Zedrush

haha he was trying to imply i had ginger pubes lol.. had to back myself up lol....

 

being ginger means your a real scot, its a gene thing

 

 

PMSL LEGEND

Nixy's a professional and teaches pole dancing to wags

Neil has'nae got a beard though!

lol for having gingerish hair my beard grows in black lol

 

but black everywhere?

Nixy is, she's a pole dancer at Stringfellows

hahahaha lol women find men in kilts very sexy... think ill go up the glen and catch some haggis for supper...

 

 

 

PMSL

Neil and I are going to put our heads together and get something organised soon paulie, dont ger ur knickers in a twist

 

One day they will have meets where ginger people are not allowed You and your car now have something in common bro

hahaha stop slagging us scots... thats racism lol

 

sorry mate ill get my kilt I mean coat

Neil and I are going to put our heads together and get something organised soon paulie, dont ger ur knickers in a twist

 

One day they will have meets where ginger people are not allowed You and your car now have something in common bro

Science is similarly magical you know. It's not necessary to reduce the complexity of life to some kind of basic computer system, the beauty of arranging neurons into a complex network such as happens in your brain, is that it can become more than the sum of its parts. Presumably at some point the complexity gives rise to sentience, and then, well, the sky's the limit!

 

I think part of the issue these days is that the scope of science is so unimaginably vast, and in some areas, almost beyond comprehension, that average joe in the streets just get frightened off and looks for easier and simpler answers to the questions of exsistance.

 

Just curious mate, when you wonder the inevitable questions about purpose of life, what do you come to the conclusion of?

 

The problem religiousists have is that they can't grasp how unimportant the human race and earth is in the scheme of things.

 

We are just a mass of carbon/water etc. atoms existing in the blink of an eye (in relative terms) In evolutionary terms our purpose is to reproduce and kill our enemies - like all life forms. When we die we (if lucky) rot and provide food for other life forms. If unlucky we die thrashing and screaming whilst we are devoured alive by our predators (like antelopes or seals for example)

 

That's it. Full stop. Get over it.

 

Again you are entitled to your opinion mate, but grasping how unimportant the human race and earth is in the scheme of things? I'd like to see you say that to an atheistic father who just lost his 3 year old daughter.

 

Somethings are worth fighting for and from a Religious point of view that thing is called hope, to bring a solution whether in this life or the next out of chaos.

 

Nothing to get over some people believe some don't you can't stop someone believing or having faith just like I cant force someone to believe and never would. I'd never say to an evolutionist that God exist so stop researching and get over it

Gordon resignes after the mess he leaves us in, and lib dem are flirting with Labour and enticing more votes from Ireland so Labour have majority seats and become in power again. i love how our Government listens to its people

AK350Z you crack me up mate this has been fun

 

Sorry not been on to reply sooner but meetings all day yesterday and teaching last night am shattered. For me personally scientists study with evolution changes so much, from one theory to another first Darwin was the in thing then it became louis pasteur theory of spontaneous generation, and then it will be another theory, maybe Apple will release i-evolution. But again this is my view and my view only.

 

What I like about and what attracts me to Genesis is it's consistency for me. And if it was written by mere people then they should win science highest accolade for knowing way back then that the world wasn't flat and knowing that 99% of the chemical makeup of the human body can be found in the earths layer six elements specifically. But perhaps this was just luck, clever guys none the less.

 

With regards to evolution and Christian religion being moulded together, this could never happen otherwise the whole of the Christian doctrine would fall apart, the morality of God and the survival of the fittest within the evolution model is so contradictory the whole essence of our faith would be doomed. The O.T promotes peoples greatest weakness becoming their greatest strength. Not the physically strong will survive.

if we're talking about an after life. the the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed but only changed from one form to another.

 

i would say that we have a certain amount of energy, our body is a collection of electrical pulses that control the body.

 

could this energy be classed as your soul; if it is; where does it go; it doesn't just disperse as phsyical theory stats that it can't.

 

the theory of energy preservation or whatever the english term is, says exactly that. true and fact in everyday life. nobody has ever managed to unify all 4 energies tho in one whole equation....which means that this may not be exactly a fact in kwantomechanics

 

there are several theories about soul and aura and all sorts that bring barytones into play...who knows....

 

the truth is out there .... the X files!

 

if only you were scully

"hard facts" of the world are somehow subject to personal opinion over whether they are right or not! The point in science is that these truths/theories/rules would be observed the same by anyone performing the appropriate experiment.

I have no doubt that some experiments would reveal the same results whether conducted by a priest, nun or buddhist. But very often we find ourselves fitting results within the paradigm of a theory without exploring it further. The same is done within religion, in theology its called eisegesis, interpreting biblical scripture to fit our own beliefs and our own wants without reading it in the contexts it is written (exegesus) When you say 'hard facts," again this is subject to your own personal opinion, as I have said the water is still very murky regarding evolution, its not an absolute and Im not prepared to drink it.

 

Religion was a human contruct from an age before we had the tools to understand the world around us. I would say it's a safe bet that all its texts were written by man, and as such any assertation that any one (indeed many times only one) person had some blinding special knowledge to kick them off should be taken with a sizeable pinch of salt. If other people cannot test the assertations, why belive it? Why creationism has turned out to be such a special battleground I'm not sure, evolution is still a young science.

 

Religion is a human construct inspired by historical and spiritual events and experiences, even though the latter may not be empirical enough for the non believers the historical part is evident enough for us to organise our beliefs upon and live our lives by for those wanting to believe. Now this may be hard to accept for anyone who does not believe but i think the biggest frustration for non believers come when they apply their own formulae to every question, some answers cannot be solved by sticking it under a microscope to review, mine involves faith, but that does not mean Im using it as a cop out to the debate of evolution, I am open to learning and coming from a previous atheistic position my rationalisation of any argument would be fair to say the least.

 

You just need to accept that some people will accept evolution and some wont thats life, if it was a 100% proven then maybe people would be more open to accept it, but until then you have to accept that there is room for alternative views. The only time it becomes a battleground is when one side tries to impose their views onto the other side. I believe in creationism, and right now nothing will change that. You believe in evolution, that is your take on how you came into being and I respect that. Can we leave it at that now?

stanski she's going to be a daddys girls, she will have you wrapped round her little finger with that smile of hers, ur in trouble now you do realise that dont you

 

not sure what it is my nephew is 2 years old now and I cant seem to relate to him, weird, my sister says its because i look like a big ogre, thanks sis

 

The most striking "fact" about Christianity, (I assume the OP is a Christian) and a follower of the New Testament, is that the 27 books of the NT were written between AD 90 and AD 300, 90 to 300 years after JC's death (if he ever existed) It was written by a disparate group of individuals transcribing "events" relayed to them verbally. Think of Chinese whispers at a party X infinity and you'll see how "true" the accounts are. Yet 2,000 years later, a small % of the world's population "follow" these scribblings.

 

hi mate hope you dont mind me asking but where did you hear this?

 

The most striking "fact" about Christianity, (I assume the OP is a Christian) and a follower of the New Testament, is that the 27 books of the NT were written between AD 90 and AD 300, 90 to 300 years after JC's death

 

it's not fact there are hundreds of authenticated historians who were non believers who at the time recorded writings of Jesus's time during his life and immediately after. Even in the muslim faith they can account for this too as well as in pagan writings, all external sources from the christian belief. The only thing I can think of that happened around 300ad was the meeting at the Council of Nicaea 325ad, when they decided what books were going to be included in the new testament as there were a plethora of books written about Christ that they had to narrow it down to what they thought were relevant, and what weren't. But Pauls letters were during and after time of Christ, as well as many other sources.

 

Sorry not trying to have an argument just didnt want something stated as 'fact' about the biblical scripture when there are strong evidence for an alternate view ok am done with this thread now, wow, this really is a hot topic thanks all for such a colourful intellectual debate

gorgeous looking car nice buy

Hi Zedrush

 

What I meant by relative truth is just what you mean as well - everyone sees things differently and what appears true to one person may appear wrong to another. That's why I think nobody in their right mind should or can claim something to be 100% proven or true, be that about evolution, creation, etc.

 

What I was saying though is that for evolution there is actually a lot of evidence and research available for scrutiny, which does build up a fairly consistent picture and a bit more than "just another theory". Of course it doesn't mean it is an absolute answer for everyone - it doesn't have to be, and people can look at the evidence and make up their own minds about it.

 

So I absolutely agree with you that one is entitled to its own opinion - that is fundamentally more important for us as a society than whatever appears to be some kind of truth, and it's wrong for someone to refuse dialogue or discussion just because they don't agree with a point of view. Discussion and debate should be something to enjoy and learn from

 

We should have been by now

 

couldnt agree more to disagree,

absolutely love it bro just thought id better tell you now that pic you took in the first one it was me she was texting in case you were wondering,

29, but dont own a zed anymore

there is a simple solution that will only cost you mere pennies!

 

lol true but dont want to be greedy now do I

we would forgive you

you bringing the porker to wales?

 

more on topic: i wonder what the average age in different regions is, eg. if you go to a west mids meet it seems to all be mid twenties.

 

Wales is 350z only mate had this discussion when I had the Aston

29, but dont own a zed anymore

there is a simple solution that will only cost you mere pennies!

 

lol true but dont want to be greedy now do I

Absolute truth exists only in dogma, I'm afraid, and if that's what you are looking for then you can find it very easily. Finding the relative truth, the truth that exists in connection to the reality around you, that's a different thing.

 

relative truth? How do you justify truth think this is going down a philosophical route now and for you to say that absolute truth exists only in dogma have you read the previous posts on this thread? "Evolution is fact" and some saying its "not 100% fact but too much evidence for it not to be true?" Does that put evolution in the bracket of dogmatic thinking then if according to you absolute truth only exists in dogma? When the fact of the matter is absolute truth exists on the individual willing to believe in one or the other, it is the individual that makes the truth absolute to him or herself not society, these are after all postmodern times and truth is relevant. The fact that I believe in creationism shouldnt put peoples backs up or have them stereotype me as some bible bashing nutter. Just like people who believe s2000 are to them better than 350z and vice versa. The fact I dont believe in evolution and that no one on here has given any unflawed evidence to prove the theory as a fact, entitles me to my own belief. Im sorry personally I don't follow the theory of evolution, I think personally it has too many unanswered questions and I personally prefer the route of creationism. All Im asking is that people respect this of each other, I didnt ask to get into a debate about it because as said we would be here all day, and Ive got better things to do than sit here justifying my belief. I now understand why people diss Christianity, when people burden you to believe you end up pushing them more away

29, but dont own a zed anymore

Let me ask you, do you think there is a possibility that the theory of evolution could be wrong? I mean yes we still have arguments how comes apes are still apes how comes they have not evolve or how comes there are no apes that are half ape half man in the process of evolution? it simply doesnt add up. You say that creation resolve their beliefs on emotional faith well evolution resolve their beliefs with it happens over millions of years.

 

Are there holes in evolution? No real scientist would say no. But that's science's strength and its weekness, science acknowledges the holes and tries to fill them. It is self-effacing.

Evolution has indeed turned out not quite as simple as the Tree of Life as Darwin has envisaged. There are dead ends, multiple starts, convergencies, sideways diversions, but that does not prevent the larger picture being seen. The development of DNA from RNA, it's all there, like pixels in a television. Isolated points of data on their own, but draw back and a picture starts to form.

There are no half apes for the same reason there are no half elephants or half whales. Extinction, disease, ecological niches, fitness for purpose. Evolution is part selective, part luck. The present number of species is but a minutely tiny proportion of the number of species that have ever been. Modern apes haven't evolved because only one group of apes in sub-saharan Africa developed the mental ability to develop complex tool use and eventually, cruicially, give up the hunter-gatherer society for an agricultural one. There were late divergent steps; Neandathals. But they were out competed for resources and despite some interbreeding were eventually wiped out. If you want a better idea of what could have been, look at the Aboriginal people of Austrailia, seperated from the rest of the world for at least 30,000 years.

 

Both cannot be proven empirically because no one in this day and age has seen God and no one in this day and age has lived long enough to see apes evolve into man or half man and half ape.

 

But we do have empirical evidence for evolution, there is none for the exsistence of god or creationism.

 

 

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of god correct, but there is evidence that can support the theory of creationism, just like there is for evolution in effect. Science in the beginning were given a theory, they extract as much evidence to state if that theory is possible not absolute and thats all they have done is state that it is a possible theory as is creationism but not a factual theory. In essence if evolutional theory was an empty bottle (metaphorical) they would try and use all the research they had to fit into and fill that bottle to make it a completed theory transitioning it into an empirical fact, and thats what they are doing working within the paradigm of that bottle, and anything that doesnt seem to fit they try and figure out but if they can't they simply work in another area to make the bottle full. Will the bottle contain a pure full factual substance that it will be safe to rely on? If the bottle is suppose to be water for us to drink, yet all the evidence points to murky unanswered substance, would you drink it? Is it then surprising that many atheistic scientist are rejecting the possibility of evolution.

 

You say real scientist, but what do you classify as a real scientist? One who just accepts evolution as the be all and end all? One of the most accoladed scientist of our time Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith rejected evolution along with many others. Which goes to prove that the possibility of an alternative view is not only a possibility but a practice amongst many "real" scientists.

 

Why do I believe in creationism is because of my faith, do I believe in it a 100% yes, can I accept that others who don't believe will view it as a theory, the answer is yes I can accept that doesn't mean I accept it personally as a theory. Do I have anything else to support my view other than faith or believing in a magic man as some might put it, yes. Why can I not use evidence where scientists struggle to prove evolution and have no explanation for to justify the possibility of creationism.

 

For example evolution model says "...its not necessary to assume the existence of anything besides matter and energy to produce life." Isnt that in itself a very unscientific claim? If matter is left by itself it does not organise itself. Hence the foundation of our being is flawed how can you then ignore this and then continue with the theory of evolution without first justifying the beginning? Can the existence fit in the creationist model well yes according to these circumstances.

 

Evolutionist also uses many scientific results of "what is not" just as much as "the what is" to prove their theory so does creationism.

 

As for aborigines supporting evolution because of 30,000 years separation from what we class as normal civilisation is confusing, what are you trying to prove here, that they evolved to have their nose pierced? They look like human, the fact that they conduct themselves in a different manner has nothing to do with a physical state but a cognitive state determined by their social influence surely?

 

At the end of the day as said before, people should be allowed to believe in what they want and not judged upon because it differs from the next. If they feel they can justify it 100% then great but to be fair I think this argument is bigger than the both of us can fully comprehend, I dont think scientists will ever have an absolute answer to our existence, just possibilities, hypothesis and theories, with scientific research contextualised to support these theories. Man has ever been curious and unsettled unless it has the definite answer or it cannot rest, how we settle ourselves to justify our existence is a personal journey and one which no one can put an absolute on. Thats my honest opinion. Thanks for the great debate, but Im not here to debate theories we will be here all day with evidence that prove and disprove each others belief. Im simply stating we need to learn to accept different opinions and that there is no social absolute answers, just individual belief.

Con-Lib coalition please. No Labour! Brown should stand down, he got demolished in the elections!

 

+1000000000 as long as we dont join the euro im up for this

lol i see this making evolution into its own religion, good debate ak350z but evolution is still a theory at best just like creationism. The fact that scientists have got involved to examine the theory does not simply put it in a different category to creationism, the two are simply beliefs some people choose creation theory some choose evolution.

 

To say one is more plausible than the other is your opinion, which you are entitled to, just like my opinion is creation is the way I believe we came into being. Let me ask you, do you think there is a possibility that the theory of evolution could be wrong? I mean yes we still have arguments how comes apes are still apes how comes they have not evolve or how comes there are no apes that are half ape half man in the process of evolution? it simply doesnt add up. You say that creation resolve their beliefs on emotional faith well evolution resolve their beliefs with it happens over millions of years.

 

Both cannot be proven empirically because no one in this day and age has seen God and no one in this day and age has lived long enough to see apes evolve into man or half man and half ape. Have scientist actually found every type of skeleton that represents each stage of the supposedly evolutionary cycle of man?... have scientists been able to ascertain how a single cell came into being and can scientist with all its modern tech create a living cell from nothing? How do they justify human reproduction under evolution facts if that is what it is?? Hence why both views are plausible as theories neither have absolute truths on society just on the individual who simply believes in one or the other.

 

2) God created man. You state this is not a scientific argument, so why arrange it against one? Your faith and personal beliefs are, as stated previously, not a matter of science. Your belief in God and his various teachings, such as creationism, are personal views, and as such have no bearing on the way the world actually works.

 

 

.

 

I could say the same about evolution they are views of certain scientists trying to validate a theory but due to it not being an absolute truth just a theory it is therefor a belief or a hypothesis a speculation of what could of been. I could bring up many examples that science cant explain that my belief can, does that mean my belief has a universal bearing on the way the world actually works and science doesnt? no, my belief and from what I have deducted and seeing both sides of the argument is that creation has more validity that some theory that scientists are trying to make a fact. Does that mean evolution is wrong, yes in my eyes, does that mean you are wrong for believing it? No it doesnt because in your views you can validate evolution but not creationism. So each to their own. Whats important is that we accept each others views, accept that there is room for possibilities and get on with life.

 

 

I agree with geoff r that somethings are bigger than us and for us to ever understand, will we ever get an absolute answer, maybe, maybe not but as it stands everything is open to opinion whether you care to class it as a scientific fact or a belief. The fact that believing in something is not scientific doesnt rejected out of the plethora of possibilities of how we came into being. Evolution is still a belief with science trying to prove it as a fact. Creationism is still a belief and again on some levels tehre are scientific evidence on this account to. Eve syndrome research heard of it?