Intelligent Design

[Underage_Thinker]

I think think intelligent Design is a sad atemt to get rligon in to schools. I would just like to get other peopls idea on this. :?:

[Kiros]

How so? It's a theory of our creation. Can theories not be taught in school?

See, the problem is that nowadays, no one believes anything if they can't prove it - hmmm, just as always in fact. As if the type of matter called "gas" had not been discovered yet, 80% of people would claim air doesn't exist, and instead, we breathe to let the bad stuff out :roll:

Now look, there's notta solid proof of anything, otherwise, they wouldn't be theories - they'd be laws/facts, correct? Instead, we're faced with just tid-bits of proof. Take the mammoth that was frozen in ice while it was grazing. That could be looked at as proof that the "canopy of water" over the world did exist, and fell down, causing extremely cold temperature in some areas, which proves that, in fact, evolution is completely wrong - Intelligent Design has been proven and all "evolution" that occurs is just that of micro-evolution, which is supported by Intelligent Design. :)

[Underage_Thinker]

First of all i am not debating about wether or no intelligent deign has actuall scientific backing( witch it dosn't). I am debating wether or not it should be taught in school. The reason y it shouldent is because it is teaching a religon in a school, thus it is unconstitutional. 8)

[Kiros]

Nonsense, Intelligent Design doesn't teach religion. It doesn't say God or some holy being created us. Creation doesn't even state that. They both simply state something indeed created us - a cell. And yes, as stated before, Intelligent Design has scientific backing, and as it is a theory, it should be taught in school. You could make the same argument for a mathmatical theory, but they are all taught in schools, as that's the way it should be.

[Underage_Thinker]

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that the universe and living things have features that could only have been designed by an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection.[1] Leading proponents, of which all are affliated with the Discovery Institute, say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.[2]

An overwhelming majority[3] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience or junk science.[4] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[5]

United States federal courts have ruled as unconstitutional a public school district requirement endorsing intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in science classes, on the grounds that its inclusion violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) United States federal court judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.

This is an artical taken from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Intelligent_design_in_summary)
:o

[Kiros]

Amazing things you find on the internet, eh? :)

Too bad most of those quotes people's opinions. Though something strikes me as odd. We can't test the creation of a cell, as we still haven't created one to date. In fact, the majority of scientists believe the theory that states a cell cannot be created, only spawned from another cell. This completely trashes the evolution theory, thus supporting the Intelligent Design theory. Though yeah, it's just funny to see what's on the internet these days, isn't it? :)

[Underage_Thinker]

First of all it is wikipedia, not just any other site. secondly, if u ask any cretible scientis tey will say the same thing. Sirously wikipedia isnt lying at all. And if Intelligent design is not sience in any nature b/c science is being able to predict somthing, and itelligent design says that each living creature is created Randomly each time. Thus u can not predic anything at all.

[Kiros]

Intelligent Design says nothing about animals being created randomly. Where did you come by this??? All it states basically, is that animals (or cells in general) were created by something of extreme intelligence, hence the title. And yes, I know what Wikipedia is, but those statements it had in it were opinions by scientists, not facts. The facts stand that it is a theory, just as evolution is, and the frozen mammoth proves it far over evolution. However, you want to know something rather interesting? Evolution states that a cell was randomly created in primordial soup, so therefore, it is scientifically incorrect because it's random, you can't predict it, nor test it. :) Hope this gets through this time.

[kolte]

I support the theroy if Intelligent Design...simply becasuse we are close in genetics to intelligently design life ourself, whats not to get that somting created us, our universe or world....maybe not a god, maybe. we may find out one day.

[Underage_Thinker]

sorry i just don't get the idea that some super intellegent being(witch is God) just desided one day, "hey i feel like making humans and zebras and leperds and koalas......... I mean it just dosnt make sence because weee did this thing (God) come from :?:
ALSO EVOLUTION JUST MAKES MOR SENCE B/C if u look back. It takes what an estemated 325 million years for the contents to get to were they are today and 50 millon years for mt everest to be formd to what it is today.I mean i gusse u could just beleve that intellegent design is right just on faith (but that isn't science) but i am going to have to stick with what my brain tells me not my soule on this one.

Also their is about a 0.0000000000000000000000001% chance that their isnt intellegent life on otheir planets.So what about them, were they also created by this super being (god).

[Kiros]

You seem too young to understand. Have you read read a word I wrote, or have you just not taken a legit science course yet? Intelligent Design says nothing about there even being a God, although he does exist. Now, the intelligent being that created an atom and a cell took no time at all to create them because time can not exist without space. The intelligent being developed this from another dimension - one without matter, but time, which if you find hard to believe, then you should read up on exotic creations/circumstance in space/time quantum mechanics. As for evolution, it is nothing but fairy tale - only micro-evolution exists :)

[tucker92]

Nothing personal but it seems to me that on a forum like this saying someone is too young to understand is kinda ummm wrong. Its also an argument people make when they cant back what theyre saying with logic.

Personally i like the theory of the flying spaghetti monster. google it. its pretty funny.

[Kiros]

On a forum like this, it's actually quite right. The reason lies in that while in puberty, the mind makes a vast transformation to reach a more superior intellect - whether it be from hormones or learning. If they are too young, they probably have not this "growth" (if you will). It just takes some time :) Everything is explained in my previous post, so please read that before you claim "cant back what theyre saying with logic". Ok? :)

[tucker92]

well he said the point hes debating is whether ID should be taught in public schools cause of the seperation clause of the constitution. i didnt mean to sound like i was attacking u cause i wasnt. phrases like "you're too young to understand" are just regugnant.

[Kiros]

That's like saying breathing is redundant -_-

Anyway, as I said before, it's a theory, and although some like to believe it's completely regligious, it's not - religions do tend to use this theory though. So yes, that's all ya need for it to be taught in school :)

[tucker92]

whats like saying breathing is redundant? :-\

so i heard about a high school in cali where they were gonna teach a philosophy elective on origins talkin about creationism, ID, and evolution and a group of parents filed in court to keep them from doin it. did u hear about that and if u did did u hear why they filed? u seem fairly well informed so just thot id ask.

[Kiros]

Nope, actually, didn't hear about that. Did you hear how a couple years ago, someone sued McDonalds for making them fat? Wow, people will do just about anything to get money, won't they? :lol:

[Webbeardthepirate]

First Kiros, I didn't see anything explained in previous posts. I did see a repitition of the views taken in the Dover school board case that the judge described as breathtakingly inane. Federal prosecuters are now looking into pujery charges against several of the key defence witnesses as their statement in court and in depothingies before court didn't match the views held in numerous documents.

Second, everyone knows the world was created by the Flying Spagetti Monster who in the beginning created a mountain, some trees and a midget. His lack of scientific evidence the result of his having used his noodly appendage to alter all scientific data so as to not reveal himself to the unbelievers. I'm allowed to talk about the FSM because as you can see by my screen name, I ma in full pirate regelia. You others will anger him though, and that may or may not cause increased global warming for reasons to technical to go into here.

Next, evolution is a theroy about where species come from, not where life comes from. Origin of life has several hypothosises, sisi, sisees, whatever the plural is. What is fairly certain is that it only occured once. This is because organic molocules can be either left or right handed, but all living things use the same handedness, and the other handedness is often toxic. Because of this uniformity we can deduce that life had a single origin, at one point in the past, though it probably doesn't really qualify as life, some sort of pre life replicating molocule that ate all the available organic molocules before beginning the process that led to the species we see today. But certainly not irreducibly complex.

Finally, you are indeed correct, Kiros, about the tenage mind being a work in progress. At the beginning of puberty the frontal lobe undergoes rapid growth, so it says in my dad's Scientific American. A process calld pruning then begins where unused neurons are killed off. In the meantime there are no judgement paths effective. This is why even A students sometimes do dumb things. At around 19 this process is complete, and the frontal lobe switches on and all the lessons about right and wrong and risk and reward begin to do you some friggen good. Thats why learning morals and stuff in highschool is something folks get stirred up about. After about ninteen you're brain will never be as changable again. Like its harder to learn languages after a certain age, five or something. Sure, you can still learn but not as easily or as well. The ability to understand a theory should be inplace before then. So if you were making sense Kiros, Underage thinker should have no trouble following the argument. Highschool students participate in formal debates on teams all the time.

[kolte]

First Kiros, I didn't see anything explained in previous posts. I did see a repitition of the views taken in the Dover school board case that the judge described as breathtakingly inane. Federal prosecuters are now looking into pujery charges against several of the key defence witnesses as their statement in court and in depothingies before court didn't match the views held in numerous documents.

Second, everyone knows the world was created by the Flying Spagetti Monster who in the beginning created a mountain, some trees and a midget. His lack of scientific evidence the result of his having used his noodly appendage to alter all scientific data so as to not reveal himself to the unbelievers. I'm allowed to talk about the FSM because as you can see by my screen name, I ma in full pirate regelia. You others will anger him though, and that may or may not cause increased global warming for reasons to technical to go into here.

Next, evolution is a theroy about where species come from, not where life comes from. Origin of life has several hypothosises, sisi, sisees, whatever the plural is. What is fairly certain is that it only occured once. This is because organic molocules can be either left or right handed, but all living things use the same handedness, and the other handedness is often toxic. Because of this uniformity we can deduce that life had a single origin, at one point in the past, though it probably doesn't really qualify as life, some sort of pre life replicating molocule that ate all the available organic molocules before beginning the process that led to the species we see today. But certainly not irreducibly complex.

Finally, you are indeed correct, Kiros, about the tenage mind being a work in progress. At the beginning of puberty the frontal lobe undergoes rapid growth, so it says in my dad's Scientific American. A process calld pruning then begins where unused neurons are killed off. In the meantime there are no judgement paths effective. This is why even A students sometimes do dumb things. At around 19 this process is complete, and the frontal lobe switches on and all the lessons about right and wrong and risk and reward begin to do you some friggen good. Thats why learning morals and stuff in highschool is something folks get stirred up about. After about ninteen you're brain will never be as changable again. Like its harder to learn languages after a certain age, five or something. Sure, you can still learn but not as easily or as well. The ability to understand a theory should be inplace before then. So if you were making sense Kiros, Underage thinker should have no trouble following the argument. Highschool students participate in formal debates on teams all the time.

Now now, no need to get sarcastic about this simple debate. It is true that people tend to believe the most ridicules theories etc. I myself have gone from a believer to a non believer over 100 times. Its because I’m studying the debate, and discovering the truth for myself. One of my most important morals is to think for yourself, question everything. You will hear me use that, and commerce is the cure to everything (not literal) many times. n.n Anyway I will compliment your obvious talent to debate one last time, rejoicing for the opportunity for some new debate material. If you don’t mind my asking, are you a Conservative or a Liberal or in-between etc. Of course this question is only if you live in the United States. If you don’t then it won’t mean as much. Only in this country, the divided united as I like to call it, does that really really make a difference.

V peace

~kolte

[Webbeardthepirate]

Too sarcastic huh? I'll try to tone it down. ID just seems to be begging for it if you ask me. And the judge really did write that the arguments were breathtakingly inane.

[Kiros]

Hmmm... You seem very familiar. Eh, that doesn't matter. :P

You are right about evolution being a theory, which is all it is. However, since evolution would constitute random times for particular changes, this couldn't possibly be scientific, since random moments for adaptations can not be predicted and "science is being able to predict somthing." So, are we on the same page here?

And about that last part... You mean that someone at age 19 and someone that is 13 will completely understand each other? Yes, they are both teenagers, and yes, they are both still in puberty and the mind is developing. However, you seem to not know about the separate stages of puberty. For generalization and time, let's simplify it down to only 3 stages: initialization 12-15 (Body structure and mental capacities start to enlarge - this prepares the body and mind for the next stage of puberty. Near the end of this stage, enhancements begin to take effect and the teenager can utilize new abilities mentally and physically); development 16-18 (Puberty advances to develop the advantages in mind and body - from the initialization stage - and expand on them. It is at this stage that reasoning is enhanced. Thought becomes more abstract, incorporating the principles of formal logic. Thinking becomes less tied to concrete reality.); finalization 18-20 (Awareness and "being" take shape in to a character - with this, maturity and cognivity rise. Final steps are taken towards becoming an adult.)

Now, that's just a generalization. Specifying everything would take too much time and effort, as I'm sure you can guess. I'll leave it up to you to figure out how someone could be too young to understand... Thought becomes more abstract, incorporating the principles of formal logic. Thinking becomes less tied to concrete reality.
Just think about it :)

[2inchesandstillpullin]

tbh intelligent design is bs imo.

there isn't anything that is too complicated to have evolved from something in nature.

scientists though back in 1980 something that there was a bacteria that was, but then they were proven wrong.

so now intelligent design is just the same as a creation story.

it's not science, although it used to be though of as science.

there will always be the question of how stuff began, but if you ask me - it's all about Cogito ergo sum.

You might think that if you drop a book, it will fall to the ground, repeat it 100 times and it'll still fall, but how can you tell that it will fall on the millionth time?

Similarly, there might have been absolutely nothing for trillions of years and suddenly *pop* the universe is born. Who decided that it was impossible for anything to suddenly occur? It's that which started off evolution.

[Webbeardthepirate]

Science is the search for natural explinations to observed phenomina. This is the description accepted by National Academy of Sciences, and most scientists in general. Your allusion to prediction has to do with a statement to be considered scientific it must make a statement about the world that can be proven untrue. Not that it is untrue, but that you can think of an example that would show the statement is untue. If the example that denies the statement does not infact exist in the real world, then the scientific staement is accepted as provisionally correct.

These statements about the world are then generalized, if possible, and combined into a theory. If an example of irreduable complexity could be produced, then the theory of evolution would have a problem. The supposition has been valuable because what opponants of evolution have called irreducibly complex have often pointed to gaps in our understanding. When actually subjected to investigation, the examples have been shown not to be irreducibly complex. The example from the Dover case was the imune system which in the last decade has actually yeilded up much of its secrets, which are helping us understand imune disorders and cure diseases, while calling it irreducibly complex and was therfore made by a designer hasn't helped understand anything, and certainly would never move us closer to understanding diseases like lupus and MS.

Evidence of ignorance is only evidence of ignorance (refering to lack of understanding among scientists, and not an insult to you). Evidence of ignorance is not evidence of a creator, a designer, or a flying spagetti monster. Should schools teach about these gaps in knowledge? Absolutly, one of the kids in a biology class might want to know what is in that gap and go to college and discover the answer. Or not discover the answer but instead become very interested in dolphins and decipher what it is they are saying. Personally I think dolphins are talking about how great fish taste and how much fun sex is, because they live in the water, what else are they going to talk about?

I think a ninteen year old and a thirteen year old could cary on quite complete conversations on topics like football plays, which can be very complex. Dirty jokes, which often have all sorts of subtext. Perspective and optics should be within the grasp of a thirteen year old. The ninteen year old has more knowledge, so would be the role of educator, but the thirteen year old should be able to follow the argument. As for emotionally, the thirteen year old will be basing their own future behavior on what the ninteen year old tells them. If they haven't had their first crush, they aren't going to understand the feeling, of course. But you don't need empathy or emotional maturity to understand science or mathematics, you just need some one to explain it to you and answer your questions.

[2inchesandstillpullin]

i like you; people don't often change my opinion.

even if what i say is true, it shouldn't be taken into accou nt. i can now see that my previous opinion is just the same of intellligent design or creation stories, which i think arn't real.

The lack of knowledge should be just left until something is proved, a theory is just a theory, and shouldn't be put forward as fact. although there may be strong evidence for everything, it could never be fact (except i think therefore i am), i think that some things things should be taken as 'fact until proven wrong' - for the sake of many other things being able to be descovered (take the basic laws of physics for example), while some things, like creation stories should be left for people to 'prove' or at least be taken as literally as gravity.

[Kiros]

But you don't need empathy or emotional maturity to understand science or mathematics, you just need some one to explain it to you and answer your questions.

True, however, maturity is not the only thing that broadens. In a sense that you cannot teach complex abstractions in trigonometry (for example: how i squared will always equal negative 1) as easily to thirteen year old as you could to a nineteen year old. This is because not only does the emotional nature change in puberty, but the mind develops and can understand these aspects. Abstraction is what scientists thrive on; take for example, the thought of gravity or of the photon, or of tachyon waves - non of them are concrete, but they are all very real - a paradox, if you will. ;)

[Webbeardthepirate]

Tacheons are made up in an attempt to explain some phenomina that are not adaquetly explained, but no one out side of star trek takes them very seriously. Like the photon that tells one electron it has colided with another electron, its a virtual partical that exists only to convey information under the assumption all information needs a partical to convey it.

I defy you to explain how i squared equals -1. I've understood gravity since I was six. It was explained using animated graphics and is really quite simple, and that understanding has yet to stear me wrong. Gravity as acceleration is harder to understand, but most adults don't understand it, so its more a difficult concept then anything realated to maturity. Much of the mysterious world of the quantum is so counter to everyday experience that the older you get and the more everyday experiences you have the harder it gets to understand.

[Kiros]

Yes, you are also right about Tachyons, as it's an abstract thought used to describe an undefined phenomena. And I guess that's kind of right about photons, however, it can and cannot exist at the same time (though I'm not going to go in to detail about that). Pretty much, it's as if it were a gluon (I'm sure you already know what that is :P), but actually has energy and can actually hold gravitons. This is a real abstraction, not just an explanation.

Seriously, I thought you knew your math. Someone as smart as you cannot understand that i^2 will always equal negative one? Oh well, I don't mind explaining that a little :P It's an abstract form in algebraic and trigonometric concepts. For instance, it can be used in almost every quadratic equation (with exceptions to those that construct a parabola without having an asymptote defined) to simplify and "balance" fractional equations. Basically, you don't need to know how i^2 will always equal -1, you just need to grasp that it will always, and so, -(i^2) is equal to positive 1.

Now, if you'll notice, it's like I said before - being able to understand abstract concepts comes in time. There's nothing that someone can do to learn something they cannot yet understand even a basic concept of, just like someone can't noticeably grow taller within a minute - time is required. This is purely why I suggested that he was too young to understand. Abstractions can be very hard to understand. It's as "simple" as that :)

[Webbeardthepirate]

all you explained about the imaginary number is how it is used. What you haven't eplained is how it does it. -4 squared is 16. the Square root of -16 is an undefined concept. So they throw in this imaginary number because there is no real number that can perform the task. You can also use the absolute value of negative 16, the square root of which is 4. Which, if you were calculating the field strength of an electrical or magnetic field when you imput negative sixteen units and you want to know how the force changes, in accordance with inverse square you use the absolute value of negative sixteen to avoid the mucking about in imaginary numbers. Sort of how change in velocity is always a positive number, making the term deceleration archaic and meaninless, like centrifugal force. Though I recently read an blog by astronomer Phil Plait defending his use of cetrifugal force. Of course centrifugal force is innertia attempting to carry a mass in a strait line, and the centripital force is acting on a spiining opbject forcing it to move along a curved path which can be calculated as acceleration because that is what any change in inertai is. Inertia is a property of matter and not a force, like hardness and color. But what you call it doesn't really effect how you aim a telescope at it, so to an astronomer it doesn't matter. No pun intended.

Where was I? Blah blah blah, there is no god, yadda yadda yadda. Right Gravitons! This is another partical of dubious veracity. See, our understanding of gravity comes from Einstein's general theory or reletivity. Simpler then it seems, but more counter intuitive then you would expect. However there are no particals or waves in the general theory of relativity. The speed of light is absolute, and every thing else changes to keep it the same. Light is an information carrier you see, so until the light gets there it hasn't happened yet but relativity addresses how observers comparing notes after the fact could descrieb the same event as occuring differently.

Now here's the problem with gravitons and gravity. The quantum world functions in probabilistic terms. This is called "Uncertainty." Now the strong force, which uses gluons, If I'm rebering it right, and the electromagentic force uses photons to transmit the information about the force. But gravity is the weekest force, while the other three are nearly equall. Gravity isn't a little bit weeker, like half as strong, or a tenth as strong, or a one hundreth or even a one thousandth. Gravity is Quintillions of times weeker then the electromagnetic force. That looks a little like 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. English call that number something different because they have thousand millions, but you get the idea. Gravity is so week in fact that it would never overcome its own uncertainty under the "Standard Model". I use qoutes to point out that that is the Name of the model, and not to imply that it is unworthy. Anyways, quantum physics, which explains how your cell phone works, the computer your reading this onfunctions, and infact couldn't have been built without the knowledge that came from this very theoretical back ground. This lynch pin of modern technology predicts that THERE IS NO GRAVITY! Or that there could be gravity but it would never be able to amount to anything, certainly not stars and galaxies, and clusters of galaxies. The priciple of uncertainty means that gravitons would be so week and pitiful that they would be unable to affect matter in any noticable way. At that level it can't and is often discounted all together.

But it can't be helped that the two great achievements of 20th century physics are in contraditon with one another. Oh yah, the quantum entanglemnt which is where tacheons come from is the result of information passing between two particals instantaniously at any distance. Since Relativity is built on nothing traveling faster then light, Relativity has a problem. You've heard about tacheons because sci-fi writers are always trying to go faster then light, so it seems to be made to order. But tacheons are only virtual particals that only affect the universe under specific conditions, so not really useful. Being a virtual partical it has no mass and no energy. And apparently no velocity as well. Not much of a partical. At least virtual photons have velocity.

They don't talk abouth these things not because they think no one will understand, they don't talk about it because NO ONE UNDERSTANDS. The universe does appear to work, and contradiction seems to be a problem only to us. The universe seems to have discovered double think long before George Orwell put it into his novel 1984.

So like the imaginary number there are some concepts that it doesn't matter how old you are. So saying some one doesn't understand because they are too young is just a smoke screen.

Also, there is no God.

(a statement that makes a prediction about the universe that can be refuted by example. No examples being forthcomming I shall accept the statement as provisionally true. This means the statement is scientific in its nature and can be included in science class rooms, while Intelligent design can't.)

[Kiros]

How can such a smart person be so close-minded? Ah well, maybe in another few years...

In a sense, the square root of -16 is a defined concept, as I just told you. The solution would be 4i. But wait, what's this? It's an abstraction? O_o Oh my, then... should it be taught in schools?! The fact of the matter is that even scientists and brilliant mathematicians know about and use i. And I, myself, am very impressed you couldn't take this concept in to mind.

Unfortunately, this "strong force" you speak of doesn't use gluons. Any force has to have a force (of course... a horse is a horse...). Now, we know that force has the effects of inertia and momentum, as well as a velocity. This, itself, proves the existence of gravity and gravitons. And now who's to say gravity is weak? Dare you say a black hole has less of a "pull" than an electromagnet? Now I'm a little confused as to why you say that "THERE IS NO GRAVITY!" because last time I checked, I was still standing on the ground, and I still had a weight - a measurement of gravity. :)

Now you see, the thing about relativity is that it states nothing can accelerate to or past the speed of light, for accelerating past it in this universe, well, that's impossible as it's not exotic enough. However, if something were instantly faster than the speed of light, then this could work, even if you put the theory of relativity in the equation. So these subatomic particles (not virtual particles) can have exotic affects, such as the gluons fading in to and out of existence and not carrying gravity, and photons acting as waves and particles at the same time and carrying enormous amounts of energy even though it's a not energy itself and has no conduction.

So in a sense, if you can't even understand mathematical abstractions, how would you be able to understand a much more complex concept? This almost screams proof of not only Intelligent Design, but also God, Himself. Ever since our science professor realized this, he's been one of the most radical Christians I know.

And most importantly, I'm so glad that you believe in God. Faith really shows how open-minded you can be, doesn't it? :mrgreen:

[Webbeardthepirate]

all forces have carrier particals that transport the force from one location to another. for the electromagnetic force it is the photon.

Gravity is weaker so weak you arte defying it right now. Thats right, you are defying the force of gravity. You are not falling to the center of the earth in defiance of the force of gravity. The rest of the earth is defying the force of gravity too by not falling to the center of the earth. You also overcome gravity by not falling to the center of yourself. That is how vastly powerful the electromagnetic force is by comparison. It takes ALOT of gravity to overcome the electromagnetic force. quintillions of times more. Gravity is really weak. Yes, clearly it DOES work. But it doesn't offset the fact that the other three forces are vastly more powerful.

I have never seen a compelling counter example to the scientific statement "There is No God." If you know of one, please let me know. Until then I will continue to function on the hypothosis that there isn't one. I have never been disapointed acting on this hypothosis, and include it in my Theory of a Naturalistic Universe.

Your sad belief in your imaginary friend who lives in the sky I will accept as your belief, and that your belief in your imaginary friend is a real belief. But Belief is not evidence of anything other then belief.

[Kiros]

carrier particals
Ah, and those are called (say it with me this time) gravitons! :P

And as an answer to your statement, yes and no. We can go against gravity, but that's not what's keeping us from "falling to the center of the earth". Structure and support is what does it. As an analogy to what you wrote, we can over come electromagnetism just by holding our hand between the magnet and the affected material. This doesn't necessarily mean we are defying it - more like we are resisting it. Same concept goes for gravity - we can resist it, but we cannot over come it. As well as this "strong force" that you talked about, it can be resisted, but not defied. All three of your flavors of force are actually the same - none is weaker and none is stronger. The amount of the force varies though. Just as weight does - this is affected by gravity. Gravity is measured by weight of an object, so the heavier the object is, the stronger the force, right? It's just like introducing more electricity in to an electromagnet to make its force stronger. :)

To counter your highly scientific statement "There is No God," I say "There is God." :) That's proof enough - just toying with you... The lovely fact about this is that God cannot be proven to be or proven to not be. There are believers and non-believers - that will always be. Though just think about it. No more than 400 years ago, everyone knew that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones. Hmmm, but isn't this known to be wrong? Speaking of gravity, Newton knew a great deal about it, along with just about every other scientific field; though you might find this a bit strange - he was very religious. Shocking, isn't it? :lol:

It takes time to understand things, and it takes more time to learn about them. However, learning about them will also give you a new view on things - this is known as open-mindedness :)

[Webbeardthepirate]

Sigh. The electromagnetic fields in the objects around you, and in your own body is the only thing that keeps you from falling to the middle of the earth. it is electromagnatism that makes solid objects solid. That is the force that holds you up. The strong force holds the nucleus of an atom together despite the positivly charged protons being repelled from one another. The partical that conveys the Strong force is called a gluon. The Fourth force is the weak force, and it causes neutrons to decay into protons and electrons, and is responsible for radioactivity. The Grand Unified Field theory indicates that at high energy levels these three forces combine into one electro-weak-strong force. But no theory can describe one in which all four forces are united into a super force in what physisicts call, and I am not making this up, the Theory of Everything. The hang up is caused by gravity being so pitiful as to be irreconcilable with the other three forces that rule the universe. The Four Forces govern all interactions between all particals in the universe.

Perhapse you have heard that atoms are mostly empty space, it is the electromagnetic force that keeps two atoms from passing through one another and your hand from passing through a table. If you fall off a cliff, it is electromagantism that kills you when you get to the bottom, not gravity which has done you know harm for the entire trip. Its not the fall that kills but the sudden stop at the end. That stop is the electomagnetic field in your boty encountering the electromagnetic field in the ground. Being more akin to a waterbaloon then a stone your cells break, the long protien chanins that make yp your body are torn assunder by the sudden and violent deceleration. These chains also exist in accordance with the electromagnetic force which governs all of chemistry. Splat.

Gravity has accelerated you at a gentle 32 feet per second per second. If you hadn't stopped at the end so violently you'd have been fine. Say a net streatches and reduces your rate of acceleration.

"There is a God" is not a scientific statement. What evidence would disprove that statement? What in nature would be accepted as evidence of the non-existance of God. The absence of miracles would only mean that God doesn't perform miracles. While the presence of miracles would be evidence against the statement "There is no God." Having no miricals forth comming, then the statement "There is No God" has not been disprooved. As long as there is no evidence to the contrary the thesis stands. But the Existance of Evil, unanswered prayers, the randomness of the universe, all support my thesis that there is no God.

[Kiros]

Hmmm, you're really in to theories, aren't you? I prefer laws when possible. :)

Now you see, it's not the electromagnetism that keeps you "from falling to the middle of the earth" - it's gravity. Gravity pulls matter together - that's it's nature. Since all matter have gravitons (with exception to a few particles), gravity affects all the mattter and that is why we don't fall to the center of the earth. The fact that the earth's core is so dense keeps makes the matter around it dense and that, in turn, pulls all the molecules and atoms closer together. This creates a sturdy earth which we can not fall through. And as I've already stated, all forces are equal but can vary in strenth. You might think that the other forces are stronger, just as they are amplified by gravity, but try thinking about this for a while, eh? :canadian:

"There is God" cannot be proven nor disproven.
"There is no God" cannot be proven nor disproven.
So while you might think the latter is some how scientific, it is not - neither is the former. However, it is up to everyone's unique "sad belief" to believe either one of those statements. Open-minded people usually can accept the former, while it's vise-versa for the the opposite. It takes time to understand abstract concepts and such beliefs, so I'm not blaming anyone for not understanding. What I said was what I'm saying now. You should know the mental stages of puberty, and you should know that ideas can and will change over time, as the mind changes itself. So do you understand now, and can we get back on topic? :P

[Dfsg]

Finally, back on topic, lest you guys get me to get caught up in a mathematical debate. I'm glad to stay out of it.

First off. NO WIKIPEDIA! It is a terrible source, and even my ultra-ultra liberal English teacher hates it. It is quite possibly the worst source you can use to try to prove your side.

I'm a Bio Major in college, and I can tell you that Bio departments in colleges are vehemently opposed to Intelligent Design. I've seen so much of an emphasis put on Evolution, and they teach it like it happened- end of story, book is closed, period. I'm sure if anyone stated otherwise, they'd be kicked out of the program.

That being said, I'm a creationist. It seems that most scientists are evolutionists, but possibly they are the creations of their teachers, and creationist scientists are quiet to avoid criticism. I'd certainly never tell my teachers that I think they are full of it.

I've never understood, based on the Cell Theory (as stated before) that evolution can exist. At least, it can never exist as a concrete scientific law until the Cell Theory changes. Scientists can create complex amino acids in the lab, but no further.

There is a theory that life arose from a comet that struck earth, and life from an extraterrestrial source spawned life. Some say that life sprouted at thermal vents. Some say that life began at creation. Why don't we allow students the choice to find what is right to them? There is no way you can prove either side. Have faith in God, or have faith in a still shakey scientific theory. At least you'll find out when you die ;)

[Webbeardthepirate]

Back on topic

Science is the search for natural explinations to observed phenomina. DFsg, go ahead and ask your professors or TA's. They will probably nod and then elaborate because all professors love to elaborate. Since creationism, and ID are supernatural explanations they are excluded. If no natural explination is found, then it remains a puzzle to be solved. It is just to early to give up on the search and chalk up what we don't understand to supernatural causes.

You will find that evolution is the organizing principle of biology. Without it you will not be able to understand any of modern biology. You can go the catholic way and accept that because God is natural you will never find evidence of supernatural explination. Incedently, Pope John Paul the second made Evolution official church teaching, along with the Big Bang as official church teaching on the origin of the universe. Since the big bang involved alot of light and no testible cause, God could have been the motivating or prime factor. Science is silent here because there is no way to know what existed before the universe, as the before is not part of the universe and can never be observed. So if your Catholic, you get to join the twentyith century.

Some of the difficulty you may have Dfsg might well relate to evilution. Richard Dawkins considered that the reason evolution was so hard to discover in the first place is because it involves time scales outside of human perception. Our brains are evolved to deal with events that occure in secconds (catching a fly ball), minutes, days, seasons, years, and at most decades. We have to write down history because in general it occures on a scale that is not easily comprehended. Natural history uses scales that are so abstract as to be truely inconcievable. We don't live for eons so there is no reason for our brains to be equipt to percieve events on that scale. Dawkins suggests that evolution itself makes sure that our brains only develop capacities relavent to our survival, and percieving time over such a huge scale has absolutely no bennifit that would promote the ability through evolution.

Any ways, I personally recomend Dawkin's "Ancestor's Tale" if some one needs a book that is easy to understand. What I learned that I never suspected was that evolution is a physical property of itteration. All you have to do is favor one variation over another and any reiterating action will evolve, even without life being involved at all. As long as there is replication through multiple generations evolution will occure, even if the replicating thing is not alive.

Sounds weird, but consider that viruses are not alive. They don't grow, they don't consume food, and they can't reproduce UNLESS they invade a cell and insert their own DNA into the machinry of the cell. And yet, viruses evolve, developing new strains that are better at infecting cells, can infect different cells, and avoid imune systems and bacterial antiviral chemicals. So even lifeless things can evolve.

So evolution happens, from unliving things to elephants. Stars might even evolve. Our sun is a third generation star. It uses less fuel and lives longer then its parent star. Perhapse it will someday create a nebula that will serve as the incubator for a red dwarf star, billions of years from now. But stars are not alive and even the shortest lasting brightest stars burn 170,000 years. O type for those keeping score, versus our G type star the Sun. Our sun is the only star within 20 lightyears that is a single-star star system.

Kiros, gravity holds the planet together but electromagnatism is the force that keeps the earth from colapsing into a black hole. It is also the force that keeps your body from colapsing into a black hole. It is the force that makes solid objects solid. It also is the force that causes air preasure, so it holds up airplanes, and it makes it harder to run through water then through air. Electromagantism makes your bones rigid and your skin an effective barrior between inside and outside. It makes DNA a double helix, and governs all chemistry. All visable properties of matter are a result of electromagantism, ranging from color, to density, hardness, odor. Radioactivity is controled by the weak nuclear force, but it isn't visable or even detectable with any of your five senses, which all use the electromagnetic force to percieve the world. You have no sense organs for Gravity, the Strong Nuclear force or the Weak Nuclear force. These forces can't be observed directly by humans, much as eons of time can't be observed by humans.

So bringing the point back around, an intelligent designer, if such a beast had ever existed, left us unsable to percieve huge amounts of the universe. We have to percieve them by what they do to the parts we can percieve and make inferences about causes. The infernces employed in evolution are the same sort used to observe gravity. We can see what it does to those things we can see. Like Newton, who made the huge elap that the force that causes an apple to fall and the force that holds the moon in its orbit are one in the same is no more irrational then new species evolved from species with similar anatomy across generations. We simply are not equipt to observe these things directly so we observe them indirectly through taxonomy and now DNA sequencing. We admit going in that we can make mistakes, and we'll fix them, eventually. Thats why Science is a SEARCH for natural explinations. It is not a weakness or any given theory but a strength of the method that will eventually yeild the best results. But mistakes will be made, wrong ideas will take time to be disproved. But atleast there is a process in place. And that is what is supposed to be taught in classrooms. ID is a surrender and retreat to ignorance in vane hope of bringing certainty where there is none. But you have to choose, Knowledge or Certainty, to our collective disapointment we have discovered you can not have both.

Science can provide you with knowledge about the universe. It is knowledge that can be put to practical use for both the betterment and detrement of mankind. But you will never be certain that what you know is true, requiring you to learn all your life what new discoveries have been made and new ideas. Certainty feels nice, you don't need to think about the topic any more. But it cuts you off from the valuable knowledge the universe has yet to reveal to our inquiring minds. ID is certainty. It is thrown in the face of Science, attacking it where it is rhetorically vulnerable, its continually shifting body of knowledge. But when you atack that you attack science itself, and that is an act of evil and malice.


If I were a believing man I would call ID the devils work. It attacks science for being science, demanding certitude that only Faith can provide. While at the same time it denies God and Christ, obliterating the sacrafices of the savior and the covenant with the jews behind some nameless designer of indeterminant moral nature. So it hurts science and draws the believer away from the salvation of of Christ. "Whosoever beleives in me shall have life everlasting in the kingdom of heaven." or words to that effect. The Designer is not Christ, if you accept him you reject christ and condemn yourself to death everlasting in a place wher fires burn but do not consume. ID hurts everyone, and was first formulated by a lawyer who dodn't like Richard Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker." ID is evil no mater which side of the debate your on.

Denounce it and return to your faith and your science and let thios evil troubel us no more! Out ID OUT. The Power of Science Compells you! The Power of Christ Compells you also! Back to the pit of hell from which you were spawned foul perversion of all that is good. Damn you ID back to HELL!

[kolte]

Back on topic

it wasnt off topic silly :P

freedom of choice, they should teach all theories, regardless of weather you believe in one or the other, you should be compelled to learn both, and come to your own conclusion.

[Kiros]

As Andrew and Kolte stated, Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. Simple as that, eh? :canadian:

[Webbeardthepirate]

Intelligent design isn't a theory, it is surrender, it is giving up on the Search for natural explinations to observed phenomina. It doesn't even propose investigations into the nature of the proposed designer. It is a trick and a lie, and it is wrong to lie to students and then expect them to figure it out. Its like a magicians trick, they can lie in ways you didn't even know was communication. ID is the same thing, its a trick to cause confusion where there is already enough to go around.

[kolte]

ID is a theory, I think, to try and install a since of creation in the minds of people. Since they cant right teach creation, ID is the closest thing they have. So why not, let the kids deside if they believe in a god or not. Its there choice anyway and not anyone elses. If you disagree with it, then you don't have to believe it, but other people don't agree with evolution, but they sit threw the class anyway. FREEDOM OF CHOICE

[Kiros]

Wow, you think gravity isn't real, something is powering Earth's "electromagnets" to keep us from collapsing into its core, believe in a flying spaghetti monster, AND think Intelligent Design isn't a theory? :shock:

I'm more impressed than I was 30 minutes ago :P

[Webbeardthepirate]

I wrote that quantum theory predicts that the effects of gravity would be to small to ever overcome basic uncertainty. It does, clearly, so there is a problem with the standard model of partical physics. No one knows what the solution to the problem is, though the String Theorists do go on. String theory isn't a theory either, its more like a cult. I remain skeptical, while they keep looking for their ellusive Higgs Boson.

Electromagnatism is one of four forces of nature. There are only four. It is the force that governs electrons and all they do. Electrons, under the influence of this force can create magentic fiels, molecular bonds, and all the properties of matter that you are able to percieve. Electromagnetic radiation goes by a more common name called Light, pehapse you have ehard of it. The electromagnetic force also govense the behavior of photons. This is why objects are differnt colors. The electronsin different materials absorb some wavelenths and not others. When you touch an object, the negativly charged electrons in your hand are repelled by the negativly charged electrons in the object. They repel one another like the same poles of a magnet repel one another. The positivly charged protons are in the nucleus, far far away from one another, and so their attraction to the electrons in the object do not come into play, usually. You can actually rub the electrons off an object using friction, and then it will stick to other objects, this is why hair sticks to a statically charged baloon.

So it isn't electro magnets that keep the world from colapsing, its the electrons repelling one another, and the force is called the electromagnetic force. If not for this repulsion the earth would collapse unde the pull of its own gravity to the size of a pea. But this is not possible in our universe and not really worth considering. Well, in a neutron star the core has caused the electrons to be pressed against the protons and they merge into a neutron. But that involves many many times more mass then the earth or even our solar system contains.

ID is not a theory. It makes no testable claims. It is at best a critique of evolution and not even a very good one. If it were taught in class rooms, i think parents would compalin as it would become quickly seen as an attack on religeon. The experts in the field are more then capable of refuting each claim made By ID, and in most cases did so in the ninteenth century. I think most people wouldn't want their kids shown over and over that the claims of these crypto-creationsists have been debunked. Unless your a catholic youd come out of such a class convinced that their is indeed no god.

The Catholics have an ingenous work around. They say that God is natural, so it is impossible to find evidence of his supernatural interventions. All will stand up to the most rigorus tests as having a perfectly rational explination in accordance with natural law, because God is the Law. In this scenario all miricals wil have a rational explination if one looks hard enough, but they will be miricals all the same.

I think the catholics are still smarting from the whole galilleo thing, and they don't want to be caught on the wrong side of science again. Pope John Paul II was a very wise man.

Go to www.flyingspagettimonster.org if you want to know more about your noodly master. Even if you don't, its always good for a laugh. Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?

Kiros, I may not agree with you, but at least you READ the posts, and that is really really appreciated. Keep trying, I don't know if you'll find a winning argument or not, but you have got spirit.

[Kiros]

I never denied the existence of other forces of nature, however, I do want to reconcile the dispute that electromagnetism is keeping us from collapsing towards the inside of our bodies. Gravity has affects on particles that carry gravitons, right? Right. And every atom in our body has gravitons, and therefore gravity, correct? Correct. So, something that has gravity naturally pulls other objects or materials towards itself that, in which, have gravity themselves. This makes the particles tighter to each other, making an object, materials, atom, etc. more dense. The compression intensifies the "strength" and "endurance" of said material, and therefore, gives it support. This support, of course, is what gives structure, definition, and stability to any materials holding gravity. Since we have this support to every atom in our body, we do not collapse in to our selves, nor do we fall to the center of the earth. Electromagnetism might have something to do with the "linking" of atoms to make structured molecules, however, gravity is what is supporting those atoms in the first place.

Have we reached any agreement with that yet? :P

I believe Intelligent Design is, in fact, a theory. That states enough as is, eh? :canadian:

Erm, just for the record, I'd like to state I am Catholic!

And yes, I have never met someone quite as determined as you, so I take joy in reading your posts and I appreciate that you read mine as well. I'll keep trying to teach you (hopefully more as well) and encourage open-mindedness as long as I can - although my carpal tunnel won't like me for it :P

[Webbeardthepirate]

Well, particals do attract one another through gravity. But gravity is only an attractive force. There is no opposit to gravity, no anti-gravity. There must be a force that counters then the force of gravity or the atoms making up your body would just keep geting closer and closer together until they merged into a singularity. Since you haven't collapsed into a singularity, nor has the earth, so some force must be countering the pull of gravity between your individual atoms. The force that provides the counteraction to gravity is called the electromagnetic force. A spinning magnet creates an electric field, and an electric current creates a magnetic field. Since all electrons are negatively charged they repel one another. Since electrons make up the outside of atoms when gravity pulls the atoms together the electrons on the outside get close to one another, and push each other apart. In light molocules this force makes them naturally a gas at most temperatures you encounter. Heavier elements form crystals, whose shape is governed by the way the individual atoms repel one another, affecting how they lock together.

Now the problem with your image is that you are picturing atoms as hard little balls, like marbles in a jar, and that they rest against one another. But they are mostly empty space. Not only is this a real effect, its used everyday. The solid state transistor that your computer uses as you read this uses thsi property of mater to create electron gates that make a microprocessor possible. So denying that atoms are mostly empty space because you personally have never experienced the emptyness yourself is a little absured, your using the effect right now. Nor do you need to take my word for it. Its a practical principle that materials engineers in the semiconductor field use every day in their seach for faster and more effecient micro, and nanocircutry.

Now if elecromagnetism was the same strength as gravity, it would take a very small concentration of atoms to overcome the repulsive force turning hydrogen into neutrons, and the neutrons into strange matter, and the strange matter into cingularityies. Yes the strange matter step is speculative, it involves a type of quark that is created under extreem energy conditions that may exist at the core of some neutron stars. Since this doesn't happen, we can conclude that the electromagentic force is stronger then the gravitational force.

By looking at how many atoms it does take to put enough gravity in one place to create a black hole we can begin to calcualte the difference in strength. We can also do direct experements on the two forces allowing us to estimate how much matter a star needs to be or how much energy needs to be in a partical collision to create a singularity. Anyways, by performing these experements physisits have discovered that the electromagnetic force is vastly stronger. The differences are absurdly huge. A force is constant in all places at all times. You don't have more or less of it like matter or energy. Gravity, for instance, can not be used up. Objects higher up in a gravitational field have more potential energy, but the gravity itself stays the same, and no matter how many times you throw a ball in the air and then catch it, you will not use gravity up. Forces act on energy and matter, but are neither.

Sometimes people confuse energy and force. They are not the same thing at all. Conservation of energy means you expend energy by throwing the ball into the air, imbuing it with potential energy as it rises, converting its kinetic to potential. When all the kinetic energy is gone the ball begins turning its poetential energy back into kinetic energy and drops into you hand. It is the force of gravity that tells the ball to turn kinetic energy into potential energy, and then release it as kinetic energy. It is gravity that the outside force that changes its path in accordance with Newtons laws of motion. To see how gravity acts differently, making it a force and not an energy you throw the ball down instead of up. In this case the ball does not convert kinetic energy to potential energy, it adds the potential energy it gained when you lifted it up to the throw. Gravity won't make much difference as you're not that tall, compared to a mountain, and the amount of energy from throwing it down will be much greater then if you just dropped it. A scale could be used to measure it the difference in force, or you could just put your foot in the way, and it should hurt more when you theor ie then if you just drop it. Use a fairly small ball, F=ma after all.

Now the ball DOES bounce of the ground or your foot. It doesn't continue on to the center of the earth. A ball on the ground is still considered to have potential energy. The "center of gravity" is the center of the earth, so any thing that isn't there has a measurable amount of potential energy. If there were a hole that went down to the center of the earth you could roll a ball on the ground into the hole and it would plumet to the center of the earth. So even though the Earth gets in the way, the surface has potential energy.

This is best seen by ocean depths. A rock on top of the ocean has potential energy, the same as a rock on the beach. As the rock gets deeper in the ocean more preasure is applied to it by the surrounding water, preasure equal to the weight of all the water above it. This is because all the water in the ocean is trying to fall to the center of the earth, but the rest of the water and the ocean floor are getting in the way. The same actually applies to rock, the deeper you go the more preasure there is, equall to the weight of all the rock on top of it. The preasure never gets high enough to cause nuclear fusion like in a star. But it is alot of preasure. Still, as much preasure as it is, the atoms still manage to maintain their integrity. The iron core is still made of iron, not nuetrons or a singualrity. So even at the very center f the earth electromagentic forces are still stronger then gravity, and the atom at the very center of the earth is able to hold up the Whole Weight of the Entire Earth, with just a single atom's electromagenetic field.

Do you see that now? There must be an atom at the exact center and it can still hold up the entire earth, resting on a single atom. The thought bogles the mind. All the atoms in the earth are atracting one another with gravitons if you like, and trying to reach the center. Gravitons only attract so as you say they are all atracting one another. As I demonstrated, the only thing that keeps atoms apart are their electrons repulsing one another with the electromagnetic force, modern computer technology is based on this. So if a single atom's electons' electromagenetic force can overcome all the gravitons of all the atoms on the entire earth it must be VASTLY stronger. Its a multiple with a whole slew of zeroes actually, Quintillions of times stronger. So while a balck hole is impressive, it should be even more impressive what the matter had to go through to get that much mass close enough together to overcome the other three forces combined and create a singularity, a point of infinite gravity, and zero time. This happens because there is no reverse version of gravity.

You can't make a magenetic field infinitely strong because the other pole always counters it exactly. Because of this electromagantism doesn't make anything as impressive as a balck hole. Even a single electron has a north and south magnetic field. And even if you get alot of electrons in one place you can create a powerful force to draw positivly charged particals to them, but as soon as the particals get there, the force balances out, and the electrons are pushing each other apart so it takes alot of energy to hold them together. But gravity draws more stuff to it, and the more you have the more it draws so it is a positive feedback loop. Your being impressed by the addative nature of gravity. But as I said forces are constant, a kilogram of mass always has the same amount of gravity. An electron always has the same amount of charge. You can get lightning when a bunch of electrons end up where they shouldn't be, but once the lightning flashes the force is balanced.

You are Catholic eh? You might want to ask your priest about the church's position on ID. It is really hostile, going all the way up to the pope. Catholocism is the worlds only great hierarchical religeons, which means it is on message. And in matters of faith a Decon out ranks Senetors Kennedy and Kerry. The gaul of claiming they are good catholics while rejecting the church's positions on social issues isn't just hypocritical, its wrong. If you disagree with the Pope and his Cardinals you are not a good catholic. I'm not saying you have to be a good catholic, I don't care, that's between you, The Pope, and Jesus. I'm not Catholic, I just think their embracing evolution and the Big Bang is really cool. And if Science later shows either is wrong, science is a Search recall, then the Church will accept the new conclusions. Render onto Science, that which is science's, render onto God, that which is God's; if i might paraphrase a commonly quoted passage.

[MrSchrimpy]

Intelligent Design: A perfectly good philosophy, but definitely not a good scientific theory - it contains no testable predictions.

Evolution: An incomplete theory, which hasn't gone all the way in explaining every feature of the incomprehensible diversity of life on the planet. Yet it is testable, and its effects can be seen, especially with developments in genetic research methods. Thus it remains a scientific theory, and instead of introducing a PHILOSOPHY as an alternative, it should merely be pointed out that there is room for new discoveries in the field of biology. Science is based on one slightly less incomplete theory modifying or replacing its incomplete predecessors, not on producing 'truth' on demand.

Gravity, electromagnetism and the rest:

Gravity is the weakest known force, yet incredibly long ranged. It dominates over electromagnetism (EM) at large scales because of the overal neutral charge of material (equal numbers of protons and electrons in atoms mean the electric force is equalised). Yet at short ranges it is the EM forces that dominate: electron sharing between atoms holds molecules together, and repulsion keeps atoms a comfortable distance apart.

On a smaller scale still, it is a very short range but incredibly powerful force (called the strong nuclear force) that dominates, even overcoming the EM repulsion between protons. The interesting thing about this force is it becomes repulsive at even smaller ranges, keeping th nucleus of the atom from collapsing in on itself.

In summary: Gravity, if unchecked, will cause things to collapse indefinitely, which is why we get things like fusion in stars and the occurrence of black holes. Luckily the phenomena associated with the EM and strong nuclear forces are powerful enough under normal circumstances to counteract the gravitational attraction.

At least this is the way it appears to be:-)

[Webbeardthepirate]

Well, I purused Darwin on Trial today in my local bookstore. I wasn't impressed. Its the sort of self indulgent navel gazeing reasoning I have come to expect from lawyers. The emperically observable universe is a tautology because it is the universe that can only be observed emperically? Its not a tautology its an axiom. a=a isn't a tautology its a axiomatic, and reasoning based on the axiom that a thing is equal to itself is so rediculously obvious that it would take the twisted mind of a legal scholar to ever suppose it could be otherwise. He actually denounces science as being relient on observation.

Now I have some grip on the arguments, I can address some of them. OK, one of them. I got board as ai said and couldn't stand to read the rest. The one I did read was that there is no evidence of specization under natural selection. Well, there is a species of salamander called Ensatina that lives in the foothiils of the sanfernando valley. In the south there are two species that will not mate with one another. One dark and one striped, with some other incedental differences here and there. Well as you work your way around the valley starting in the south and going clockwise the solid salamanders get more and more color variation. Each one mating with its neighbors. They get more blotchy until you work your way all the way around the valley and low and behold Enastina eschscholtzii has become the striped Enastina klauberi. They will not mate with one another but they form a complete ring living side bey side competing for the same resources, the differences preseserved by the sex prefrences of the two species. Its called a ring species, in which the intermediate forms are still alive.

Its not a single freak occurance. The same thing occures with two species of arctic gull called the Herring Gull and the Black Beaked Gull. They do not interbreed because of differences in their fethering, but they form a continuum of intermediate forms all the way around the arctic. Sex prefrences can and do drive reproductive success. And they can shift nearly as easily as do fashions. So there, two examples of observable specization occuring in the modern world among living animals. Objection over ruled.

I then spent the rest of my time with four different physics textbooks trying to reconcile the units for the Gravitational constant G, with the units for the electromagnetic constant k. The units can't really be reconciled but the two constants do differ by at least fifteen orders of magnatude. That's a 1 followed by fifteen zeroes. The formula for finding the actual force is the same. the Force is equal two the mass of one object times the mass of the second object divided by the square of the distance between them multiplied by the Gravitational constant. The smae formula is used for electromagnetic force exept that force equals the charge of one object times the charge of the second object (and if the product is positive its a repulsing force and if the product is negative its an attracting force,) divided by the square of the distance between them multiplied by the Electomagnetic constant. If I could get charge and mass finagled into the same units, and supposedly it can be done but its too much for me, then a direct comaparison of the Force could be made. But charge isn't usually measured in its mass equivelency and vice versa because of the huge scale difference I mentioned, they invented totally different units that are more conveniant to work with for each force. You try and figure out how amps per second squared converts to kilogram meters per second squared. It should be possible but hey are sooo different.

[advent_child]

no one is trying to prove which religion is right here . i believe it would be a good opporotunity to educate on all the worlds major religions in a brief unit to promote tolerance.

[advent_child]

you cant prove a faith. that is why they call it faith. this goes for christianity, judaism (sp) islam athiesm and every other bloody theory or religion on the planet. if we evolved from apes why are their still apes around? what kept them from evolving? we share several genes with a dafodil, we didnt come from flowers. why is there so much suffering in the world if there is a god? why arent dinosaurs mentioned in the bible? so many questions can be raised from two simple words:
intelligent design

[Webbeardthepirate]

First Jack, a science class room is no place to be teaching about world religeons.

Second, why are there still apes? Its a common enough question. There are still apes because apes are not yet extinct. If you would like to imagine that you have portraits of all your ancestors lined up, there would be alot at first, but then number would get fewer and fewer until you reach the common ancestor of all living human being. A proverbial Adam or Eve. Now keep going and you will reeach a similar animal that is the ancestor of both all living apes and all living humans. Then if you look at this ancestor's off spring, if you could, there would be two children. Genetically they would be as identical as any two siblings. The only difference is that the descendants of one would evolve into humans, and the descendant of the other would evolve into the living apes. You have to picture it with your mind because there wern't any cameras to do the picturing for you, but you don't have to take it as an artical of faith either. Besides morphilogical similarities between apes and humans the DNA, which does little other then replicate and create RNA, shows the evidence of the common ancestory and the resulting divergence.

Apes are around because they are modern species, like Starfish, Whales, Aligators, Earth Worms, and Baccilus Bacterium are all modern species. Every species alive today has undergone just as much descent through reproduction as every other species. The Dafodil is the same as the ape, except you go back to the origins of all Eukareotes, which include all plants, all animals and yeasts. The last one having never evolved multicelular descendnats. And if such a thing were possible there would be a family portrait of a Eukareote that had two offspring. One would have a decendant that would capture a bluegreen algea called a chloroplast, and the other wouldn't. They'd probably discovered the sex before that while the Yeasts never did, unless some one knows something about yeasts I don't know about. We don't really have much in common with the gentics of a dafodil at all, just some basic stuff about cell construction like how to encode the protiens for a nucleus and how to take care of our captured mitochondria.

Many plants have more and bigger chromosomes then we do, but they have to really. Every compound a plant produces needs to be encoded in it's DNA, and most plants make many times many more compounds then we do, and we make alot. But a weed growing on the side of the road produces more different chemical compounds then Dow Chemical has in it's entire catalog of possible products. Being immobile plants are highly diverse chemical factories.

[advent_child]

... so human lineage did not diverge from gorillas eight million years ago and then from chimpanzees five million years ago. your saying our genetic structure developed from one species, which branched off into two : apes and humans??? apes came first. do you believe in paleoanthropology or multiregional origin? natural selection and survival of the fittest ensure that all weak races or species die out. The biggotry and stupidity of man has lead to the Holocaust, the murder of six million jews. that is roughly the entire population of Israel. Thousands of Blacks were killed by the Ku Klux Klan, which hated catholics. jews....well just about everybody who wasn't a protestant white. there is a certain debate about how one species can evolve into another and still exist, but life is tough. Certain bacteria can even live in the radioactive cooling waters of a nuclear reactor. I am suprised that anyone can be so misunderstanding of the catholic faith. Christianity is about nothing more than a relationship with spirituality. Whatever man doesen't like it can throw out the window. there are gay christians, there are those who drink and smoke, commit crimes, and dont go to church every sunday. biggotry is the absense of tolerance, and hate is the son of intolerance. the absence of tolerance has led to mass hatred, which has lead to the holocaust, the ku klux klan and all forms of genocide. do you say you hate tolerance because you dont understand how a person could live with faith and science? i believe if someone was intolerant toward athiests and they harrassed the athiest the athiest would be a supporter of tolerance. when you meet someone who dosent hate you for your religion you respect thiers. tell me more about your views on the catholic church.

[Webbeardthepirate]

I think I addressed the concept of specization in which the parent species does not vannish in the above post reguarding salamanders and arctic gulls.

I have chimps/bonobos branching from the line that would give rise to the hominids at 6 million years, but wasn't significant. What is important is that the common ancestor was neither a chimp nor a human, and the sibling offspring of the common ancestor were the same species as the common ancestor and the same species as each other. Neither was a chimp nor a human. One would count humans among its descendants, and the other would count chimps and bonobos among its descendants. At the time though the differences if there were any, would have been undetectable beyond the normal variations found among siblings. Modern humans would not put in our appearance on this earth for almost 6 million years.

I've got gorrilas at around 7 million years and all other apes around 18 million years ago. Since you insisted I haul out the book. At least, that's what the numbers were in 2004 when the book I have was published, they do move around a bit with each discovery. The timing of the plants' seporation is in dispute. Sometime in the Mesoproterozoic between 1 billion and 1.6 billion years ago, since you asked about dafodils.

I'm not a catholic. If you are catholic take it up with your priest, as I am neither a ctholic nor a priest. I'm just a fan. I am, I think it is clear, an Atheist. I have yet to meet a religeous person that thinks that is OK. In Arab Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran being an Atheist is illegal and carries a minimum punnishment of death. So you'll pardon me if I take Sharria law as an attack on my life, being that Sharria Law is an Attack On My Life.

I think religeous claims should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as all other claims, be they about remote viewing, UFO's, or evolution by natural selection. It wouldn't be Just to insist that one type of claim needed supporting evidence while another didn't.

[advent_child]

so why dont you just say it....christians are fools? what is your specific belief? can you live along side with a christian? do you hate all of us? do you hate me because i am catholic? i dont hold anything against you for your belief, and in return i expect you not to hold anything against me for mine. please, let your response to this not be longer than I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. one thing you cant argue upon is this....welsh corgis rule
http://www.obeythepurebreed.com/images/welsh_corgi_usa.gif

[kolte]

so why dont you just say it....christians are fools? what is your specific belief? can you live along side with a christian? do you hate all of us? do you hate me because i am catholic? i dont hold anything against you for your belief, and in return i expect you not to hold anything against me for mine. please, let your response to this not be longer than I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. one thing you cant argue upon is this....welsh corgis rule
http://www.obeythepurebreed.com/images/welsh_corgi_usa.gif

Good lord, has he yet to insult your religious belief. He has respected you, and you should, in turn, respect him. I think we should be able to debate without TRYING to instigate an argument over respect. You both win, because nobody can tell you not to believe in what you do and everyone is right because we cant prove there wrong. However, in my attempt to convert as many christians as I can to think for themselves and question there lives, I will try my hardest to say that christianity is rubbish by dis crediting the bible. :P Now, the bible, as any well educated christian knows, was not allways here, was not allways one book. The bible was put together by the church. The books were chosen from a wide aray of books that could have been in the bible. Adam And Eve, by moses, is actually an entire book itself, very long, boring, and full of hubub. Why wasnt it included in the bible, moses wrote it and everything. The book if Enoch, the Book of Mary, books by this guy and that guy, all books written about the christian and jewish god around the same time as all the other books were written. All pointing out differnt sins, different commandments, different dos and donts. The Book of Mary Mag. was cast out, because it was written by a woman no doubt, enoch, why not, hes not important, he was only the first man to walk with god, and moses, what did he contribute to the bible eh? So why include all of his work. Why not? Because they took bits out of each book to make the bible. that means that there are whole loads of informatioin written by the bibles authors that is missing. Loads about the life of Jesus, written by his diciples, loads of moses's work, loads of books written by people with just as much credit. And it was because they Church didnt agree with what they said in those parts. They crafted there religion by a book they made, these arent the words of god, these arent the words of Jesus. The Church can say all it wants, but christianity is based on the bible, and the bible is rubbish. Judaism, Muslim, Christainty, all formed around the same beliefs. Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, who cares who you believe in, they all preached for the same god, so how are you going to discredit what one said, if they all calimed to be teaching the word of the same god. If this is true, and they all were teaching from the same god, that means one of them is wrong, what makes you think jesus was the one that was right. you say it makes you feel good, you can feel it in your soul that its right, but then muslims say the same things, they know because they can feel in there soul that its right, mormons know the book of mormon is right, because they feel it in there soul, Hindu, buddhism there all know they are right, they know it.

SOOOOOOO what in the hell am I getting at, read it all, learn it all, find out about Jesus, The Buddah, Muhammad, Moses, David, Paul, Mary, Matthew, Lord Ganisha. Take in all of there wisdom, and come up with your own idea. If you think they were all on crack and that we evolved from apes, then huzzah, good for you, glad you decided on something that makes you comperable. If you think Jesus died and rose again to save you of your sins, huzzah, praise the lord you are save, if you think Buddha walked in the mountians teaching us the road to happiness, huzzah its great that you have found the light, if you think that an alien landed and made us as an experiment.......I should slap you hahahaha, but no really, live, learn respect, and enjoy life, and dont be hostle to people who don't believe what you do. Do I think was jesus said was moral, and right, yes, I don't care if he was god, the son of god or a prophet. Do I think what muhammad say was good ar moral, yeah, buddha you bet ya, at least I know what I think, do you even know what you think?

[Kiros]

Mmm... you know, I've been putting off this topic for at least a week now because I wanted my carpal tunnel to feel just a little bit better, but I can't stand where this topic has gone - I'll just sum up everything that I have to say in a somewhat short post...

I love the fact that electromagnetic radiation is known as light and that, of course, we'd all fall in to the center of the Earth if it weren't for the awesome force of light. Oh, and we all know that the force of light is much more powerful than gravity, right? I mean, if light shot past a black hole, the light would keep going, right? :lol: And if that's not enough to keep you smiling, let's have another review. How could there possibly be different levels of force - that goes against all common sense right?! :lol: So gravity, no matter what is less powerful than electromagnetism. Again, if an electromagnet and a black hole fought, we all know who would win by webbeard's post (the electomagnet, right!) Now let's see, the classroom is also a place where we shouldn't learn all that we can, is it? I mean, why on Earth would a classroom be for learning something?

Now, hopefully that will keep everyone's day full of laughs :)

[Webbeardthepirate]

Jack, I like Catholics. I think Catholocism is neat. It is the only major faith that I am aware of that accepts evolution by natural selection as being part of the universe God created. So no, I don't think all Christians are fools. I know some baptists who don't think Catholics are Christians however.

As for tollerance, your faith condemns me to Hell. I don't call that tollerant. I'm not worried about it, having no belief in Hell, but the sentiment is not a nice one. So don't go telling me your full of tollerance and understanding. If you said you were a lapsed catholic that might hold more weight. Regardless of my supposed damnation, I still consider the Catholic Church one of the greatest forces for good on planet earth. I am not blinded by my own Atheism so that I can not see that the world would be a much sorrier place without the Church in it. The emphasis on good works, which comes form John 14:12 among other places, has done great and wonderful things.

Kiros. I don't know what more I can say. The Electromaganetic constant is measurably 16 orders of maganatude stronger then the gravitational constant. This was arrived at by experement, very clever experements. The results of which would open the way to guiding probes to Mars, and creating the intigrated circutes that make such probes useful. Gavity is 1,000,000,000,000,000 times weaker than Electromagantism. That means you need to have that much more mass then electric charge to overcome the electric charge. Blackholes are places where that occures, that's all. The universe is very big and has many wonders in it, blackholes are one of them. Evolution is another.

[Kiros]

No, evolution isn't a wonder. It's a fairy-tale to provide "comfort" to those who aren't open-minded enough to believe something could have actually created them and/or life itself. Also, there is no way to measure gravity and electromagnetism other than by the force they apply. Measuring the mass of the object the force is coming from is only measuring the object's mass, and not the magnitude that the force from which is being applied.

As for Catholicism, it's actually the only truly Christian religion (no offense to anyone). All other "Christian" religions are actually Protestant - which is selected beliefs of Catholicism and a few different ones. As being Protestant is still following most of the truths and some further truths of the book, it's completely accepted as Christian - as every Protestant is a Christian. I can't believe I learned that in American History though :? Eh, in other words, these Baptists who believe Catholics aren't Christians are completely wrong - maybe they are not Christians to begin with. Not my place to judge that though.

[advent_child]

ummm electromagnetism is more powerful than gravity. but the number of positivley charged particles is equal to the number of negatively charged particles, so gravity dominates the universe. in a black hole,the escape velocity of the gravitational field past the event horizon exceeds the speed of light. i dont know what the deal is with light being the force that keeps us from falling into the earth but i havent yet read that... take this experiment as an example : get a small magnet, now get an equally sized peice of iron. the magnet pics up the iron, overcoming all the force of gravity. if gravity was the absolut strongest of the four fundemental forces of nature (the others being strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic) we really wouldnt be able to lift ourselves off of earth.
from what i understand the collective huge mass of the earth produces a field of gravity strong enough to keep us from falling off the earth...there would have to be a ridiculously strong force to pull us into the center of the earth. everyone's writing style seems to be "bleh" but that is prolly cause of my congestion and sinus headache. wouldnt this be a good topic for a new thread? (gravity and black holes, not my nose)



EDIT: gravity can be stronger than electromagnetism (ex black holes) and electromagnetism can be stronger than gravity

[kolte]

No, evolution isn't a wonder. It's a fairy-tale to provide "comfort" to those who aren't open-minded enough to believe something could have actually created them and/or life itself. Also, there is no way to measure gravity and electromagnetism other than by the force they apply. Measuring the mass of the object the force is coming from is only measuring the object's mass, and not the magnitude that the force from which is being applied.

As for Catholicism, it's actually the only truly Christian religion (no offense to anyone). All other "Christian" religions are actually Protestant - which is selected beliefs of Catholicism and a few different ones. As being Protestant is still following most of the truths and some further truths of the book, it's completely accepted as Christian - as every Protestant is a Christian. I can't believe I learned that in American History though :? Eh, in other words, these Baptists who believe Catholics aren't Christians are completely wrong - maybe they are not Christians to begin with. Not my place to judge that though.

ok before you all dig too deep into your asses, I will clear up any misunderstanding.

1.) catholicism and Protestant fall under two different denomonations of christianity. Christianity is defined as: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior. therefor if you believe Jesus was the son of god and the messiah to man, you are a christian.

2.) and, working of the sentence kiros stated No, evolution isn't a wonder. It's a fairy-tale to provide "comfort" to those who aren't open-minded enough thats actually backwards, or hell, goes both ways. Religion is a fairytale to provide comfort to those who don't want to accept evolution. AND I MUST ADD......Open Mindedness is defined as having respect to new ideas and or opionions of others. and you saying that evolution is a fairytale etc, is showing narrow mindedness, in addition, you calling people who believe in evolution narrow minded, you are automaticly crowned, as a hypocrite. sorry.....but its true.

[Kiros]

Actually, religion isn't any fairy-tale, it's belief. You must be open-minded to believe something so radical, right? And I'm not calling anyone narrow-minded. I'm saying religious people are open-minded just for the fact that they believe in that religion. And no, I'm afraid you are slightly wrong. I have respect for any point of view, but only as much respect as my views are given in return. So I'm sorry but I'm, in fact, not a hypocrite.

Oh, and one more note, Kolte, I will definitely believe you on your first statement, as I haven't researched it and heard it from my history teacher, plus, it's kind of true :P

[kolte]

And I'm not calling anyone narrow-minded.
It's a fairy-tale to provide "comfort" to those who aren't open-minded

to me, thats calling it narrow minded.....but perhaps....you just misworded your statement.

[advent_child]

No, evolution isn't a wonder. It's a fairy-tale to provide "comfort" to those who aren't open-minded enough to believe something could have actually created them and/or life itself. Also, there is no way to measure gravity and electromagnetism other than by the force they apply. Measuring the mass of the object the force is coming from is only measuring the object's mass, and not the magnitude that the force from which is being applied.

As for Catholicism, it's actually the only truly Christian religion (no offense to anyone). All other "Christian" religions are actually Protestant - which is selected beliefs of Catholicism and a few different ones. As being Protestant is still following most of the truths and some further truths of the book, it's completely accepted as Christian - as every Protestant is a Christian. I can't believe I learned that in American History though :? Eh, in other words, these Baptists who believe Catholics aren't Christians are completely wrong - maybe they are not Christians to begin with. Not my place to judge that though.


that is the full post, including the chunk you cut off to meet your argument. dont take anything out of context just to make someone look bad. open-mindedness implies respect of everything, all religions and all beliefs- basically everything. there are diffrent levels of open mindedness it is not a yes or no. and i dont think your gonna go to hell web beard, one text of the bible that was cut out stated that all would be forgiven of all sins and saved from the fires of hell, or you might just go to the land filled with little pixies that eat nothing but spaghetti and like to play magic and dungeons and dragons, and have byoc lan parties. they would like a society where no man can rent a mule on saturday night, drive to capitol hill and rob the parish bank in the biggest car in the county.

[Kiros]

And as child pointed out, open-mindedness is not just a "yes or no" thing. Some are more open-minded than others. Also, when I said that they weren't open-minded enough I wasn't in any instance saying anyone was narrow-minded - they just aren't as open-minded as others.

[kolte]

And as child pointed out, open-mindedness is not just a "yes or no" thing. Some are more open-minded than others. Also, when I said that they weren't open-minded enough I wasn't in any instance saying anyone was narrow-minded - they just aren't as open-minded as others.

Well now Kiros though I respect your argument, I'm going to have to point out the error of your ways to teach you a small lesson. You implying that people who believe in evolution are not "open-minded enough" is judgmental. Weather or not you realized it. I for one, have studied the Christian faith quite a bit, as well as the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, New Age, Hindu, and other Eastern Philosophies, yet I am a supporter of Evolution and an opinionated speaker against organized religion, especially Christianity. Now I am very open to new Ideas. And I listen to peoples debates and arguments with a respectful ear and Let them finish before I argue my point, and in turn, I expect people to really think about what I have to say. It is true that many people who aren’t religious, refuse to hear what the religious community has to say. This is very true. But its also more true, that the majority of Atheist's were Christian or some other form of organized religion. If they have converted, it is because they no longer believe in God. But you can assure yourself of the probability that they had believed in God at one point in time. You might not be able to say the same thing. Have you ever been on there side? If not, then perhaps you are less open-minded about this then they, since they themselves have been on your side and know where your coming from.

I feel like I need to send everyone a copy of “the little brown book of philosophy” then everyone would know my opinions and I wouldn’t have to say anything.

[advent_child]

well you respect his argument but call mine lazy, indigent and fool-minded.

[kolte]

I didnt call your argument lazy indigent and fool-minded, I simply pointed out that simple statments don't work your brain and really even support your argument.

[Kiros]

Kolte, as a matter of fact, stating that someone isn't open-minded enough is actually judging someone. So yes, but you have to realize something... Everything we do or say is probably a judgement: yes or no, right or wrong, good or bad, moral or not. And Kolte, I have been on the other side before - one time I lost faith completely. I have grown from that though and have become a new person. I don't fight with my brother (or other family and friends) anymore, I have plenty of friends, and my view of the world is far different than it used to be. So basically, I was the exact opposite than what you said. I was born into Catholicism, didn't like it, and at the age of 10 turned away from it, along with any form of Christianity. From that time until a couple years later was a real hard time. But I had a revelation and I surrendered it all to God and I have never been better. I never want to go back because I know just how bad it was. So yes, I have been there like others have, so I am very open-minded on this subject.

[kolte]

Kolte, as a matter of fact, stating that someone isn't open-minded enough is actually judging someone. So yes, but you have to realize something... Everything we do or say is probably a judgement: yes or no, right or wrong, good or bad, moral or not. And Kolte, I have been on the other side before - one time I lost faith completely. I have grown from that though and have become a new person. I don't fight with my brother (or other family and friends) anymore, I have plenty of friends, and my view of the world is far different than it used to be. So basically, I was the exact opposite than what you said. I was born into Catholicism, didn't like it, and at the age of 10 turned away from it, along with any form of Christianity. From that time until a couple years later was a real hard time. But I had a revelation and I surrendered it all to God and I have never been better. I never want to go back because I know just how bad it was. So yes, I have been there like others have, so I am very open-minded on this subject.

Your right, and you know what, I'm glad you have found something that makes you happy. Thats all that really matters, is that the person doing it is happy. Had you grown up without deciding for yourself what to do, I would argue differently, however, since you made this decision after seeing both ends of the story, then all I ask is to constantly question what people say, because the only thing that is truly right, is what you believe. I I really thought there was a god, i would try to help as many people see the light as possible, but since I follow this different path, I see it as my duty to help these trapped individuals who have not made there own choices, to question there lives, and find there own path. As you know, I support the teaching of ID in schools. Not because I believe it, but because people have the right and the responsibility to view both ends of the story and reach a comprimise. Don't you agree?

[advent_child]

Kolte, as a matter of fact, stating that someone isn't open-minded enough is actually judging someone. So yes, but you have to realize something... Everything we do or say is probably a judgement: yes or no, right or wrong, good or bad, moral or not. And Kolte, I have been on the other side before - one time I lost faith completely. I have grown from that though and have become a new person. I don't fight with my brother (or other family and friends) anymore, I have plenty of friends, and my view of the world is far different than it used to be. So basically, I was the exact opposite than what you said. I was born into Catholicism, didn't like it, and at the age of 10 turned away from it, along with any form of Christianity. From that time until a couple years later was a real hard time. But I had a revelation and I surrendered it all to God and I have never been better. I never want to go back because I know just how bad it was. So yes, I have been there like others have, so I am very open-minded on this subject.


Word to ya mama!!

[kolte]

Kolte, as a matter of fact, stating that someone isn't open-minded enough is actually judging someone. So yes, but you have to realize something... Everything we do or say is probably a judgement: yes or no, right or wrong, good or bad, moral or not. And Kolte, I have been on the other side before - one time I lost faith completely. I have grown from that though and have become a new person. I don't fight with my brother (or other family and friends) anymore, I have plenty of friends, and my view of the world is far different than it used to be. So basically, I was the exact opposite than what you said. I was born into Catholicism, didn't like it, and at the age of 10 turned away from it, along with any form of Christianity. From that time until a couple years later was a real hard time. But I had a revelation and I surrendered it all to God and I have never been better. I never want to go back because I know just how bad it was. So yes, I have been there like others have, so I am very open-minded on this subject.


Word to ya mama!!

If you would please, try not to make shuch short posts. I really don't like it. Thankyou!

[Kiros]

I'll try to put more into my posts :P :P

Though Kolte, you do realize it's completely unnecessary to quote someone that posted right before you. It kind of just gets in the way. Unless the quote is from much earlier in the thread or you need a specific sentence to quote, please don't use quotes that often. Thanks! :spike:

[kolte]

Oi :P I like to quote, just so nobody gets confused when i post, and I will continue to do so because I love defying direct orders MUAHAHAHAHA, :twisted: :twisted: fine I'll do it less.....or will I :?:

[Melchi0r]

I think the theory of intelligent design should be taken less seriously by atheists and the religious alike.

I think this would be a good topic for a debate club in school, because it's a subject that all people have their own opinion on. But we are going to have people saying that it isn't right to put it in school.

For instance, in eighth grade we had world history class and we started the year with prehistory, and this one girl admitted behind the teacher's back that she had a problem doing homework about early humans because she was a devout Christian who believed in The Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve, and the whole first part of the book of Genesis.