we're all living in the Matrix, simply because it's impossible to prove otherwise. What I'm trying to get across to you is the concept that it is not possible to state anything with absolute certainty. There will always be, no matter how small, a margin of error.
That, unfortunately, is what you get for living in a probabilistic universe.

I'd say the advantages more than make up for that small drawback.

bradleybadly wrote:

Neoteny wrote:I, like everyone else who uses the argument, am playing the devil's advocate role. We all believe in our own existence via some train of thought. Those trains of thought might be different or the same. The fact of the matter is, it is very difficult, nigh impossible, to really prove empirically to someone else that you exist. Particularly if they are doubtful of your existence. I don't think you are talking to one of those individuals now, but I think the point is an important one.

Alright, since you're just arguing to have fun I guess that's cool. I was starting to think you were really believing the stuff you were writing.

Sure it's fun, but there's a point to be made as well. I do believe it, but I think that one's bearing on the matter is rather irrelevant. Semantics, really.

A very incomplete list of Christian churches that feel the Bible and the theory of Evolution are COMPATIBLE, that do NOT support Creationism as laid out in the beginning of this text (or a few later individuals)


Roman Catholic Church (note Pope Benedict will be attending a conference on Intelligent Design)
Lutheran Church
Methodist
Presbyterian
Episcopalians
Greek Orthodox
Russian Orthodox

etc.

This list is NOT complete, nor have I mentioned non-Christian churches because I am less familiar with them, though I will say Judiasm generally supports Evolution.

ALL of the above (including Judiasm) DO believe the old Testament speaks the truth. NONE see it as inconsistant with the evidence provided to support Evolution, with the one clarification, of course, Judeo-Christian evolution DOES put God in control.

Some feel that God mostly created the processes, knowing exactly how it would all "turn out" and, more or less "stands back", only occasionally interceding (miracles). Others feel that God intervenes more directly .. might have actually manipulated the genes, for example, to create what we see (broadly intelligent design, though that term has been put forward by Creationists and is not necessarily truly compatible with Evolution). No doubt there are other variations, but those are the most common, general ideas as presented by the churches as a whole. (NOT to mean that each and every individual member, or even Pastor/Minister/Priest necessarily agrees)

To name just a few of us "crazy and misguided individuals" who happen to believe in BOTH the Bible and Evolution.

PLAYER57832 wrote:A very incomplete list of Christian churches that feel the Bible and the theory of Evolution are COMPATIBLE, that do NOT support Creationism as laid out in the beginning of this text (or a few later individuals)


Roman Catholic Church (note Pope Benedict will be attending a conference on Intelligent Design)
Lutheran Church
Methodist
Presbyterian
Episcopalians
Greek Orthodox
Russian Orthodox

etc.

This list is NOT complete, nor have I mentioned non-Christian churches because I am less familiar with them, though I will say Judiasm generally supports Evolution.

ALL of the above (including Judiasm) DO believe the old Testament speaks the truth. NONE see it as inconsistant with the evidence provided to support Evolution, with the one clarification, of course, Judeo-Christian evolution DOES put God in control.

Some feel that God mostly created the processes, knowing exactly how it would all "turn out" and, more or less "stands back", only occasionally interceding (miracles). Others feel that God intervenes more directly .. might have actually manipulated the genes, for example, to create what we see (broadly intelligent design, though that term has been put forward by Creationists and is not necessarily truly compatible with Evolution). No doubt there are other variations, but those are the most common, general ideas as presented by the churches as a whole. (NOT to mean that each and every individual member, or even Pastor/Minister/Priest necessarily agrees)

To name just a few of us "crazy and misguided individuals" who happen to believe in BOTH the Bible and Evolution.

Craziness...

LMFAO at this MeDeFe jerk! So get this, I'm browsing through the forums and go over to the General Discussion part. Apparently, demanding proof that 1 + 1 = 2 isn't the only time MeDeFe has gone out of his way to sound like a demanding prick. What was meant to be a cool gesture of congratulations was soon turned into an argument because people didn't measure up to his standards of what a proper contratulation is. What an ass!

Here's the link:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=48973&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

You can see his arrogance in his first post, and then later has the audacity to post a link trying to prop himself up. So I guess we can see this guy's pattern of behavior. The other people over there didn't appreciate his stupidity either but he just doesn't get the hint. Read their comments.

silvanricky wrote:LMFAO at this MeDeFe jerk! So get this, I'm browsing through the forums and go over to the General Discussion part. Apparently, demanding proof that 1 + 1 = 2 isn't the only time MeDeFe has gone out of his way to sound like a demanding prick. What was meant to be a cool gesture of congratulations was soon turned into an argument because people didn't measure up to his standards of what a proper contratulation is. What an ass!

Here's the link:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=48973&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

You can see his arrogance in his first post, and then later has the audacity to post a link trying to prop himself up. So I guess we can see this guy's pattern of behavior. The other people over there didn't appreciate his stupidity either but he just doesn't get the hint. Read their comments.

Aside from thread hijacking I'll admit that it is rather annoying that he won't admit that Americans are the best Risk players.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzNfy4WAWco&feature=related

Seriously though, let the 1+1 thing go. This is admittedly an overreaction, but the other thing is completely blown out of proportion.

Frigidus wrote:Seriously though, let the 1+1 thing go. This is admittedly an overreaction, but the other thing is completely blown out of proportion.

That's not the issue. The issue is him trying to turn even basic and simplistic things which are understandable to everyone and try to turn it into an argument. He reminds me of Dustin Diamond on Celebrity Fit Club.

i'll except 1 + 1 isn't 2 if u show me proof. if not, then shut up about it... if u take one apple and put it beside another apple u get two apples. not rocket science. while there is a possibility that this is wrong, unless u can show us some GOOD evidence, let's please just take 1 + 1 = 2 as fact. ok?

"2" is merely a concept created by our bicameral mind. A tricameral mind sees "2" as "3," and "3" as an even number.

Thank you Neo, I'm wondering whether they actually are this stupid or just don't want to see that they're railing against something I never disputed in the first place.