Evolution or Creation?

Of what faith are you?

  • Creationism

    Votes: 95 14.9%

  • A power of some sort (reincarnation/superstitions/fortune telling/etc.)

    Votes: 29 4.5%

  • Agnosticism (evolution implied)

    Votes: 130 20.4%

  • Atheism (evolution implied)

    Votes: 239 37.5%

  • Agnostic or atheist and does NOT believe in evoltion

    Votes: 15 2.4%

  • Theistic evolution (a god guided evolution)

    Votes: 90 14.1%

  • I'm really not sure at this point...

    Votes: 40 6.3%
  • Total voters
    638

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Status
Not open for further replies.
You scored as Satanism. 

Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Satanism! Before you scream, do a bit of research on it. To be a Satanist, you don't actually have to believe in Satan. Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. Do some research if you immediately think of the satanic cult stereotype. Your beliefs may also resemble those of earth-based religions such as paganism.

Satanism

88%

atheism

83%

agnosticism

79%

Paganism

42%

Buddhism

38%

Judaism

33%

Islam

33%

Christianity

8%

Hinduism

0%
 
brasidus said:
Dude,
If you do not believe in absolute truth, that is an absolute belief.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The question was "Do you believe in absolute Truth", What if I believe in absolute falsehood? It's the same problem you encounter later when it gets into morality - it assumes the user condemns rape, child molestation and nazism, but this is not necessarily the case. Same again when it claims "Most people in our society participated in the evil act" is nonsensical - it makes perfect sense, as nowhere was it stated (though it does assume) that society (or man for that matter) by necessity will always choose what is morally good. If this were the case, crime wouldn't exist :roll:
Evolution of the type that adheres to the stance that all living things initially came from non-living chemicals that organized themselves into a self-reproducing organism.
Click to expand...
Not part of evolutionary theory. It doesn't state or seek the origins of life, merely to explain the mechanisms which govern life.
It is my understanding that the Neo-Darwinian evolutionist believes that the scource of new genetic information is from mutations sorted by natural selection.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Mutation would indicate the change or alteration of an existing gene, which can be a source of a new generational trait. New genetic information can be created without mutation of the existing genes through several methods (one example would be virii which add their own 'genetics' to that of the host).
  And so I see no problem with creationists asserting that the original created kinds could give rise to a myriad of varieties even to the point of saying that the original creatures would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern more specialized descendants.
Click to expand...
The problem is it ignores that the format of the information is just as important as the information itself. For example, there are limitations on which combinations (and which zygotes can be heterogenus) can be combined and still lead to sucsessful offspring. It is possible for this to alter, however what you would have left would not be a member of the same species. Furthermore, the genetic levels your looking at here are to the body what a house blueprint is to a town.
 
An4Sh said:
I scored 100% atheism and 88% satanism, how is that even possible?
Click to expand...
Well as far as I know satanists don't believe in a god like Christians do (it is "virtuous" to worship yourself as god infact), neither do they believe in a creature called Satan. Satan just represents everything that Satanist thinks is "good" and "virtuous" (a non-existent role model if you wish).

And btw. (if you didn't know) Devil-worship should not be mistaken for satanism.
 
All sexually reproducing organisms genetic information is contained in paired form.  Each offspring gains half of its genetic data from each parent.  Hence there are two genes at a given position, or loci coding for a particular trait.  It is my understanding that an organism can be heterozygous at a particular locus, so that it carries different forms of this gene (alleles).  For instance, one allele can code for blue eyes while the other for brown, or for type A blood while the other type B.  These alleles can reinforce one another, or they can have on dominant, and one recessive allele.

Now I believe that humans have somewhere around 100,000 genes, both mother and fathers halves. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati points out it is the equivalent of one-thousand 500 page books, or as the NAS in its book “Teaching About Evolution and the nature of Science” puts it 3 billion base pairs.  Avid evolutionist Francisco J. Ayala in “Scientific American” wrote an article entitled “The mechanisms of Evolution” that states humans today have “An average heterozygosity of 6.7 percent.”  

SO,

For every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs would have different alleles.  I believe that would mean 6,700 heterozygous loci all told.  Therefore, any single human can reproduce up to 2 to the 6700th  power, or 10 to the 2017th  (sorry ,cant figure out how to do proper notation here) heterzygous loci.  An interesting side note here is that there are only 10 to the 80th known atoms in the whole universe (Dr. Sarfati “Refuting Evolution” pg 33).  And so I see no problem with creationists asserting that the original created kinds could give rise to a myriad of varieties even to the point of saying that the original creatures would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern more specialized descendants.
Click to expand...

Yes, very interesting. But, um, where did all that information come from? Evolution?  Its much more genetic diversity than two people, or a handful could store. You can only store 2 alleles at a given locus yet we know of places with 100's, maybe 1000s of different alleles. Same problem for the animals on the ark...  How could genetic diversity be reduced when its logically greater than it could have been during a biological choke-point like Eden or the Flood?

Dr Johnathan Sarfati?  Isnt he kind of crazy?  But what I dont get is that he belongs to AIG. AIG has admitted that beneficial mutations do occur. What is your point exactly? You seem to be mixing several different kinds of creationism, like Delagga. 

I think you are allowing yourself to be fooled by your own rhetoric. You are mixing "no new information" rhetoric with "no new genes" or "no beneficial mutations" rhetoric. Some creationists still deny beneficial mutations but not AIG, same for the new genes argument.  You need new genes after the Ark in the same way that you need new species to generate rapidly from just a few kinds.  Information rhetoric is a different argument and can allow for both new genes and mutations while still denying that any "new information" has been generated.   

Now, there is no biological theory of information. Even the discovery institue will call these ID concepts an "emerging" area of study.  When the IDers actually get a theory, maybe you will have something to say.  But in the meantime I dont think you should mix old fashioned creationist rhetoric with ID positions and assume that they mix freely.

EDIT: Ill leave the link wars alone.
 
brasidus said:
Battal said:
Dude,
If you do not believe in absolute truth, that is an absolute belief.
Click to expand...
not believing in absolute truth doesn't mean not believing in truth at all.
Click to expand...

I never said that it was, but it IS an absolute statement, and as such denies the law of non contradiction for which logic is based.
Click to expand...

Anything that has to do with "belief" is, by definition, NOT definite. To say you KNOW something, now that's definite. If you go by semantics, then yes, "I believe X" is a definite statement, but the meaning is by no means definite -- as belief allows for the possibility of being wrong.

However, "I do not believe X" is not a definitive statement by any definition. To be a definite statement, I would have had to say, "I believe that X is not". Which is very different from "I do not believe in X".

Even so, it is perfectly legitimate to say "I believe there is no absolute truth". Nothing illogical about that. Now, if I said "I KNOW there is no absolute truth", then there would be a logic hole. But I would never say anything like that. I acknowledge that I do not know.
 
Buddhism
67%

agnosticism
63%

Christianity
58%

Satanism
58%

Islam
50%

atheism
50%

Paganism
46%

Hinduism
42%

Judaism
38%


guess i'm not much of anything, especially since i disagree with the four rules bit for a buddist.
 
Kissaki said:
In any case it's a different argument, because it doesn't really have any relevance to my concept of truth. I don't believe in absolute truth, as I believe truth is different from one person to the next. My truth is not the same as your truth, and so there is no absolute truth. Truth should under no circumstances be confused with fact. To illustrate the difference, here's one of my favourite movie quotes:

"Archaeology is the search for FACT. Not the "truth". If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
- Indiana Jones
Click to expand...
Yes truth depends on the axioms that one has accepted.

if you accept the axiom "there is a set which has no elements" then you can build the set theory 'with other axioms of theory' on it and go on.

Battal said:
There are two kinds of "truth" one is self-proving logical truths like "true is true" based solely on logical rules. And there are others which are based on other axioms. For example;
a)a person who steals is bad.
so if A steals something than "A is bad" is true based on a).

Now when someone says he doesn't believe in absolute truth he means he doesn't believe in absolute axioms. The idea behind can be explained with "the infinite chain", meaning that you can ask infinite "why?" questions to these axioms("why is stealing bad?") and you will get infinite answers and it will never stop unless you stop it with a "belief" that you just accept.And here's the cool part ;since you just accept it ,there's nothing that prevents someone else to accept another idea this way.And "his" truth would just be as valid as yours.

not believing in absolute truth doesn't mean not believing in truth at all.
Click to expand...
it is true if you believe all axioms can not be united in one axiom that explains other axioms and itself. (for the creationists that one axiom is God :lol: )

I believe reasoning certainly can not end in finite steps. Thus IMO every religion is useless. Circling,  the end of  chain referring the starting axiom, is also useless. But even if the chain of reasoning is infinite, we can still get an answer if we can properly put the chain and are able to use some kinda limit operation.

brasidus said:
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

:smile:
Click to expand...
Flawed but I wish that creationists use this kind of logic to find an omnipotent being exists or not. :grin:

And? that page proves that Christians' God exists or what? Maybe that God is Zeus then?

Edit:
jeansberg said:
Try this test: Which religion is the right one for you?.
Click to expand...
You scored as Satanism. 

Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Satanism! Before you scream, do a bit of research on it. To be a Satanist, you don't actually have to believe in Satan. Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. Do some research if you immediately think of the satanic cult stereotype. Your beliefs may also resemble those of earth-based religions such as paganism.

Satanism 83%
atheism       58%
Paganism 58% (What the hell?)
agnosticism 58%
Islam         50% (What the hell?)
Buddhism 50%
Judaism 42% (What the hell?)
Hinduism 29%
Christianity 17%

it is kinda correct. I will never worship a God even if it exists and my belief resembles Satanism in this sense. But I neither believe in Satan and any kind of devil nor I worship or follow them.
 
Ilex said:
An4Sh said:
I scored 100% atheism and 88% satanism, how is that even possible?
Click to expand...
Well as far as I know satanists don't believe in a god like Christians do (it is "virtuous" to worship yourself as god infact), neither do they believe in a creature called Satan. Satan just represents everything that Satanist thinks is "good" and "virtuous" (a non-existent role model if you wish).

And btw. (if you didn't know) Devil-worship should not be mistaken for satanism.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Ilex. I was going to point that out too.
 
Interesting take on natural selection.  And sorry for the long irritating link.

http://www.dailymotion.com/flash/flvplayer.swf?rev=1160794656&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymotion.com%2Fget%2F9%2F320x240%2Fflv%2F600251.flv%3Fkey%3Dafa2cf5948e4e62db9f3b0f5183a276512752af%26log%3D1%26log_blog_key%3D44jT5zhayY33X2w9t%26log_referer%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.allfg.org%2Fcmsm%2Fcop%2Findexd06f.html%3Fpage%3Dseason-1-17&previewURL=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.dailymotion.com%2Fdyn%2Fpreview%2F320x240%2F600251.jpg%3F20060903044907&autoStart=0&estatEnabled=1&estatClient=players_dm&estatSection=blog
 
I'm am so tired of people who refuse to belief absolute truth, despite the evidence that exists.  God is real, the Bible is his word, and anyone who says different is probably wearing glasses too dark to see through.  Evolution makes no sense, while as Christianity does make sense.  Just to clarify, I do not classify Catholicism as Christianity.  Neither do I accept any of the other things that the world has thrown into Christianity.  This includes Christian contemporary music.  I believe that the Bible is the absolute truth, and that no one can ever present enough evidence to turn me back.  I rest my case.

-GS 
 
General_Specific said:
I'm am so tired of people who refuse to belief absolute truth, despite the evidence that exists.  God is real, the Bible is his word, and anyone who says different is probably wearing glasses too dark to see through.  Evolution makes no sense, while as Christianity does make sense.  Just to clarify, I do not classify Catholicism as Christianity.  Neither do I accept any of the other things that the world has thrown into Christianity.  This includes Christian contemporary music.  I believe that the Bible is the absolute truth, and that no one can ever present enough evidence to turn me back.  I rest my case.

-GS 
Click to expand...

I'm presuming that was sarcastic.
 
Leave your presumptions at the door.  I. Am. Dead. Serious.  And I mean the Christian Bible.  Under that category, there are a few bad translations, but that's just proof that it wasn't he translators who were inspired...  There are some versions that are filled with bad interpretations, but the KJV is mostly accurate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Open There is a Clan Size Limit Possibly? Rebel Clans Also Cannot Join Your Kingdom
Replies
1
Views
79
Zorion_no
Expressing myself about the state of the game.
Replies
10
Views
363
JunKeteer
JunKeteer
Moving default villages
Replies
0
Views
76
GreedyPalace
Back
Top Bottom