REAL issues

KristallNacht wrote:
As NO science IS fact but only the most likely based on all known evidence, it can be taught. Second, as evolution is pretty much set in stone, and (as schools only teach microevolution) fits perfectly in with religious beliefs.

Evolution still has yet to find a missing link. In any case, ask any archeologist who researches ancient cultures, and they will tell you that, no matter how many fossils or pottery they find, they still won't know ANYTHING for certain.

Also, both macro and microevolution are taught in my school, and they are taught as fact. And remember the huge backlash when parents tried to get stickers on their student's textbooks that said that Evolution was ONLY a fact?

ReconToaster wrote:

It was a setting for which to stop avoiding the previous question, "what would you think if your parents aborted you?", not "what would you think if you were in Heaven?" with no previous context.

what is that? the 12th time you re-stated the question in your previous triple post? Next time, lets calm down with the repetitive restatements. You posted three times about how I "failed to define humanity." Give me a chance to answer please?

What if your parents aborted you and your "soul" ascended to "heaven? " how would you feel?

The reason I do not wish to respond to this question is because it assumes the existence of such a place as heaven. The fact that an embryo/early fetus is even not conscious is what makes abortion, in my mind, a non-issue. By implementing the existence of an afterlife, you are completely and efficiently voiding such an argument.

now what were you saying about cop outs? The previously mentioned question resonates such a tactic with great strength!

To answer the question, If i was up in the "heaven" place of yours, I would indeed probably think something along the lines of "looks fun down there." In being presented with this question, I further understand the argument that you are both presenting, based on Christian faith.

You believe that this situation is a reality, and that when aborted babies ascend to "Heaven," they feel like they are "missing out." Unfortunately, this is merely YOUR BELIEF. I am sorry, but basing a law off of religion would be rather contradictory to the Constitution on which this country was built. You cannot impose your religion at a federal level.

If you had a solid argument with no Religious interventions such as "Heaven," maybe I would respect your views on the topics at hand.

I'll try not and get mad when I say, it doesn't matter. We're not talking about you going to heaven, we're just trying to get what you would think. But you keep avoiding the question by making a big deal out of me giving you a hypothetical situation involving you going to heaven.

If I must, I'll word it in a different way: What would you do if you could somehow think about all of this durring and after the fact (the fact being your parents aborting you and donating you to science). I don't care how, but just tell me how.

ReconToaster wrote:

I mean, God forbid someone says "Merry Christmas" in a Target

Agreed. While I firmly hold the opinion that Christmas can be celebrated without religious involvement, I don't think it is necessary to strip it of its origins. I understand full well that I have the Christians (as well as the Celts ) to thank for the tradition that I now take part in. It's not that I do not recognize the influence (good and bad) of Christianity, I simply don't think that the religion itself is relevant in the modern Era.

For example, Religion may have promoted (not invented) morals, but at this point, Laws and morals are understood by general society, and can be promoted through non-religious means. I am Atheist. That does not mean that I think it's ok to torture small animals.

Yes. I don't have a big problem with you celebrating christmas, but I do have one with you saying it's not a christian holiday.

ReconToaster wrote:

Coming from the guy who feels that the human race is no better that pigs?

How many times do I have to restate this? I am not saying that an adult human is not more important than an adult pig. What I am stating is that I do not believe there to be any inherent differences between a pig embryo and a human embryo. Neither of them have even obtained consciousness. The only real difference is in the structure of their DNA.

I have the potential to be bitten by a radio-active spider. Is anyone treating me like spiderman?

Like Rot, I think it was, said, if left on your own, that would not happen.

ReconToaster wrote:

Erm, actually, you can abort up until week 28

And I do not support late term abortions.

Well that's good.

ReconToaster wrote:

the concept of science being somehow absolute when it has always been changing and contradicting itself also sounds dumb.

Science is willing to admit to it's wrong doings and false predictions. Science evolves while religion loses itself in archaism.

That explains the reformation, the complete change in the catholic church since the age of absolute monarchs, and the constant new interpritations of scripture. Just because we rarely get new information doesn't mean we aren't willing to change a bit.

*remembers the columbine shooting* Yah, science is so much better than relgion...

ReconToaster wrote:

Would you kill your cousin?

Not at this point. no. But if I had had the knowledge before his birth that he would have such severe mental disabilities that would make his life miserable, I would have been all for abortion.

You don't think your cousin would want to live, even with a disability? What if you were your cousin, would you rather have be aborted?

ReconToaster wrote:Last thanksgiving, he sat on a bed upstairs the entire time, refusing to come down because he was "embarrassed" of himself. I love my cousin, and I always make it an effort to try to spend time with him when I can, but I love him enough to understand his misery, and would have said yes to ending it. Those of you who say you would rather just live with the disability know not the disability.

Suicide is no way to deal with your problems. Don't you pay attention in health class?
I'm sure he's figured that out, which is why he's still alive.

ReconToaster wrote:

RT, can you honestly say that you would be ok with the thought that your parents considered killing you at one point? Can you really believe that you would be ok with that?

Yes. If they told me "I thought about aborting you at one point," I would, as I have said, understand why they would have considered it, and I would understand that they do not regret their decision to keep me.

But what if they had folowed through with it? As in the post above.

ReconToaster wrote::::OVERALL VIEW ON ABORTION::: (to clarify)

Whatever the purpose, I do not consider Embryotic or very early abortions to be wrong, as the subjects aborted have no sense of consciousness.

I still don't see how consciousness makes you unable to be killed. As you said above, fish have consciousness, yet we fish as a sport. And as for self awareness, how do you know they aren't self aware? Science hasn't progressed far enough to determine that.

I have no problems with killing fish, but I do have a problem with killing humans. Though caviar sounds discusting...

ReconToaster wrote:I believe that late term abortions can be justified if and only if there is a strong likely hood of an extreme case (such as mental illness, deformation, or terminal illness) or if the resulting birth would cause death to the mother.

I'm not going to argue with the last part, though I would still consider it a terrible thing. However, I find the mental illness thing still very unreasonable.

KristallNacht wrote:

Rot wrote:Yes, but people sell things like Evolution as fact. They teach it in school as fact, and they treat anyone who disagrees like they are an idiot. My point is, Evolution, the Big Bang, they aren't fact, and shouldn't be represented as such.

As NO science IS fact but only the most likely based on all known evidence, it can be taught. Second, as evolution is pretty much set in stone, and (as schools only teach microevolution) fits perfectly in with religious beliefs.

I agree with Rot, but we already had an evolution vs creation argument.

KristallNacht wrote:
Its actually not. It's actually a holiday designed in nearly every aspect to compete with the pagan holiday, "Dies Natalis Solis Invicti."

I don't care why it was designed. That doesn't change the purpose.

Rasq' wrote:
Also, both macro and microevolution are taught in my school, and they are taught as fact. And remember the huge backlash when parents tried to get stickers on their student's textbooks that said that Evolution was ONLY a fact?

I actualy agree with micro evolution. It also, by coinscidence (or is it?), is the only one that has sufficient evidence to be called science.

Macro evolution, as said before, is missing many many many links.

thats why i have said evolution and god could be related!!!! and god influences many things throught the univerise and that just by evolution we aren't the only intellegient lifeforms in the univeres ^.^

CivBase wrote:
I actualy agree with micro evolution. It also, by coinscidence (or is it?), is the only one that has sufficient evidence to be called science.

Macro evolution, as said before, is missing many many many links.

Yeah, that's the one I believe in too. I just don't believe our ancestors were apes.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

CivBase wrote:
I actualy agree with micro evolution. It also, by coinscidence (or is it?), is the only one that has sufficient evidence to be called science.

Macro evolution, as said before, is missing many many many links.

Yeah, that's the one I believe in too. I just don't believe our ancestors were apes.

...

Then what do you think they were?
Cats?

PiElord wrote:

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

CivBase wrote:
I actualy agree with micro evolution. It also, by coinscidence (or is it?), is the only one that has sufficient evidence to be called science.

Macro evolution, as said before, is missing many many many links.

Yeah, that's the one I believe in too. I just don't believe our ancestors were apes.

...

Then what do you think they were?
Cats?

lol, evolution says we evolved from rocks

You keep avoiding the question by making a big deal out of me giving you a hypothetical situation involving you going to heaven

Quoted from my last post: If i was up in the "heaven" place of yours, I would indeed probably think something along the lines of "looks fun down there." In being presented with this question, I further understand the argument that you are both presenting, based on Christian faith.

Obviously you were too worked up about the previous parts of my post to even bother reading the rest of the paragraph that you quoted.

I do have a problem with you saying it's not a christian holiday.

I did not say that. I said that it was adopted from Celtic tradition, and that myself, along with many other non-religious people, have adopted as their own. I said that it was not a Christian exclusive holiday.

I find the mental illness thing still very unreasonable.

You know not true mental illness.

how do you know they aren't self aware?

I don't know this. It is an assumption. Are we arguing about factual evidence now? I don't think that would go so well for you.

I actualy agree with micro evolution.

I'd hope so. It basically states that something with a poor trait lives for a shorter period of time, therefore breeding less. It is common sense.

I just don't believe our ancestors were apes.

uhhh... That's not what evolution says. It says there was a common ancestor.
Either way, you're totally right. The FACT that both species' DNA is 99% alike is totally irrelevant!

evolution says we evolved from rocks

Ignorance..... Darwinian Evolution states nothing of the sort. The most far-fetched of its claims is that we and apes share a common ancestor.

ReconToaster wrote:

You keep avoiding the question by making a big deal out of me giving you a hypothetical situation involving you going to heaven

Quoted from my last post: If i was up in the "heaven" place of yours, I would indeed probably think something along the lines of "looks fun down there." In being presented with this question, I further understand the argument that you are both presenting, based on Christian faith.

Obviously you were too worked up about the previous parts of my post to even bother reading the rest of the paragraph that you quoted.

That tells me what you would think about you being in heaven. That tells me absolutely nothing about what you would think of your parents actions.

ReconToaster wrote:

I find the mental illness thing still very unreasonable.

You know not true mental illness.

You know not true death.

ReconToaster wrote:

how do you know they aren't self aware?

I don't know this. It is an assumption. Are we arguing about factual evidence now? I don't think that would go so well for you.

*sigh*
So than what makes a fetus any different?

ReconToaster wrote:

I actualy agree with micro evolution.

I'd hope so. It basically states that something with a poor trait lives for a shorter period of time, therefore breeding less. It is common sense.

Which is why I agree with it. I know what it is, I don't need any sort of lecture.

ReconToaster wrote:

I just don't believe our ancestors were apes.

uhhh... That's not what evolution says. It says there was a common ancestor.
Either way, you're totally right. The FACT that both species' DNA is 99% alike is totally irrelevant!

Good job Recon, you just about hit the nail right on the head there. Because there is no species inbetween currently, or previously, in existance with any variation between the two. No link.

ReconToaster wrote:

evolution says we evolved from rocks

Ignorance..... Darwinian Evolution states nothing of the sort. The most far-fetched of its claims is that we and apes share a common ancestor.

Don't be so critical.
Organic evolution: combination of minerals (from various solids and liquids, including rocks) + energy (from lightning) = cells (through some sort of cosmic collision that never really was proven). These cells somehow become fish over billions of years, and then slowly turn into humans.

through some sort of cosmic collision that never really was proven

I love how you Christians always demand absolute proof of our theories, while you go on blindly believing in things with no evidential support.

You know not true death.

No living person does....

That tells me what you would think about you being in heaven. That tells me absolutely nothing about what you would think of your parents actions.

I said I would think to myself the it looked fun down on earth, implying that if I was in "heaven" I would probably wish I had not been aborted, but alas, there is very likely no such thing as heaven and therefor no feelings of sadness exist in an aborted embryo/fetus.

there is no species inbetween currently, or previously, in existance with any variation between the two

Not that we know of... It takes time to uncover billions of years of fossile evolution friend. Oh yes, that's right.... the Earth is only 10,000 years old. How foolish of me.

ReconToaster wrote:

through some sort of cosmic collision that never really was proven

I love how you Christians always demand absolute proof of our theories, while you go on blindly believing in things with no evidential support.

I love how you have evaded just about every question and subdued almost every post in which you could not retaliate to.
That would be why it's called religion. And this is why your idea is not science. That's all I needed to prove.

ReconToaster wrote:

You know not true death.

No living person does....

Yet you claim you know the suffering of another even though you insist I don't?

ReconToaster wrote:

That tells me what you would think about you being in heaven. That tells me absolutely nothing about what you would think of your parents actions.

I said I would think to myself the it looked fun down on earth, implying that if I was in "heaven" I would probably wish I had not been aborted

Finaly. So why would you wish your cousin aborted if you couldn't even wish yourself aborted?

ReconToaster wrote:but alas, there is very likely no such thing as heaven and therefor no feelings of sadness exist in an aborted embryo/fetus.

Maybe not in your reality.

ReconToaster wrote:

there is no species inbetween currently, or previously, in existance with any variation between the two

Not that we know of... It takes time to uncover billions of years of fossile evolution friend. Oh yes, that's right.... the Earth is only 10,000 years old. How foolish of me.

Yet, they all seem to look the same and have no links between eachother. This isn't a debate on how old the world is... in fact, this isn't even an evolution debate;, so why are we talking about it?
And stop generalizing chistianty. My own priest believes in evolution, he cirtainly doesn't think the earth is 10000 years old... by the way, I believe it's closer to 100,000 than 10,000.

You know, at this rate, you're all going to end up hating each other. This is obviously never going to end, because both sides believe that their argument is right. So can you at least agree to disagree and leave it at that?

You guys said the same thing about the evolution vs creation debate, and there doens't seem to be any hate from that.

Finaly. So why would you wish your cousin aborted if you couldn't even wish yourself aborted?

finally? I said it 2 posts ago. The thing is, an early fetus is not and has never been conscious. Something that is not and has never been conscious is inanimate.

Also, WISHING eagerly that someone had been aborted is a little more severe than to say that you would have said yes in the beginning.
This is why I did not want to answer the question. It takes into account a factor that does not exist.

Yet you claim you know the suffering of another even though you insist I don't?

I can witness the pain I describe. You cannot witness the pain one feels when dead as they are DEAD and therefor feel nothing. sorry.

some sort of cosmic collision that never really was proven

Have you ever heard of redshift?

by the way, I believe it's closer to 100,000

wow. I think the discussion needs to just end at this. I find it almost disgraceful that I am even bothering to argue with one of such little intelligence. You are brainwashed, lobotomized by the Church.

ReconToaster wrote:

Finaly. So why would you wish your cousin aborted if you couldn't even wish yourself aborted?

finally? I said it 2 posts ago. The thing is, an early fetus is not and has never been conscious. Something that is not and has never been conscious is inanimate.

But it is not divoid of life.

ReconToaster wrote: Also, WISHING eagerly that someone had been aborted is a little more severe than to say that you would have said yes in the beginning.

What difference does it make? At the beginning, you wouldn't have even known of the suffering, so you would be even more likely to say no. So why not now? Did you suddenly change your mind?

ReconToaster wrote: This is why I did not want to answer the question. It takes into account a factor that does not exist.

As did your answer.

ReconToaster wrote:

Yet you claim you know the suffering of another even though you insist I don't?

I can witness the pain I describe. You cannot witness the pain one feels when dead as they are DEAD and therefor feel nothing. sorry.

True, very true. So now you'd rather him dead? I find your stance very unclear...

ReconToaster wrote:

some sort of cosmic collision that never really was proven

Have you ever heard of redshift?

Nope, but I'm sure you'll try to explain it to me.

ReconToaster wrote:

by the way, I believe it's closer to 100,000

wow. I think the discussion needs to just end at this. I find it almost disgraceful that I am even bothering to argue with one of such little intelligence. You are brainwashed, lobotomized by the Church.

Didn't I just say my preist believes the earth is millions of years old? Am I missing something here? Besides, you can prove to me that the earth is millions of years old, but what will that prove? It doesn't prove that creation never happened, it doesn't prove that abortion is wrong, it doesn't prove that evolution is science. What are you getting at here? Or are you just trying to rip me limb from limb out of sheer enjoyment?

Nope, but I'm sure you'll try to explain it to me.

If you know not the arguments of your foes, you have no business participating.

Didn't I just say my preist believes the earth is millions of years old?

I don't give a shit what your priest thinks. He's not the one in this thread.

It doesn't prove that creation never happened

I never said that. However, the ignorance portrayed by you belief that the earth is only around 100,000 years old is enough to demean just about anything you say.

it doesn't prove that evolution is science

Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Just because Macro Evolution is not proven does not void it from being a science. The difference between Science and Religion is that one is based on Faith while the other is based on fact. The conclusions of scientific research may not always be absolute fact, but the evidence used to determine such an outcome is.

ID has some evidence

but i can't remember if it excludes macroevolution if it's true or not >.>

CivBase wrote:Yes, the true point of Christmas is to celebrate Jesus' birth. I kinda figured it would be sometime around winter (isn't there some reference to snow?) but it doesn't matter and has no relation to the current argument.

Indeed (none that I can find, and I agree that it would make more sense for the birth itself to take place during the spring; the wise men may have shown up around December, though; sources indicate that it likely took them something like two years to get there, after all).

CivBase wrote:I don't folow the church. I go to church, I take part in church activity, but I don't just folow everything it says and does. Even though I go to a catholic church, I actualy listen to many lutheran and other religious radio stations.

I figured as much, but wasn't sure. I seem to recall you and I agreeing that the Roman Catholic doctrine wasn't the most accurate representation in one thread or another.

CivBase wrote:doubt? Why do you doubt this? What has science done to show us that other animals aren't self aware? An instinct doesn't tell you how to deal with problems, something fish are capeable of. Fish could easily be self aware, and are definately conscious.

Fish are obviously less intelligent than humans, but yes, they are both arguably conscious and self aware.

KristallNacht wrote:As NO science IS fact but only the most likely based on all known evidence, it can be taught. Second, as evolution is pretty much set in stone, and (as schools only teach microevolution) fits perfectly in with religious beliefs.

Darwin didn't think so, why should we? He wouldn't be convinced of his own theory until the Cambrian Explosion was explained by the fossil record. I don't know about you, but I don't buy the whole Snowball Earth theory. Introducing oxygen, tons and tons of it even, into the atmosphere would not result in virtually no animals to virtually all animals in such a short period. And I don't know about your schools, but when I went through school, evolution as a whole was taught as fact. We aren't talking simple natural selection (which most religious people accept, if not fully support like I do), but rather full blown evolution, from a single cell to fully sentient multicellular organisms. I actually know of a few teachers at my high school who would put creationist choices on their multiple choice tests as wrong answers.

KritallNacht wrote:

Thankfully, I've already addressed this, and made it clear that the question wasn't to make some kind of point about aborted babies being sad in Heaven, but rather to simply grant a scenario in which Recon would be able to be aborted and consider it fully with an intelligent mind, rather than copping out and saying that at the time, he would be unable to consider it, and thus wouldn't be able to care, like he did the first time he responded to the question.

KristallNacht wrote:Its actually not. It's actually a holiday designed in nearly every aspect to compete with the pagan holiday, "Dies Natalis Solis Invicti."

Day of the Unconquered Sun; I wonder why Christians would think it the perfect time to celebrate the birth of the Son of God, who was killed and then defeated death, returning back to life, to save us all?

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Evolution still has yet to find a missing link. In any case, ask any archeologist who researches ancient cultures, and they will tell you that, no matter how many fossils or pottery they find, they still won't know ANYTHING for certain.

Also, both macro and microevolution are taught in my school, and they are taught as fact. And remember the huge backlash when parents tried to get stickers on their student's textbooks that said that Evolution was ONLY a fact?

Exactly.

CivBase wrote:I'll try not and get mad when I say, it doesn't matter. We're not talking about you going to heaven, we're just trying to get what you would think. But you keep avoiding the question by making a big deal out of me giving you a hypothetical situation involving you going to heaven.

If I must, I'll word it in a different way: What would you do if you could somehow think about all of this durring and after the fact (the fact being your parents aborting you and donating you to science). I don't care how, but just tell me how.

I don't know why it is such a hard question to understand. It seems that everyone except Recon knew exactly what we were asking...

CivBase wrote:Yes. I don't have a big problem with you celebrating christmas, but I do have one with you saying it's not a christian holiday.

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:Like Rot, I think it was, said, if left on your own, that would not happen.

Indeed, it was I.

CivBase wrote:Well that's good.

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:That explains the reformation, the complete change in the catholic church since the age of absolute monarchs, and the constant new interpritations of scripture. Just because we rarely get new information doesn't mean we aren't willing to change a bit.

I was considering bringing this up, but since the Roman Catholic church did a lot of "interpreting" outside of the Bible, I didn't know if it would be fair for us to turn a blind eye to their wrong doings, but use them as an example of how we are willing to admit our mistakes. As I recall, the Vatican denied Pope John Paul II on his request to publicly apologize to Protestants for the Spanish Inquisition, anyway.

CivBase wrote:*remembers the columbine shooting* Yah, science is so much better than relgion...

I didn't think either had much to do with that...

CivBase wrote:You don't think your cousin would want to live, even with a disability? What if you were your cousin, would you rather have be aborted?

More to the point, if your cousin is doomed to live a life, as you describe it, of complete misery, then what is the difference between killing him before he is born and killing him now? What are ten, fifteen years alive to eighty? Why is it you wouldn't kill him now, to spare him maybe fifty or sixty years of misery, but would be willing to kill him then to spare him seventy or eighty?

CivBase wrote:Suicide is no way to deal with your problems. Don't you pay attention in health class?
I'm sure he's figured that out, which is why he's still alive.

Completely agree.

CivBase wrote:But what if they had folowed through with it? As in the post above.

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:I still don't see how consciousness makes you unable to be killed. As you said above, fish have consciousness, yet we fish as a sport. And as for self awareness, how do you know they aren't self aware? Science hasn't progressed far enough to determine that.

I have no problems with killing fish, but I do have a problem with killing humans. Though caviar sounds discusting...

Quite frankly, I'd argue that consciousness is a step below self awareness.

CivBase wrote:I'm not going to argue with the last part, though I would still consider it a terrible thing. However, I find the mental illness thing still very unreasonable.

Possibility of death is probably the only reason I can feel abortion to be justifiable, but I'm willing to consider rape and other illnesses to be a possible reason for justification.

CivBase wrote:I agree with Rot, but we already had an evolution vs creation argument.

More importantly, macroevolution is taught in schools. It seems NT is getting his facts about this from the same place that told him that abortions couldn't be made after 12 weeks. ;)

CivBase wrote:I don't care why it was designed. That doesn't change the purpose.

Indeed.

CivBase' wrote:I actualy agree with micro evolution. It also, by coinscidence (or is it?), is the only one that has sufficient evidence to be called science.

Macro evolution, as said before, is missing many many many links.

If by microevolution, you mean natural selection, then yes, I also agree with it.

Onyxknight wrote:thats why i have said evolution and god could be related!!!! and god influences many things throught the univerise and that just by evolution we aren't the only intellegient lifeforms in the univeres ^.^

I personally prefer to say that God and natural selection may be related, since I was never taught "micro" or "macro" evolution, but rather evolution and natural selection. And hey, Big Bang Theory, I don't mind it either. But when you think about it, scientifically speaking, how does nothing explode into everything?

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Yeah, that's the one I believe in too. I just don't believe our ancestors were apes.

Indeed. I think the best way to put it is that I believe genetic information can be changed through mutation, but that genetic information can't be added.

PiElord wrote:...

Then what do you think they were?
Cats?

Humans. ;)

CivBase wrote:lol, evolution says we evolved from rocks

Technically speaking. And then those rocks evolved into single celled organisms, that evolved into every type of sea creature imaginable (notice a sudden increase in variety? that's called the Cambrian Explosion, and it was Darwin's achilles heel), that evolved into every type of land creature imaginable, which eventually evolved into humans.

ReconToaster wrote: Quoted from my last post: If i was up in the "heaven" place of yours, I would indeed probably think something along the lines of "looks fun down there." In being presented with this question, I further understand the argument that you are both presenting, based on Christian faith.

Obviously you were too worked up about the previous parts of my post to even bother reading the rest of the paragraph that you quoted.

Or perhaps you were to busy doing whatever it is you were doing to notice that I specifically stated that that was not our argument, and asked you a simplified version of the question not involving Heaven that you might better understand from where we are coming.

I did not say that. I said that it was adopted from Celtic tradition, and that myself, along with many other non-religious people, have adopted as their own. I said that it was not a Christian exclusive holiday.

Oddly enough, the Wikipedia page on Christmas has nothing to say about the Celts.

ReconToaster wrote: You know not true mental illness.

I think that I might.

ReconToaster wrote: I don't know this. It is an assumption. Are we arguing about factual evidence now? I don't think that would go so well for you.

Considering how little religion is actually involved in our argument, despite your best attempts to make it appear so, it actually would go pretty well for us.

ReconToaster wrote: I'd hope so. It basically states that something with a poor trait lives for a shorter period of time, therefore breeding less. It is common sense.

Alright, so microevolution is natural selection. Then yes, most Christians do believe that.

ReconToaster wrote: uhhh... That's not what evolution says. It says there was a common ancestor.
Either way, you're totally right. The FACT that both species' DNA is 99% alike is totally irrelevant!

I hardly find DNA hybridization as a compelling argument, here, as it is considered dubiously inaccurate, and primarily used only to identify similarities in the simplest of organisms, such as bacteria.

ReconToaster wrote: Ignorance..... Darwinian Evolution states nothing of the sort. The most far-fetched of its claims is that we and apes share a common ancestor.

So where did life come from, then? At one point, all there was was rocks and gas, per science, so where did life come from? And your comment about ignorance is quite comical coming from the guy citing Sibley and Ahlquist and their hybridization technique as reliable.

CivBase wrote:That tells me what you would think about you being in heaven. That tells me absolutely nothing about what you would think of your parents actions.

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:You know not true death.

Touche.

CivBase wrote:*sigh*
So than what makes a fetus any different?

Don't get frustrated, Civ. Just because he makes everything into a religious debate doesn't mean we should be frustrated.

CivBase wrote:Which is why I agree with it. I know what it is, I don't need any sort of lecture.

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:Good job Recon, you just about hit the nail right on the head there. Because there is no species inbetween currently, or previously, in existance with any variation between the two. No link.

Not to mention not only how inaccurate DNA hybridization is, but also, Sibley and Ahlquist, from whom this statistic is derived, actually gave the number 97%, though with error taken into account, it is like more like 96%. Taking into account human DNA as being very complex, we can determine that the 4% difference is about 120000000 basic pairs that are different.

ReconToaster wrote:Don't be so critical.
Organic evolution: combination of minerals (from various solids and liquids, including rocks) + energy (from lightning) = cells (through some sort of cosmic collision that never really was proven). These cells somehow become fish over billions of years, and then slowly turn into humans.

I still don't know how nothing can just explode, and be everything. Maybe that's what happens when you divide by zero?

ReconToaster wrote: I love how you Christians always demand absolute proof of our theories, while you go on blindly believing in things with no evidential support.

The hypocritical irony of that is hilarious. Evolution and the Big Ban are taught as absolute fact in schools, yet you guys have just as little cold, hard evidence as we do.

ReconToaster wrote: No living person does....

I could conversely argue that no fully sane person understands mental illness, as well. I believe that makes me an expert on mental illness...

ReconToaster wrote: I said I would think to myself the it looked fun down on earth, implying that if I was in "heaven" I would probably wish I had not been aborted, but alas, there is very likely no such thing as heaven and therefor no feelings of sadness exist in an aborted embryo/fetus.

Thankfully, an aborted fetus that goes to Heaven does not feel sadness anyway. More to the point, if we can just get this straight, you would not want to be aborted?

ReconToaster wrote: Not that we know of... It takes time to uncover billions of years of fossile evolution friend. Oh yes, that's right.... the Earth is only 10,000 years old. How foolish of me.

Darwin, father of evolution, believed that if the missing fossil links weren't found within his lifetime, that evolution would be debunked. Alas, poor Darwin has been dead for over a hundred years.

CivBase wrote:I love how you have evaded just about every question and subdued almost every post in which you could not retaliate to.
That would be why it's called religion. And this is why your idea is not science. That's all I needed to prove.

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:Yet you claim you know the suffering of another even though you insist I don't?

Mm...

CivBase wrote:Finaly. So why would you wish your cousin aborted if you couldn't even wish yourself aborted?

I don't even know if he gave a straight answer there. It was still wrapped around requiring Heaven to exist and being regretful and the like.

CivBase wrote:but alas, there is very likely no such thing as heaven and therefor no feelings of sadness exist in an aborted embryo/fetus.

Maybe not in your reality.

CivBase wrote:Yet, they all seem to look the same and have no links between eachother. This isn't a debate on how old the world is... in fact, this isn't even an evolution debate;, so why are we talking about it?
And stop generalizing chistianty. My own priest believes in evolution, he cirtainly doesn't think the earth is 10000 years old... by the way, I believe it's closer to 100,000 than 10,000.

I'm neutral on how old the world is. Science has given us thousands of answers of the years, and has decided that since we can't see macroevolution take place in our lives, but only microevolution, that if it gives the world billions of years, that they can explain away this problem.

capn qwerty wrote:You know, at this rate, you're all going to end up hating each other. This is obviously never going to end, because both sides believe that their argument is right. So can you at least agree to disagree and leave it at that?

The difference, qwerty, is that Recon is simply ignoring half of what we say, taking only the choice statements that he can then turn into a religious debate, and responding to those. Besides, I doubt this debate can lower or raise my opinion of anyone else (well, except Pie, because he and I agreed several times, so this debate actually caused me to think better of Pie ).

CivBase wrote:You guys said the same thing about the evolution vs creation debate, and there doens't seem to be any hate from that.

If it makes anyone feel any better, I hate everyone equally.

ReconToaster wrote: finally? I said it 2 posts ago.

And we asked the qeustion, what, three pages ago?

ReconToaster wrote:The thing is, an early fetus is not and has never been conscious. Something that is not and has never been conscious is inanimate.

And yet, you're still copping out. Again, I'll ask you to define "conscious" so that I can thoroughly disprove your theory of a fetus being unconscious. Please don't skip over it this time. And again, I'll ask you the simplified, "If you were a fetus, assuming that you could think cognitively, would you choose to be aborted?"

ReconToaster wrote: Also, WISHING eagerly that someone had been aborted is a little more severe than to say that you would have said yes in the beginning.
This is why I did not want to answer the question. It takes into account a factor that does not exist.

Not really. Since Heaven has nothing to do with our arguments, but was simply a scenario that would (well, we hoped it would) stop you from copping out by claiming you wouldn't be able to think at the time.

ReconToaster wrote: I can witness the pain I describe. You cannot witness the pain one feels when dead as they are DEAD and therefor feel nothing. sorry.

What about the pain of one about to die, someone who knows they are about to die? Can we not witness that?

ReconToaster wrote: Have you ever heard of redshift?

I didn't know movement proved there was an explosion. ;)

ReconToaster wrote: wow. I think the discussion needs to just end at this. I find it almost disgraceful that I am even bothering to argue with one of such little intelligence. You are brainwashed, lobotomized by the Church.

Thank you for making sure to, again, provide sweeping insults for those who disagree after hijacking a discussion that had so little to do with the church and turning it into a religious debate in which you could get in as many cheap shots and sucker punches as you could, while ignoring any and every logical post that you had no response to.

CivBase wrote:But it is not divoid of life.

Exactly.

CivBase wrote:What difference does it make? At the beginning, you wouldn't have even known of the suffering, so you would be even more likely to say no. So why not now? Did you suddenly change your mind?

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:As did your answer.

Sigh...

CivBase wrote:True, very true. So now you'd rather him dead? I find your stance very unclear...

Indeed...he wouldn't mind killing him to save him from eighty or so years of "misery" of a severity he didn't know of, but scoffs at killing him to save him from sixty or so of "misery" that he knows all to well. You'd think seeing the misery first hand would actually increase his desire to end the misery, not decrease it.

CivBase wrote:Nope, but I'm sure you'll try to explain it to me.

It's a technique we can use to determine the direction in which planetary systems are traveling in relation to ourselves, kind of like how when a train goes by, as it passes you, the sound it makes changes. Through this technique, we have determined that all of the planetary systems on one side of us are moving away from us, and some of the systems on the other are moving toward us while others, further away, are moving away from us, which would suggest that planetary systems are moving out from a particular point in the universe. It isn't an exact science, but it is decent evidence that an explosion may have caused planetary systems to come into being. Now, how nothing explodes into everything, that is something science struggles to explain.

CivBase wrote:Didn't I just say my preist believes the earth is millions of years old? Am I missing something here? Besides, you can prove to me that the earth is millions of years old, but what will that prove? It doesn't prove that creation never happened, it doesn't prove that abortion is wrong, it doesn't prove that evolution is science. What are you getting at here? Or are you just trying to rip me limb from limb out of sheer enjoyment?

It would seem Recon never misses an opportunity at a personal attack.

ReconToaster wrote: If you know not the arguments of your foes, you have no business participating.

So because he doesn't know about redshift, he should participate in a debate about abortion?

ReconToaster wrote: I don't give a shit what your priest thinks. He's not the one in this thread.

You said that Civ was "brainwashed and lobotomized by the Church", as I recall. If his priest is an evolutionist, how would he be brainwashing Civ to believe young Earth creationism?

ReconToaster wrote: I never said that. However, the ignorance portrayed by you belief that the earth is only around 100,000 years old is enough to demean just about anything you say.

Again, does the age of the Earth have anything to do with an abortion debate? A simple believe on the age of the Earth that you disagree with shouldn't be enough to discredit everything a person says about anything. The true ignorance is that you would make such a sweeping generalization.

ReconToaster wrote: Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Just because Macro Evolution is not proven does not void it from being a science. The difference between Science and Religion is that one is based on Faith while the other is based on fact. The conclusions of scientific research may not always be absolute fact, but the evidence used to determine such an outcome is.

Yet you still run into some pretty big snags, such as nothing just happening to get fed up with itself and exploding into everything spontaneously, or the introduction of genetic material into a system by pure chance not once, but apparently millions of billions of times. If we're arguing evidence, then you'll find that the Bible, all acts of what you describe as "magic" aside, to be a historically accurate book. If it says there was a battle here, then archeologists find traces of a battle there. If it says these two cities were destroyed by fire and brimstone, low and behold, traces of brimstone are found in the cities' remains. A man predicts several thousand years before Christ or execution by crucification that a man who had done no wrong, the Messiah, would be nailed to a cross, and low and behold, Christ is crucified. Whether he rose from the dead, we can't prove (though, the official story given that the guards fell asleep during an earthquake strong enough to roll a sealed boulder away, and that these guards were then transfered rather than being punished for sleeping on duty (the punishment for sleeping on duty was death) is a rather dubious one).

BBJynne wrote:ID has some evidence

but i can't remember if it excludes macroevolution if it's true or not >.>

Hmm?

Fish are obviously less intelligent than humans, but yes, they are both arguably conscious and self aware.

If you really want to bring Wikipedia into this (which you implied with your response to the Celtic tradition discussion), Wikipedia states that: evidence that bottlenose dolphins, some apes, [1] and elephants have the capacity to be self aware. Consciousness is the ability to think and be aware of your surroundings. Self awareness is the ability to distinguish you place in the world and understand yourself. An Artificial intelligence may know how to react with others, but it may not know that it itself is a computer program, thus it is conscious but still not self-aware.

We aren't talking simple natural selection (which most religious people accept, if not fully support like I do), but rather full blown evolution, from a single cell to fully sentient multicellular organisms

This was not the case at my school. I can understand your frustration under these circumstances. Still, understand that most of us do not fully submit ourselves to MAJOR MACRO evolution just as we do not submit ourselves to religion.

grant a scenario in which Recon would be able to be aborted and consider it fully with an intelligent mind, rather than copping out and saying that at the time, he would be unable to consider it, and thus wouldn't be able to care, like he did the first time he responded to the question.

In my opinion, there is no way for an embryo to have any form of senses. It has no knowledge of life. Therefor, if I was an embryo, I would not even be able to comprehend to question. I do not believe that something unable to do all of those things (think, sense) should have rights.

I was not trying to avoid the question. I understood what you were asking, but in my opinion it was not relevant to the argument. Whether or not I would, as a somehow conscious embryo, want to be aborted is a question that cannot be answered because embryos have no sense at all of what life is.

To answer your hypothetical question, I truly cannot say what I would decide were I an embryo/early fetus. It all depends on the situation. If given the general choice "do you want to live?" I'd say yes, but it's not that simple. You have not factored in the issues which I have put forth as situations that I believe justify abortion. If any of those situations were in effect, no. I would not want to live.

So, how i would "feel" about being aborted is all dependent on the situation. This is not a cop-out, this is a reasonable response.

Civ--- *remembers the columbine shootings* Yah, science is so much better than relgion...

*remembers the crusades" yeah....... but seriously, are you trying to be funny civ? or were you serious?

what is the difference between killing him before he is born and killing him now?

At this point, I have affection towards him, as does his sister and parents. That is the difference.

but I'm willing to consider rape to be a possible justification for abortion

So you're willing to abort a baby just because its birth would be traumatic to the mother, but not because the baby will grow to live a terrible, sad life?

But when you think about it, scientifically speaking, how does nothing explode into everything?

Well the idea is that particles collided, causing an outburst of energy. The other theory is string theory, which explains the multiple epicenters determined by redshift. The idea is that there are multiple universes, each with a membrane-like outer layer. The membranes are wiggle and when universes collide, the places where the bumpy membranes hit cause big bangs.

Now, this theory is very new and very unproven. It was basically made up by a group of scientists on a train on their way to a conference. Thing is, No one really considers it ABSOLUTE TRUTH. it is merely a possibility.

I understand your asking "how does nothing collide to make everything," and it is a legitimate question. However, I do feel a bit cheated by you asking that when you yourself offer no explanation as to how god created everything from nothing. I'm not trying to be snide, It's just frustrating to have to argue everything so strenuously while your belief system is seemingly untouchable.

How can you demand answers about the mechanics of my beliefs while you do not question the mechanics of your own?

Oddly enough, the Wikipedia page on Christmas has nothing to say about the Celts.

lol, you're right. Honestly, I think I got them mixed up with the Teutons. They are both my biggest enemies in AoE2/Rome total war.

Don't get frustrated, Civ. Just because he makes everything into a religious debate doesn't mean we should be frustrated.

buddy, this has been a religious debate since the beginning. in my first post I said How is your average ghost seeing lunatic any different from someone who believes in "angels?"

Don't try to make it seem like I all of the sudden turned it into a religious debate. It has been one all along. Where have you been?

I still don't know how nothing can just explode, and be everything. Maybe that's what happens when you divide by zero?

Again, there are many THEORIES. I also don't know how one entity managed to create everything out of nothing. talk about cop-outs... creation is none other than a cop-out to avoid having to actually explain things. You have to understand my frustration.

Evolution and the Big Ban are taught as absolute fact in schools

Creation is taught at church, big bang is taught at school ( and not as absolute fact. I don't know what shit school you went to) . Both are free. Most schools have church programs too.

What about the pain of one about to die, someone who knows they are about to die? Can we not witness that?

pain of dying? yes. Pain of death Itself? I do not believe there is such a thing to the deceased.

If his priest is an evolutionist

He never said that.....

Whether he rose from the dead, we can't prove (though, the official story given that the guards fell asleep during an earthquake strong enough to roll a sealed boulder away, and that these guards were then transfered rather than being punished for sleeping on duty (the punishment for sleeping on duty was death) is a rather dubious one).

why must there be an "official story?" can we not simply say that nothing happened to his resting place after death?


:FINAL:

In trying to disprove religious beliefs, I feel like a scientist, having to spend millions of dollars to see if some stupid home remedy for the common cold actually works, when it was completely illogical to ever even suggest that it works in the first place.

Here's something for you to think about RT: what did the unborn child do to deserve to die?

capn qwerty wrote:Here's something for you to think about RT: what did the unborn child do to deserve to die?

*sigh*

The baby does not "deserve" to die. that would imply it did something wrong. Abortion is decided upon by weighing odds and ends and deciding whether or not to have the child. This has nothing to do with the child's deserving to live.

Remember that part in starship troopers when the soldier gets caught by on of the flying bugs? The general aims his weapon and shoots the soldier to put him out of his misery.

I am in school, and wont respond yet, but I'm all ready tired. Seriously recon, think things through for a few seconds before you post things like this:

CivBase wrote:And stop generalizing chistianty. My own priest believes in evolution, he cirtainly doesn't think the earth is 10000 years old...

Recon wrote:wow. I think the discussion needs to just end at this. I find it almost disgraceful that I am even bothering to argue with one of such little intelligence. You are brainwashed, lobotomized by the Church.

CivBase wrote:Didn't I just say my preist believes the earth is millions of years old?

Recon wrote:I don't give a shit what your priest thinks. He's not the one in this thread.

You obviously do care if you are constantly generalizing everyone in my religion.

Thing is buddy, I wasn't talking about your priest. I was talking about you and you used him to try and excuse yourself.

ReconToaster wrote:Thing is buddy, I wasn't talking about your priest. I was talking about you and you used him to try and excuse yourself.

No, I used him as an excuse for my religion. You're right, I do believe the earth is somewhere around the 100,000-year-old mark, but that's not because my church says so. So if you could stop saying things like "You are brainwashed, lobotomized by the Church" that'd be great. In fact, it had nothing to do with the church. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but I still don't see what this has to do with abortion.

ReconToaster wrote: If you really want to bring Wikipedia into this (which you implied with your response to the Celtic tradition discussion), Wikipedia states that: evidence that bottlenose dolphins, some apes, [1] and elephants have the capacity to be self aware. Consciousness is the ability to think and be aware of your surroundings. Self awareness is the ability to distinguish you place in the world and understand yourself. An Artificial intelligence may know how to react with others, but it may not know that it itself is a computer program, thus it is conscious but still not self-aware.

Well that's wonderful, because since the beginning, we've stated that fetuses become self aware quite early in pregnancy, and you've argued that they aren't conscious. So since self awareness is a step above conscious, then that would make fetuses both self aware and conscious.

ReconToaster wrote: This was not the case at my school. I can understand your frustration under these circumstances. Still, understand that most of us do not fully submit ourselves to MAJOR MACRO evolution just as we do not submit ourselves to religion.

Then, simply put, macroevolution should not be taught in schools as fact.

ReconToaster wrote: In my opinion, there is no way for an embryo to have any form of senses. It has no knowledge of life. Therefor, if I was an embryo, I would not even be able to comprehend to question. I do not believe that something unable to do all of those things (think, sense) should have rights.

First, we've already been over the fact that fetuses gain all of their sensory organs prior to the cut off for abortions. Second, that would thus mean that killing a human vegetable would be fully legal for any reason. I'm not talking assisted suicide, either, I'm talking any vegetable for any reason, since that is basically how abortion works in the US. As long as they can't feel pain, which, since vegetables can't think, they likely can't feel pain. So, by that argument, I should be able to walk over to the nearest hospital with a knife, and stab all of the vegetables, and be completely innocent of any crime.

ReconToaster wrote:I was not trying to avoid the question. I understood what you were asking, but in my opinion it was not relevant to the argument. Whether or not I would, as a somehow conscious embryo, want to be aborted is a question that cannot be answered because embryos have no sense at all of what life is.

Yet you've avoided the question again. You won't come out and state that you would not want to be aborted, no ifs ands or buts. And that has everything to do with the topic, because if you wouldn't want to be aborted, why would it be any different for anyone else. The point is, if it were a fetuses choice and a fetus could make the choice, they would not be aborted, so why should the mother be allowed to make the choice for the fetus, if the fetuses answer would always be the same? You can argue all day long that fetuses and embryos aren't alive, but really, a fetus is arguably more alive than a tree, and about as alive as a reptile. And you can argue all day that it isn't human, but until you define humanity in a way that somehow excludes fetuses without excluding babies, the point is null.

ReconToaster wrote: To answer your hypothetical question, I truly cannot say what I would decide were I an embryo/early fetus. It all depends on the situation. If given the general choice "do you want to live?" I'd say yes, but it's not that simple. You have not factored in the issues which I have put forth as situations that I believe justify abortion. If any of those situations were in effect, no. I would not want to live.

And which situations do you believe justify abortion? Because health risks, including non fatal health risks, to the mother and/or baby only account for some 5% of abortions. Do you believe that wishing to postpone having children justifies abortion? Or what about the financial aspect? Or how it might affect your job/education? Do any of those justify abortion? Because those and several other similar reasons make up 92% of all abortions in the US. Civ and I have already made it clear that we would be willing to make exceptions for health risks, even be willing to bend on non fatal health risks and rape/incest, but what we will not bend on is the use of abortion as a oops-I'm-pregnant bailout.

ReconToaster wrote: So, how i would "feel" about being aborted is all dependent on the situation. This is not a cop-out, this is a reasonable response.

Well, the original question gave an exact situation. You are a perfectly healthy fetus being aborted and donated to science.

ReconToaster wrote: *remembers the crusades" yeah....... but seriously, are you trying to be funny civ? or were you serious?

*remembers how many times we've been over the Roman Catholic church not being an accurate depiction of Christianity*

At this point, I have affection towards him, as does his sister and parents. That is the difference.

So then, women do not feel any affection for unborn children? Because I know several girls who had spontaneous abortions (technical term to mean the embryo died on its own very early in the pregnancy) several years ago, and they still cry when they think about it. To argue that women don't have any affection towards unborn children is a load of bullocks.

ReconToaster wrote: So you're willing to abort a baby just because its birth would be traumatic to the mother, but not because the baby will grow to live a terrible, sad life?

I'm also willing to bend on health risks that aren't necessarily fatal, such as down syndrome. I disagree with both, but I'm willing to bend on them.

Well the idea is that particles collided, causing an outburst of energy. The other theory is string theory, which explains the multiple epicenters determined by redshift. The idea is that there are multiple universes, each with a membrane-like outer layer. The membranes are wiggle and when universes collide, the places where the bumpy membranes hit cause big bangs.

Now, this theory is very new and very unproven. It was basically made up by a group of scientists on a train on their way to a conference. Thing is, No one really considers it ABSOLUTE TRUTH. it is merely a possibility.

But for the first theory, where did the particles come from? But I'm aware of the String Theory...theory for the Big Bang Theory (damn, we need some synonyms for theory ), but that still assumes that there has always been something going infinitely back, something through which the strings could vibrate and subsequently collide and the like.

ReconToaster wrote: I understand your asking "how does nothing collide to make everything," and it is a legitimate question. However, I do feel a bit cheated by you asking that when you yourself offer no explanation as to how god created everything from nothing. I'm not trying to be snide, It's just frustrating to have to argue everything so strenuously while your belief system is seemingly untouchable.

How can you demand answers about the mechanics of my beliefs while you do not question the mechanics of your own?

The difference between religion and science is that we believe in a being that can do anything, knows everything, and exists everywhere all at once. Science, on the other hand, believes that everything can be explained naturally. So, since we believe that God can do anything, making something from nothing is no biggy. But science does not believe there is an upper being that can do anything, so making something from nothing is not just a biggy, but a huge biggy. Simply put, the mechanics of your belief demand answers, and I am simply reminding you of that. In science, while nothing is absolute, everything requires proof to even be considered theory. Everything must be explained, or it will not be excepted. Within Christianity, we do not believe that everything needs absolute proof, because there is a higher being that can do anything.

ReconToaster wrote: lol, you're right. Honestly, I think I got them mixed up with the Teutons. They are both my biggest enemies in AoE2/Rome total war.

Anyway, the Christmas holiday was based, to some degree, around the Day of the Unconquered Sun, but if you ask me, I think it was the irony that made that day so appropriate.

ReconToaster wrote: buddy, this has been a religious debate since the beginning. in my first post I said How is your average ghost seeing lunatic any different from someone who believes in "angels?"

Don't try to make it seem like I all of the sudden turned it into a religious debate. It has been one all along. Where have you been?

Well, even then, you were brining up very few points that had much to do with religion. And even then, you were ensuring to get a few cheap shots in at people of faith. The original topic was that gay marriage and abortion aren't as important as war, poverty, pollution, and health care. It then devolved into a debate about gay marriage and abortion. Now, I'll admit that during our debate about gay marriage, religion was part of the debate, but it wasn't so much as religious belief as respect to those of faith, that marriage is a religious institution that the government is borrowing, and that if gay people want benefits, the government should offer civil unions. However, that was only half our argument, since we also argued that homosexuality is a mental disorder along the same lines as necrophilia and zoophilia, which has little or nothing to do with religion at all. And then our argument about abortion is hardly religiously based either. The primary point is that a fetus is alive and human, and that it should have the same rights that we give to humans, or if nothing else, the same rights we give to domestic animals like cats and dogs.

ReconToaster wrote: Again, there are many THEORIES. I also don't know how one entity managed to create everything out of nothing. talk about cop-outs... creation is none other than a cop-out to avoid having to actually explain things. You have to understand my frustration.

Creationism is the belief that there is something out there powerful enough to create something from nothing. Modern science is the belief that there is nothing out there powerful enough to create something from nothing. However, both insist that something was created from nothing. See the problem?

ReconToaster wrote:Creation is taught at church, big bang is taught at school ( and not as absolute fact. I don't know what shit school you went to) . Both are free. Most schools have church programs too.

We got to school five times a week, church once normally, twice if you're really active in the church. Church lasts about an hour or two, school lasts more around eight. So that is to say, you get about two hours, maybe three, of church a week, and forty of school a week. And I don't know what schools you go to, but all of the high schools in Arizona in the Phoenix residential area teach evolution as absolute fact.

ReconToaster wrote: pain of dying? yes. Pain of death Itself? I do not believe there is such a thing to the deceased.

Yet most people fear death.

ReconToaster wrote: He never said that.....

CivBase wrote:My own priest believes in evolution, he cirtainly doesn't think the earth is 10000 years old... by the way, I believe it's closer to 100,000 than 10,000.

ReconToaster wrote: why must there be an "official story?" can we not simply say that nothing happened to his resting place after death?

If nothing happened to his resting place, the Romans would have carted the body of the still deceased Jesus around the cities to put an end to Christianity. However, they had no such body, so they claimed the disciples stole it. How did they steal it? The guards were asleep. What about the earthquake? They slept through it.

ReconToaster wrote::FINAL:

In trying to disprove religious beliefs, I feel like a scientist, having to spend millions of dollars to see if some stupid home remedy for the common cold actually works, when it was completely illogical to ever even suggest that it works in the first place.

And as a person of faith, I find it hilarious that science requires proof of religion, but can hardly prove the theories that schools offer as facts.

capn qwerty wrote:Here's something for you to think about RT: what did the unborn child do to deserve to die?

A fair point, as well.

ReconToaster wrote: *sigh*

The baby does not "deserve" to die. that would imply it did something wrong. Abortion is decided upon by weighing odds and ends and deciding whether or not to have the child. This has nothing to do with the child's deserving to live.

Remember that part in starship troopers when the soldier gets caught by on of the flying bugs? The general aims his weapon and shoots the soldier to put him out of his misery.

That soldier was going to die, but in a more painful manner. And, as we've already stated, we're not only not against aborting babies if the mother or baby would die in childbirth, but actually understand that sort of abortion.

CivBase wrote:I am in school, and wont respond yet, but I'm all ready tired. Seriously recon, think things through for a few seconds before you post things like this:

CivBase wrote:And stop generalizing chistianty. My own priest believes in evolution, he cirtainly doesn't think the earth is 10000 years old...

Recon wrote:wow. I think the discussion needs to just end at this. I find it almost disgraceful that I am even bothering to argue with one of such little intelligence. You are brainwashed, lobotomized by the Church.

CivBase wrote:Didn't I just say my preist believes the earth is millions of years old?

Recon wrote:I don't give a shit what your priest thinks. He's not the one in this thread.

You obviously do care if you are constantly generalizing everyone in my religion.

You forgot the part where he claims you never said your priest was an evolutionist.

ReconToaster wrote:Thing is buddy, I wasn't talking about your priest. I was talking about you and you used him to try and excuse yourself.

Recon, you said Civ was "brainwashed and lobotomized by the Church" in reference to young Earth creationism. His priest would thus be the guy brainwashing and lobotomizing him, but his priest is an evolutionist who believes the Earth is billions of years old, or in short, the exact opposite of a young Earth creationist. Why, then, would his priest brainwash him into believing young Earth creationism?

CivBase wrote:No, I used him as an excuse for my religion. You're right, I do believe the earth is somewhere around the 100,000-year-old mark, but that's not because my church says so. So if you could stop saying things like "You are brainwashed, lobotomized by the Church" that'd be great. In fact, it had nothing to do with the church. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but I still don't see what this has to do with abortion.

Exactly.