logo Sign In

MeBeJedi

User Group
Members
Join date
10-Mar-2003
Last activity
10-Feb-2025
Posts
4,879

Post History

Post
#100966
Topic
A Big Debate for the New Century
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/100966/action/topic#100966
Time
LOL...actually, you've been doing just fine. I know this kind of discussion can bring about problems because it does get into people's beliefs, but I've said pretty much what was on my mind. For the record, I am agnostic, but I do go with my wife to her (new) church, and my daughter goes to a religious preschool. I love listening to her sing "He's got the whole world in his hands" ("itty-bitty babies" is my favorite part. She does it so well. )
Post
#100947
Topic
A Big Debate for the New Century
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/100947/action/topic#100947
Time
"get a clue. How many millions were sacrificed on the altar of state sanctioned atheism in the 20th century, ie: Communism, Socialism, Facism (all related)?"

Religion has been around far longer than those politcal concepts have, even long before Christianity was invented.

"Can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs!"

Does that go for the Crusades and Inquisition as well?

"I never mentioned one word about Jesus, the bible, etc; However that seems to be the preferred response of naturalists when someone DARES question how life can evolve without a guiding force, ie: Q: What caused the Big Bang? A: Religious Nut!!!!"

Well, my point is that it comes down to evidence versus simple belief. The Scientific method demands proof, whereas Faith is apparently enough in and of itself. Oftentimes, it is recommended not to question God's intent in regards to such difficult questions (I'm reminded of George Carlin's question about God and the rock.)

I do think there is an "intelligent design". The sheer complexity of the human body, with all of its systems and interactions required for "life" demand such. A better question would be: is the design, itself, also evolving? Life on earth does change, and will continue to do so, but are we what was what was intended, or are we not at the final product yet, or have we passed our shelf life already?

It's obvious that there are guiding forces - but I don't think it's one supernatural being looking down on all of us. There are many predictable and reproducible causes and effects of life, some of which we are now on control of ourselves (for better or worse), but all of this is based on quantifiable research and math. There are definite patterns of actions and reactions in all known forms of life. Whether or not you think this is the nature of the system, itself, or that someone else set all this up, wound up the key, and just let it go seems to be the difference of opinion here. I think the system, itself, is capable of regulating itself (much like the human body), whereas other people need to believe that there's a central intelligence pulling all the strings, if for no other reason than to give life an overall purpose other than simply existing.

"did the micro-chip populate itself with transistors? Or did the acid and base jump out of the test tubes and mix themselves?"

I'm not sure why you continue focusing on such odd examples. How does this compare to evolutionary biology and origins of life - or is this more of the de-evolution you were referring to? Maybe you should try in terms of when the scientists finally got Dolly's (the sheep) mammary cells to divide and differentiate correctly. That would make a lot more sense.
Post
#100929
Topic
A Big Debate for the New Century
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/100929/action/topic#100929
Time
"A parable: A man and his son are walking down the street. The boy looks at a huge building and says "Wow, how did that building get here dad?" "Well son, a lot of people in construction crews, and civil engineers, and building managers built that building". A little while later they come to a suspension bridge "Wow! How did this bridge get here dad?" "Well son, again it was construction people, engineers, and the like". "How did we get here dad?" "Well, by accident son"."

But that depends on what you mean by "accident". None of these structures built themselves, and none those structures existed in that state (size, capacity, materials) when the very first of their kind was built. As the knowledge of humans increased, so did out ability to build these things as they are now, but make no mistake - there were accidents along the way - both good and bad. If you were to look at the first "bridge" made by man thousands of years ago, you probably would have been very hard-pressed to visualize what they currently are today.

Consider this - the Grand Canyon now stands where there was once a great plain of flatlands. If you were to take a person from that era, and bring them to present day Arizona, and tell them that the huge valleys were created by the Colorado river over thousands of years, how quick do you think he would be to believe you?

Another thing about "accidents" - many of out greatest inventions were created by accident, hence the colloquial use of the term "Eureka!" Hell, even the defining of gravity was predicated by an apple "accidentally" falling from a tree. What makes the difference is whether or not the new knowledge or insight can later be proven.

Another good example is gambling. People keep trying to come up with methods about how to win at lotteries and slot machines (use favorite numbers, insert quarter with left hand, etc.), thinking that they are somehow "improving" their chances. Regardless of the fact that you are more likely to be hit by lightning, millions of people "believe" that they have a better chance of winning the big bucks. How much sense does that make?

Here's something else to ponder - I saw an ad with Steve Jpbs where he said his lottery numbers were always "1-2-3-4-5-6", because those six numbers have as much a chance of winning as any other six numbers. Do you agree, disagree, or do you understand both sides of this argument?

And as to the "There are 5 buildings made of concrete, did they evolve from the sidewalk?" argument - if you think this simplistic example validates your stance in any wat, then perhaps this isn't a topic that you should try to discuss. Whether or not a theory starts out this way, the scientific process is designed to find out id the theory is true or not. If it turns out that what used to be touted as "truth" is revealed to be a false theory, it is not the fault of the Scientific Method - it is the fault of the practitioners, or perhaps new counter evidence has been found.

I could play the straw-man argument, and ask where God came from: the inevitable answer being that he's always been around. Now you want me to believe this person with tremendous powers has always existed, and only recently created man? Earth was created in 7 days, then we had Adam and Eve, and a bunch of begating up until today, and yet there's evidence that the Earth, not to mention the surrounding universe, has been around for millions and billions of years. (If you think the math is wrong, keep in mind that a lot of that same math is used by the engineers that build building and bridges, as well those who put men on the moon.)

Hell, I could even make this scenario: What if a person believed with all their heart and faith that the buildings were not the result of evolution, but that the concrete has been there since before time itself, and it created the buildings in its own image. AT one point, the buldings were demolished by a non-believer, but they miraculously rebuilt themselves a week later? What if this believer even wrote a book explaining how his beliefs about the concrete and buildings should guide one's choices (Title: My Life as a House), and that the words come from the concrete itself?

How much credence would you give that belief? Would it make more sense to you as a theory? Which would be easier to change with counter-evidence? Also, before you laugh and/or get angry at this analogy, think about all the news stories about people seeing Jesus' face in the dirt of a basement window, or the natual coloration of a brick in their fireplace. Once or twice a year, something like this comes up, and thousands of people flock to these sites to view what they believe to be the face of Jesus. Is this ridiculous, or faith?

Keep in mind that Christianity, and its belief in a single, benevolent God, is a rather recent phenomena compared to other world religions, and yet it has gone over quite an evolution, itself. If you've read the Old Testament, then you know what I'm talking about (you know, that whole "research" thing I was talking about?) Not only has the concept of God and what he does changed from its inception to today, but there are also widely varyibg beliefs between current-day congregations of all countries.

Now, were all these differences brought about by the Scientific Method, or it is simply people focusing on their favored beliefs of God, and recreating him in their own image? Whose God is the real "God", then. If homosexuality is truly an abomination, then can a homosexual truly believe in God? Does God really care if the homosexual believes in him or not?

Before you answer, keep in mind: More people have been killed throughout our history in the name or God (or religion) than for any other reason. We have the Crusades, the Inquisition, and even the knowledge and official admission of thousands of boys and girls molested by members of the Church. Where was God then? Is this simply the fault of the practitioners, or does some of the blame fall on the creator of the practitioners as well?

Or does this simply fall into the convenient catch-all: "The Lord works in strange and mysterious ways."?

As to the Word of God - The Bible. Even if the first Bible contained the word of God, think of the thousands of years of translations, additions, ommissions and rewrites that have occured by the hand of man, either "accidental" or even intentional. I might remind you that in the early days, the churches liked being the sole "interpreter" of the Bible, and so chose to keep it in Latin and other "high languages" to prevent the regular peasantry from reading it for themselves. Regardless, the Bible is now found in English, but there are several different versions of the Bible, each preferred by different people. (The very thing that the church tried to avoid.)

Think of it this way. Take Bossk's example: "He likes to think that evolution still happened over the course of the number of years that scientists believe it to have happened but that the Bible refers to that entire process as a "day." What if his friend is wrong about the length of the day? Is this blasphemy? Does he go to hell because he is wrong about what God means by a "day" in the bible? What if someone else believes otherwise? How is one to find out who is right and who is wrong? Which person is the better believer? Keep in mind that such discussions do take place and split beliefs, such as whether or not Jesus should be worshipped as being on the same level as God, himself.

Of course, this doesn't take into account the many things that we now know to exist prior to the existance of man, and therefore, the existance of the Bible, which would explain why we don't read about the dinosaurs between the creation of the Earth and the appearance of Adam and Eve. H
Post
#100870
Topic
A Big Debate for the New Century
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/100870/action/topic#100870
Time
Coming in a little bit late here...

"And it's not "random", it dosen't work like that. On every specie, future generations may have different atributes, and if those atributes are better for survival, those "different" species are most likely to survive and perpetuate their own species. It's logical to me."

You have to be careful about using the word "random", because interactions between said organism and the environment can lead to widely varying effects. I'm reminded of the white moths in England that blended in well with the local white trees. There were far fewer brown moths, because they stood out more, and were easily caught and eaten.

After decades of heavy industrialization, the pollution had turned the trees brown, and thus the white moths were now in short supply, and the brown moths could rest easy. The pollution aspect was certainly not something nature had in mind, so a "random" change, either in the environment or the organism (i.e. mutation), can occur. The sheer number of physiological errors that can occur when something goes wrong (in utero, etc.) prevents the ID from not having random occurences. They can be logically followed and deduced after the fact, but are not always predictable prior.

"3- Does the complex almost mathematical code in DNA have a natural (random, blind) order?"

Sounds like someone's not heard of the "Golden Ratio" or "Fibonacci Numbers".

"The only "proof" I've ever seen was a poster on the wall in my grade-school science classroom of a long line of apes starting at the beginning of time, each one standing more erect than the other. Perhaps when they find this year's missing link?"

With all due respect, the lack of proof you've seen lies more in your lack of experience with it, rather than any perceived lack of said proof. This line of reasoning is like closing your eyes at an intersection, so you could tell the traffic cop that you didn't see the red light. Now, this is not to say that the proof is 100% definitive, but there is plenty to see, should you so choose to study it.

"For instance, the case in Georgia where the school board wanted to put stickers on the text books stating that evolution is a theory, and that many people consider it to be flawed."

Which is ironic, because as much as I am an evolutionist, I have no problem with this statement at all. It is still a theory, regardless of how well supported it is. I don't think there's a God pulling the strings, but there's still a whole universe of knowledge that we don't have access to. Who knows - Douglas Adams could be right.

"Have you guys heard the news that some scientists are questioning whether the spead of light is even a constant? These are secular scientist and they have been studying this and researching it and they think that Einstien was wrong about the speed of light being a constant."

Well, I don't know about light going faster, but light can be slowed down.

"Same with evolution. He likes to think that evolution still happened over the course of the number of years that scientists believe it to have happened but that the Bible refers to that entire process as a "day."

I liked it. Seemed to work for me."

What did he say about the process of dinosaurs?

Post
#100675
Topic
Info Wanted: on custom DVD Menus
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/100675/action/topic#100675
Time
It really depends on the nature of the menu, and the software that is used to create it. I personally love DVDLab-Pro. I started using DVDLab Because Sony DVD Architect didn't allow for much leway - such as button navigation. I then switched over to Pro because it allowed for more than one soundtrack (My first Star Wars DVD had 3 soundtracks. )

Anyways, my menus have both static pictures and video, and have some complicated navigation between menus and submenus. DVDLab Pro uses a visual flowchart to help me lay out and plan navigation between menus, as well as forcing various choices (audiotrack, etc.) It's fairly easy to start using, but has a lot of advanced features that are fun to find and experiment with. That being said, you would have to actually run the program, as well as load all the multimedia files I used to really see how everything comes together.
Post
#100148
Topic
Seen Jake Lloyd recently??? Ewwww!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/100148/action/topic#100148
Time
"I think his head size is due to the perspective of the photo..."

That wouldn't explain why the rest of his body is comparatively tall and slender, unless you think the photographer has a fish-eye lense on his camera.

Look at the proportions of his eyes and mouth. Very flat and narrow.

Oh, and a little research before making such assumptions would be a good idea.