Re: Religion

[David Reich]

I'm sorry for not reading this all first, but this discussion has become far too heated.  I'm going to temporarily pause this one.  I am the tyrant of this channel, I have the right.  Please do not post until it's all calmed down a bit, and everyone has read everyone else's posts in their entirety - AND I will post some rules of civility.  I want us to be able to discuss this, but not in this way.  

Everyone read everyone else's stuff
Everyone read the rules I'll post
And THEN I'll re-open it.

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:

Cheers (I forgot one)

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:

You should know that most of religion is influential. Millions and millions of people believe in Christianity since they all believe that what Jesus said is true. He was very influential. Now what about the "insane" people? They believe that they have been contacted by God. Should we believe them? Are they the new Jesus trying to salvage us from damnation?

[Andrew Towle]

If youve read all of them say 'AYE'.

 

 

AYE

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

AYE

Cheers

[Michael Oppenheimer]

AYE

[David Reich]

Alright, here we go.  First, I've posted a few rules on the page - read them, and continue the discussion.  If it gets to be as unicivil as before, I'll stop it permanently this time.  http://groups.google.com/group/the-sspc/web/local-rules-of-religion

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

 I sensed no unicvility anyway. Nor did I sense any hostility. According to your rules, I don't think there's anything left to discuss, since our original question was to determine the ideal religion and since that is relative, I don't really see the reason to continue. *Poof*-aru

Cheers

 -aru

[Andrew Towle]

I honestly did't sense any hostility or anyting else lie that, either. :)

--
Andy T.

[Paul Gully]

I didn't either, however the point is well taken. i think that to an outside eye our conversation was pretty heated, even though none of us took it to be particularly. good humor apparently is a stapel of the sspc.

:D

[David Reich]

Anyway, on with it - just how personal do various people think God would have to be?  would He have a sort of personality, or simply do everything immediately in the most useful and perfect way?  Would he actually be able to interact on any level with an individual?

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

No, first of all I have some problems with the local rules of religion. The rules are very biased in favor of science.

First, know these.  These are not up for debate, they are accepted when participating in the mailing list:

By definition, no religion can be proven.

Belief in any religion depends on faith.  This faith can be supported by facts, but in no case are the facts alone enough.

No religion has any more innate reason to be true than any other.

No religion can be disproven.

Any religion's teachings, with very few exceptions, have been diluted from the original source.

Science does not require faith in the same way religion does

This seems a bit unfair for those who believe in a religion. It's really unfair of how you threaten to close this discussion unless we accept these terms, which favor Science. I'm not saying that science is wrong, I personally think it's true, but for those with faith you are putting them down and silencing them with these terms! You, as the king and tyrant, need to understand both sides rather than help only one side. And you think we are the ones who are hostile. You may cause hostility, yourself!

No cheers for you

[Andrew Towle]

FIGHT!FIGHT!FIGHT!FIGHT!FIGHT!FIGHT!

 

-yeah those 2 dudes are supposed to be fighting....

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Back me up here, I'm fighting for you and Ahmed! -aru

[Paul Gully]

I know i probably am just as guilty of bias as david, but the thing is that logically speaking, science IS better than faith- none of those statements can be debated logically. tell us why any one of those statements are wrong or unfair, and then i would agree with you

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Looking at them a second time, I guess they can't be debated. Still, looking at them they seem more like arguments rather than rules. That's mostly what I have against them.

Cheers

[David Reich]

Alright, lets go through these one by one - I don't want to be an evil dictator:

By definition, no religion can be proven. #Well, that is a bit misleading - going by logic, nothing can ever be categorically proven or disproven.  So how about replacing it with "Like all other theories, no religion can be fully proven or disproven"?

Belief in any religion depends on faith.  This faith can be supported by facts, but in no case are the facts alone enough. #Basically the previous one restated

No religion has any more innate reason to be true than any other. # Is this problematic?

No religion can be disproven. # This can be removed with the addition to #1

Any religion's teachings, with very few exceptions, have been diluted from the original source. # This should be self - explanatory - all religions are diluted, due to either translation or mis-communication from the source

Science does not require faith in the same way religion does # I'll remove this as well, it's irrelevant

Sound good?

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Well, looking at them one by one...

1) By definition, no religion can be proven. #Well, that is a bit misleading - going by logic, nothing can ever be categorically proven or disproven.  So how about replacing it with "Like all other theories, no religion can be fully proven or disproven"?

2) Belief in any religion depends on faith.  This faith can be supported by facts, but in no case are the facts alone enough. #Basically the previous one restated

3) No religion has any more innate reason to be true than any other. # Is this problematic?

4) No religion can be disproven. # This can be removed with the addition to #1

5) Any religion's teachings, with very few exceptions, have been diluted from the original source. # This should be self - explanatory - all religions are diluted, due to either translation or mis-communication from the source

6) Science does not require faith in the same way religion does # I'll remove this as well, it's irrelevant

3 can stay but one rule alone shouldn't be there. You can put more rules but run them by us next time. We wish to be the ideal Google Group, anyway

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

yeah well, GOD CREATED LOGIC. PONE

--
Andy T.

[Paul Gully]

...?

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

...-ARU

[Michael Oppenheimer]

...Pone?

[Andrew Towle]

D'ya know that that means?

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Michael Oppenheimer <doomw...@gmail.com> wrote:

...Pone?

--
Andy T.

[Paul Gully]

its 'Pwn' 

to actually spell it out makes you a n00b. 

(and this isnt a religious insult (and hardly one at all, really) , so i assume it flies)

[Andrew Towle]

I already knew that. Can I say it anyways?

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

NOZE

[Mvpeh]

The GAWD of internet slang has arrived. xD
It's "Noez".
Kay? Kay. NAO GET BACK TO MAKING ME TOPICS TO READ.


--
-Marton

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

No, it's NOZE, referring to noses.

Now to the topic. Why would God create logic if mankind would use it against him? If he was merciful, he would not have created logic in order to damn less people for not believing in him. Unless he can't create a universe without logic. He wouldn't be omnipotent, then. Hmmmmm...-aru

Cheers

[Mvpeh]

How could God create logic.. That's an invalid point.
Logic is the study of reasoning.
Reasoning is the cognitive process of looking for reasons, belief, conclusions, actions, or feelings.

Therefore, God could not and did not create logic. Does God control my feelings? No.
Does he influence them? YES.
He can't control my reasons. Nor my belief, conclusions, or actions. ETC.
He can only influence.

Logic is just a person's way of thinking, pretty much. God can't control that.\
Me: "I think the sun is blue."
God: *Uses force powers* "You think the sun is Asian."
Me: "I think the sun is Asian."
O_o

Mvpeh has successfully owned Andrew's opinion.


--
-Marton

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Maybe God has logic himself. Asian refers to the object having roots from asia. Japan is known as the land of the rising sun. Japan is an asian country. Therefore, the sun is asian.

Thuy has owned Mvpeh's example which owned Andrew's opinion.

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

I didn't really believe that. I just kind of said to get back at Michael, in stupid way of course. But after Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eve, they became sinful and developed a more human way of thinking. That's the kind of thinking that we use today. We, as one may say, are selfish. We won't belive in something unless we have some sort of proof. Why is that? It's because of logic. God himself didn't create logic, but after we became sinful, it's the way our minds became.

 

Beers

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Soooo...is logic a sign of sin? -aru?

[Mvpeh]

What you just said is logic is a sin?




--
-Marton

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

More accurately a sign of sin. If people use logic, they use a god-forsaken trait, according to Andrew. Then again, to come up with that I need logic so I show sin according to him. If Andrew is to come back, he would show sin. In a way, it is sinning. I think.

Cheers? -aru?

[Andrew Towle]

No, I don't belive logic is a sin. But us, by human nature, think a certain way. Logic isn't necasarily a bad thing. It's certainly not a sin.

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Are you sure? You said that logic is a human way of thinking, formed after we became sinful. Logic is therefore a part of humans or sin. Atleast, it's a sign of sin.

-aru

[Andrew Towle]

Well, I guess you could say that....

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Then again, maybe God did in order for humans to create some sort of order for us to live by. Maybe-aru

[Andrew Towle]

Yeah, that sounds more like it...

--
Andy T.

[David Reich]

But wait, you say that logic isn't from God - but didn't God create absolutely everything?  Including logic, even indirectly?  By creating humans who created logic, it could be atrributed to Him?

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

On top of that, if God can create everything can he create a material that even he can't destroy? Being omnipotent he can destroy it. Although, by being able to destroy it, he didn't create the material. Paradox!!!

Cheers

[Michael Oppenheimer]

God can't have created logic. It's just there. That's like saying that God created math. It can't be created, it's just there because it is.

[Paul Gully]

mainly because logic and mathematics would be the method god would've used to create the universe. nothing, not even god, could make any sense without logic.

[Andrew Towle]

Logic is a human way of thinking. So is SMALL-MINDEDNESS.

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Hm... small-mindedness.

small-mind·ed (smôlmndd)

adj.

1. Having a narrow or selfish attitude.

2. Characterized by pettiness or selfishness.

By your action of capital letters, you imply that someone here is such. By my eyes, I see no one who is conducting the action of small-mindedness. Either you see something I don't or you have misused the word. Or...

Cheers

[Mvpeh]

God couldn't be "God" without logic. He obviously uses logic for his decisions. For example: He apparently disliked Jews, thought of a plan, created Hitler, and BAM! 11 million Jews dead.

A moar serious example: The 7 days of which he created us. He thought out his processes. There; LOGIC!

No offense to Jews, just a crude little joke. O_o


--
-Marton

[Mvpeh]

There are two types of logic:

Deductive reasoning concerns what follows necessarily from given premises.

However, inductive reasoning—the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observations—has sometimes been included in the study of logic. Correspondingly, we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity (called "cogency"). An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false.An inductive argument can be neither valid nor invalid.

Just defining logic, pretty much.


--
-Marton

[Andrew Towle]

i agree with Mvpeh.

--
Andy T.

[Michael Oppenheimer]

Andrew, how can you agree with him if he is arguing against you? Also, hilarious Jew joke Mvpeh. I like how you said creationism is more serious than the holocaust. Really funny...

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

...do I sense sarcasm? Now for Mvpeh's moar serious example, if God was all-knowing wouldn't he have known the outcome of his decision already and wouldn't take 7 days? If he is all-knowing, he would have known the consequences, the outcomes, and exactly what was to happen. God would create people who would benefit the world he creates rather than people like Hitler to harm others. Lots of others. Then there's Stalin. Mao Zedong. Ho Chi Ming. Should I go on?

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

Michael, i said that i agreed with Mvpeh because he posted two blank posts. I was just being silly.

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Really? Two blank posts? That sounds like a big technical error. -Aru

[Andrew Towle]

Just a question, what does 'aru' mean?

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Heh. It's kinda an inside joke between me, myself, and I. And the Chinese. And my brother and cousin. Basically, -aru is a common suffix in Chinese and it also makes a great catchphrase-aru.

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

haha ok

--
Andy T.

[Michael Oppenheimer]

Sorry Andrew, I didn't see the blank posts (I still don't, but I'll take your word for it). Thuy, does that mean that God was making it up as he went along?

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

According to the bible, probably not since he didn't make it up because he would know the outcome. Do you not agree to which I have said to you now?

Cheers

[Mvpeh]

I posted something. It's your internet. :3
--
-Marton

[Andrew Towle]

Huh?

--
Andy T.

[Mvpeh]

You said all you saw was blank in my post. It's obviously your computer or internet.


--
-Marton

[Andrew Towle]

Sorry........

--
Andy T.

[Mvpeh]

Why are you saying sorry..?


--
-Marton

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Well, since it's been four days since anything new on this topic...

What are some religious stories (ex. Noah's ark) in Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Buddhism and (if anybody knows any) Hinduism? Atheists may not contribute stories, though. Their stories are sadly real.

Cheers

[Mvpeh]

I own a copy of the Qu'run, so I typed up one from there.

The story of Prophet Ayyoob -I

His Lineage

Imaam Ibn Is-haaq, may Allaah have mercy upon him, stated that Prophet Ayyoob's full name was Ayyoob, Ibn (son of) Mose, Ibn Razeh, Ibn Esau, Ibn Isaac (Is-haaq), Ibn Abraham (Ibraaheem), may Allaah exalt the mention of them all. Others stated that he was Ayyoob, Ibn Mose, Ibn Rimil, Ibn Esau, Ibn Isaac (Is-haaq, Ibn Jacob (Ya'qoob), may Allaah have mercy upon them all. There have also been other statements on his lineage. Imaam Ibn 'Asaakir, may Allaah exalt his mention, narrated that Prophet Ayyoob's mother was a daughter of Lot, may Allaah exalt his mention. It was said also that Prophet Ayyoob's father was one who believed in Ibraaheem, may Allaah exalt his mention, when he was cast into the fire.

The first opinion is the most plausible, because Prophet Ayyoob, may Allaah exalt his mention, was a descendant of Ibraaheem's offspring, as Allaah Almighty declares in the Quran (what means): "And that was Our [conclusive] argument which we gave Ibraaheem against his people. We raise by degrees whom We will. Indeed, your Lord is Wise and Knowing. And We gave to him [i.e., Ibraaheem] Is-haaq [Isaac] and Ya'qoob [Jacob] – all [of them] We guided. And Nooh [Noah], We guided before; and among his descendants, Daawood [David] and Sulaymaan [Solomon] and Ayyoob [Job] and Yoosuf [Joseph] and Moosaa [Moses] and Haaroon [Aaron]. Thus do We reward the doers of good." [Quran 6:83-84]

Allaah Praises Him

Allaah the Almighty praised His worshipper Ayyoob, may Allaah exalt his mention, in His Glorious Quran, Saying (what means): "…Indeed, We found him patient, an excellent servant. Indeed, he was one who repeatedly turned back [to Allaah]." [Quran 38:44]

Ayyoob, may Allaah exalt his mention, was repentant, remembering Allaah with thankfulness, patience, and steadfastness. This was the cause of his rescue and the secret of Allaah's praising him.

A group of angels were discussing Allaah's other human creatures, how those who were humble earned Allaah's pleasure, while those who were arrogant incurred His displeasure. One of the angels remarked: "The best creature on earth today is Ayyoob, a man of noble character who displays great patience and always remembers his Generous Lord. He is an excellent model for the worshippers of Allaah. In return, his Lord has blessed him with a long life and plenty of servants, as well as the needy and the poor sharing in his good fortune; he feeds and clothes the poor and buys slaves to set them free. He makes those who receive his charity feel as if they are favouring him, so kind and gentle is he."

Satan's Envy of Him

Iblees (Satan) overhearing all of this, became annoyed. He planned to entice Ayyoob to corruption and disbelief, so he hastened to him. He tried to distract Ayyoob from his prayers by whispering to him about the good things in life, but Ayyoob was a true believer and would not let evil thoughts tempt him. This disturbed Iblees even more; thus he began to hate Ayyoob with even greater fervour.

Iblees complained to Allaah about Ayyoob, may Allaah exalt his mention. He said that although he was continuously glorifying Allaah, he was not doing so out of his sincerity but to satisfy Allaah so that his wealth should not be taken away. It was all a show, all out of greed. "If You remove his wealth, then You will find that his tongue will no longer mention Your name and his praying will stop," he said to Allaah.

Allaah told Iblees that Ayyoob, may Allaah exalt his mention, was one of His most sincere devotees. He did not worship Him because of the favours; his worship stemmed from his heart and had nothing to do with material things. But to prove to Iblees the depth of Ayyoob's sincerity and patience, Allaah allowed him to do whatever he and his helpers wished with Ayyoob's wealth.

Iblees was ecstatic. He gathered his helpers and set about destroying Ayyoob's cattle, servants and farms until he was left with no possessions. Rubbing his hands in glee, Iblees appeared before Ayyoob, may Allaah exalt his mention, in the guise of a wise old man and said to him: "All your wealth is lost; some people say that it is because you gave too much in charity and that you are wasting your time with your continuous prayers to Allaah. Others say that Allaah has brought this upon you in order to please your enemies. If Allaah had the capacity to prevent harm, then He would have protected your wealth."

True to his belief, Ayyoob, may Allaah exalt his mention, replied: "What Allaah has taken away from me belongs to Him. I was only its trustee for a while. He gives to whom He wills and withholds from whom He wills." With these words, Ayyoob, may Allaah exalt his mention, again prostrated to his Lord.

When Iblees saw this, he felt frustrated, so he again addressed Allaah: "I have stripped Ayyoob of all his possessions, but he still remains grateful to You. However he is only hiding his disappointment, for he places great store by his many children. The real test of a parent is through his children. You will see how Ayyoob will reject You."

Allaah again granted Iblees authority, but warned him that it would not reduce Ayyoob's faith in His Lord nor his patience.

Iblees again gathered his helpers and set about his evil deeds. He shook the fountain of the house in which Ayyoob's children were living and sent the building crashing, killing all of them. Then he went to Ayyoob, may Allaah exalt his mention, disguised as a man who had come to sympathise with him. In a comforting tone he said to Ayyoob, may Allaah exalt his mention: "The circumstances under which your children died were sad. Surely, your Lord is not rewarding you properly for all your prayers." Having said this, Iblees waited anxiously, hoping Ayyoob, may Allaah exalt his mention, was now ready to reject Allaah.

But again Ayyoob, may Allaah exalt his mention, disappointed him by replying: "Allaah sometimes gives and sometimes takes. He is sometimes pleased and sometimes displeased with our deeds. Whether a thing is beneficial or harmful to me, I will remain firm in my belief and remain thankful to my Creator." Then Ayyoob, may Allaah exalt his mention, prostrated to his Lord. At this, Iblees was extremely vexed.

(•̪●)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿   That's me holding my G18.

Thanks for reading.

 

--
-Marton

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

All that in 18 minutes? Impossible!

Well, I know faintly about Siddhartha touching the Earth and the demons of desire being blown away.

Cheers

[Michael Oppenheimer]

It's the Qu'ran.

[Mvpeh]

Quite possible. I, being a computer gamer, can type pretty fast, if I may say so myself. V_V

--
-Marton

[Mvpeh]

Typo, si, sorry.


--
-Marton

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

It would be very hard for me, though. And I went through a montage over the summer! I typed 1500 words and their definitions! Still, it's probably copy and pasted since a regular typer won't go through the trouble to put it into different colors and fonts.

Cheers

[Mvpeh]

>:3
It's not. I do that all all of my st00f.

--
-Marton

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Are you sure, you tend to have typos but there wasn't a typo inside that entire Qu'ran excerpt. There was even a typo in your argument saying that it wasn't copy and pasted!

Cheers

[Mvpeh]

Where? And my teacher spells it Qu'run. I'm used to it.


--
-Marton

[David Reich]

I've never seen that spelling, only Qu'ran and Kuran.  Ask Safath?

[Mvpeh]

Actually, I've seen it spelled Koran! ...By me.
--
-Marton

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

You said all twice, once in black and another in color, and you forgot a "to" and above all, you used st00f. Other than that, I guess I've been confusing your emails with others. Sorry-aru!

Cheers

[David Reich]

Ach, you're right, i've not seen kuran either, but i've seen that.

[Mvpeh]

I can say all twice. O_o
I was using emphasis on the all:

">:3
It's not. I do that all all of my st00f."

St00f is online language..?

--
-Marton

[Mvpeh]

Oh, the double all..I see what you mean. Sorry?

--
-Marton

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

You still forgot a to, and apology accepted if you grant my wishes. ALL OF THEM-aru!

[Ahmed]

Logic a sin? that saying like...God is dumb...which is idk, a sin if u
think about it. Anyway, i will tell you what Islam says about logic.
In the name of God the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
These were the first words given to Muhamad PBUH. For him it means
recite and for his nation it means read. 96:1-5 Read: In the name of
thy Lord Who createth, (1) Createth man from a clot. (2) Read: And thy
Lord is the Most Bounteous, (3) Who teacheth by the pen, (4) Teacheth
man that which he knew not. (5)
These words mean that Islam is a religion of reading, knowledge,
understanding. It made an illiterate nation into the leading people of
science ( known as the golden age of Islam but for Europe it is known
as the dark ages). "Who (God) teacheth by the pen" So basically
knowledge is a blessing from God. Ultimately knowledge is supposed to
lead you to God.
Many places in the Qur'an God says inderectly, that we are given
brains that we may contemplate and remember him:
Say: "Praise be to Allah. He will show you His Signs and you will
recognise them. Your Lord is not heedless of anything you do." (Surat
an-Naml: 93)
In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of
night and day, there are Signs for people of intelligence: those who
remember Allah standing, sitting and lying on their sides, and reflect
on the creation of the heavens and the earth: "Our Lord, You did not
create this for nothing. Glory be to You! So guard us from the
punishment of the Fire." (Surah Ali-‘Imran: 190-191)

[Ahmed]

AMAZING TECHNIQUE OF
BLOOD SUCKING
The gnat’s technique of "blood-sucking" depends on a complex system in
which
unbelievably detailed structures work together.
After the gnat lands on its target, it first detects a spot by means
of the lips in its proboscis.
The syringe-like ‘sting’ of the gnat is protected by a special sheath,
which is stripped back during
the blood-sucking process.
The gnat does not pierce the skin, as assumed, by thrusting its
proboscis into it with
pressure. Here, the main task falls to the upper jaw, which is as
sharp as a knife, and the mandible
on which there are teeth bent backwards. The gnat moves its mandible
forwards and backwards
like a saw and cuts the skin with the help of the upper jaws. When the
sting, inserted through this
cut in the skin, reaches to the blood vessel, the drilling ends. Now
it is time for the gnat to suck
blood.
However, as we know, the slightest harm to the vessels causes the
human body to secrete an
enzyme that makes the blood clot and stops its leakage. This enzyme
should create a problem for
the gnat, because the body should also react to the hole opened by the
gnat, causing the blood at
this spot to clot immediately and the wound to be repaired. That would
mean that the gnat could
not suck any blood.
But the problem is eliminated for the gnat. Before the gnat starts
sucking blood, it injects a
special liquid secreted in its body into the cleavage opened in the
living being it has stung. This
liquid neutralises the enzyme that causes the clotting of blood. Thus,
the gnat sucks the blood it
needs without the problem of clotting. The itching and swelling formed
on the spot bitten by the
gnat is caused by this liquid that prevents clotting.
This is surely an extraordinary process and it brings the following
questions to mind:
1) How does the gnat know that there is a clotting enzyme in the human
body?
2) In order to produce a neutralising secretion in its own body
against that enzyme, it needs
to know the chemical structure of the enzyme. How could this be
possible?
3) Even if it somehow attained such knowledge (!), how could it
produce the secretion in its
own body and make the "technical rigging" needed to transfer it to its
proboscis?
The answer to all these questions is obvious: it is not possible for
the gnat to perform any of
the above. It neither has the required wisdom, knowledge of chemistry,
or the "laboratory"
environment to produce the secretion. What we talk about here is only
a gnat of a few millimetres
in length, without consciousness or wisdom, that is all!
It is quite clear that Allah, "Lord of the heavens and of the earth,
and of all that is between
them", has created both the gnat and man, and donated such
extraordinary and marvellous features
to the gnat.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Watch out, Ahmed. Atheists believe in the process of evolution-aru. Your argument may be torn apart.
Still, props on the lengthy write-up! Very well typed and worded!

Cheers

[David Reich]

yep, that can all be explained amazingly well by evolution.  the gnat doesn't 'know' that it's secreting this enzyme - it just, purely by chance, happened that a single gnat, millions of years ago, mutated so that the enzyme was produced properly.  It's very unlikely, but considering how fast gnats breed, and how long they've had, it's not impossible.  Anyway, this one gnat, because it could suck more blood without clotting, had a much easier time of surviving and had more children.  It passed on the mutation that gave it the enzyme, and so it's children were able to reproduce more as well - until eventually there were more enzyme-gnats than origionals, and they became the only population.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Comparable to how many humans don't know that their hair and body excrete an oil that slightly covers the body. This oil allows dirt and other substances to easily come off. Although, this oil may be harmful to other animals such as bird wings, butterfly wings and some animal skins.

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

Ok Mr. Science.

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Refer to me as DR. SCIENCE. No  wait, that's Pual's name...huh...-aru

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Andrew Towle <andyt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok Mr. Science.

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:

Comparable to how many humans don't know that their hair and body excrete an oil that slightly covers the body. This oil allows dirt and other substances to easily come off. Although, this oil may be harmful to other animals such as bird wings, butterfly wings and some animal skins.

--
Andy T.

[Michael Oppenheimer]

HAHAHA!!!!!!!!! He is Dr. Science!!!
But back to the matter at hand. David keeps stealing all of the good arguments. I wasn't going to say it exactly like that, but I was going to talk about probability and how if given long enough, any species can produce a necissary feature (within reason(or without reason, idk)).
1) The gnat doesn't need to know, it instinctually excretes the enzyme.
2) Do you know the chemical structure of the enzyme that causes blood to clot? I doubt it, but it works anyway. If you needed to know how things worked in your body in order to use them, you wouldn't be able to think because you would first need to know how your thought process works(paradox).
3) Its body produced it on its own, such as pretty much everything your body does.

P.S. that whole thing is super neat

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

To add on to that, there's that whole idea of symbiosis! How do animals work together towards a common goal if all are put on this Earth to progress and become the dominant species? What about if God made humans the dominant species? Why would they work towards such a goal when their fate is inevitable, to be restricted under the human regime?

Cheers

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

P.S.
A funny story about Paul being Dr. Science. He is called such by our biology class. I also heard a rumor about a weird Facebook group. It was something like "your brain has orgasms when you hear Paul's voice" or something. Maybe it wasn't true-aru.

[Mvpeh]

Andrew, you're sorta' getting us off topic... BE MOAR SERIOUS


--
-Marton

[Andrew Towle]

Speaking of being off topic Marton...Hey I saw you yesterday at the Merrol Hyde field! I yelled at you from my car as I drove by!

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Wow, that's very off topic. Can anyone tie that to religion?

Cheers

[David Reich]

The meeting had been ordianed by God?

[Michael Oppenheimer]

nice

[Andrew Towle]

good one David.

--
Andy T.

[Mvpeh]

I know Andrew, it was awesome.


--
-Marton

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Just a question, does God plan every action in history?

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

How do you mean?

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

I mean that does God plan every encounter we have in our lives? Does he plan out our lives so that everything we do, everything we face, is because of God? This thought came to me when I saw David's response.

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

Well no. He does have a plan for you in your life, that you will play a certain role that will be good for the Kingdom of God, and good for others. He does not mess with free will of humanity, but he sometimes does make it so that certain people will come into our lives. But no, he doesn't dictate every little tiniest detail of our life.

--
Andy T.

[Paul Gully]

hm. another question about god. is he omnipotent? if so, how could there be free will?

[Andrew Towle]

Omnipotent-almighty or infinite power,as God.

                 -having very great or unlimited authority or power.

 

God is omnipotent, yes, but he doesn't exercise his power like he's some sort of dictator.

--
Andy T.