PDA

View Full Version : [WAR] Season IV : Debate Section


~* Esper *~
06-04-2005, 06:04 PM
This is the thread only for those participating in the current Season IV WAR !

The RULES :
1. When posting, your post must have a clear and concise point or view.
2. State your team name for your first post.
3. Most oftenly, quality is preffered over quantity, so remember that I'll be able to catch you if you are rambling on and on.
4. Each post must not be any less than a decent sized paragraph.
5. Proper grammar is a must, and slight typos will be tolerated, don't fret.
6. All of these discussions will be very mature and proper. You can joke every once and a while to lighten the mood, but remember, this isn't the Humor section ...

There is two points up for grabs, one for both first and second place.

Week 1 ~ Micheal Jackson
First Place ~ Marill
Second Place ~ Neo Pikachu

Week 2 ~ Wrestling - Fake or Real ?
First Place ~ Marill
Second Place ~ Captain Charisma

Week 3 ~ Evolution v. Creation - Which is more logical ?
First Place ~ Neo Pikachu
First Place ~ SK

Week 4 ~ Homosexuality: Choice and Lifestyle or Predetermined and Unavoidable
First Place ~
Second Place ~

~* Esper *~
06-04-2005, 06:10 PM
Week 1 : Saturday June 4, 2005 - Saturday June 11, 2005 at 2:00 pm
WEEK 1 ~ Micheal Jackson

Right now, the jury has gone into deliberation on the charges of child molestation against Micheal Jackson. I wanted to do this one first because the trial may be over before next week, you never know ...

Discussion Possibilities:
1. His weird behavior towards children
2. His trial and it's fairness to the "Pop King"
3. His horrible chilhood and it's affects on him
4. Possible influence on the legal and court system
5. Previous allegations against him
6. And anything else that you can think of

Your discussions have to be entirely valid, and don't base what you say off of rumors or anything of the sort. If you are younger and you aren't sure about the entire situation, don't fret, there will be more lighter topics in upcoming weeks.

START !!!

Lord Celebi
06-05-2005, 04:47 AM
C.i.B.ORG

Okay, my take on this...

Michael Jackson just won't grow up. He's an overgrown baby, pretty much. He knows he has grown up, but doesn't want to think about it, so he surrounds himself with boys. He does refer to himself as 'Peter Pan,' further supporting he doesn't want to grow up. To top that all off, he's admitted he's slept in the same bed with young boys (How can you sleep in the same room with someone so... Creepy?).

I say he's guilty.

Alakazam
06-06-2005, 07:55 PM
Team Soul : Spirit Warriors

Honestly, I haven't been following the Michael Jackson trial much at all, mostly because I find all of the media hype surrounding it irritating. However, I do myself have an opinion on the issue.

First of all, I don't possess a preconcieved notion that he either is or isn't guilty, although, based on the information that I've recieved thus far, I'm leaning towards the latter. Normally, there isn't any motive for someone to falsely accuse someone of sexual molestation, but with Jackson being the famous and wealthy individual that he is, the circumstances are entirely different. "Unsual" sums it up pretty well...then again, that also sums up Michael Jackson himself. We all know that he's a strange person, and so some of the logic that we use with "normal" people (I'll clarify that if need be) may not make sense when applied to Jackson. He's had innumerable cosmetic operations, and he says that he "needs to be with children".

What we know he has done does make one cringe, and leads most people to believe that he's guilty: he invites children to come to his Neverland ranch, and has on occasion spent the night with little boys in his bed. Now, of course, in most situations, many assumptions are made (assumptions that are not easily outweighed), including that he molested the boys, and that he is a paedophile. Under most circumstances, I too would make such assumptions...but Michael Jackson is, I believe, too strange for such assumptions to have any level of accuracy in the context of this case.

I just hope that Jackson is given the due process that is offered to all of Americans, that we find out the truth, and that he is punished accordingly.

Kenny_C.002
06-07-2005, 04:19 AM
Team Soul

I think that Michael Jackson may or may not be guilty, as Brain is, but Ithinkthat even with the media hype, he is more likely to be guilty than not under these circumstances. He is strange in it that he dyed himself white just because he had a fairly common skin defect, and thus this alone does leave a connotation that he would likely do something drastic.

Truth be told that he did invite the boys to his ranch and he did state that he "needs children". We do not know whether he really does sleep with little boys and certainly we do not know whether sexual harassment took place or not. Since we know he is likely to take things further and do something drastic, I believe he is more guilty than not, even if his values does not conflict with this.

I would like to point out that the media's "hype" on this situation does blur the lines more than it should have been, thus I feel that nobody can actually definitively say "yes" or "no", but I sure lean on yes.

btw, I'm almost certain the whole "Peter Pan" thing was just media hype, but I'd like to be proven right or wrong.

Matthew
06-07-2005, 07:51 AM
Team CiBORG

I want to lean towards Jackson being guilty, but that is just from the information I have recieved at this point in time.

Like Brian, I have not been following this case, and a majority of the information I have recieved has been from the news, which in all due respect, is a biased media, depending on the station. I have collected some data from reading the few posts I have read in this thread, which furthur pushes me towards the verdict of guilty. I hope to dwell deeper into this case and come out with some stronger evidence.

Jackson grew up performing most of his childhood, so it would be just to claim that he is anything but normal. Most child hood stars are found guilty of some violation of a law, and I believe so due to their mind set and how they think they are above the law. They grew up with money and thinking that they are better than everyone else, along with the law. However, child molestation goes too far. How can one who grew up with an awkward child hood push one so upon another child? How is that right? It isn't.

How can an adult even consider spending time with young children... it's disturbing. Even if Jackson is guilty, it is just as much the parent's fault for allowing their children to go spend time with him in the first place. Considering one's self to be Peter Pan is furthur evidence that Jackson has some mental issues. How can a fully grown man be in such a mind-set that he thinks he is a boy.

Brian and Kenny are both right in saying that the media has blown this case out of hand by providing biased coverage. Jackson deserves a fair trial and with the media covering it and he being a celebrity, it is rather difficult to have one. Jackson should consider pleaing insanity, because at this point, it looks like he is going to be found guilty, though in an unfair trial due to the media's persistence to cover it.

I still stand by my original verdict. He is guilty of child molestation... if not, of being insane :rolleyes:. How can we let such a loony have access to the children of today? How can we let such a man degrade our society by penetrating the innocence of today's young children. We shouldn't. Bringing forth a guilty verdict would be one smart decision, because frankly, I don't feel comfortable with Jackson being found innocent, because surely, he is not.

I have nothing against Jackson, like the giant from Longest Yard says: "I like little Micheal ^_^" I loved Thriller and such, but lately, Jackson has been losing it.

Gah... no more XD It's 1am in the morning and I'm debating... I must be nuts... :rolleyes:

Exon Auxus
06-07-2005, 02:06 PM
Team: The Brotherhood of Steel

Micheal Jackson, he went through many problems and life changes. His skin color was changed, he went through man surgeries, and was sued in court so many times. All of these are disadvantages as to Micheal Jackson's case. Now the question asks, did he or did he not molest a child?

Now here are some reasons why he may have molested a child. Micheal Jackson had a rough childhood himself and is probably angry about it. Therefore, he may have taken it out on a poor defenseless child. Also, I've never known Micheal Jackson to be a happy person. As a child he was always practicing and practicing, and he went through too many life changes. That may be another reason why he ma have molested a child.

Now here is a reason why he may not have molested a child. Why would Micheal Jackson take the time to molest a child? He's much too busy with court trials and whatnot. Why take the time to molest a child when you have tons of other things to do? He's been known as someone who just migt take the initiative to do such a horrible thing. Which gives us reason to either stand up for him, or stand against him.

If I had the time to be a court judge. My original verdict, would be guilty. And subject to alll charges against him. I don't care if he's the ''pop star''. This persecutor will most likely have hard evidence against Micheal. And the fact that he has been sued and has been in so many court trials before is a great disadvantage to him. And yet, it would be my reason if he were to pay those fines and be sent to prison.

Marth
06-07-2005, 03:16 PM
Team Soul

Michael Jackson has serial issues. Remember the balcony event? And what about his kids with veils on their faces? I doubt that anyone normal would do that in their sane judgment, so I can affirm he has mental problems, but I can't afirm they were derivated from the "busy childhood" he had. There are other options, for example, a genetic defect, or maybe all the money, fame and power he gained through being a pop-star made him believe he was over law. I agree with Kronos and Brian when they say the media has... distorced the true information and that Jackson is having an unfair trial. Recently, I read in the news a "story" about him and a 14 year old kid when they slept in his bed.



Micheal Jackson, he went through many problems and life changes. His skin color was changed, he went through man surgeries, and was sued in court so many times. All of these are disadvantages as to Micheal Jackson's case. Now the question asks, did he or did he not molest a child?

I wouldn't consider all these as "problems" for Michael Jakson. HE wanted to get his skin changed in the first place. HE and by his own will went through many surgeries. He got sued in court because HE did stuff to get sued.



Now here are some reasons why he may have molested a child. Micheal Jackson had a rough childhood himself and is probably angry about it. Therefore, he may have taken it out on a poor defenseless child. Also, I've never known Micheal Jackson to be a happy person. As a child he was always practicing and practicing, and he went through too many life changes. That may be another reason why he ma have molested a child.

You're saying that he's expressing his lack of childhood molesting a child, who was not poor or defenseless (he sued him lol). How can you tell he was not a happy person? Even if a child keeps practicing and practicing, if he likes to do it, there's no reason not to be happy about it. It's like workaholics. They love their jobs and they are happy if the work, and unhappy if they don't. There are other ways to "express his lack of childhood" other than molesting a child. For example, I usually go to amusement parks and ride stuff that "should be for kids", because I think I can remember my own childhood doing that. Molesting a kid is not the only option. I agree with Kronos: Why did their parents didn't do anything?


Why would Micheal Jackson take the time to molest a child? He's much too busy with court trials and whatnot.
I think he was sued BECAUSE he was accused of molesting a child. That's a...weird affirmation.

The fact that he is a pop star shouldn't affect in the veredict. However, this status has given him a lot of money, which he used to make an "extrajuditial" (is that how it's said?) or "outside of the court" arrangement with the previous suer. In my opinion, if he had not molested the child in the first time, he would have nothing to hide and would have walked out of court unguilty. If he made an arrangement with the family of the kid, it's because he did molest him.

We haven't considered the option that the kid is just looking for easy money, and that he's accusing Jackson for squeezing his wallet. But, given the background of Jackson and his actions over the past years, I think the Kid is saying the truth.
My veredict would be guilty.

Neo Emolga
06-07-2005, 05:04 PM
Brotherhood of Steel

What needs to be considered here is Michael Jackson’s behavior. From the creation of his bizarre so called “Neverland Ranch” to his actions of sleeping with children, this is obviously not normal for someone his age. Take a look at his brothers, and you’ll see they’re perfectly normal when compared to him. If there’s anything that led to this kind of massive change in his life, it’s obviously not his family. However, even if Michael Jackson lived a lonely childhood and it’s one of the reasons for his actions, that still doesn’t make it right.

Far more often than not, the defense usually questions the competency of the victims and witnesses. However, the truth remains that most people are usually competent enough to know what is going on around them. And sexual harassment can take many forms. Again, if Michael Jackson did so much as sleep with Gavin Arviso, then there’s something wrong with his mindset, even though there are plenty of other cases that point to that. Again, I think the competency of Michael Jackson himself needs to be questioned, considering he’s a grown man sleeping with children, and shows obvious signs of sporadic thinking if he’s willing to go to extremes for these children. And no, it can’t be for kindness either, because there’s no doubt in my mind that if making children happy was really was the intention, he would do it on a much wider scale, and not limit it to only take place on his ranch. Obviously there’s something driving him to do it only on his property. And considering the fact that he went as far as to drug Gavin Arviso with alcohol and exposing him to porn, there’s obviously some sick intention behind that.

In any case, I would find Michael Jackson guilty. Considering how many cases of sexual harassment exist with far less severe signs than this, the answer is quite obvious.

"If you told me right now that 'Michael, you can never see another child,' I would kill myself, I swear to you ... I swear, because I [would] have nothing else to live for," Jackson said.

Please tell me if you find that at all normal…

Finglonger
06-07-2005, 11:18 PM
hmm wel I think you all have the fact tha Michael jacksons behavior is unconventional at best so I'll try to avoid that.

I think the main issue with michael Jackson is whether or not he will get a fair trial, even if we don't like him, even if we are positive that he is guilty, he is still entitled to a fair, and unbiased trial. At this point it seems unlikely that jackson will ever get a fair trial. Even before the case began people were subjected to defamatory comments and news stories concerning Jackson. The documentary certainly made people suspicious, as did the news stories concerning his odd and maladpartive behavior. Lets face it, the jury pool was at best mildly saturated, people had preconceived notions about Jackson's alleged molestation, and a fair trial which even he deserves seems at best unlikely.

Now, I think it is possible and even likely that Jackson commited the crimes he is accused of, but possibilities and likelihoods don't convict a man. Thats all for now...

~* Esper *~
06-08-2005, 03:30 AM
Um, Finglonger, please state the WAR team you're on ...

Alakazam
06-09-2005, 07:09 PM
It seems like everyone in this thread has argued (myself included, at the outset) that Michael Jackson is a strange person...but it appears that we're all in agreement on that point. You all seem to be trying to prove to us that he's weird, which is completely unnecessary.

However, Silver Skarmory, I don't see why the fact that Michael Jackson is odd and that he had a traumatic childhood proves his guilt.

Why take the time to molest a child when you have tons of other things to do?

Er...doesn't that hurt your position of his guilt? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

This persecutor will most likely have hard evidence against Micheal.

...and because, in your opinion, there will "most likely" be hard evidence of his guilt, you say he's guilty? What makes you think that such evidence exists?

All you've done is given us a series of statements and then given us your conclusion, but you've done nothing to explain why. Would you care to expand your argument?

Neo Emolga
06-09-2005, 07:59 PM
However, Silver Skarmory, I don't see why the fact that Michael Jackson is odd and that he had a traumatic childhood proves his guilt.

Not directly, but the fact that it existed in his past life could be one of the attributing factors of his behavior today. Children who are abused by their parents will likely abuse their own children. Parents who smoke will likely have children who smoke as well. Children look up to their parents as the all knowing source of standard of what is acceptable and what is not. To children, if abuse among adults is acceptable, they will grow up to believe that there's nothing worth with their involvement with it.

...and because, in your opinion, there will "most likely" be hard evidence of his guilt, you say he's guilty? What makes you think that such evidence exists?

Take for example the pornographic magazines that Michael allowed Gavin Arviso to be exposed to, as well as allowing him to intoxicate himself (Even if Gavin did it by himself, which is unlikely due to the boy's age and him knowing better). Even if Michael didn't deliberately show him porn or shove alcohol down his throat on purpose, he's still putting that child in a dangerous and unhealthy situation by not taking responsible action. If Michael really cared about this kid, he would have put those porn magazines and alcohol far out of Gavin's reach. In truth, Michael didn't care about Gavin's health, because if he really did, Gavin would have never run into a situation like that. So what else could explain Michael's desire to have boys sleep with him on his "Neverland Ranch?" Obviously it's not out of honest friendship or security...

Alakazam
06-09-2005, 08:09 PM
Not directly, but the fact that it existed in his past life could be one of the attributing factors of his behavior today. Children who are abused by their parents will likely abuse their own children. Parents who smoke will likely have children who smoke as well. Children look up to their parents as the all knowing source of standard of what is acceptable and what is not. To children, if abuse among adults is acceptable, they will grow up to believe that there's nothing worth with their involvement with it.

Sure, his troubled past could be a factor in his present-day actions and behavior, but it is in no way conclusive, as Silver Skarmory seems to be suggesting. Does every abused child go on to abuse his/her children? Do all children of smokers smoke? Of course not. Beside firm evidence, his past does further the cause of proving his guilt, but it doesn't mean much on its own.

Take for example the pornographic magazines that Michael allowed Gavin Arviso to be exposed to, as well as allowing him to intoxicate himself (Even if Gavin did it by himself, which is unlikely due to the boy's age and him knowing better). Even if Michael didn't deliberately show him porn or shove alcohol down his throat on purpose, he's still putting that child in a dangerous and unhealthy situation by not taking responsible action. If Michael really cared about this kid, he would have put those porn magazines and alcohol far out of Gavin's reach. In truth, Michael didn't care about Gavin's health, because if he really did, Gavin would have never run into a situation like that. So what else could explain Michael's desire to have boys sleep with him on his "Neverland Ranch?" Obviously it's not out of honest friendship or security...

I completely agree with you that such actions of his such as you list above are dangerous, unhealthy, and certainly illegal. What are you trying to convice me of? That he did molest children? That he has honest friendships with children?

The fact of the matter is that no matter how many irresponsible and/or illegal things he did with children (excluding evidence of molestation) prove that he's guilty of molestation.

Don't mistake me by assuming that I'm defending Jackson, because I'm not. Like I've said before, I've yet to see evidence to convince me of his guilt or lack thereof regarding molestation.

Neo Emolga
06-09-2005, 08:44 PM
Sure, his troubled past could be a factor in his present-day actions and behavior, but it is in no way conclusive, as Silver Skarmory seems to be suggesting. Does every abused child go on to abuse his/her children? Do all children of smokers smoke? Of course not. Beside firm evidence, his past does further the cause of proving his guilt, but it doesn't mean much on its own.

Well, of course not all children will follow the ways of their parents, but most usually do. But, like you said, that can't be considered conclusive beyond all reasonable doubt. Still, it's significant enough to have consideration for his activities of today.

I completely agree with you that such actions of his such as you list above are dangerous, unhealthy, and certainly illegal. What are you trying to convice me of? That he did molest children? That he has honest friendships with children?

That Jackson's actions with children indicate that there are no firendly intentions behind his reasoning for wanting them on his property. If he really wanted to befriend children in a responsible and honest way, then none of this could or should have happened. However, due to Jackson's recklessness and actions of child endangerment toward Gavin, it's easy to rule out that befriending children is not Jackson's intention. Exactly what else would explain his actions for sleeping with children other than sexual harassment?

The fact of the matter is that no matter how many irresponsible and/or illegal things he did with children (excluding evidence of molestation) prove that he's guilty of molestation.

Don't mistake me by assuming that I'm defending Jackson, because I'm not. Like I've said before, I've yet to see evidence to convince me of his guilt or lack thereof regarding molestation.

Problem is, there can really be no solid, totally concrete evidence in a sexual harassment case other than a live recording of it, which unfortunately doesn't exist, but even that would be questioned in more ways than one even if it did. Sexual harassment can take place in many forms, and considering the dangerous environment and Jackson's irresponsible behavior that Jackson exposed Gavin to signals that it's more likely that sexual harassment did take place there.

King Zark
06-10-2005, 08:58 PM
Team Ci BORG


1)His weird behavior towards children

I say he is doesn't have a weird behavior towards kids. If what Jackson says is true that he sleeps on the floor when kids come to sleep in his room that then he can't be accused of this crime. If a kid has slept in the same bed as Jackson then there must me a good reason like nightmares. When my friends come over we don't sleep in the same bed so I assume that the kids don't and Jackson wouldn't allow it. In addition to that I believe what I hear from his friend (I forgot his name) I usally watch Good Morning America and watch and listen to the trials and allegations. Also the what the lawyers say about the what happens in the court i have to believe Jackson because if the Jury doesn't take the accuser seriously why should we the people that don't hear what the accusor has to say.

2) His trial and it's fairness to the "Pop King"

I say the "Pop King" has nothing to do with this because he wsn't gulity in this trial and he won't be gulity in this one. What helps him is not the title of "Pop King" is the accusor which doesn't make sense because the jury is laughing and the judge also doesn't believe her. Jackson is treated like any other person he was hospitalized so he could go to the court so he needed to take care of his health and he has his days some good one (dancing on the roof top) and bad ones coming to court in pajamas. The man is sick psyically but not mentally I have some respect for him.

3) His horrible chilhood and it's affects on him

He had a bad as life as I do so people like us have to stick together! He still will be black if his father didn't critize him about his nose. Also it wasn't horrible he got one thing out of it, he made millions of dollars. I think how parents treat you as a kid will be a big factor in how you treats others.



5) Previous allegations against him
The previous allegations agaist are too little to make him gulity because the jury decides his fate. The last Child Moleistation trial he was founded not gulity and due to the jury not believeing the accuser the case will favor Jackson.

6) And anything else that you can think of
No not really. Most things celebrities do is to get publicity so they are still famous. Almost anyone who was rich and famous would like to be the most famous Example: If there was a game say that first thing that comes to your mind and the thing was Celebrities... you want to be the first person to be mentioned most of the time.


If I was a jury my verdict would go in favor of Jackson NOT GULITY.

We are allowed more than one person to debate from a War Team correct?

JohtoTrainer
06-10-2005, 09:16 PM
Brotherhood of Steel

Team Ci BORG


1)His weird behavior towards children

I say he is doesn't have a weird behavior towards kids. If what Jackson says is true that he sleeps on the floor when kids come to sleep in his room that then he can't be accused of this crime. If a kid has slept in the same bed as Jackson then there must me a good reason like nightmares. When my friends come over we don't sleep in the same bed so I assume that the kids don't and Jackson wouldn't allow it. In addition to that I believe what I hear from his friend (I forgot his name) I usally watch Good Morning America and watch and listen to the trials and allegations. Also the what the lawyers say about the what happens in the court i have to believe Jackson because if the Jury doesn't take the accuser seriously why should we the people that don't hear what the accusor has to say.

He has admitted that he sleeps in the same bed as Michael jackson, and trust me it's not because of nightmares it's because he is a sick pervert. Constantly hanging around with children is just weird, he's either really perverted, really lonely, or really immature, and I'm going with the first one. There have been alot of people coming out and saying that they have seen him do innapropriate things with children, such as taking showers, kissing them, grabbing there butts, and stuff that is alot worse then that. His long time publicist and family friend as came out and said that they have seen him do things with children, and you know what Michael Jackson did after the publicist spoke out against him? He fired him, because Michael Jackson knows that what this man was saying is true.

2) His trial and it's fairness to the "Pop King"

I say the "Pop King" has nothing to do with this because he wsn't gulity in this trial and he won't be gulity in this one. What helps him is not the title of "Pop King" is the accusor which doesn't make sense because the jury is laughing and the judge also doesn't believe her. Jackson is treated like any other person he was hospitalized so he could go to the court so he needed to take care of his health and he has his days some good one (dancing on the roof top) and bad ones coming to court in pajamas. The man is sick psyically but not mentally I have some respect for him.

First of all it's not "Pop King" it's "King of Pop" and he is a the SELF-ACCLAIMED King of Pop. :rolleyes: Michael Jackson is faking all of his injuries and back problems, he is going for the sympathy votes, he is going to the hospital for things that he could easily take care of at home just by taking Advil. He just wants to make sure that people know that he went to the hospital, even if he needed to or not. The man is NOT SERIOUSLY sick physically (except for all of his plastic surgeries and that he bleaches his skin) he's sick mentally.

3) His horrible chilhood and it's affects on him

He had a bad as life as I do so people like us have to stick together! He still will be black if his father didn't critize him about his nose. Also it wasn't horrible he got one thing out of it, he made millions of dollars. I think how parents treat you as a kid will be a big factor in how you treats others.


There are people in other countries that have had far worse life then Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson is one of the richest men in the world. So, I don't want to here about him having a bad life. There are people in other countries that have had far worse life then Michael Jackson. But, do you see them going out getting umpteen plastic surgeries? Dying their skin a different color? Sleeping with children and giving them alcohol in their juice boxes? No.

5) Previous allegations against him
The previous allegations agaist are too little to make him gulity because the jury decides his fate. The last Child Moleistation trial he was founded not gulity and due to the jury not believeing the accuser the case will favor Jackson.

The previous allegations should have NOTING AT ALL to do with the verdict of this trial, it shouldn't favor him or hurt him.


6) And anything else that you can think of
No not really. Most things celebrities do is to get publicity so they are still famous. Almost anyone who was rich and famous would like to be the most famous Example: If there was a game say that first thing that comes to your mind and the thing was Celebrities... you want to be the first person to be mentioned most of the time.

What does thathave to do with anything? Are you saying that Michael Jackson molests children for attention? XD


If I was a jury my verdict would go in favor of Jackson NOT GULITY.

We are allowed more than one person to debate from a War Team correct?

Well, I am personally glad that you're not on the jury, you don't even know WHY you would find him not guilty, from what I've seen you don't know much about the trial.

Marill
06-10-2005, 11:20 PM
Team Soul

To begin with, this is my first crack at debating. So, I’ll try to hardest to do the best I can. Without further ado...

First, I have been keeping tabs with the Michael Jackson case for academic purposes. In an extemporaneous speaking event I used to participate in, we had to know a variety of knowledge in current events. Therefore, as Mr. Jackson is always in the media’s limelight for one reason or another, I had to learn a great deal about him. It is my opinion that Jackson is being falsely accused, for reasons listed below.

As seen in the infamous baby-dangling scene, Michael Jackson performs weird acts for unusual reasons, none of which are understood by the general public. However, the general public does not have the in-depth connection to Michael Jackson that we think we do, as we only are associated with his image. In any sort of entertainment, we are led to believe we know the entertainers like we know ourselves, though it isn’t the case. Michael Jackson’s personal life isn’t like ours... It’s been tainted with glamour, controversy and demands ever since he was a child.

The expectations of him in his younger years were high, so much that most children his age couldn’t achieve them. Yet, anyone will attempt to rise to a challenge with fierce struggles and high hassles prompted by parents or guardians, as they have near complete control of you in your youthful stages. To satisfy and satiate them, Jackson did everything that was demanded of him, though he had to lose a part of himself while doing so. He lived someone else’s dream, and not his own life. That’s why a big part of his present-childish nature still resides in him. He didn’t get to be a child, and that’s why he wanted to start being a kid later in his life.

The previous allegations of Jackson have ruined his reputation with some, although they were found to be false. Those accusations have led many to have a preconceived notion of Jackson, again without knowing who he truly is, what he’s thinking and why he goes about things they way he does. Being the “Pop King” may seem fanciful, but with that facade comes a great price to pay: your privacy. Jackson was and still is constantly in the starlight, which means he has once again had to sacrifice a bit of himself for the general public. This is where the oddity emitted from Jackson is introduced. Jackson is still trying to live his younger years, but the general public sees it as him being a child molester. He wishes nothing more than to be a child.

By aspiring to just be himself, he’s showing the world that the “Pop King” image is just that -- an image, and not what he truly is and truly wants to be. Maybe, if the general public would see what is really before them, and not what they want to see, they would find Jackson is a boy stuck in a man’s body, as result of the general public’s demand for him earlier.

~* Esper *~
06-11-2005, 03:38 PM
Alrighty, well, there's no more entries for this week. I will go back and review all of what everyone had to say and I will decide a winner, so stay tuned, lol ...

~* Esper *~
06-13-2005, 12:40 AM
Week 2: Sunday June 12 - Saturday June 19 at 2:00 pm
Week 2 : Wrestling- Fake or Real ?

There's been some discussion on the fact that wrestling may or may not be fake, and some evidence that has been seen can be consider both pros and cons. This is a lighter topic, so have fun with it ...


Possible Topics:
1. WHATEVER YOU CAN THINK OF !



START !!!

JohtoTrainer
06-13-2005, 01:28 AM
Brotherhood of Steel

First of all there is real wrestling, like high-school wrestling, like I compete in...But, the wrestling like WWE is pure entertainment, it's like a sitcom, except with people TRYING to make it look real.

When WWE was the WWF they had a show on USA that showed how they faked things. Have you ever noticed when they punch eachother they stomp there feet? It's to make atleast some kind of sound so you might think that they are actually hitting eachother. I watched a pay-per view match with Stone Cold Steve Austin, when he got hit he pulled out some red-liquid and threw it on his face, it was obvious, although he tried to hide it. Brett Hart and Sean Michaels had a championship match that was rigged, they admitted it...Most of the fights are set out and they already know who's going to win when they step through those ropes and into the ring.

This are my reasons as to why I think that wrestling is fake.

Kenny_C.002
06-13-2005, 04:22 AM
Team Soul

The definition and how far real or fake is would mean differently in the terms of professional wrestling. On the whole, it makes sense that it's fake. There's a team of writers that write the different scripts to run 2 times a week (on the shows RAW and Smackdown), and obviously it's rigged in that sense, since the winners and losers were predetermined (I will not talk about the exceptions, which usually includes injuries and the like), and it's just for personal entertainment.

In terms of the fighting, it depends on which part of the actual fighting is taking place. For example, the punching is hideously fake, with most of the men jumping as they punch, and not nearly hit their opponent. But in terms of the high risk "jumping" skills and the slams used in the ring, they are real, and the wrestlers themselves were taught to minimize such damage to their bodies.

With the steel chairs and other "loud" weapons, generally the surface area does allow for the hands to take more of the damage. Again, damage minimization, but the hands do take quite some pain. It's a very good and proven technique to use the hands to shield most of the damage from wall banging to steel chairs, etc., but the pain here still goes to the hands. But, the men sometimes do bleed for real if not careful (i.e. not the red "paint" that we usually see when someone got "busted open").

Those are real, and the injuries are also real. So in terms of the performances, they take a lot of precaution to make it as realistic to the audience without taking too much damage themselves (e.g. recoiling punchs just before you hit your opponent, and using your feet stomping to make the sound), but it in itself is the real McCoy, as precautions is never 100%.

Overall, with professional wrestling on the whole being fake, it sometimes is hard to understand that in its core, it is still real pain the men are experiencing when they get hit with a steel chair, just not their heads (most of the time).

JohtoTrainer
06-13-2005, 04:45 AM
Brotherhood of Steel

You're definately right about the hands taking alot of the pain. When they slam them into the steps they put their hands down first. When they hit them with chairs they put their hands back and snap their head back.

The only exception to the fake thing, is the accidents, example Owen Hart. Falling from the ceiling and breaking your neck on the turnbuckle and die you cannot fake that. Now I'll wait for someone that's on the other side. lol.

Caite-chan
06-13-2005, 12:32 PM
The Puppeteers!

Fake is such a fake word. Wrestling is as fake or real as you make it. Lets take a look at a few types of wrestling.

Amature/High School/Collage: It's real. You fight till you beat your opponent. Although this type of wrestling uses no weapons what so ever. This is a test of strength, and how well you hold your opponent in a wrestling hold.

Extreme Championship Wrestling: It's as real and up in your FACE as it can get. It's nothing but pure violence, blood shed, and fun. There's nothing fake about getting knocked loopy with kendo sticks, steel chairs, tarsh cans, and tables. When they bleed they don't ''blade'' themselves that a stright shot. It's as extreme and painfull as you could get.

World Wrestling Entertainment/ Federation: This is the type of wrestling people talk about. It's fake in the way of yeah you already know who's gonna win and how. The real part was the actual wrestling. You bleed by not ''bladeing'' yourself is real. You take a stright ''closed fist'' shot to the head and that will bust you open. Nothing fake about that. Every move you do in the ring from whiping your opponent into a turnbuckle to a submission hold to jumping off the Titon Tron could break something.

World Championship Wrestling: See WWE!

Total Nonstop Action: This goes along the same lines as ECW. They do more extreme and death defying moves than the wrestlers would in WWE. Anything yo do in the ring could cause damage and broken bones.

There are many styles of wrestling from amature to hardcore. Yes the WWE style is considered to be the fakest form of wrestling and is only ment for Entertainment but, it's how fake you want it to be. If you wanna watch for all the bladeing, and bumps then it's gonna be fake. Watching story lines and people actully wrestle and have a good time that's Entertainment. Having them break there leg or neck, losing more blood than they need to...that's real.

Lord Celebi
06-13-2005, 04:56 PM
C.i.B.ORG

Now, let me start with an opening statement. Imagine a big, burly man has a fold-up chair and is about to bean you. Now, how much pain do you think someone would be in if you were hit?

I've watched little wrestling, but when someone gets hit with a chair, their facial expression barely, dare I say fakely, changes. Someone is bound to get a broken bone from that. But do they? No. They just wrestle on.

TV Wrestling (The Fake Stuff) is fake. Its all scripted. Most of the moves they will hurt people. But it doesn't on TV, because its scripted.

So.. My verdict, Wrestling (Not High School or College, the TV Entertaiment Stuff) is fake.

JohtoTrainer
06-13-2005, 09:28 PM
BROTHERHOOD OF STEEL

The Puppeteers!

Fake is such a fake word. Wrestling is as fake or real as you make it. Lets take a look at a few types of wrestling.

Amature/High School/Collage: It's real. You fight till you beat your opponent. Although this type of wrestling uses no weapons what so ever. This is a test of strength, and how well you hold your opponent in a wrestling hold.

Extreme Championship Wrestling: It's as real and up in your FACE as it can get. It's nothing but pure violence, blood shed, and fun. There's nothing fake about getting knocked loopy with kendo sticks, steel chairs, tarsh cans, and tables. When they bleed they don't ''blade'' themselves that a stright shot. It's as extreme and painfull as you could get.

Not true. My dad's friend used to compete in the ECW and he says it's fake, this friend is Kid Cash. He has competed in many different Federations of wrestling he says they're all fake.

World Wrestling Entertainment/ Federation: This is the type of wrestling people talk about. It's fake in the way of yeah you already know who's gonna win and how. The real part was the actual wrestling. You bleed by not ''bladeing'' yourself is real. You take a stright ''closed fist'' shot to the head and that will bust you open. Nothing fake about that. Every move you do in the ring from whiping your opponent into a turnbuckle to a submission hold to jumping off the Titon Tron could break something.

Also not true...They do blade themelves and pour red paint on the to make it look like it's real, but it's fake. They do NOT take closed fists to the face. They jumped in the air pretend to throw a punch and stomp their feet. Wrestlers would look like a lot worse after fights if they were really getting punched, they would look like boxers, swelled heads, eyes, lips, and noses.

World Championship Wrestling: See WWE!

Total Nonstop Action: This goes along the same lines as ECW. They do more extreme and death defying moves than the wrestlers would in WWE. Anything yo do in the ring could cause damage and broken bones.

There are many styles of wrestling from amature to hardcore. Yes the WWE style is considered to be the fakest form of wrestling and is only ment for Entertainment but, it's how fake you want it to be. If you wanna watch for all the bladeing, and bumps then it's gonna be fake. Watching story lines and people actully wrestle and have a good time that's Entertainment. Having them break there leg or neck, losing more blood than they need to...that's real.

I would like to address one of the moves....The Pedigree...Don't you think getting dropped down on your face not being able to move would break your nose? Or break a cheek bone...YES...but it doesn't when Triple H does it now does it? No. He lets go of their hands before they hit the ground and they put their hands down first, it's FAKE.

How about the Elbow Drop? That could easily break your sternum, but in wrestling they fake it. They jump down and drop their elbow down on their side, and roll off of them. It's obviously fake.

MystiKal
06-13-2005, 10:16 PM
Team Ciborg

Now their are a lot of diffrent kinds of wrestling and I'll explain on if there real or fake and why.

TNA: This is the kind of wrestleing that's more like fighting it's all real during fights you can really tell that the blood that is on the persons body is real. Some say that TNA is fake but if you have been to a match you can tell it's all real.

WWE: This stuff is as fake as fools gold, it's basically a soap opera with fighting I mean come on people marry on the show. You can tell every night it comes on when it's fake why do you think the camera switches so fast and so often when they are fighting? It's because they do not want the home audience to tell that their not really hitting each other in the face.

Now when they use weapons this is so fake also, they claim that the chairs they use to beat each other with is steel but their is no way a single person can take five direct hits to the back from a steel chair and still get up and keep on fighting. The blood that is drawn after hits it also fake it's not even the same color as blood, the blood they use is way lighter then a persons actual blood color. People they call this wrestling real is either a really huge fan that can't deny their watching people act or their just plain stupid.

Now I have explained what I think is real wrestling and what is fake.

Finglonger
06-13-2005, 11:20 PM
Bos

ok, I think its been established that there is at least two seperate blocks of wrestling.
amatuer wrestling is without a shadow of a doubt real, so I wont even address that here.

Now lets go on to "professional" wrestling. There are a lot of good reasons to refrain from calling professional wrestling "fake." For one, I seriosuly doubt anyone here could even once perform the sort of stunts that these athletes have trained to do for many years. Even with training these wrestlers can and will be injured. Yeah I'll agree that none of them have taken a chair to the face or whatnot, but they have suffered gastly injuries from stunts gone wrong.

with all this said, pro wrestling really is just a form of entertainment. It may not be exactly what it seems, but it is a proffession that takes skill, discipline, and hard work. I wouldn't go as far as to say that its fake so much as its planned out carefully.

~* Esper *~
06-14-2005, 01:40 AM
Alright, Finglonger, this is the second time that you haven't put your WAR team. If you aren't on one, DON'T post here. Your previous post will be disregarded, and not taken into consideration ...

Finglonger
06-14-2005, 02:03 AM
Sheesh sorry. BOS, I just keep forgetting, you dont have to disregard my posts, im just absentminded

Dog of Hellsing
06-14-2005, 07:37 PM
The Puppeteers

Hmm, one of those universal questions eh? Well, I don't watch wrestling as much as I used to (Mom doesn't like it), but in my opinion, I'd say it's fake.

If those people were fighting HALF as real as they want us to think they are, a lot of them would be in the hospital so much that we would probably only see a match every few weeks, if not months. Also, they'd have scars out the wazoo, if you think about it: all those wounds from getting all those poundings would HAVE to leave some sorta mark, wouldn't they? But somehow, but some strange power, NO SCARS (that I've ever noticed O_o)! That right there should tell you something's up.

Kenny_C.002
06-15-2005, 09:12 PM
If those people were fighting HALF as real as they want us to think they are, a lot of them would be in the hospital so much that we would probably only see a match every few weeks, if not months. Also, they'd have scars out the wazoo, if you think about it: all those wounds from getting all those poundings would HAVE to leave some sorta mark, wouldn't they? But somehow, but some strange power, NO SCARS (that I've ever noticed O_o)! That right there should tell you something's up.

And that is true, it's just tricks of the eye, a sleight of hand. The problem here is that it's a form of entertainment, and that the people are still getting hit by a steel chair, even if it's just their hands getting hit. It still hurts. People still get real injuries from a stunt misfire. Those are all real. Just because it's staged and people attempt to protect themselves, it doesn't mean that the pain isn't there.

Loyal Arcanine
06-15-2005, 09:45 PM
And that is true, it's just tricks of the eye, a sleight of hand. The problem here is that it's a form of entertainment, and that the people are still getting hit by a steel chair, even if it's just their hands getting hit. It still hurts. People still get real injuries from a stunt misfire. Those are all real. Just because it's staged and people attempt to protect themselves, it doesn't mean that the pain isn't there.

BOS

Still, the issue is not if they have pain. If you do drama and you have to walk against a wall or something, you'll have pain too. But it is staged, and that's what's the issue is here. As said above, at other levels (high school) it is not staged. Then again, no steel chairs are being used there. In fact, after being hit on the by a steel chair you might even have more pain than from a good round of competitive wrestling. But even though you might have more pain from the chair, it is still staged.

On another note, as already pointed out, the steel chair must deal quite a good deal of pain. But still you don't see any scars. Well, certainly from an object like a steel chair, the skin could just be fixed to look normal, why underneath the skin there can be all sorts of damage done.

Caite-chan
06-16-2005, 01:43 AM
The Puppeteers

Now, let me start with an opening statement. Imagine a big, burly man has a fold-up chair and is about to bean you. Now, how much pain do you think someone would be in if you were hit?

If a guy 10 times my size hit me with a steel chair yeah it would hurt a lot. That's because I'm not trained to take a chair shot.

I've watched little wrestling, but when someone gets hit with a chair, their facial expression barely, dare I say fakely, changes. Someone is bound to get a broken bone from that. But do they? No. They just wrestle on.

The keep wrestling because there trained to deal with the pain. They try to wrestle out the match as best as possible.

TV Wrestling (The Fake Stuff) is fake. Its all scripted. Most of the moves they will hurt people. But it doesn't on TV, because its scripted.

Of corse it's scripted other wise you'd have people running around beating the crap out of eachother for no real reason.

So.. My verdict, Wrestling (Not High School or College, the TV Entertaiment Stuff) is fake.

I would like to address one of the moves....The Pedigree...Don't you think getting dropped down on your face not being able to move would break your nose? Or break a cheek bone...YES...but it doesn't when Triple H does it now does it? No. He lets go of their hands before they hit the ground and they put their hands down first, it's FAKE.

Ummmm.....that's because it's all part of the move. The more force he pushes on you the better for him.

How about the Elbow Drop? That could easily break your sternum, but in wrestling they fake it. They jump down and drop their elbow down on their side, and roll off of them. It's obviously fake.

No they just barely hit you if at all. There trained to take moves like that.

Now their are a lot of diffrent kinds of wrestling and I'll explain on if there real or fake and why.

TNA: This is the kind of wrestleing that's more like fighting it's all real during fights you can really tell that the blood that is on the persons body is real. Some say that TNA is fake but if you have been to a match you can tell it's all real.

WWE: This stuff is as fake as fools gold, it's basically a soap opera with fighting I mean come on people marry on the show. You can tell every night it comes on when it's fake why do you think the camera switches so fast and so often when they are fighting? It's because they do not want the home audience to tell that their not really hitting each other in the face.

They do that to get a look at both wrestlers in the ring. It would be kinda boring if you started at one angle for 2 hours.

Now when they use weapons this is so fake also, they claim that the chairs they use to beat each other with is steel but their is no way a single person can take five direct hits to the back from a steel chair and still get up and keep on fighting. The blood that is drawn after hits it also fake it's not even the same color as blood, the blood they use is way lighter then a persons actual blood color. People they call this wrestling real is either a really huge fan that can't deny their watching people act or their just plain stupid.

Yet again...their trained to take all kinds of charis shots no matter where there hit. Even a low blow. My blood is different colors that doesn't mean it's fake.

Now I have explained what I think is real wrestling and what is fake.

ok, I think its been established that there is at least two seperate blocks of wrestling.
amatuer wrestling is without a shadow of a doubt real, so I wont even address that here.

That's because there would be nothing but law suits if there were weapons. To many young people wouyuld be sent to the hospital.

Now lets go on to "professional" wrestling. There are a lot of good reasons to refrain from calling professional wrestling "fake." For one, I seriosuly doubt anyone here could even once perform the sort of stunts that these athletes have trained to do for many years. Even with training these wrestlers can and will be injured. Yeah I'll agree that none of them have taken a chair to the face or whatnot, but they have suffered gastly injuries from stunts gone wrong.

with all this said, pro wrestling really is just a form of entertainment. It may not be exactly what it seems, but it is a proffession that takes skill, discipline, and hard work. I wouldn't go as far as to say that its fake so much as its planned out carefully.

Hmm, one of those universal questions eh? Well, I don't watch wrestling as much as I used to (Mom doesn't like it), but in my opinion, I'd say it's fake.

If those people were fighting HALF as real as they want us to think they are, a lot of them would be in the hospital so much that we would probably only see a match every few weeks, if not months. Also, they'd have scars out the wazoo, if you think about it: all those wounds from getting all those poundings would HAVE to leave some sorta mark, wouldn't they? But somehow, but some strange power, NO SCARS (that I've ever noticed O_o)! That right there should tell you something's up.

For the third time they train to pull off the moves and take hits and bumps like thay do. Yeah a stright right hand will leave a swollen eye but there not sappose to throw a ''closed fist.'' [NOTE: Closed fist is just that it's a closed fist. They punch with an open fists for less damage.]

Still, the issue is not if they have pain. If you do drama and you have to walk against a wall or something, you'll have pain too. But it is staged, and that's what's the issue is here. As said above, at other levels (high school) it is not staged. Then again, no steel chairs are being used there. In fact, after being hit on the by a steel chair you might even have more pain than from a good round of competitive wrestling. But even though you might have more pain from the chair, it is still staged.

If you noticed they always use the same side of the chair no matter what. The flater the surface they better off you really are.

On another note, as already pointed out, the steel chair must deal quite a good deal of pain. But still you don't see any scars. Well, certainly from an object like a steel chair, the skin could just be fixed to look normal, why underneath the skin there can be all sorts of damage done.

You need to be hit pretty hard to be busted open with a ''chair shot.''

Kenny_C.002
06-16-2005, 02:46 AM
Team Soul
Still, the issue is not if they have pain. If you do drama and you have to walk against a wall or something, you'll have pain too. But it is staged, and that's what's the issue is here. As said above, at other levels (high school) it is not staged. Then again, no steel chairs are being used there. In fact, after being hit on the by a steel chair you might even have more pain than from a good round of competitive wrestling. But even though you might have more pain from the chair, it is still staged.

On another note, as already pointed out, the steel chair must deal quite a good deal of pain. But still you don't see any scars. Well, certainly from an object like a steel chair, the skin could just be fixed to look normal, why underneath the skin there can be all sorts of damage done.

That's what I've been saying this whole time, that it depends on the level or the depth of wrestling. We all know it's fake and staged as a whole. I've been talking about the actual performances, a piece of the whole, where it should be considered real, since obviously those men and women are doing as much as possible to protect themselves from harm in these forms of entertainment.

Finglonger
06-16-2005, 04:46 AM
BoS....okay lets give this another go.

Lets take a long hard look at reality, Professional wrestling is purely a form of entertainment. In other words professional wrestling is not what one would call entirely real, but let me take a moment and define what parts of it are "fake" and what parts are real. It seems that most people seem to either clump it all together as fake or proclaim that its all real with little or no explanation. That pretty much what ive seen in most of the posts here, with a few exceptions.

In my opinion wrestling is "fake"(not my favorite terminology, but the only one I can think of) What I mean by "fake" is that the outcome of each match is predetermined, the wrestlers cooperate with each other rather than compete, and the wrestlers are acting out characters, not their real personalities.

Firts off lets take a look at the storylines which are little better than soap opera drama, and are often more entertainining, in my opinion, than the actual matches. In any case theyr ealy enhance the action, they make you want to watch the hero beat down the affeminate british man and his manservant. The storylines are obviously forged, and I dont think anyone here wants to contend that. So Im safely labeling this aspect of wrestling, fake. On top of that the outcomes are almost certainly not left up to chance. If the producers have to create a gripping storyline, they cannot leave the matches up to purse chance, not only would it be a scripting nightmare as the storylines are involved, but it would ruin the entertainment. come on, nobody wants the effeminate englishman to beat the tough biker. It just would not make for an entertaining show if the story lines were ruined, and lets face it, professional wrestling is all about pure entertainment. If people want to see actual wrestling they can see the amatuer leagues, the proffesional leagues are there to entertain, thats all.

alright now, in the midst of all this fakeness, it's important to give credit where it's due and learn what is real about pro wrestling. The moves the wrestlers do on eachother may not hurt as much as they pretend to do, but its no walk in the park either. And in reality wrestlers are trained athletes who perform extremely difficult and dangerous stunts, and most of the wrestkers are incredibly talented at what they do and dedicated to their profession.

Even though the results are predetermined the matches often require a lot of improvisation, the results are known as are the beginnings and perhaps some mid match theatrics, but the rest is just played by ear.And I know the issue of blood came up a while

back,wrestlers rarely use fake blood, often times they keep a razor blade taped up on their wrists, hands, or fingertips, which is then exposed when it's time for them to cut themselves.

anyways all that aside, wrestling is purely entertainment. aspects of it may be real, but in the end there isn't much left to chance. I think the term "fake", however, might be a little too harsh as these men and women are real atheletes in certain respects, and are certainly hard working, disciplined, and dedicated.

Marill
06-18-2005, 03:51 PM
Team Soul

Axiomatically speaking, there are two forms of wrestling, both the real and the fabricated kind. There are two divisions of wrestling, each that serve there own purpose. Therefore, it is easy to see which belongs to what category.

First and foremost, the WWE. World Wrestling Entertainment. As according to dictionary.com, entertainment is described as “something that amuses, pleases, or diverts, especially a performance or show.” World Wrestling Entertainers are paid actors, that employ wrestling as their foil and catalyst for the show. It is, in essence, a soap opera with drawn out storylines, predetermined winners and losers, all by using a real sport, wrestling, to bring forth the entertainment. Everyone, though it may sound taboo, loves to watch one guy beat the heck out of another, to see in the end who remains standing. What better way than to use big hulky guys pounding each other’s brains out, throw in a couple of bodacious blondes to serve as an occasional plot-twist, and bam! You know have a smash-hit. World Wrestling Entertainment is not designed to showcase hardcore stunts and maneuvers. It’s focused upon the wrestler’s themselves, the ego’s and persona’s they create, and one or two ‘signature’ moves that they can be associated with. Various pay-per-view showcases, non-stop CD and Video-Game sales and numerous other novelties all go for profit. As stated previously, these “signature move’s” of theirs are again fake, though they are choreographed and tested prior to debuts, to see if they are appeal to the crowd, and in essence, look real. Sure, occasionally some stunts will actually connect, but with that draws out even more acting. As soon as someone is hurt for real, they can utilize the pain they just experienced into real-looking acting, though some of it may actually be felt. But, for guys of this stature and size, pain like that seems like ‘slight discomfort.’

On the other hand, you have real wrestling. Either violent or sophisticated, ECW or High School, you have the sport in which the matches are real and techniques and maneuvers implemented are as well. ECW seems to be a bit over-the-top, however the Extreme-ness is in fact, for the most part, authentic. The barbed wire, the hellacious battles and blows appear to be real. But, as seen in World Wrestling Entertainment, you also have those occasional acting chains, when the wrestlers are tiring.

High School action, though I’ve never personally seen it, cannot be rehearsed or pre-determined. It’s against school rules, competition policies, and much less reality. Unless two wrestler’s meet up and decide beforehand, which is highly unlikely, you do not have the same acting stunts as in entertaining erestling. Though you don’t have high-flying techniques and stunts, you have the core epitome of being true to the sport. In all reality, this form is true.

Though there may be true and un-true, fake and real, it all depends on the people performing it as well. The only reason fake is accepted, is because it’s what has been tried and true, at least to the entertainment business. Who knows what would happen if the true-blue version of entertainment wrestling converted to real and valid fighting? You might have another smash-hit. Or.. some smashed careers.

Caite-chan
06-18-2005, 04:49 PM
The only reason it's World Wrestling Entertainment is because WWE/F was sued by some animal zoo place in Austraila. They sued WWE AND WON and got the rights to use WWF so Vince had to change WWF to WWE.

Finglonger
06-18-2005, 06:38 PM
I believe youre reffering to the World Wildlife Fund tony, and yeah the change was made because the Wildlife federation had a legitimate claim on the acronym long before the world wrestling fed had been around.

Sure, occasionally some stunts will actually connect, but with that draws out even more acting. As soon as someone is hurt for real, they can utilize the pain they just experienced into real-looking acting, though some of it may actually be felt. But, for guys of this stature and size, pain like that seems like ‘slight discomfort.’

uh yeah most of the pain is real as wrestlers will purposefully injure themselves in order to get an element of realism. that much is real at least....

Caite-chan
06-18-2005, 06:44 PM
Actully there was WWWF, WWF, now WWE.

~* Esper *~
06-18-2005, 07:03 PM
Alrighty, no more posts !
I'll edit this one with the winners !

1st: Marill
2nd: Caitlin- CC

Congrats and see ya'll next week !

~* Esper *~
06-19-2005, 07:26 AM
Week 3: Evolution v. Creation - Which is more logical ?

This week I will be very strict on grammar, common sense, and foolishness. Remember, emotions and tones and pitches cannot be transmuted through typing, so be weary and very articulate.

This is a very highly debated and heated topic. There are two or three things that I am looking for. I want ya'll to do research ...

START !

Lord Celebi
06-19-2005, 04:39 PM
Let's start with a simple explanation;

Evolution
It started with the big bang. Then Microrganisms formed, and slowly went from single celled to multicelled. Then Came the monkeys and other animals. From them came humans.

Creation
And God said 'I shall create man in my image and woman out of men's ribs.'

-

Now, let's start out with the Creation bashing. Where did God Come from? Now, don't give me that He was always there crap. And don't say anything about 'Then where does energy come from?' cuz I don't really believe in the Big Bang (I think Time has no beginning or end).

There is proof of evolution and none of creationism.

Now, when did God say 'And there will be Neanderthals, which are in my image if I had a lot more hair,"? We have found Skulls of Neanderthals, 3 foot men who lived in caves. Man is fairly new to the planet too, roughly 10 Million Years I believe. Earth has been here for about 4.5 Billion years (Roughly). God made man a few days after Earth was made supposedly. God never made Dinosaurs. God never made microrganisams or germs. That stuff has been around for Billions of years. Yet, God made man a few days after Earth.

Finch
06-19-2005, 05:04 PM
The Puppeteers

As I see it, the fact of the matter is that Evolution VS. Creation does not cover the whole story at all.

To be less vague, the real debate should be Evolution VS. Creation VS. the Incomprehensible.

It is my strong belief that human beings, and all organisms, have no need whatsoever to know where they came from, or what put them there, and so forth. Therefore, the creatures of the Earth have never found the knowledge that would explain the beginning of everything- simply because they can't. They don't have the mental capacity. This is why these theories are created, like Darwin's evolution theory, and pretty much every different religious creation story. Humans are so hellbent on understanding what cannot be understood, that they make up their own stories based on "evidence" and try to prove them.

I don't believe that any of these theories are correct. Of course, this is just my opinion, which I have developed when thinking alone over the years, so I am not trying to put anyone elses opinions down, but instead I am suggesting that as a race we are incapable of ever knowing the meaning of life, or how it began, or how everything just "is". This is because, as many theories like evolution state, everything is here how it is today because of its adaptations to the environment. So really, evolution disproves itself, as we have not adapted to fully understand it. It is more plausible than creation, however, because why would some greater power make all these mutants, and species bound for early extinction, and creatures with deformities and disabilities?

Dog of Hellsing
06-19-2005, 06:57 PM
The Puppeteers

Okay, here's my say on the subject. I always have and WILL believe in evolution.

So God created the Earth and all living things on it, right? And then the world flooded and Noah had to take two of every animal on his ark to repopulate the world. Yet, what about the dinosaurs like rust said? And the mammals of those periods? Dinosaurs were before humans, there is undeniable proof on that, yet the Bible NEVER mentions anything about them. Isn't that kind of weird? Don't you think there'd be some sort of mention that "Oh, by the way, these dinosaurs were here roaming with Noah and everyone else and they were killed by the flood and not by a meteor" and all? And of course scientists have agreed that a meteor WAS the cause of the dinosaurs' extinction.

On the same subject, there's the fact that birds are related to dinosaurs. They EVOLVED from them. Look around at all the various kinds of animals, birds, insects, and life in general that has evolved from prehistoric days (and we have proof of that too, of course). Here's an easy way to back up evolution: how else would we have so many different kinds of dogs? We all know that animals can be bred for certain physical or mental traits. Dogs come from wolves. They have, so to speak, evolved from them in a way. We bred wolves so much we started to breed them smaller or stronger or bulkier or meaner or more gentle or whatever. We bred different looks to them for whatever jobs they were fit for: small hunting dogs with tiny legs for going into burrows or fighting dogs with squashed features to protect their faces. How can you deny that as evolution, which is basically a trait that keeps showing up in species over hundreds of generations until it's perfected? Such as birds evolving wings and muscles to fly or dogs evolving to fit our needs and wants?

Another thing is one that I ALWAYS bring up in an argument like this. One of the Ten Commandments is that you don't take part in adultry. Well, let's say that Adam and Eve WERE the first two humans, and that they are basically the Mother and Father of all of us. Well, that would mean EVERY SINGLE PERSON on this planet is related and we know that people who are related and take part in sex is called incest. Wouldn't that be the worst kind of adultry? I thought God hated that sort of thing. And anyways, the Bible is always contradicting itself. There are versions of the Bible that say this happened differently from this, or at a different time, or with different people, or that maybe it didn't even happen at all! That's evnough for me to not really put too much faith in the Creation idea.

Finch
06-19-2005, 07:49 PM
Yes, and like I said, evolution is the most valid theory on why species change out of the two. In fact, having read my previous post which seemed unclear on this, I feel I should point out that I do believe that animals adapt to their environments by natural selection, which Charles Darwin more or less stumbled upon. However, I don't believe that we can fully understand evolution, or the reasons for it, as it is not part of human nature to know these things. Maybe someday we will adapt to be able to comprehend such things as evolution, time and its beginnings, and all other kinds of weird stuff, but right now all we can go on is what we do know, and what we can understand, and so we can devise theories that may come close, but don't really contain all that there is to know.

Neo Emolga
06-19-2005, 08:42 PM
So God created the Earth and all living things on it, right? And then the world flooded and Noah had to take two of every animal on his ark to repopulate the world. Yet, what about the dinosaurs like rust said? And the mammals of those periods? Dinosaurs were before humans, there is undeniable proof on that, yet the Bible NEVER mentions anything about them. Isn't that kind of weird? Don't you think there'd be some sort of mention that "Oh, by the way, these dinosaurs were here roaming with Noah and everyone else and they were killed by the flood and not by a meteor" and all? And of course scientists have agreed that a meteor WAS the cause of the dinosaurs' extinction.

The Bible does mention that beasts were created before man was. But just consider for a moment that what may be one day for God may not be 24 hours for humans. It could in fact be many millions of years. Case in point, life also doesn't come from just no where. God may have terminated dinosaurs for a certain reason. Ever start an English paper that you just crumpled up and found no use for? Perhaps the destruction of the dinosaurs is what allowed for man to become alive. Heck, just look at the movie Jurassic Park and you'll see that man and dinosaurs can't co-exist, hence a valid reason for God to destroy them before the creation of man could begin.

On the same subject, there's the fact that birds are related to dinosaurs. They EVOLVED from them. Look around at all the various kinds of animals, birds, insects, and life in general that has evolved from prehistoric days (and we have proof of that too, of course). Here's an easy way to back up evolution: how else would we have so many different kinds of dogs? We all know that animals can be bred for certain physical or mental traits. Dogs come from wolves. They have, so to speak, evolved from them in a way. We bred wolves so much we started to breed them smaller or stronger or bulkier or meaner or more gentle or whatever. We bred different looks to them for whatever jobs they were fit for: small hunting dogs with tiny legs for going into burrows or fighting dogs with squashed features to protect their faces. How can you deny that as evolution, which is basically a trait that keeps showing up in species over hundreds of generations until it's perfected? Such as birds evolving wings and muscles to fly or dogs evolving to fit our needs and wants?

Well, how come man can't evolve himself a pair of a wings? How come we can't evolve ourselves the ability to breathe underwater? Of course, I'm not denying the purpose of evolution, but perhaps evolution could be God's work in progress, constantly changing the same way you make editations in a report after proofreading it. Very likely He allows for some changes to take place, and others not.

Another thing is one that I ALWAYS bring up in an argument like this. One of the Ten Commandments is that you don't take part in adultry. Well, let's say that Adam and Eve WERE the first two humans, and that they are basically the Mother and Father of all of us. Well, that would mean EVERY SINGLE PERSON on this planet is related and we know that people who are related and take part in sex is called incest. Wouldn't that be the worst kind of adultry? I thought God hated that sort of thing. And anyways, the Bible is always contradicting itself. There are versions of the Bible that say this happened differently from this, or at a different time, or with different people, or that maybe it didn't even happen at all! That's evnough for me to not really put too much faith in the Creation idea.

The Ten Commandments were made after Adam and Eve and during the time of Moses many, many years later. It must have been excusable during the beginning so that mankind could have a grace period to breed and develop by the only means possible, but then it was clear that God did not want it taking place any more.

Lord Celebi
06-19-2005, 10:17 PM
Well, how come man can't evolve himself a pair of a wings? How come we can't evolve ourselves the ability to breathe underwater? Of course, I'm not denying the purpose of evolution, but perhaps evolution could be God's work in progress, constantly changing the same way you make editations in a report after proofreading it. Very likely He allows for some changes to take place, and others not.
Because we don't need them. Humans don't live in water, so we don't need to adapt. Humans don't live in the sky, so we don't need to adapt.

Its all about Adaptation.

Incongruity
06-19-2005, 10:25 PM
C.i.B.ORG

I would first like to point out that we are the only organisms that think about finding any sort of reason for our life. We are the only organisms that try to find out about our creation, and we are the only organisms that try to find an ultimate root.

That said, I must point out that we are not very different from everything else in the universe, living or non-living. In fact, the only thing that separates living from non-living is a few self-ocurring processes. I'll refer back to this later on.

Another thing. We cannot prove Creationism through a lack of evidence. Too often I see the case being made of, "We just don't know anything." Not only can this argument be used FOR evolution, the evidence we do have supports evolution far more than creationism. What can we base our knowledge on if we don't base it on what we know is certain. We should always keep an open mind, but for the present, only certain knowledge should be relied on, and inferences should be kept at a minimum.

Now that that's all said and done, I'll say that I believe in the theory of evolution. Well, it's no longer considered a theory by the majority of the scientific community; in fact, it's more of a doctrine now. For the comfort of some in this forum, I'll refer to it as a theory.

Neo, please. You misunderstand the theory of evolution. Here is a concise explanation of how evolution began, from the "beginning" (also debatable) to our present. This will explain why humans cannot evolve wings or gills, AND why we as a species aren't evolving.

Let's skip from the "beginning" to the creation of our planet, as nothing important happens until then. Earth was a mass of molten lava, with plenty of gases; off the top of my head, I can think of Methane, Hydrogen, Water Vapor, and I think ammonia was there too, but I'm not sure. Anyways, all that's important is that there was no oxygen, and no Carbon dioxide. The modern day theory of evolution, supported by plenty of radioactive dating and the like, claims that some aggregates of molecules began to form in these harsh conditions (similar to archaebacteria anyone?). How did these aggregates form? Do we even know if they could form? Yes, we do. Stanley Miller performed an experiment years ago with gases believed to have been in the primitive atmosphere, added energy (which represented lightning, heat, UV rays, etc.) and organic molecules formed. Yes, his experiments were confirmed by scientists all over the world. Eventually, liquid membranes formed over some of these aggregates, most notably the "fittest" ones. These aggregates began to carry out some life processes, such as reproduction and nutrition. They were heterotrophs, and were able to form energy from the organic molecules that were present during the early stages of earth.

From those molecules, they excreted Carbon Dioxide as a waste product of their metabolic processes.

Now, one must remember the basics of evolution. The environment naturally selects the fittest in a varied population; those that survive the environment reproduce to pass on their traits. Variation, the key to evolution, occurs in a few ways. Mutation and sexual reproduction are the most well known. Sexual reproduction obviously hasn't occured yet. Therefore, it is mutation which causes variation at this point. Humans aren't very familiar with mutation because of our long life span and relatively low birthrates. However, if one studies primitive organisms, such as, let's say bacteria or even insects, one sees mutation occuring because of the smaller gap between generations.

So we know mutation occurs.

It probably occured even more millions of years ago, because radiation from outer space was coming right through.

This is key, because organisms ARE ADAPTED to their environment. They do NOT ADAPT. They are already adapted because of their specific DNA sequences. In case you don't know what DNA does, it transcribes RNA, which then translates into proteins at the ribosomes. This could easily have been done in the primitive earth, because organic molecules were created from simple gases+energy. Organic molecules as in amino acids, the building blocks of proteins.

Because of all the mutation, there was a lot of variation within the populations of the Earth. The heterotrophs continued to survive, but there was also a new group that was just as adapted to the environment. These were autotrophs. They could use the Carbon Dioxide and the gases in the Earth to form their own source of chemical energy. This was not necessarily photosynthesis. We know of plenty of archaebacteria that live in very harsh conditions that utilize chemosynthesis; these are obviously the least evolved organisms nowadays, but then again, they are best adapted to their primitive environment.

But back to the point. From these autotrophs evolved more complex heterotrophs that could utilize the OXYGEN that was given off by the autotrophs. This is basically a cycle that occurs to eventually lead to where we are at now. Every organism affects its environment, which in turn influences the populations inhabiting the environment. Therefore, new organisms are created, and the cycle repeats over and over.

I could describe how this went from simple archaebacteria->bacteria->eukaryotes, but then I'd basically be mapping the world's timeline. I think I've given you the basic idea of how it works. Eventually, this process was speeded up because of sexual reproduction, which allowed for even more variation (albeit less mutation) because of crossing-over.

But one more thing must be mentioned. Monkeys did not evolve into apes, and apes did not evolve into humans. We haven't directly evolved from one another, e have a common ancestor. It's kind of like how you and your cousin are related, but your cousin didn't evolve into you. You share your ancestor, your grandparents.

I would bash creationism, but I would need some "proof" to debunk first.


Before I finish, I'd like to explain a case study of why humans can't evolve a pair of wings. If you read all I've written, you probably realize, but I'll explain specifically why this doesn't occur in humans.

We mutate. I'm sure you know this by now. Not nearly as much as other organisms, but we do mutate. However, our environment doesn't control us. We control the environment. Indeed, we are just making our situation worse, but until the turning point comes where we realize we can't maintain our stability anymore, we will be in control. That said, as of yet, humans with gills/wings have no better survival value. A human without such "adaptations" from birth could live here just as easily as someone with gills/wings could. Perhaps even better, as gills/wings would provide difficult medical treatment since we know so little, and being a mutation, there may be other defects in the DNA as well.

If the environment got out of our control, then we may be able to "evolve" gills/wings. But then, even this would take a while, maybe not soon enough. We would need a lot of radiation or something to modify our DNA. If, out of pure chance we evolved gills/wings, and the environment changed so that gills/wings were a favorable trait, then almost everyone without gills/wings would die, and those with gills/wings would live on and reproduce.

This also explains why life seems so perfect for humans. It is not perfect, we are simply best adapted to the Earth. We are able to survive, and we do.



note: I realize that much of this post may seem like explaining what the theory of evolution is, but I feel it was necessary. This is because everything I explain here is taken as fact, but when these facts are strung together to form a doctrine, everybody seems to go crazy. Also, much of the case against evolution seems to come from a misunderstanding of the theory itself.

Alakazam
06-19-2005, 10:45 PM
[BTW: Thanks for covering me during the last week, Marill. I know absolutely NOTHING about wrestling, since I have no interest in it, and as a result, pay no attention to it.]

Yay! Finally a WAR4 deabte I can sink my teeth into.

"Which is more logical: creationism or evolutionism?" Evolution is more logical. Period. Frankly, i think that that's a poor question to start off this debate....it would be like asking "Which is more scientific: science or religion?"

Anyway, I think what esper meant to ask is "which is more valid / makes more sense"

(side note: If you haven't read the play "Inherit the Wind" go and read it. It's very interesting, and not very long either. )

Personally, I don't fully believe in either theory behind the genesis of life, but I do have an opinion on the matter.

The theory of evolution simply has more solid proof than creation ever will. We know much more now about how life begun than we did even 20 years ago. A few months ago in my biology class, we had a guest speaker come in who was telling us about cutting-edge science experiements which have successfully created organic compounds from inorganic ones. This is big news, since the theory of evolution claims that life grew as follows: inorganic compounds > organic compounds > single-celled organisms > multi-celled organisms. It seems to me that being able to recreate how life began may be possible. *sorry, I just realized that sk already talked about this - oops! I read sk's post after I wrote this one, I assure you*

Although there are many holes within the theory of evolution, most if it makes sense, and most of the opposition to it stems from stubborness / narrow-mindedness (mostly by those who are quite religious).

However, I am a devout Catholic and do believe in the existance of God, and I don't rule out creation as a possibility as to how life began. It seems to me that the odds that inorganic compounds would all of a sudden change into living, breathing creautres seems too farfetch'd to be true. Divine Evolution is a theory more to my liking: that life came to be as the theory of evolution states, but it was meant to happen. It was encited by God.

Finch
06-20-2005, 06:21 PM
(wow, Zam even threw in a pokemon name)

Recently, a TV show was aired in the UK named "human mutants". This show outlined people, who through bizarre mutation, had been born with certain deformities. Many "mythical creatures", such as the cyclops and the mermaid, were results of this mutation, and their stories were featured on the show.

Of course, even though some might say that mermaids would be very well adapted to life in the water, the person who had been given this nickname was not at all well adapted to life in any situation. Even though she may not have been a "real mermaid" in that her "tail" was in fact just her two legs fused together, coming to a "fin", some would have expected this to benefit her in the water, but the fact of the matter is that even if it did she wouldn't have survived at all in that environment. Consequently an operation to split her legs was performed at a young age and they are present now, separate but not formed as most are.

As mentioned previously in this debate, it is not possible to simply evolve a feature to meet a situation, and it is certainly not possible for an entire race to change to survive a sudden environmental disturbance. It is, however, possible that there is something behind this change that we cannot quite grasp, in that there may have been "other forces" to start this whole reaction (which some people would call God) and even to trigger the changes, both in evvironment and life itself. There isn't sufficient evidence to suggests that this "other force" doesn't exist, but then with this entire topic it is impossible to know all the facts, and we must make decisions based on what we do know.

Neo Emolga
06-20-2005, 10:06 PM
Well, the question that needs to be asked here is, how could it all have been just a total freak accident? Considering all the fabrics of life and all the aspects of Earth that keep life possible and intact, how could that have all just been a strange coincidence? The Big Bang, in my opinion, isn’t a valid theory either. I could go blow something up in my backyard, but that doesn’t mean one of those fragments is ever going to do something amazing like spawn an entire new ecosystem or something of that nature.

Those who strongly believe in Big Bang question the existence of God. Who says God doesn’t exist, or if God created the world, then who/what created God? Who/what created existence for the creation of Earth to even begin? The thing is, when it comes to that, we don’t know where to begin from the very beginning. Sure, science sounds more logical and believable only because none of us today have ever bared witness to God’s existence. But we didn’t witness the Civil War either, or the French Revolution, or the fall of Rome. Yes, this is where evidence comes in. Yes, we do have evidence of the Civil War and the French Revolution, but what people don’t consider is that there is solid proof behind the Bible as well, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls among others. However, until the Catholic Church willingly forfeits all their obtained evidence throughout the hundreds of years for public knowledge, I’m afraid that we’re missing out on most of that evidence. If all of it really was released, perhaps many people who gave up belief in God in exchange for science could be swung back.

Regardless, it only makes sense that people today still have doubts about the existence of God…

Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” John 20:28-29

When it comes to the creation, I believe God was behind it, and not some random explosion that appeared out of nowhere. You can’t take a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, throw all the pieces into the air and expect them to land in just the right place to complete and create the final picture perfectly (i.e. the world). If you consider that so many facets of life, such as the ozone layer, the ecosystems, the life-sustaining weather, and all the other elements of Earth that make life possible here, there is no way that could have all just been made out of pure luck and coincidence.

In truth, nothing is ever created out of destruction, chaos, and raw accidental circumstances. Like a skyscraper being built by man, and like a model car built by a child, the world too, had to be carefully created by a being as well, and that being is God.

Incongruity
06-20-2005, 11:09 PM
Well, the question that needs to be asked here is, how could it all have been just a total freak accident? Considering all the fabrics of life and all the aspects of Earth that keep life possible and intact, how could that have all just been a strange coincidence? The Big Bang, in my opinion, isn’t a valid theory either. I could go blow something up in my backyard, but that doesn’t mean one of those fragments is ever going to do something amazing like spawn an entire new ecosystem or something of that nature.

Those who strongly believe in Big Bang question the existence of God. Who says God doesn’t exist, or if God created the world, then who/what created God? Who/what created existence for the creation of Earth to even begin? The thing is, when it comes to that, we don’t know where to begin from the very beginning. Sure, science sounds more logical and believable only because none of us today have ever bared witness to God’s existence. But we didn’t witness the Civil War either, or the French Revolution, or the fall of Rome. Yes, this is where evidence comes in. Yes, we do have evidence of the Civil War and the French Revolution, but what people don’t consider is that there is solid proof behind the Bible as well, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls among others. However, until the Catholic Church willingly forfeits all their obtained evidence throughout the hundreds of years for public knowledge, I’m afraid that we’re missing out on most of that evidence. If all of it really was released, perhaps many people who gave up belief in God in exchange for science could be swung back.

Regardless, it only makes sense that people today still have doubts about the existence of God…

Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” John 20:28-29

When it comes to the creation, I believe God was behind it, and not some random explosion that appeared out of nowhere. You can’t take a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, throw all the pieces into the air and expect them to land in just the right place to complete and create the final picture perfectly (i.e. the world). If you consider that so many facets of life, such as the ozone layer, the ecosystems, the life-sustaining weather, and all the other elements of Earth that make life possible here, there is no way that could have all just been made out of pure luck and coincidence.

In truth, nothing is ever created out of destruction, chaos, and raw accidental circumstances. Like a skyscraper being built by man, and like a model car built by a child, the world too, had to be carefully created by a being as well, and that being is God.I'm afraid most of your case is based on our "lack of knowledge". However, we do have evidence, we have details, and we have to base our beliefs on what we know, and not what we can know.

Your second paragraph also proves one thing, but you conclude with a completely differrent thought. It invalidates all we know, but then you take this into an opposite extreme by assuming that it must be God who did everything. Why can't our lack of knowledge eventually prove that God doesn't exist? Why must our lack of knowledge always prove that God is the ultimate creator (as many Christians often claim)?

For "solid proof", if Dead Sea Scrolls are the best you can think up, you're simply abusing the ignorance of the majority of this forum (which consists of rebellious I-hate-the-world-I-rebel-against-the-world-and-religion adolescents). For those of us who know what the Dead Sea Scrolls are, your case is laughable.

First of all, the Catholic Church no longer forbids the publishing of the scrolls (as if it had any power over that anyways)

The reason it did, however, was because the scrolls contradicted the bible. Things like the misuse of the word virgin, inconsistencies in the modern Bible, and the fundamentalism of the early church were proved by these scrolls. The most important was the discovery that the texts in the Bible were embellished. They were modified and edited and revised and corrupted to fit a writer's own personal vendetta, thus disproving the Bible even more.

In fact, much of the Dead Sea Scrolls consists simply of a copy of the Bible. There was also a lot that was left out by the revisionist early church. Take a guess as to why these were left out. They showed that Jesus was but a myth that the Christians contorted from other religions. The rest is either unidentified or simply consists of the beliefs of the early Jewish people. Beliefs, not facts. To say that these scrolls prove the validity of the Bible is like saying God is correct because the Bible says so and the Bible is correct because God says so.

On your case about the ozone/earth, it describes exactly what I discussed in my original post. "Why is life so perfect." The answer is, our environment is not perfect. All organisms change their environment, and the environment affects which organisms live or die. It is random. It merely seems impossible to us, because we are an organism that is able to survive in this environment.

If you're using the argument of it all being too complex, I think you don't understand the scale of the universe. We all realize the chances of what we live in happening are very miniscule. However, we also realize that the universe is enormous. Let me explain this in a simpler way. If there are 100 blue marbles and 9900 red marbles in a jar, the chance of picking a blue marble is 1%. However, there are still 100 blue marbles. That is a lot. It can happen. Considering the size of the universe compared to the "virtually impossible" probability of where we live happening exactly as it is. our situation is very possible. However, we don't even need consider proving that such a small probability can lead to existance, as the probability is not nearly as low as many claim it to be. One needs only consider the beginning, as that would be the key to a chain of events, in which one event would lead to another. At the very least, the probability of a completely secular universe is 50/50.

Overall, your argument just twists our lack of knowledge to fit your beliefs, ignores the facts that we do have, and spins beliefs into facts.

"Blessed are those who believe and have not seen?"

Why, if this were to apply to anything other than Christianity, we would accuse it of being cultish, ignorant, and blind. If I believed in leprechauns, but hadn't seen them, would you say that I was blessed? Would you have to prove the nonexistance of leprechauns? Would you blindly follow me if I claimed to be the messenger between the leprechauns and the people?

Dog of Hellsing
06-20-2005, 11:45 PM
I simply believe that is Creation is how we came to be (and all life) then there's one thing I want to ask: they say God made man in His image, right? Then who made women? I am Wiccan and we believe in not only a God but also a Goddess. Well, we believe in a LOT of Gods and Goddesses. Anyways, this isn't an argument about religion. I just wanted to point out that if there Is a God who created the world and all life on it, he must have had some help at least in making women. But the Bibles say that you can only worship ONE God. *Shrugs.* Something I wonder about, that's all.

Neo Emolga
06-21-2005, 01:26 AM
I'm afraid most of your case is based on our "lack of knowledge". However, we do have evidence, we have details, and we have to base our beliefs on what we know, and not what we can know.

However, Big Bang still exists as a theory, not solid proof. Sure, you can find basis off of evolution, but what's not to say that the basis of evolution was not part of God's doing as well? Despite the fact that most avid Christians believe that it isn't, that doesn't automatically mean it can be.

Your second paragraph also proves one thing, but you conclude with a completely different thought. It invalidates all we know, but then you take this into an opposite extreme by assuming that it must be God who did everything. Why can't our lack of knowledge eventually prove that God doesn't exist? Why must our lack of knowledge always prove that God is the ultimate creator (as many Christians often claim)?

Hate to say it, but too much of your argument thirsts and relies way too much on solid, undeniable, totally perfect and unflawed evidence, which can not always be achieved and provided. You can say to yourself that the stars don't exist but they actually do. Can the Bible really be a joke after all? Written and passed down by so many people, just for the sake of humor or as a lie? To me, it seems like the passage of time is what is responsible here. Time goes on and details are constantly being changed, edited, lost in translation, and then people start having doubts, and start looking toward science for answers. But even then, science still only has its theories. Sure, like you seek evidence in God, science doesn't have the solid proof either, which still doesn't complete the certainty in the belief of science.

For "solid proof", if Dead Sea Scrolls are the best you can think up, you're simply abusing the ignorance of the majority of this forum (which consists of rebellious I-hate-the-world-I-rebel-against-the-world-and-religion adolescents). For those of us who know what the Dead Sea Scrolls are, your case is laughable.

First of all, the Catholic Church no longer forbids the publishing of the scrolls (as if it had any power over that anyways)

That was just an example, among plenty of other evidence which have not been ever released.

The reason it did, however, was because the scrolls contradicted the bible. Things like the misuse of the word virgin, inconsistencies in the modern Bible, and the fundamentalism of the early church were proved by these scrolls. The most important was the discovery that the texts in the Bible were embellished. They were modified and edited and revised and corrupted to fit a writer's own personal vendetta, thus disproving the Bible even more.

And science, too, has its inconsistencies and misuses of facts. Wow, a rock pops out of nowhere, gets water and grass through luck and chance, can actually support life though luck and chance, and can continue to support life through working ecosystems through luck and chance, and live under a correct temperature through luck and chance, and have correct weather and an endless cycle of food chains through luck and chance. Sorry, but I don't buy that. And if that was really the case, then how come Big Bangs don't exist anymore? How come so many other planets are still, just indeed another rock or patch of gas? And really, what kind of chemical reaction causes rocks and gases to pop out of nowhere? Sorry, but I think that's an even worse inconsistency.

In fact, much of the Dead Sea Scrolls consists simply of a copy of the Bible. There was also a lot that was left out by the revisionist early church. Take a guess as to why these were left out. They showed that Jesus was but a myth that the Christians contorted from other religions. The rest is either unidentified or simply consists of the beliefs of the early Jewish people. Beliefs, not facts. To say that these scrolls prove the validity of the Bible is like saying God is correct because the Bible says so and the Bible is correct because God says so.

Like people had their doubts about Jesus in the beginning, they have them now. Heck, that's the whole reason why he was killed in the first place. Lack of belief. Of course, not everyone will believe in the same thing, but that does not make it wrong.

Oh yes, and...

I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life an in the holy city described in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

Trust me, if it was really certain that beyond all reasonable doubt, no one would fudge around with the details of the Bible, that last passage would have never been put in there. But of course, that's not the case, and details are unfortunately lost through translation and biased opinions. However, a few change in details and a few inconsistencies shouldn't automatically deem it totally invalid.

Neo Emolga
06-21-2005, 01:27 AM
On your case about the ozone/earth, it describes exactly what I discussed in my original post. "Why is life so perfect." The answer is, our environment is not perfect. All organisms change their environment, and the environment affects which organisms live or die. It is random. It merely seems impossible to us, because we are an organism that is able to survive in this environment.

If it was really "random" as you so describe, then Earth would have ended up exactly like Mars or Venus, just another barren rock or patch of gas that does nothing, can support no life, very much like a grenade shrapnel. You use science in one way to support the Big Bang theory, but then again, you easily bypass everything else science mentions about life and ecosystems that keeps Earth alive in the first place. There are far too many aspects that are needed for it to have been accomplished by chance and luck. And second, skyscrapers and cars don't get built by pure accident either. As man creates them to be a reality, God created the world to be a reality.

If you're using the argument of it all being too complex, I think you don't understand the scale of the universe. We all realize the chances of what we live in happening are very miniscule. However, we also realize that the universe is enormous. Let me explain this in a simpler way. If there are 100 blue marbles and 9900 red marbles in a jar, the chance of picking a blue marble is 1%. However, there are still 100 blue marbles. That is a lot. It can happen. Considering the size of the universe compared to the "virtually impossible" probability of where we live happening exactly as it is. our situation is very possible. However, we don't even need consider proving that such a small probability can lead to existence, as the probability is not nearly as low as many claim it to be. One needs only consider the beginning, as that would be the key to a chain of events, in which one event would lead to another. At the very least, the probability of a completely secular universe is 50/50.

What makes you so sure about that? You can throw up that 10,000 piece puzzle in the air a billion times if you want to, it will never come down again exactly the way it's supposed to be. Again, that theory relies too much on extreme luck. The complex world as it is, happening to be real by chance after getting blasted out of a random explosion in the middle of nowhere? Look at all the things that mankind has to do to make things possible. Sorry, but progress isn't achieved by luck, chance, and pure coincidence. If the Big Bang theory was really correct, then we would still be getting big bangs and more planets being randomly flung here and there randomly.

Overall, your argument just twists our lack of knowledge to fit your beliefs, ignores the facts that we do have, and spins beliefs into facts.

The Big Bang is a theory, NOT a fact. And a lack of evidence does not make a certain point automatically not true. There is plenty of information that we have no proof about, but that does not mean it is not true. It is more of a matter of ruling out reasonable doubt rather than searching for evidence, and more of asking of how it could be rather than automatically deeming that it can't be. We don't have solid evidence for everything, but the possibility that there really was an architect to the world sounds far more understandable, likely, and possible than a theory that thinks a random rock flying out of an explosion will give birth to the complex world we have today.

"Blessed are those who believe and have not seen?"

Why, if this were to apply to anything other than Christianity, we would accuse it of being cultish, ignorant, and blind. If I believed in leprechauns, but hadn't seen them, would you say that I was blessed? Would you have to prove the nonexistence of leprechauns? Would you blindly follow me if I claimed to be the messenger between the leprechauns and the people?

Now you're just using that phrase completely out of context. The phrase was used in my argument to prove that there were disbelievers even in the time of Jesus, hence the reason why there are still people who doubt him today. When was a statement like that used in terms of leprechauns other than in your example? You could take a science book, totally rip it apart and believe whatever you want to believe, that doesn't make it real either. You could take passage from the Bible, play around with the words and think it's real, but that doesn't make it real either. In the matters of passing the Bible down through the many thousands of years, what sounds more solid, a belief in God that has existed and been passed down for thousands of years, or a theory that was created only relatively recently that really can't hold water due to its randomness?

Lord Celebi
06-21-2005, 03:28 AM
Well, the question that needs to be asked here is, how could it all have been just a total freak accident? Considering all the fabrics of life and all the aspects of Earth that keep life possible and intact, how could that have all just been a strange coincidence? The Big Bang, in my opinion, isn’t a valid theory either. I could go blow something up in my backyard, but that doesn’t mean one of those fragments is ever going to do something amazing like spawn an entire new ecosystem or something of that nature.
You misunderstand the Big Bang NP. Before the Big Bang, there was a giant ball of all the energy in the universe. The ball then exploded, spreading energy all around the universe... creating things.

Coincidences happen, that's why we're here. What I like to think is 'It happened because it happened. Coincidences are coincediences.'

When it comes to the creation, I believe God was behind it, and not some random explosion that appeared out of nowhere. You can’t take a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, throw all the pieces into the air and expect them to land in just the right place to complete and create the final picture perfectly (i.e. the world). If you consider that so many facets of life, such as the ozone layer, the ecosystems, the life-sustaining weather, and all the other elements of Earth that make life possible here, there is no way that could have all just been made out of pure luck and coincidence.
Actually, there is. Its probably one in a googleplex chance, but when the puzzle falls it won't be perfect, not everything would be connected sturdily which represents what made God or energy, or when time started, etc.

In truth, nothing is ever created out of destruction, chaos, and raw accidental circumstances. Like a skyscraper being built by man, and like a model car built by a child, the world too, had to be carefully created by a being as well, and that being is God.
Actually, it does in a much smaller way. Energy moves from a more organized to a less organized state. Let's start small. The workers workign on the buildign need to eat, right? Well, chewing up food, digesting it, dumping it into the sewers is destruction on a much smaller scale. That makes the energy to make stuff. There are others, but I'm quite tired right now. Just remember, destruction always happens, just not on the scale most people think destruction is.

Hate to say it, but too much of your argument thirsts and relies way too much on solid, undeniable, totally perfect and unflawed evidence, which can not always be achieved and provided. You can say to yourself that the stars don't exist but they actually do. Can the Bible really be a joke after all? Written and passed down by so many people, just for the sake of humor or as a lie? To me, it seems like the passage of time is what is responsible here. Time goes on and details are constantly being changed, edited, lost in translation, and then people start having doubts, and start looking toward science for answers. But even then, science still only has its theories. Sure, like you seek evidence in God, science doesn't have the solid proof either, which still doesn't complete the certainty in the belief of science.
Try a means of control. The church may have started pure, but it takes only 1 power hungry pope to ruin it all. Do you know how they controlled? Hell. They took advantage of people's fear during the Middle Ages. Do you know what the entire church sermon (SP?) was about during the Middle Ages? It was all about Hell. How bad it smelled, hoe much it hurt, how lonely you would be. It became the equivalent of a Good Horror Film to some (Which is why some came, for entertainemnt). They used that so people would come back every Sunday, whether though fear of Hell or a good story.

And science, too, has its inconsistencies and misuses of facts. Wow, a rock pops out of nowhere, gets water and grass through luck and chance, can actually support life though luck and chance, and can continue to support life through working ecosystems through luck and chance, and live under a correct temperature through luck and chance, and have correct weather and an endless cycle of food chains through luck and chance. Sorry, but I don't buy that. And if that was really the case, then how come Big Bangs don't exist anymore? How come so many other planets are still, just indeed another rock or patch of gas? And really, what kind of chemical reaction causes rocks and gases to pop out of nowhere? Sorry, but I think that's an even worse inconsistency.
Not luck and chance. Cause and effect. You know man can do the same? Scientists are planning on terraforming Mars. Though it may take 200 years, man can do what 'God' can do.

Like people had their doubts about Jesus in the beginning, they have them now. Heck, that's the whole reason why he was killed in the first place. Lack of belief. Of course, not everyone will believe in the same thing, but that does not make it wrong.
People have thier doubts now because people back then were stupid and needed explanations for things. We have grown much smarter and proven most of it wrong through science.

I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life an in the holy city described in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

Trust me, if it was really certain that beyond all reasonable doubt, no one would fudge around with the details of the Bible, that last passage would have never been put in there. But of course, that's not the case, and details are unfortunately lost through translation and biased opinions. However, a few change in details and a few inconsistencies shouldn't automatically deem it totally invalid.
It takes one powerhungry, decieving Pope who doesn't believe it, but wants to rule the world to change the Bible.

If it was really "random" as you so describe, then Earth would have ended up exactly like Mars or Venus, just another barren rock or patch of gas that does nothing, can support no life, very much like a grenade shrapnel. You use science in one way to support the Big Bang theory, but then again, you easily bypass everything else science mentions about life and ecosystems that keeps Earth alive in the first place. There are far too many aspects that are needed for it to have been accomplished by chance and luck. And second, skyscrapers and cars don't get built by pure accident either. As man creates them to be a reality, God created the world to be a reality.
It happened here because it was possible. Mars and Venus cannot get this stuff because of their position to the sun. I'm sure there are other planets out there in aroudn the same position we are away from a star that have life.

Kenny_C.002
06-21-2005, 04:35 AM
I'd like to say first thing that at least half of the previous posts should be invalidated. This is about evolution vs. creationism, not about the genesis of life. The Big Bang should not be even considered in the debate itself.

The definitions of evolution and creationsim:

Evolution:

1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

Creationsim:

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

There are several points of view from several different people (I'll talk about the big ones in the spectrum):

1. Evolutionist: Essentially the entire theory of evolution would be considered true. The origin of life was created by chance.

2. The origin of the life themselves were created, but also believes that the mechanics of evolution is true, and essentially believe that the origin of the species is controlled by evolution.

3. The origin of life is created. Also, macroevolution does not exist, only microevolution.

4. Creationist: The origin of the species is from God, and evolution does not exist.

Notice that of all the of the types, the origin of the life is linked to evolution and creationism in these views (except for 2 and 3, where it's a difference between the different types of evolution itself). Why? The definition of evolution clearly states that it has nothing to do with the origin of life itself, but it has everything to do with the origin of the species.

Right here I would take my point. I'm #2, and I believe that evolution is the truth in the origin of the species. Clearly the only thing I have to prove is that if you have micro, you have macro. But first, I'm going to disprove the creationist theory.

The creationist theory at its purest states that species DO NOT EVOLVE at all. Simply speaking, virus and bacterial microevolution just blasted it right out of the water. Nobody can deny that viruses and bacteria are growing resistance, and that in itself is microevolution.

Essentially then it is clearly that we are debating whether macroevolution exists or not. First, the definition of macroevolution is known as a large change from one species to another.

Evidence for macroevolution comes from: vestigial organs, transitional forms, and genetics.

Vesitigal organs:
We all have it, the appendix. The completely worthless piece of organ that only gets infected by bacteria for some nasty inner rashes. Essentially what this meant was that the ancestors of humans used the appendix (which is known for digesting plants and cellulose) in the past, but as we used meat and became omnivores, the appendix became obsolete.

Now why did it not just disappear? Evolution also explains that: if it's not disavantageous to fitness, it's not taken away. Generally speaking, the appendix, although out of use, doesn't actually pose a threat to the reproduction of the human species, and thus it is not taken out. No selective pressures, no change.

Transitional Forms:
The main cause against macroevolution was that there were no transitional forms. Except that we've found enough of them. Recently the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto just finished their exhibition on the transition form between reptiles and birds, essentially a bird-reptile (I'll have to look for it, but for some reason it's not in the University website right now).

Genetics:
We have seen enough genetic change in the lab and in the wild. Again, the changes in resistance against antibiotics from bacteria shows some of the more common knowledge, but we can go deeper.

There has been many labs done on fruit flies, and many on their genetics. We've seen changes in their genetics as we've lengthened their lifespan in one of the directional selection experiments.

We also know many of the processes in meiosis makes genetic change (we know for a fact that brothers and sisters that aren't twins are difficult to look exactly the same). We also know mutation and genetic drift also helps with macroevolution.

Here also one knows that the only counter was that mutation can be reversed. Here one cannot even counter against meiosis, and is one of the biggest evidence for macroevolution.

Finch
06-21-2005, 12:07 PM
Kenny, your definition of creationism, as you know, was this:

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

Therefore, in order to accurately compare this idea to that of evolution, we must go to the beginning of this idea as well, which is widely accepted as the Big Bang.

Now the Big Bang Theory states that an explosion happened. There are no reasons for this, it just did. And don't worry, it is possible, as physics states that the energy before an explosion and the energy after are equal, and more precisely, 0.

From this explosion, matter (the atoms in our periodic table, where a proton is positive and an electron negative) and antimatter (essentially negative copies of the matter atoms, where a proton would be negative and an electron positive). The opposite charges of the two supposedly caused them to simply obliterate each other until one or both was entirely destroyed. In our universe, the matter outweighed the antimatter and so this all collected to make stars, planets, and just about everything else.

Reading this, people will quite obviously be saying "So where did this stuff and anti-stuff come from?" The point is we don't know. It's just a theory. And even if it is true, right now there is now way of knowing where it came from. Maybe someday, many years from now, we will know. But maybe this day won't be until after the destruction of our universe, known by Big Bang believers as the "Big Crunch", a total opposite of the Big Bang effect where everything is drawn to the center of the universe until it just disappears. Right.

And evolution-wise, I think the feathered reptile Kenny referred to was the late-Cretaceous Archaeopteryx (I think I spelt that right). Yeah, I was a total Dinosaur nut when I was younger. Haha.

Neo Emolga
06-21-2005, 03:08 PM
You misunderstand the Big Bang NP. Before the Big Bang, there was a giant ball of all the energy in the universe. The ball then exploded, spreading energy all around the universe... creating things.

Just creating things automatically? And where did this giant ball of energy come from? I could be sleeping in my room, and no random ball of energy is going to emerge from nowhere.

Coincidences happen, that's why we're here. What I like to think is 'It happened because it happened. Coincidences are coincidences.'

Of course they are, but that doesn't mean that through logical reasoning, the world as we know it was created by just random chance. And another reason is, why don't these same coincidences keep happening? If the Big Bang theory was really correct, then we would still be getting them, and new planets would be constantly created all the time. The inconsistency is was is proving this theory to be false.

Actually, there is. Its probably one in a googolplex chance, but when the puzzle falls it won't be perfect, not everything would be connected sturdily which represents what made God or energy, or when time started, etc.

So, God or energy. If the world was carefully pieced together like it is now, then who do you think was behind it, an actual architect to the world, or a random energy occurrence? I think the answer is quite obvious here.

Actually, it does in a much smaller way. Energy moves from a more organized to a less organized state. Let's start small. The workers working on the building need to eat, right? Well, chewing up food, digesting it, dumping it into the sewers is destruction on a much smaller scale. That makes the energy to make stuff. There are others, but I'm quite tired right now. Just remember, destruction always happens, just not on the scale most people think destruction is.

I'm talking about the building process itself. Think of a complex skyscraper. There is no natural occurrence that will ever create such a thing. That kind of thing has to be planned out, drawn out, and designed before construction. No earthquake, hurricane, or other natural disaster will ever give birth to something that complex. The world too, is far too complex to have been created without planning and design. And since man can not ever create such a world by himself, the power here had to be from a supernatural force, otherwise known as God.

Try a means of control. The church may have started pure, but it takes only 1 power hungry pope to ruin it all. Do you know how they controlled? Hell. They took advantage of people's fear during the Middle Ages. Do you know what the entire church sermon (SP?) was about during the Middle Ages? It was all about Hell. How bad it smelled, hoe much it hurt, how lonely you would be. It became the equivalent of a Good Horror Film to some (Which is why some came, for entertainment). They used that so people would come back every Sunday, whether though fear of Hell or a good story.

That doesn't mean the church is 100% right. Even if the church turned 100% evil in the future, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. In my opinion, the goals of the church and the affairs of God might be separate in several ways, but that doesn't mean God does not exist.

Not luck and chance. Cause and effect. You know man can do the same? Scientists are planning on terraforming Mars. Though it may take 200 years, man can do what 'God' can do.

I can bet a million dollars right now that it will be met with failure. Mankind will never be able to create a working system of something so powerful and complicated such as mass tuning an entire world of ecosystems. Can we really create oceans from nothing? Can we really expect animals and plants from Earth to thrive in a foreign world that they are not accustomed to? Simply enough, they will be unable to thrive in that kind of environment, just like how we can't live on the moon without protective astronaut suits. My only hope is that they don't destroy this world as a result of trying to create another. That's cause and effect for you.

People have their doubts now because people back then were stupid and needed explanations for things. We have grown much smarter and proven most of it wrong through science.

People were just as logical thinking back then as we are now, the problem here is that instead of being free thinkers, people are relying on what science says as a crutch. Heck, we even take the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle into account, and they existed before the time of Jesus. Still, do you think they're stupid?

It takes one powerhungry, deceiving Pope who doesn't believe it, but wants to rule the world to change the Bible.

And that could have nothing to do with the true existence of God. If it was him who changed the Bible in a few ways, then that's going to be his loss. And on the flip side, it takes one powerhungry, deceiving scientist to make up a theory and make people assume that the complex world that we have can spawn from so called magical energies that just pop out of nowhere and create planets randomly.

It happened here because it was possible. Mars and Venus cannot get this stuff because of their position to the sun. I'm sure there are other planets out there in around the same position we are away from a star that have life.

You can heat a rock from 500ºF, 250ºF, or 100ºF, or cool it from -100ºF, -250ºF, or -500ºF, it's still always going to be a rock and it's never going to magically get water and develop natural ecosystems from nowhere. And if you really believe in evolution, then how come there aren't any life forms on these other planets specially adapted to suit their very hot or very cold environments? According to your beliefs, there should be lifeforms there, but there aren't. Those planets don't have the life-sustaining design that Earth has and needs to support life. And if the Big Bang occurrence were really true, then Earth would essentially be just as lifeless as those other planets.

Dog of Hellsing
06-21-2005, 04:43 PM
One thing, in my last post I meant to say i believe in Evolution, not Creation.

I also meant to add this to my last post, but I forgot to:

The Ten Commandments were made after Adam and Eve and during the time of Moses many, many years later. It must have been excusable during the beginning so that mankind could have a grace period to breed and develop by the only means possible, but then it was clear that God did not want it taking place any more.

I think you misunderstood me, Neo, though i might not have made what I said clear, so it's probably my fault. I'm saying that God made this Commandment that CAN'T be abided. I was saying that if Adam and Eve are the parents of ALL people, then there's no way to avoid incest since everyone is related. The human race would die out. It's a contradiction: we can't have adultry (which I'm sure incest counts as such), yet we're supposed to "go forth and prosper," right? Also, I don't think God would say incest is okay to start with, then suddenly say "Oh I don't like this, I'm going to make a law against it." It just doesn't seem likely to me.

Incongruity
06-21-2005, 05:38 PM
However, Big Bang still exists as a theory, not solid proof. Sure, you can find basis off of evolution, but what's not to say that the basis of evolution was not part of God's doing as well? Despite the fact that most avid Christians believe that it isn't, that doesn't automatically mean it can be.

Here you again twist in the opposite extreme. #1: The Big Bang is a theory because it is based on factual evidence that supports the theory of constant expansion of the universe. Yes, lightwaves from afar are constantly moving closer "into the red". #2: If you make the case of "who's to say evolution wasn't part of God's plan", then one could just as easily make the case "who's to say evolution was part of God's plan." Well, according to the bible, evolution certainly wasn't how the world was created, so we certainly know that evolution wasn't part of God's plan.

Hate to say it, but too much of your argument thirsts and relies way too much on solid, undeniable, totally perfect and unflawed evidence, which can not always be achieved and provided. You can say to yourself that the stars don't exist but they actually do. Can the Bible really be a joke after all? Written and passed down by so many people, just for the sake of humor or as a lie? To me, it seems like the passage of time is what is responsible here. Time goes on and details are constantly being changed, edited, lost in translation, and then people start having doubts, and start looking toward science for answers. But even then, science still only has its theories. Sure, like you seek evidence in God, science doesn't have the solid proof either, which still doesn't complete the certainty in the belief of science.

And too much of your argument IGNORES the solid, undeniable, totally perfect, and unflawed evidence, which IS achieved and provided. The second sentence is out of nowhere, apparently. Also, to your question "Can the bible really be a joke after all?" Yes. Easily. Other religions are clearly fabricated without factual evidence. See addition of divine entities to Hinduism and every single cult ever. Also, it is without doubt that the Bible has inconsistencies, and parts of it have constantly been proven wrong ("minor details" to some Christians). If you choose to make the case that science doesn't have solid proof, you ignore many facts: Science does have a certain level of solid proof (note: more than religion), science does have relatively certain proof (note: more than religion), science is constantly gaining more proof, and religion is based on lack of knowledge.

That was just an example, among plenty of other evidence which have not been ever released.

Yes, I'm sure they do. After all, your voice is so reliable now that you've presented a piece of false evidence. I'll believe you again that there is more evidnece. Please share those examples.

Bleh, atleast you admit that the Dead Scrolls don't support your argument..

And science, too, has its inconsistencies and misuses of facts. Wow, a rock pops out of nowhere, gets water and grass through luck and chance, can actually support life though luck and chance, and can continue to support life through working ecosystems through luck and chance, and live under a correct temperature through luck and chance, and have correct weather and an endless cycle of food chains through luck and chance. Sorry, but I don't buy that. And if that was really the case, then how come Big Bangs don't exist anymore? How come so many other planets are still, just indeed another rock or patch of gas? And really, what kind of chemical reaction causes rocks and gases to pop out of nowhere? Sorry, but I think that's an even worse inconsistency.

:susp: I explained all of this within my first post where I explained evolution and how things "pop out of nowhere"... If you're wondering where the original gases (like water vapor, methane, etc.) came from, think of any explosion ever. Lots of chemicals, yes? When those chemicals undergo reactions (as a result of... lots of energy in the form of.. hmm... radiation? lightning? heat? Basically everything in the early earth?). You might ask how those chemicals became what they are. Well, let's think for a moment. Elements are only different from eachother because of protons, and the molecules of that element are only different because of electrons/neutrons. If a simple molecule were exposed to extreme energy (hm..) then it could very easily be denatured. But how did that primitive environment develop into what we have now? This is what I explained. Cause->Effect. Then the effect becomes a cause for something else. Everything seems so "correct" because we are most fit for our environment. If you'd like to know what kind of chemical reaction causes all of this, see Stanley Miller, and follow-up experiments around the world (even NASA recently confirmed Miller's experiment.. again..)

Like people had their doubts about Jesus in the beginning, they have them now. Heck, that's the whole reason why he was killed in the first place. Lack of belief. Of course, not everyone will believe in the same thing, but that does not make it wrong.

But that does not make creationism right either. However, it does indeed make creationism wrong (atleast the most fundamentalist views towards creationism). Hey, I won't say that a divine entity of some sort doesn't exist. There isn't enough proof to disprove that. However, there is proof towards evolution. There is no proof towards a divine entity. So, I believe in evolution. I keep the possibility of a divine entity in mind, but I have no reason to believe in a divine entity. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the religious.

Oh yes, and...

I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life an in the holy city described in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

Trust me, if it was really certain that beyond all reasonable doubt, no one would fudge around with the details of the Bible, that last passage would have never been put in there. But of course, that's not the case, and details are unfortunately lost through translation and biased opinions. However, a few change in details and a few inconsistencies shouldn't automatically deem it totally invalid.

Atleast you admit those inconsistencies. However, once some parts of the whole begin to break down, you must atleast question the rest instead of continuing with a dogmatic belief of perfection. Who are you to determine which parts of the Bible are true and which are not?

If it was really "random" as you so describe, then Earth would have ended up exactly like Mars or Venus, just another barren rock or patch of gas that does nothing, can support no life, very much like a grenade shrapnel. You use science in one way to support the Big Bang theory, but then again, you easily bypass everything else science mentions about life and ecosystems that keeps Earth alive in the first place. There are far too many aspects that are needed for it to have been accomplished by chance and luck. And second, skyscrapers and cars don't get built by pure accident either. As man creates them to be a reality, God created the world to be a reality.

... AGAIN. Cause->Effect. The complexity of our environment is a result of cause->effect. I'll use your example of skyscrapers. Big Bang->gaseous universe->early molecular aggregates->beginnings of life->a whole chain of evolution that I won't map right here, as it would bore everyone to tears->human existence->skyscrapers. So ultimately, skyscrapers are merely another link on the chain of cause-effect.

What makes you so sure about that? You can throw up that 10,000 piece puzzle in the air a billion times if you want to, it will never come down again exactly the way it's supposed to be. Again, that theory relies too much on extreme luck. The complex world as it is, happening to be real by chance after getting blasted out of a random explosion in the middle of nowhere? Look at all the things that mankind has to do to make things possible. Sorry, but progress isn't achieved by luck, chance, and pure coincidence. If the Big Bang theory was really correct, then we would still be getting big bangs and more planets being randomly flung here and there randomly.

Incongruity
06-21-2005, 05:39 PM
... We bring up the Big Bang yet again. As of yet, I've only discussed the Big Bang as one of the choices of a "beginning," or in response to you. However, because this is constantly becoming an issue, I'll take the side of the Big Bang so that there is not a debate imbalance. I'm nowhere near an expert on the Big Bang, but I have basic knowledge that everyone should have.

-We know the universe is expanding. Note: Bible never mentions that this happens.. Note 2: Bible never mentions that this doesn't happen.

-We believe the early universe was very dynamic. Either very hot or very cool, very dense or very large, but always full of energy. This explains why there are no more Big Bangs.
-The conversions between the extremes are known as phase transitions.
-We believe that mmediately after one of the epochs (can someone cover me on this, I've forgotten. It's been a while since I studied the Big Bang), one of the transitions caused the early universe to expand very quickly. Once it stopped growing, the universe consisted of quark-gluon plasma. Yes, there was an experiment that had moderate success in recreating the QGP. I'll look this up in a bit. The QGP was different from what we know as matter because instead of becoming mesons or baryons, they just clumped together. However, at this point, the universe was still expanding, and the temperature just went down. Eventually, baryons were created, and then even later elementary particles were made. Elementary particles were basically all we needed to have what we know as the universe now. Atoms were made, the places where the atoms were packed denser started attracting other atoms (gravity), and this stuff was made. The early beginnings of evolution (aggregates of molecules) were probably created on many of the planets/stars/etc. formed by the Big Bang, but because in some environments, they were not "fit" to survive. So no membranes formed, no life processes began. Eventually, though, life began to develop on early earth. All that was needed was the start, because it would just create a chain that made the environment more suitable for other organisms.

The Big Bang is a theory, NOT a fact. And a lack of evidence does not make a certain point automatically not true. There is plenty of information that we have no proof about, but that does not mean it is not true. It is more of a matter of ruling out reasonable doubt rather than searching for evidence, and more of asking of how it could be rather than automatically deeming that it can't be. We don't have solid evidence for everything, but the possibility that there really was an architect to the world sounds far more understandable, likely, and possible than a theory that thinks a random rock flying out of an explosion will give birth to the complex world we have today.

... Lack of evidence is the key to science. It leads to questioning, theories, etc. But some theories are ruled out because evidence invalidates them, and other theories are ignored, because no evidence supports it. The theories we believe in make sense, and have factual support. We do not believe in theories such as creationism (which, if I put it in a good light, has no evidence supporting/denying it) because it would invalidate other beliefs which have factual support.

The thing is, one should not distort the truth to fit one's beliefs. One's beliefs should be flexible so that they not only comply with the facts, but are based on them.

Now you're just using that phrase completely out of context. The phrase was used in my argument to prove that there were disbelievers even in the time of Jesus, hence the reason why there are still people who doubt him today. When was a statement like that used in terms of leprechauns other than in your example? You could take a science book, totally rip it apart and believe whatever you want to believe, that doesn't make it real either. You could take passage from the Bible, play around with the words and think it's real, but that doesn't make it real either. In the matters of passing the Bible down through the many thousands of years, what sounds more solid, a belief in God that has existed and been passed down for thousands of years, or a theory that was created only relatively recently that really can't hold water due to its randomness?


I was just trying to show that Christianity is a cult, but it is not portrayed as so because cults are always in a minority.

If you choose to use age as support, and youth as a detriment, you have to use it for everything. This would immediately make Hinduism correct (something that is clearly not according to the Bible), and it would also make computers wrong. About randomness, this is merely propaganda created against the truth. Indeed, randomness is a major key, but it is nowhere near as large as it is blown up to be, because cause->effect is the major player in evolution.

Just creating things automatically? And where did this giant ball of energy come from? I could be sleeping in my room, and no random ball of energy is going to emerge from nowhere.

This is the case "where did the Big Bang begin?" Where did this giant ball of energy known as God come from. I don't truly believe in either. Meh, but Big Bang has some stuff going for it, and some going against. Religion has nothing going for it, and some stuff going against it.

Of course they are, but that doesn't mean that through logical reasoning, the world as we know it was created by just random chance. And another reason is, why don't these same coincidences keep happening? If the Big Bang theory was really correct, then we would still be getting them, and new planets would be constantly created all the time. The inconsistency is was is proving this theory to be false.

All of this addressed in Big Bang explanation. Too much argument coming from misunderstanding of science.

So, God or energy. If the world was carefully pieced together like it is now, then who do you think was behind it, an actual architect to the world, or a random energy occurrence? I think the answer is quite obvious here.

Yes, a random energy occurence. World was not carefully pieced together, it is and was formed by cause->effect.

I'm talking about the building process itself. Think of a complex skyscraper. There is no natural occurrence that will ever create such a thing. That kind of thing has to be planned out, drawn out, and designed before construction. No earthquake, hurricane, or other natural disaster will ever give birth to something that complex. The world too, is far too complex to have been created without planning and design. And since man can not ever create such a world by himself, the power here had to be from a supernatural force, otherwise known as God.

Repeating case because nobody here wants to challenge you. Well done abusing the general stupidity of the public.

That doesn't mean the church is 100% right. Even if the church turned 100% evil in the future, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. In my opinion, the goals of the church and the affairs of God might be separate in several ways, but that doesn't mean God does not exist.

Atleast you acknowledge that the church is wrong. In fact, if anything the church has become less evil. However, you try to go back into the past, back to early Christianity. Unfortunately, the early church revised, edited, removed, and corrupted epistles. You can't exactly rely on the message of God, because God's message has been so destroyed by the church. You can try all you want to avoid the church, but when you believe in God, unless you make your beliefs independently as a result of your own observations, you are relying on that corruption.

I can bet a million dollars right now that it will be met with failure. Mankind will never be able to create a working system of something so powerful and complicated such as mass tuning an entire world of ecosystems. Can we really create oceans from nothing? Can we really expect animals and plants from Earth to thrive in a foreign world that they are not accustomed to? Simply enough, they will be unable to thrive in that kind of environment, just like how we can't live on the moon without protective astronaut suits. My only hope is that they don't destroy this world as a result of trying to create another. That's cause and effect for you.

Can we really make something that flies? Can we really make something so that if we press a button something appears on a screen? Can we really create a machine that moves if we simply press a pedal?

People were just as logical thinking back then as we are now, the problem here is that instead of being free thinkers, people are relying on what science says as a crutch. Heck, we even take the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle into account, and they existed before the time of Jesus. Still, do you think they're stupid?

Please, instead of being free thinkers, people are relying on the church as a clutch.

The reason we take the philosophies of Greek philosophers is because they were philosophers. They didn't say there was a divine entity, and they didn't write down how you were to get into heaven or hell. However, we do listen to "Jesus'" secular teachings. Yes, believe it or not, atheists are moral people too. In fact, they may be even more moral as they act good because they are good; not out of selfish fear of going to hell or a selfish dream of going to heaven.

Incongruity
06-21-2005, 05:39 PM
And that could have nothing to do with the true existence of God. If it was him who changed the Bible in a few ways, then that's going to be his loss. And on the flip side, it takes one powerhungry, deceiving scientist to make up a theory and make people assume that the complex world that we have can spawn from so called magical energies that just pop out of nowhere and create planets randomly.

Scientists, unlike popes, attempt to find facts, and then make their beliefs. The religious find their beliefs, and then make their facts.


You can heat a rock from 500ºF, 250ºF, or 100ºF, or cool it from -100ºF, -250ºF, or -500ºF, it's still always going to be a rock and it's never going to magically get water and develop natural ecosystems from nowhere. And if you really believe in evolution, then how come there aren't any life forms on these other planets specially adapted to suit their very hot or very cold environments? According to your beliefs, there should be lifeforms there, but there aren't. Those planets don't have the life-sustaining design that Earth has and needs to support life. And if the Big Bang occurrence were really true, then Earth would essentially be just as lifeless as those other planets

Those are nowhere near extreme enough conditions.

If you want to make the challenge to create quark-gluon plasma out of almost nothing, make it. If you want to make the challenge of if amino acids or monosaccharides were created from simple gases, make it.

Oh wait, both of those challenges have already been met.

Finch
06-21-2005, 06:16 PM
May I quickly mention, before this happens again, that ssk has spent a great deal of time trying to explain how our development on this planet may seem impossible but it really is likely enough, given how huge the universe is, and how many other stars and systems there are. I'm sure somewhere in this universe there a similar coincidences, but these might have happened differently, IE they might drink iron instead of water, and breathe iodine. It's purely the fact that we adapted to be able to use oxygen that means we can use it in our carbon based bodies. And I'm sure somewhere in the universe, there are things like gold-based life forms. MMmmm, shiny. I bet they wear carbon rings.

Not to mention the possibility of other universes where there are anti-chromium based people. Awesome.

Dog of Hellsing
06-21-2005, 06:51 PM
Finch has a good point. Space is endless, and it's really mindblowing when you think that it just goes on and on. And the fact that there are billions of stars in just our galaxy, let alone how many there are in space in general. And there are also probably hundreds of planets millions of light years from around this part of space. I would bet my life that on a lot of those undiscovered stars/planets are many forms of life. Of course they would have evolved to life there lives on those stars/planets and the conditions of their homes are probably much more different than those on Earth. As for not finding any life on other planets like Mars, I bet it's only a matter of time before organisms find a way to live on those hospitable places and start to evolve just like on Earth.

It's just conceitful to believe this is the only planet with life on it, simply because we have yet to find another planet with life. How can we truly believe this is the only planet in the vastness of space that has evolving species and the like? Does that mean, then, that for all those other planets and stars with life on them there is a God? Or did just the one make the entirity of space and ALL life that it contains? Somehow I doubt that, since there's never any mention of such a thing in any Bible that I know of.

Finglonger
06-21-2005, 08:59 PM
well reading through this I have found a great diversity of opinions. However, I am forced to lean towards a harmony of both. You cannot blindly take creationism without ignoring the small but damning evidence of evolution, yet you cannot wholly ignore the fact that a divine personage has to have taken place. Now even though we have limited concrete evidence supporting creationism(non biased that is), we often have to question just how anything came to be.

also allow me to cite Pascals divine wager....



After Immanuel Kant reasoned that God didn't exist, Pascal became offended. Pascal reasoned that God yields an infinite reward (salvation) while disbelief in God yields a finite reward, which is earthly existence. However, since a person cannot know whether or not God exists for sure (according to Pascal), we must wager one way or another. So, Pascal presented some ideas:
.....................god exists...............................god does not exist

wager for god................gain all ...........................................status quo



wager against god...........misery.............................. ................status quo



(well the table didnt come out right, but its supposed to be similar to a punnet square....)

And, if one wagers for God and God does exist, he is granted an eternity in Heaven, and thus lives in Paradise. But if they wager any other way, finite numbers result (earthly existence and death). Thus, there are two conclusions that Pascal came up with: one must wager with God, and God is rationally postive. To further explain, Pascal created the following two equations:

E(wager for God) =(infinity) * p+f1*(1-p) = (infinity)

p is a positive, non-infintesimal probability for God's existance

f1 is a finite number

E(wager against God) =f2*p + f3(1-p)

Where f2 and f3 are finite numbers

"[I] am so made that I cannot believe. What, then would you have me do?" -Blaise Pascal

"If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him, while if he exists, one will lose everything by not believing." -Blaise Pascal

thus there is nothing to be lost in believeing in god, and one cannot argue principles because you can still hold evolutionary ideas without contradicting a belief in god.

Incongruity
06-21-2005, 09:11 PM
Just not to be misleading, I'd like to say Pascal's Gambit is a reason to believe, not a proof of existence.

Not only that, the Gambit assumes that a divine entity must be a Christian god. If it were to a different god, to believe in God, Jesus, etc. would be idolatry, thus leading to punishment. This can't be avoided by being tolerant, as most religions require adherence to a sole religion

Also, it doesn't calculate the blindness, ignorance, and evangelism that comes from religion. Then there's material losses like time and money. Religion would also prevent things like further exploration into intellectual fields; most notably in our present day, stem cells.

So even though it is assumed by many to give a reason for belief, that reason is weak. It has fundamental flaws that ignore crucial circumstances, AND it doesn't provide the ultimate reason for belief: proof of existence.

Neo Emolga
06-21-2005, 09:19 PM
I think you misunderstood me, Neo, though i might not have made what I said clear, so it's probably my fault. I'm saying that God made this Commandment that CAN'T be abided. I was saying that if Adam and Eve are the parents of ALL people, then there's no way to avoid incest since everyone is related. The human race would die out. It's a contradiction: we can't have adultry (which I'm sure incest counts as such), yet we're supposed to "go forth and prosper," right? Also, I don't think God would say incest is okay to start with, then suddenly say "Oh I don't like this, I'm going to make a law against it." It just doesn't seem likely to me.

Just because Adam and Eve could not avoid incest does not mean each of us is guilty for it ourselves, which is what you seem to believe. Sure, we all have to do things we don't want to do. The first incest could not have been avoided, that doesn't mean God wanted it. Plus, there is such a word as "discontinue" as apposed to "ultimately avoid." In this retrospect, how can you not say this action was later prohibited and discontinued? For some reason, people seem to assume that God and changed don't belong in the same sentence...

Here you again twist in the opposite extreme. #1: The Big Bang is a theory because it is based on factual evidence that supports the theory of constant expansion of the universe. Yes, lightwaves from afar are constantly moving closer "into the red". #2: If you make the case of "who's to say evolution wasn't part of God's plan", then one could just as easily make the case "who's to say evolution was part of God's plan." Well, according to the bible, evolution certainly wasn't how the world was created, so we certainly know that evolution wasn't part of God's plan.

I'm not saying the world was created through evolution. The world could have very much been created and evolution then be instilled afterword.

And too much of your argument IGNORES the solid, undeniable, totally perfect, and unflawed evidence, which IS achieved and provided. The second sentence is out of nowhere, apparently. Also, to your question "Can the bible really be a joke after all?" Yes. Easily. Other religions are clearly fabricated without factual evidence. See addition of divine entities to Hinduism and every single cult ever. Also, it is without doubt that the Bible has inconsistencies, and parts of it have constantly been proven wrong ("minor details" to some Christians). If you choose to make the case that science doesn't have solid proof, you ignore many facts: Science does have a certain level of solid proof (note: more than religion), science does have relatively certain proof (note: more than religion), science is constantly gaining more proof, and religion is based on lack of knowledge.

And here you are, assuming that the experiments made by science automatically prove that the Bible isn't real. The thing is, how you can you truthfully prove that the Bible isn't real? What scientific evidence do you have that can come to that conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt, and totally blow the Bible out of the water and convince everyone that it doesn't exist? Until science can provide that instead of a theory and a few experiments, there is no solid evidence that can say the Bible is just words on paper.

Yes, I'm sure they do. After all, your voice is so reliable now that you've presented a piece of false evidence. I'll believe you again that there is more evidnece. Please share those examples.

Bleh, atleast you admit that the Dead Scrolls don't support your argument..

So are you assuming that because of that, I can no longer engage in this debate with the consideration that the everything I say is false? How can you prove that too? Sorry, but simply deeming that everything I say is wrong can not prove your argument, even if that was true.

I'd rather you keep this off the personal level... :susp:

And here's something that you obviously wanted to see.

Read this in relation of the Red Sea crossing (http://www.anchorstone.com/content/view/156/53/)

Read this in relation to the Ark of the Covenant (http://www.anchorstone.com/content/view/158/55/)

That's probably the best proof you're likely to get through the internet, you're better off looking at it physically and for yourself if you ever get such a chance in your life. Archaeology is a science too. Sure, you can discredit those sources until you turn blue, but that's the best I can give to you over the Internet.

:susp: I explained all of this within my first post where I explained evolution and how things "pop out of nowhere"... If you're wondering where the original gases (like water vapor, methane, etc.) came from, think of any explosion ever. Lots of chemicals, yes? When those chemicals undergo reactions (as a result of... lots of energy in the form of.. hmm... radiation? lightning? heat? Basically everything in the early earth?). You might ask how those chemicals became what they are. Well, let's think for a moment. Elements are only different from eachother because of protons, and the molecules of that element are only different because of electrons/neutrons. If a simple molecule were exposed to extreme energy (hm..) then it could very easily be denatured. But how did that primitive environment develop into what we have now? This is what I explained. Cause->Effect. Then the effect becomes a cause for something else. Everything seems so "correct" because we are most fit for our environment. If you'd like to know what kind of chemical reaction causes all of this, see Stanley Miller, and follow-up experiments around the world (even NASA recently confirmed Miller's experiment.. again..)

But then again, I must ask, how was the element of evolution first instilled in this first organic matter? Right now, that's a contradiction, because there is no proof that provides a source of evolution in this first organic matter. What instills evolution in organic matter? How does such a thing come about?

And you can bring up Cause and Effect as much as you like, but accidents don't create worlds. You're believing that the Earth was created by a series of events which led to the creation of Earth. But how you can honestly credit each event in it's own right and be totally certain that each link of the chain has perfect credibility to lead to the end result of the creation of Earth?

But that does not make creationism right either. However, it does indeed make creationism wrong (atleast the most fundamentalist views towards creationism). Hey, I won't say that a divine entity of some sort doesn't exist. There isn't enough proof to disprove that. However, there is proof towards evolution. There is no proof towards a divine entity. So, I believe in evolution. I keep the possibility of a divine entity in mind, but I have no reason to believe in a divine entity. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the religious.

You don't say a divine entity of some sort doesn't exist, but at the moment, you're doing everything in your power to prove that it doesn't. It's a matter of what proof you're willing to deem credible and proof you reject on the basis of whatever reason. Regardless of rejection on a personal level, that can not totally discredit the source. Again, how can you prove the Bible is false other than discrediting the source through deemed assumptions regarding its handling?

Neo Emolga
06-21-2005, 09:21 PM
At least you admit those inconsistencies. However, once some parts of the whole begin to break down, you must at least question the rest instead of continuing with a dogmatic belief of perfection. Who are you to determine which parts of the Bible are true and which are not?

Who are you to determine that the Bible cannot be credible at all? The existence of God and Jesus is a continuous factor in the Bible, and to remove them from it would essentially result in the destruction of it. Unless the Bible was warped beyond reclamation, slight edits or alterations could not take place and destroy the basis of God and Jesus Christ within the text.

... AGAIN. Cause->Effect. The complexity of our environment is a result of cause->effect. I'll use your example of skyscrapers. Big Bang->gaseous universe->early molecular aggregates->beginnings of life->a whole chain of evolution that I won't map right here, as it would bore everyone to tears->human existence->skyscrapers. So ultimately, skyscrapers are merely another link on the chain of cause-effect.

But, the basis that this is lacking is intention. This makes it sounds like skyscrapers can be a natural occurrence through natural cause and effect. Early man could exist, but according to this, skyscrapers should have existed at the same time through cause and effect, even without intention or effort. Again, how can this be true? In retrospect, God and intention can be the reason for the creation of Earth. There was intention behind its complex creation. Like cars, like skyscrapers, something so complex can not be created without intention, effort, and creation.

We bring up the Big Bang yet again. As of yet, I've only discussed the Big Bang as one of the choices of a "beginning," or in response to you. However, because this is constantly becoming an issue, I'll take the side of the Big Bang so that there is not a debate imbalance. I'm nowhere near an expert on the Big Bang, but I have basic knowledge that everyone should have.

-We know the universe is expanding. Note: Bible never mentions that this happens.. Note 2: Bible never mentions that this doesn't happen.

-We believe the early universe was very dynamic. Either very hot or very cool, very dense or very large, but always full of energy. This explains why there are no more Big Bangs.
-The conversions between the extremes are known as phase transitions.
-We believe that mmediately after one of the epochs (can someone cover me on this, I've forgotten. It's been a while since I studied the Big Bang), one of the transitions caused the early universe to expand very quickly. Once it stopped growing, the universe consisted of quark-gluon plasma. Yes, there was an experiment that had moderate success in recreating the QGP. I'll look this up in a bit. The QGP was different from what we know as matter because instead of becoming mesons or baryons, they just clumped together. However, at this point, the universe was still expanding, and the temperature just went down. Eventually, baryons were created, and then even later elementary particles were made. Elementary particles were basically all we needed to have what we know as the universe now. Atoms were made, the places where the atoms were packed denser started attracting other atoms (gravity), and this stuff was made. The early beginnings of evolution (aggregates of molecules) were probably created on many of the planets/stars/etc. formed by the Big Bang, but because in some environments, they were not "fit" to survive. So no membranes formed, no life processes began. Eventually, though, life began to develop on early earth. All that was needed was the start, because it would just create a chain that made the environment more suitable for other organisms.

But still, despite this experiment, there is no basis that says what step initiated the next step, and how that could be proven. Despite the QGP experiment, how can you expect a “mini-Earth” to be created in the circumstance? And if even so, what created evolution? How did an event like the Big Bang initiate a natural process? Sorry, but simply saying cause and effect can not prove what means, intentions, and efforts were used to create it.

I was just trying to show that Christianity is a cult, but it is not portrayed as so because cults are always in a minority.

If you choose to use age as support, and youth as a detriment, you have to use it for everything. This would immediately make Hinduism correct (something that is clearly not according to the Bible), and it would also make computers wrong. About randomness, this is merely propaganda created against the truth. Indeed, randomness is a major key, but it is nowhere near as large as it is blown up to be, because cause->effect is the major player in evolution.

But in light of randomness, where are the intentions and efforts? One thing can lead to another, but the result is only primitive and not as complex as the creation of the world.

This is the case "where did the Big Bang begin?" Where did this giant ball of energy known as God come from. I don't truly believe in either. Meh, but Big Bang has some stuff going for it, and some going against. Religion has nothing going for it, and some stuff going against it.

Nothing for it? Sorry, but that’s incorrect as well. Again, I put the emphasis on Archaeology here, which you have seemed to totally ignore as a credible source of proof.

Atleast you acknowledge that the church is wrong. In fact, if anything the church has become less evil. However, you try to go back into the past, back to early Christianity. Unfortunately, the early church revised, edited, removed, and corrupted epistles. You can't exactly rely on the message of God, because God's message has been so destroyed by the church. You can try all you want to avoid the church, but when you believe in God, unless you make your beliefs independently as a result of your own observations, you are relying on that corruption.

So destroyed? Edited to suit their ideas and intentions, perhaps, maybe even likely. But considering how omnipotent God is throughout the teachings of the Bible, no occurrence of editing could completely remove God from the Bible and still keep the teachings intact without extreme suspicion. Slight edits and translation could bypass most human knowledge, but not a serious and extreme one such as the one you describe.

Can we really make something that flies? Can we really make something so that if we press a button something appears on a screen? Can we really create a machine that moves if we simply press a pedal?

Of course we can, through intention, effort, and creation. However, nature always proves that it is stronger than any machine we can create. There will not be a time of installing life on other planets until we can tame nature to be a tool, which has never been possible even with all the technology we have now.

The reason we take the philosophies of Greek philosophers is because they were philosophers. They didn't say there was a divine entity, and they didn't write down how you were to get into heaven or hell. However, we do listen to "Jesus'" secular teachings. Yes, believe it or not, atheists are moral people too. In fact, they may be even more moral as they act good because they are good; not out of selfish fear of going to hell or a selfish dream of going to heaven.

If indeed the world was full of atheists and anti-christs, then we would all just kill each other for self gain and without fear of punishment in some afterlife. An atheist can listen to the teachings, but they refuse to acknowledge them as credible, so in essence, there was no listening. Then, where does that morality come from if it doesn’t come from teachings? Where is the groundwork for such a thing laid out then?

Scientists, unlike popes, attempt to find facts, and then make their beliefs. The religious find their beliefs, and then make their facts.

That’s a biased belief. Again, I have to bring up Archaeology. If what is found through Archaeology can be connected to events in the Bible, then there is a basis and reason for proof, and that can be considered a fact.

May I quickly mention, before this happens again, that ssk has spent a great deal of time trying to explain how our development on this planet may seem impossible but it really is likely enough, given how huge the universe is, and how many other stars and systems there are. I'm sure somewhere in this universe there a similar coincidences, but these might have happened differently, IE they might drink iron instead of water, and breathe iodine. It's purely the fact that we adapted to be able to use oxygen that means we can use it in our carbon based bodies. And I'm sure somewhere in the universe, there are things like gold-based life forms. MMmmm, shiny. I bet they wear carbon rings.

Well, there is no proof behind that either. A wide universe, yes, but still, there can’t be a basis as to why a being would drink iron instead of water and breath iodine. The consistency of creatures on Earth share the same basis. Drink water, breath in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. In what circumstances can that be altered regarding the chemical compounds of these substances and what each creature needs in order to sustain life?

Finglonger
06-21-2005, 09:35 PM
Just not to be misleading, I'd like to say Pascal's Gambit is a reason to believe, not a proof of existence.

Not only that, the Gambit assumes that a divine entity must be a Christian god. If it were to a different god, to believe in God, Jesus, etc. would be idolatry, thus leading to punishment. This can't be avoided by being tolerant, as most religions require adherence to a sole religion

Also, it doesn't calculate the blindness, ignorance, and evangelism that comes from religion. Then there's material losses like time and money. Religion would also prevent things like further exploration into intellectual fields; most notably in our present day, stem cells.

So even though it is assumed by many to give a reason for belief, that reason is weak. It has fundamental flaws that ignore crucial circumstances, AND it doesn't provide the ultimate reason for belief: proof of existence.

Pascals wager only refers to a christian god because of the time period it is written in, most mono theistic religions are similiar thus a general belief is waranted. Also attamepting to prove cretionism or evolution is foolishness imo. One can never know, it cannot be proven. All of the scientific proof in the world would not prevent one from emrely claiming that god put it there. (he is omnipotent, no?) Nor can one ever prove gods existence except if he or she were to die.

religion doesnt neccesarily breed blindness, ignorance, etc etc. saying that in itself is ignorant and offensive. Ah yes lets umbrella all of religion under your definition oh yes, beautiful. perfect. anyways back to what i was saying, you cannot prove existence, nor can you prove non existence, all you can do is give reason to believe or reasons not to believe, there is no proving wither side, it is a stalemate.

Incongruity
06-21-2005, 10:10 PM
Just because Adam and Eve could not avoid incest does not mean each of us is guilty for it ourselves, which is what you seem to believe. Sure, we all have to do things we don't want to do. The first incest could not have been avoided, that doesn't mean God wanted it. Plus, there is such a word as "discontinue" as apposed to "ultimately avoid." In this retrospect, how can you not say this action was later prohibited and discontinued? For some reason, people seem to assume that God and changed don't belong in the same sentence..

That reason is because of fundamentalists. After all, God is perfect. He would not require exceptions.

I'm not saying the world was created through evolution. The world could have very much been created and evolution then be instilled afterword.

I'm not saying that evolution was the whole thing either. I have always referred to the spark that started evolution as the "beginning". I only defend the Big Bang because nobody else is doing so.

And here you are, assuming that the experiments made by science automatically prove that the Bible isn't real. The thing is, how you can you truthfully prove that the Bible isn't real? What scientific evidence do you have that can come to that conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt, and totally blow the Bible out of the water and convince everyone that it doesn't exist? Until science can provide that instead of a theory and a few experiments, there is no solid evidence that can say the Bible is just words on paper.

Indirect proof. Proof of evolution being correct forms a contradiction to biblical beliefs.

About your "totally disprove the Bible". Well, you have to consider that case in the opposite as well. What evidence do you have that totally blows science out of the water? None. However, let us just assume that there is no evidence to disprove/prove either. Even then, the burden of proof is upon the religious to convince the nonbelievers with solid evidence. We are not born with religion. It does not have to be disproved out of us. It must be proven into us. This hasn't been accomplished.

So are you assuming that because of that, I can no longer engage in this debate with the consideration that the everything I say is false? How can you prove that too? Sorry, but simply deeming that everything I say is wrong can not prove your argument, even if that was true.

I'd rather you keep this off the personal level...

And here's something that you obviously wanted to see.

Read this in relation of the Red Sea crossing

Read this in relation to the Ark of the Covenant

That's probably the best proof you're likely to get through the internet, you're better off looking at it physically and for yourself if you ever get such a chance in your life. Archaeology is a science too. Sure, you can discredit those sources until you turn blue, but that's the best I can give to you over the Internet.

Hmm interesting sites. I read them, but unfortunately for you, I looked at the rest of the site as well. It screams bias. Find a .gov or .edu site for me.

However, let us again make an assumption. Assume that the site is correct. If one inconsistency does not disprove the Bible, how does one consistency prove the Bible? It doesn't.

But then again, I must ask, how was the element of evolution first instilled in this first organic matter? Right now, that's a contradiction, because there is no proof that provides a source of evolution in this first organic matter. What instills evolution in organic matter? How does such a thing come about?

Well, the only real problem with the doctrine of evolution-big bang is the beginning of the Big Bang. The first organic matter has been explained already. Mutation, variation, natural selection.

And you can bring up Cause and Effect as much as you like, but accidents don't create worlds. You're believing that the Earth was created by a series of events which led to the creation of Earth. But how you can honestly credit each event in it's own right and be totally certain that each link of the chain has perfect credibility to lead to the end result of the creation of Earth?

This is a commonly misunderstood part of the theory. Our life is not perfect. It just seems perfect to us. Even if a link in the chain were different than we know it, there would still be another species, better adapted to that change. The chain would simply go in a different direction; it wouldn't be cut.

You don't say a divine entity of some sort doesn't exist, but at the moment, you're doing everything in your power to prove that it doesn't. It's a matter of what proof you're willing to deem credible and proof you reject on the basis of whatever reason. Regardless of rejection on a personal level, that can not totally discredit the source. Again, how can you prove the Bible is false other than discrediting the source through deemed assumptions regarding its handling?

I deem the correct proof credible and I reject the propaganda.

What exactly are you trying to prove, however. Are you trying to say the fabricators of the Bible were correct, or that even if they were incorrect, the Bible could still be true?

Who are you to determine that the Bible cannot be credible at all? The existence of God and Jesus is a continuous factor in the Bible, and to remove them from it would essentially result in the destruction of it. Unless the Bible was warped beyond reclamation, slight edits or alterations could not take place and destroy the basis of God and Jesus Christ within the text.

Ah, but it was warped. St. Augustine, Martin Luther, and the like warped it. Do you know what they did? They removed the epistles that portrayed Jesus as simply a moral person as opposed to a divine figure. They removed the writings that secularized morals. See Epistle of James.

But, the basis that this is lacking is intention. This makes it sounds like skyscrapers can be a natural occurrence through natural cause and effect. Early man could exist, but according to this, skyscrapers should have existed at the same time through cause and effect, even without intention or effort. Again, how can this be true? In retrospect, God and intention can be the reason for the creation of Earth. There was intention behind its complex creation. Like cars, like skyscrapers, something so complex can not be created without intention, effort, and creation.

Ugh, I simply skipped from human-skyscraper because I did not want to map the entire history of humans and how it led to skyscrapers. Humans clearly changed and grew and developed into people, eventually leading to skyscrapers.

If you claim that there must have been intelligent design, it simply ignores everything I've said about natural occurence.

But still, despite this experiment, there is no basis that says what step initiated the next step, and how that could be proven. Despite the QGP experiment, how can you expect a “mini-Earth” to be created in the circumstance? And if even so, what created evolution? How did an event like the Big Bang initiate a natural process? Sorry, but simply saying cause and effect can not prove what means, intentions, and efforts were used to create it.

... read up. Means were described, intentions and efforts aren't necessary because there was no architect.

But in light of randomness, where are the intentions and efforts? One thing can lead to another, but the result is only primitive and not as complex as the creation of the world.

The universe is not as complex as you say it to be. In fact, it is a simple thing that expanded to what we see now. There was no need for intention or effort. The best survived, the worst lost. Thus the "complexity" we see now.

Nothing for it? Sorry, but that’s incorrect as well. Again, I put the emphasis on Archaeology here, which you have seemed to totally ignore as a credible source of proof.

If you choose to point to Archaeology, you must remember its faults. We discovered hieroglyphs in Egypt that clearly displayed their gods and deities. Does that make Egyptian religion the correct one? If one were to find a Harry Potter book, would that mean witches and wizards existed?

So destroyed? Edited to suit their ideas and intentions, perhaps, maybe even likely. But considering how omnipotent God is throughout the teachings of the Bible, no occurrence of editing could completely remove God from the Bible and still keep the teachings intact without extreme suspicion. Slight edits and translation could bypass most human knowledge, but not a serious and extreme one such as the one you describe.

... In other words, God is omnipotent because the Bible says, and the Bible is correct because God is omnipotent

Of course we can, through intention, effort, and creation. However, nature always proves that it is stronger than any machine we can create. There will not be a time of installing life on other planets until we can tame nature to be a tool, which has never been possible even with all the technology we have now.

You point to intention, but then you point to nature. This assumes nature is a work of God. A work of intention. However, intention is weak compared to nature...

If indeed the world was full of atheists and anti-christs, then we would all just kill each other for self gain and without fear of punishment in some afterlife. An atheist can listen to the teachings, but they refuse to acknowledge them as credible, so in essence, there was no listening. Then, where does that morality come from if it doesn’t come from teachings? Where is the groundwork for such a thing laid out then?

Yes, of course. I assume that before the earliest religions, we all went on killing rampages and were unable to survive. Oh wait, we did survive. How was that? In fact, because I'm an atheist I'll go kill someone now.

Incongruity
06-21-2005, 10:10 PM
That’s a biased belief. Again, I have to bring up Archaeology. If what is found through Archaeology can be connected to events in the Bible, then there is a basis and reason for proof, and that can be considered a fact.

Oh-ho! Are you now using bias to disprove others? Please, look at your red sea and ark sites again.

Well, there is no proof behind that either. A wide universe, yes, but still, there can’t be a basis as to why a being would drink iron instead of water and breath iodine. The consistency of creatures on Earth share the same basis. Drink water, breath in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. In what circumstances can that be altered regarding the chemical compounds of these substances and what each creature needs in order to sustain life?

Even though Fayt agrees with me, this is as valid (or in a different view, invalid) as religion. There is no proof of iodine breathing organisms.. But then again, there is nothing to disprove it either, so we have to keep it in mind. Just as we keep religion in mind as a possibility, but don't listen to it as there is no proof.

Pascals wager only refers to a christian god because of the time period it is written in, most mono theistic religions are similiar thus a general belief is waranted. Also attamepting to prove cretionism or evolution is foolishness imo. One can never know, it cannot be proven. All of the scientific proof in the world would not prevent one from emrely claiming that god put it there. (he is omnipotent, no?) Nor can one ever prove gods existence except if he or she were to die.

Unfortunately, you cannot allow general belief as most religions force a sole belief. Also, you are correct, no matter the level of evidence, one can still believe the impossible.

religion doesnt neccesarily breed blindness, ignorance, etc etc. saying that in itself is ignorant and offensive. Ah yes lets umbrella all of religion under your definition oh yes, beautiful. perfect. anyways back to what i was saying, you cannot prove existence, nor can you prove non existence, all you can do is give reason to believe or reasons not to believe, there is no proving wither side, it is a stalemate.

It often breeds blindness, ignorance, etc etc. That is a common negative effect of religion. Just as infiinite rewards would be a common positive effect of religion. Some religious practitioners are not ignorant, and some religious practitioners are not moral.

If we're going to the stalemate (which is how this kind of thing usually ends) then I must reiterate that the burden of proof is on the religious. Before you bring it up, Deism is not the same thing as natural religion.



My own personal knowledge/beliefs

I believe that the chain of cause-effect is fine as it is. Everything from evolution->present day I am pretty confident in.

However, what started the universe is foggy to me.

And even more foggy is what began that which started the universe.

Repeat the above millions of times, and question the beginning of everything. Once you figure the beginning out, try to think of what led to that beginning. Repeat over and over and over.

I believe that is the only stalemate. It seems to me that the process that moved us from the beginning to where we are is clear, only theories towards the origin of all origins are unable to be proven/disproven.

Dog of Hellsing
06-21-2005, 10:53 PM
]yet you cannot wholly ignore the fact that a divine personage has to have taken place...Pascal reasoned that God yields an infinite reward (salvation) while disbelief in God yields a finite reward, which is earthly existence.

There are many people who believe in a divine personage that had a hand in helping create life. I, as I've already said, am Wiccan and believe in the Gods and Goddesses. Just in case anyone is wondering, I'm not saying that all life just managed to POOF out of nowhere. I DO believe the Gods and Goddesses helped life come to be. However, I DON'T believe that they wholly created all of life. More like they helped kickstart it, like when you give someone a jump when their battery is dead. That extra "umph" to get something going. I DO believe in God, just so you know: most Wiccan do. It's just that we decide to not follow only him, so to speak, and many also don't believe He single-handedly created life. That seems like it'd be a mighty big task for one being to do, no matter how divine, when you think of all the millions of kinds of life that exist on this planet. Hopefully that didn't confuse anyone :oops:.

Just because Adam and Eve could not avoid incest does not mean each of us is guilty for it ourselves, which is what you seem to believe.

How can each of us NOT be guilty of it, when we're all related, even if the bloodline has been diluted so much that it's almost impossible to tell that we're all related? Also, if Adam and Eve ARE the parents of every human, then technology in DNA sciences would have shown that every human on earth is related, but I have never once heard a groundbreaking discovery that a forensics lab anywhere in the world has made such a find. Also, we all know what happens if incest within a family goes on too long. Still borns, physical and mental incapacitation, premature deaths, etc etc etc. If all humans were related, I think the human race would look MUCH different than it does today.

Sure, we all have to do things we don't want to do. The first incest could not have been avoided, that doesn't mean God wanted it.

If God didn't want incest, why not make more than just TWO people? Why not start with six or twelve? That would be a simple way to, if not prevent it from happening, at least drastically cut the chances of it.

Plus, there is such a word as "discontinue" as apposed to "ultimately avoid." In this retrospect, how can you not say this action was later prohibited and discontinued? For some reason, people seem to assume that God and changed don't belong in the same sentence..

How can it be "discontinued" if everyone on Earth is related? If it were discontinued, the human race would have gone extinct thousands, if not millions, of years ago due to the fact that no reproduction could take place. In this sense, discontinue and ultimately avoid seem to mean pretty much the same thing, which is the stopping of incest.

~* Esper *~
06-21-2005, 11:19 PM
Has anyone ever considered that maybe both ideas are valid. Meaning, what if God was the source of evolution. What if, since he is not of this plane, he made the particles collide and create everything, or anything along those lines ...

Incongruity
06-22-2005, 12:27 AM
Has anyone ever considered that maybe both ideas are valid. Meaning, what if God was the source of evolution. What if, since he is not of this plane, he made the particles collide and create everything, or anything along those lines ...What if, what if, what if?

Your idea is a possibility, but nothing more.

The reason the Big Bang theory is so popular because it is a theory. The label theory seems to have a negative connotation, but it is just the contrary. In the scientific community, a theory is an idea that has been supported by various observations, experiments, and the like. Unfortunately, like all ideas that attempt to explain the beginning (including the idea, not theory, of strict creationism), it is plagued by the "what created that?" question.

I'm not too sure about leaning either way, since neither side has convinced me. I'm convinced beyond doubt of the process that connected the beginning to our present, but that beginning is a very tricky concept.

However, I'm pretty sure that a fundamentalist (strict) interpretation of the creation myth is false. I'm also relatively certain of the link that connected the beginning and our present. That beginning is just tricky though. No real proof towards religion. Plenty, but not enough, proof towards science.

Of course, I'll keep an open mind as to what that beginning was; after all, doubt is the key to science. But we cannot make assumptions out of nowhere and then attempt to find facts to back it up. We have to find the facts, and then make our decisions.

So the idea that a god was the ultimate source is a possibility, but one among a sea of other hypotheses that are just as groundless.




UNRELATED: About time you made a decent topic, Esper. :tongue:

Dog of Hellsing
06-22-2005, 12:40 AM
Well, I never thought I'd hear (well, see) such a heated debate on this topic. It never got so deep when we did it in school >>.

Anyways, ssk has a lot of good points. I suppose it's a bit stupid to side completely with one theory or the other. It seems we can't have Creation without Evolution, or vice versa. I might lean heavily towards Evolution, but I also agree with Creation. Not in the sense that a single God did all this, but in the sense that many Gods and Goddesses helped start life, but then left it to its own devices. I guess it's a mix of both, really.

Neo Emolga
06-22-2005, 02:01 AM
Honestly, I feel SK and I have arrived at a stalemate as he mentioned, since this see-saw of discrediting the Bible and scientific theory never seems to end, and the flinging of “what if,” “cause and effect,” and “intention, effort, and creation” seems ceaseless. The truth remains that until the arrival of absolute and unflawed scientific evidence proves both the Big Bang theory is right and the Bible is totally 100% wrong, or when mankind is given proof of God’s existence from a first hand witness by his own eyes, this debate will in fact be ceaseless.

All I can say is, SK, you do a remarkable job of debating, and while we still have the same standing in the end as we did in the beginning, it was worthwhile. As always, I base my beliefs of God through what I have read in the Bible, what has been discovered in modern Archaeology in relation to the time of Jesus, and personal self-enlightenment.

“Some pray to God, while others seek a sign. Purpose may be paramount, we all find out in time.”
Josh Joplin Group – “I’ve Changed” [alternate version]


How can each of us NOT be guilty of it, when we're all related, even if the bloodline has been diluted so much that it's almost impossible to tell that we're all related? Also, if Adam and Eve ARE the parents of every human, then technology in DNA sciences would have shown that every human on earth is related, but I have never once heard a groundbreaking discovery that a forensics lab anywhere in the world has made such a find. Also, we all know what happens if incest within a family goes on too long. Still borns, physical and mental incapacitation, premature deaths, etc etc etc. If all humans were related, I think the human race would look MUCH different than it does today.

Should we be held responsible for the murders of our ancestors too? What if my father had murdered someone? Does that make me automatically guilty as well, just because I'm related to him?

Case in point, we are related, but we can't all be guilty for a crime our ancestors have done. Otherwise, we would have broken all the other commandments in one slam as well. The reason why original sin is mentioned is because it is nearly impossible for humans to avoid committing sin at least once in their lives.

If God didn't want incest, why not make more than just TWO people? Why not start with six or twelve? That would be a simple way to, if not prevent it from happening, at least drastically cut the chances of it.

From a more technical standpoint, Adam and Eve, considered as "man and wife" had relations, and Abel and Cain were born. Cain killed Abel, and then the Bible mentions Cain having relations with his wife to bear Enoch. And Adam and Eve weren't brother and sister. So if God created Cain's wife the same way he had created Adam and Eve, then in fact there was no incest. That's a "what if" situation though. But to me, it seems to weigh more on the side that Cain's wife was created by God, rather than Eve giving birth to her instead, which I'm sure would have been mentioned. Since Adam and Eve aren't even immediate family, the first trace of possible incest would have happened there, if even at all. And since the Bible doesn't mention Eve giving birth to Cain's wife like it does with the birth of Abel and Cain, then its likely that there was no first incest to begin with.

How can it be "discontinued" if everyone on Earth is related? If it were discontinued, the human race would have gone extinct thousands, if not millions, of years ago due to the fact that no reproduction could take place. In this sense, discontinue and ultimately avoid seem to mean pretty much the same thing, which is the stopping of incest.

Incest means having relations with your immediate family, not someone who is just part of your same species. We are related in light that we are of one people, but we're not related in terms of immediate family. It's simple, God doesn't want us to have relations with someone in our own immediate family, but having relations with someone of your same species that is not part of your immediate family is acceptable, as long as it's not adultery either.

Kenny_C.002
06-22-2005, 03:57 AM
Kenny, your definition of creationism, as you know, was this:

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

Therefore, in order to accurately compare this idea to that of evolution, we must go to the beginning of this idea as well, which is widely accepted as the Big Bang.

I beg to differ. In order accurately debate creationsim vs. evolution, it is clear that we take the lowest common denominator. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life itself, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang theory. While we can take parts of Creationism out to fit with the debate with evolution, we cannot add theories that have nothing to do with evolution to make evolution "fit" with Creationism. We're lacking common sense here. It's a huge difference, and quite frankly people take this to the origin of life to "disprove" evolution (note: even with it having absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life), because it's sheer fact that evolution exists.

Since this debate is drawing to a close, I'll speak up on my standpoint.

Evolution is undeniably true and is fact, and that Creationism is untrue at least for this portion of the debate. Again, it has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory (also known to be true, but we don't know its cause, that's all), Genesis, and other theories on the origin of life. We cannot deny that proof of evolution is everywhere, in fruit flies, bacteria, archeaology, fossil records, rock existance, etc., and thus it should not be denied.

Esper, next time pick a topic that is more clear, since again EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ORIGINS OF LIFE. Yes, I'm irritated when people take that into account in these debates. To me it's bringing in basketball news when you're talking about soccer, they're two separate entities. I rest my case.

Finch
06-22-2005, 01:40 PM
"Well, there is no proof behind that either. A wide universe, yes, but still, there can’t be a basis as to why a being would drink iron instead of water and breath iodine. The consistency of creatures on Earth share the same basis. Drink water, breath in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. In what circumstances can that be altered regarding the chemical compounds of these substances and what each creature needs in order to sustain life?" - Neo Pikachu

In the circumstances that this is the way it happens. Really, it didn't have to be water and oxygen and carbon-based nutrients that we chose to keep us alive. If our planet swung more towards iodine and iron, then we would be of a different consistency, and we would sustain life based on what was available, as this would be what would have spawned life in the first place. And my point wasn't that there actually ARE beings that drink iron. My point was that there COULD have been just as easily, which shows how much more likely it is for life to begin than you'd think.

"EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ORIGINS OF LIFE. Yes, I'm irritated when people take that into account in these debates. To me it's bringing in basketball news when you're talking about soccer, they're two separate entities." - Kenny_C.002

This is a point, in hindsight, albeit a weak one. Really, it isn't a case of them being two different things at all, it's more a case of two different timescales. My point here is that creation is defined in simple terms as making something. In the case of the bible, as making the world we live in, and since it is such a huge part of the creationist topic and point of view it must be included for a fair analysis. And, for a fair analysis, it is also necessary to have something else to compare, notably the Big Bang Theory.

Incongruity
06-22-2005, 03:11 PM
Bah, the stalemate. It always ends like this. :ermm: Meh, better than a flame war



But Kenny, the origin of life is a part of the Modern Theory of Evolution. The heterotroph hypothesis is at the very least mentioned during discussion of evolution, if not made a core concept of it.

The origin of existence... eh not so much.

~* Esper *~
06-22-2005, 09:44 PM
Well, this topic has had some excellent ideas and a lot of action, but I will be ending it early because I have a trip on Friday, and I'm leaving early in the morning, and I will trust that NP will post the results ...

TIE !!! Both SK and NP get a point for their excellent knowledge application and creativity.

~* Esper *~
06-22-2005, 10:51 PM
Week 4: Homosexuality - Choice and Lifestyle or Predetermined and Unavoidable ...

This is a very serious topic and a lot of research has been put into it. The Catholic Church says it is wrong to do homosexual "acts" but not to be a homosexual, so does that confirm that, indeed, it is predetermined, like many scientists say, or is it something that people subconsciencously choose as the grow up ...

I want very articulate responses, please ... lol. And please do some, or maybe even just a little bit of, research because it doesn't hurt and it could be an advantage and you might learn something new...

START !

Marill
06-23-2005, 04:24 PM
NOTE: I know this weeks debate has already been tallied and scored. I wanted to post this here for personal reasons.

Evolution v. Creation - Which is more logical ?

When I first laid eyes upon this debate topic, something inside me ignited. Something flared up, different from all of the previous debates. This one is personal. Evolution versus Creation, eh? Most blatantly, I’ll say it now: I’m a Christian, and Creation is more logical, in my opinion. And because I’ve only dealt with Christianity, my opinion will be slanted towards my religion as well. I’ve researched the topic, and have formed four main points in which I will base my explanation on. So, without further ado, let’s get the show on the road.

First and more most, Christianity is based upon faith. Faith is something like no other. It’s believing without seeing, knowing without direct assurance and trust in The Almighty. Through faith, Christians and other religions believe that their God has established the world, and made it what it is today. They believe there is a Creator, for anything without a creator in the beginning isn’t logistical or plausible to them. Science relies on stone-cold facts to base their hypotheses and theorems on, however the only faith present is in their work. Creationism-believers have faith in their Creator, and have various facts to back them up. Such facts are geographical and historical facts and allusions, specific events and things of that nature within their Holy Scriptures, writings and teachings.

As seen in 2 Peter 3:3-5, “First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’ But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. “ Generations of Christians have believed that people unaffiliated with their religion will lose touch with the fact that God did create the world. This is an obvious highlight of how many generations of Christians and believers there were and are. One can see, faith has lived on through time... it’s not changed by facts, as science cannot disprove God exists. Science can, however, disprove evolution, if it desired.

Secondly, if science had a major flaw within it’s attempts to prove evolution, what would it be? The “Missing Link.” Where is it? Sure, you can say that ____ & ____ could possibly lead into the next link, thereby signifying humans evolved from apes and chimpanzees. However... before science can proclaim that, there would have to be facts, not theories and hypotheses. Science is only based on facts, I must reiterate. Perhaps one of the best quotes centered on the subject may be interpreted from Job 38:4. “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.” Since scientists can not prove their experiments, as they weren’t there at the time, Christians will always have a ‘hammock’ to fall into. Our God has always been here. Always will be. If evolution is always present, why aren’t we evolving?

Thirdly, adaptation and evolution are different subjects within themselves. Adaptation would mean for humans to alter due to their environment. Evolution could spark from anything, or no reason at all. If evolution were to be true, in the past 2000 years alone, wouldn’t we have changed in the slightest? Like Neo said, couldn’t we sprout wings or tails? Humans have been living longer due to new breakthroughs in environmental maintenance, not evolution. Genes dominate physical height, not necessarily evolution. Ever heard of the Punnet Squares?

Lastly, some other religions incorporate evolution into their beliefs. This being said, one should note: Creationism isn’t in conflict with science. It’s in conflict with any theory or hypothesis that has a world that starts without a creator. The same can’t be said for evolution. One is then able to believe both, rather than one single issue. Though this may seem like a direct conflict with Christianity and it’s teachings, the Bible never mentions evolution verbatim. Therefore, it could have happened, but... with God behind the steering wheel.

Evolution just isn’t as solid as Creationism. It relies on facts, and when it doesn’t have them, what does it do? Nothing. It can’t. Christianity and other religions have faith. Their faith pulls them through. What is unseen and unsure of to the eye doesn’t mean it’s not there. We breathe in air, right?

Incongruity
06-23-2005, 05:21 PM
To Marill: Apparently you've decided to ignore every other point made in this debate, and have denigrated yourself into believing that evolution had to have occurred within a 2000 year period. Well done. If you want verbatim conflict between evolution and creationism, read Genesis. Don't tell me my interpretations are wrong and yours aren't. Or you could just use the common Christian excuse, "The Jews are always wrong."


C.i.B.ORG

For homosexuality, I think we should discuss bisexuality as well. This is because according to studies such as Sexual Behavior in the Human Male Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Yes, Kinsey wasn't just some funny crap; he actually did some stuff), a large population of humans have had some homosexual experiences or at least sensations. Only a small percent in his study was purely heterosexual. On the other end, only a small percent was purely homosexual.

This is one of the few (How did I confuse view with few... oh well. typo) studies that are rarely disputed.


For every other study... Well. I'll basically generalize, because it actually fits this time. First of all, the results from them come primarily from massive extrapolation. They infer more than what's usually accepted as a valid conclusion in most studies. There is another problem though. While many studies will be reinforced by later experiments, there are just as many studies that support the other end. For example, certain studies claim that gay men have brains that are somewhat in between the heterosexual male brain and the heterosexual female brain. But then, other studies claim that the homosexual male is just very masculine.

Then there are the studies that claim homosexuality is a natural, inborn, "unfixable" thing. Apparently, if a twin is gay, the other twin's chances of being gay increase. This is expanded into saying "Homosexuality is hereditary." This is supported by various failed attempts to change sexuality, and the successful attempts that led to massive depression. Yeah, this attempt to change sexuality was condemned, outlawed, frowned upon later.

But then, some other very famous and intelligent philosophers believe that homosexuality is a product of society. Apparently, there are no homosexual/heterosexual people, but only homosexual/heterosexual acts. So some lesbians try to convince straight women to "convert" over, because they are only straight because it's expected/required/"natural". Then there are the conservatives that say it's just something that's learned, like the various sexual "deviations", driving fast, etc. Then there's the Catholic Church. Oh boy. They come into everything. Luckily, they've not messed this up like everything else, and are waiting for proof of the psychological basis. They're being vague, but telling homosexuals not to have gay sex.

The case of society being a major factor is supported by the way how many gays act heterosexual because of a heterosexual community. Apparently, in a primarily homosexual society, a heterosexual will act gay because of the open majority.


Meh, and undoubtedly, while talking about homosexuality, the issue of homosexuality in other organisms will come up. Well, it exists. To take a quote, "Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls is common among American bison." I added the bold.

Meh, I'll wait for either side to convince me.

Matt & Vulpix
06-23-2005, 08:25 PM
C.i.B.O.R.G.

Well, I don't know any of the facts. I don't know the numbers. Heck, I don't even know about the studies made about it.

But I know what I know because I am gay, and can tell you from personal experience that it is not something you choose.

I don't remember exactly what made me discover it; I figure it was around secondary one, around winter, when I started to notice I was attracted to some boys at my school. I started to "self-explore" myself at home, and... well, yes.

It eventually occured to me that I was gay and that I did those things. Yes... but... then I began to be afraid. People won't accept me. They'll hate me. I'll be alone.

So I kept my secret. I never told a soul. For a full year, I simulted attraction to some asian girls at my school. I didn't want anyone to grow suspicious of me.

Then, this year, I said... You know what? I have nothing left to prove to these people. If they don't like me after finding out I'm gay, then, that's not my problem and I don't want them to be my friend. I told a few cousins of mine, then my sister, then a few people online... eventually I told my best friend that does not go to my school, and so on until today, where most of my close friends know, everyone I know online knows.

I've overcome a lot. There was a time when I tried to stimulate myself by looking at women, and it never worked. I am gay. I am happy because I've accepted who I am. I don't care what people think about it. I'm happy with who I am, period. And the people that TRULY care about me will be happy with that. My psychologist told me once, "You know, if you went on the news and said you were gay, it'd cause more of a stir than if a girl your age went on the news and said she had three buddies she had sex with on a regular basis. Where's the logic in that?" I've never done anything wrong, yet they put people who are worse than me on some sort of pedestal.

It's a shame someone would send their son/daughter to a "degayafication" center. Or tell them to hide their sexuality. Or tell them to stay alone for the rest of their lives and not act on their feelings. But those people, the people who tell you to supress who you truly are? They aren't gay. They don't know how it feels.

The church says it is a sin to be gay. I say it is a sin to deny someone happiness.

Oh, and just to add... I don't think it's possible to surpress sexual desires, ESPECIALLY when you only swing one way (if you catch my drift). Forcing someone into asexuality or heterosexuality when they don't want it and will be unhappy with it... is just WRONG.

Note: this is just a note... the ironic part is, that, had I not been gay, I'd never have come back to PE2K after I left years ago. Mario IMed me when I was in a gay Yahoo Chatroom :P I ended up coming back.

Marill
06-25-2005, 04:33 PM
To Marill: Apparently you've decided to ignore every other point made in this debate, and have denigrated yourself into believing that evolution had to have occurred within a 2000 year period. Well done. If you want verbatim conflict between evolution and creationism, read Genesis. Don't tell me my interpretations are wrong and yours aren't. Or you could just use the common Christian excuse, "The Jews are always wrong."

Well, if there weren't Jews in the beginning, there would be no Christians today. So, I don't think they were wrong to become Christians. Different opinions, different beliefs. To each their own. This is a debate. And, I thank you for your kind compliments. ^-^

~* Esper *~
06-28-2005, 06:57 PM
Please stop replying to each other off topic, and Marill, trust me, I understand you wanting to post for personal, important reasons, I really do, but after I have called time, which granted was premature, please don't post about a previous topic ...


EDIT: I will not be here for the next week - two weeks on account of my father coming in from offshore and he, for some insane, odd, and disturbing reason, doesn't own a computer so I will post this in a thread where hopefully one of the WAR Coordinators will have a replacement judge.

Also, I think I should stop this topic right now, because it's like out of steam, but I won't, and I hope, I really hope the replacement judge is good ...

Lord Celebi
07-10-2005, 03:21 AM
I'm Temporary Debate Judge now...

The winners for week 4 are Matt & Vulpix and Sk! 2 points to Ciborg! Yippee!

This week's topic:

George Bush: Conspiracy or Honest Man?
So, what do you think, is Bush trying to abuse his presidency to get rich and force the Christian Values on America, or is he trying to help us?

TMTS
07-16-2005, 01:57 AM
Team: C.I.B.org-

As much as I'd love to agree with the first pitch, I really don't think he's... "evil" if you want to use that word. I really think that he was trying to be like his father, who, in all actuality, was a pretty good president. He did suceede in being president by putting on a good image, and as truth has it, spending most of his campeighn finance on putting down the other guy. Twice.

That aside, he got into office. He tried to make big moves. He wanted to be remembered in history. And he got a little over his head.

I can't quite explain a whole lot more than that, but it's my general point here. He tried, and he can't back out, and if he does he's affraid of looking like a coward.

Incongruity
07-16-2005, 02:12 AM
C.i.B.ORG

Apparently, we'll get a point anyways, because nobody else is doing it.


So allow me to take this opportunity to describe to you why I hate cantaloupes.

Some people are zealously for all-natural things. All-natural nudity, all-natural marijuana, all-natural nudity. However, cantaloupes are disgusting. Natural, but disgusting. I suppose not all natural things are supposed to be good, but cantaloupes take the cake in suckiness.

Why? They taste horrible. Unlike the cantaloupe's sweet and juicy counterpart, the honey-dew, the cantaloupe lacks the ability to stimulate one's sense of taste. One would assume by the colorful hue that it would taste better, but just like the skin of a carrot, it is bitter, dull, and overall, puke-inciting.

Not only that, such a fruit should NOT have more than one name. I mean, cantaloupe, cantaloup, and ROCKMELON? What kind of name is rockmelon? Not only is the name not appetizing, it sounds retarded. Yes, I was shocked too that there could be a name retardeder than cantaloupe, but then the rockmelon showed up.

Not only that, cantaloupes are grown in Europe, and we all know white people suck. [/racist]

But on a more serious note, cantaloupes become even more retarded as they cross the pond. In Europe, one is usually able to tell the difference between a normal muskmelon and a cantaloupe because cantaloupes are not netted, have deep grooves, and a hard warty rind. But then, that just makes me salivate less. Who really wants to eat the inside of something that reminds them of their grandmother's toe?

And yet, Americans make this worse; the cantaloupe was originally marketed as the "Netted Gem." After careful examination, I have realized that the Cantaloupe... IS NOT A GEM! I was ripped off. As a collector of rare stones and gems, I was personally offended as I found out that a cantaloupe was NOT a stone; originally I had kept it in storage, only to find a strange stench along with a fly colony occupying the space where the "gem" had been.

Oh, and it's not netted either. I was expecting a true cantaloupe. But Americans can't distinguish between a muskmelon and a cantaloupe apparently. What we call "cantaloupes" are in fact netted/webbed.

Damn corporations.[/hippie]

Not only that, cantaloupes belong to a family of other horrible fruits. Squashes and melons. Seriously, do you like squash? The name itself is unappetizing, and the squash's relative, the pumpkin, is only good for wearing on one's head for Halloween (and I don't mean the head that has your face in the front).

Not only that, when one mentions a cantaloupe, I do not know if they are referring to the wrongly marketed fruit or the charge (in heraldry)

Do you know where all of these problems with nomenclature come from? Italy. That's right. However, I can probably overlook this fault, since you've given us great food, a whole new genre of movies, and even named two continents. But damn thee who decided to name the commune in the Sabine Hills, "Cantalupo in Sabina."


So all in all, cantaloupes suck. Eat strawberries. Or grapes. Or oranges. Even an apple would suffice. But never eat a cantaloupe.

Pidgeot79
07-16-2005, 09:14 AM
LOL Sk.

I think I'l take the default point instead since my argument actually has to do with the topic. Hopefully this is within the time limit.

ASSASSIN GUILD

George W. Bush is a bad president because he has some pretty dumb ties. As you can see here:

http://bobmilne.com/promos/pictures/george_bush.jpg
http://www.george-bush-pics.com/george-bush-pictures/george-bush-picture-1.jpg

Also Bush looks funny as a cowboy:

http://www.iwn.fi/~re-00194/Images/Prod/Karikatyyrit/Varilliset/Isot/George%20Bush.jpg

George Bush

Incongruity
07-16-2005, 05:24 PM
LOL Sk.

I think I'l take the default point instead since my argument actually has to do with the topic. Hopefully this is within the time limit.

ASSASSIN GUILD

George W. Bush is a bad president because he has some pretty dumb ties. As you can see here:

http://bobmilne.com/promos/pictures/george_bush.jpg
http://www.george-bush-pics.com/george-bush-pictures/george-bush-picture-1.jpg

Also Bush looks funny as a cowboy:

http://www.iwn.fi/~re-00194/Images/Prod/Karikatyyrit/Varilliset/Isot/George%20Bush.jpg

George Bush:cry: why would you do that to me...

Lord Celebi
07-17-2005, 07:35 PM
Okay...

Sorry sk, but if Pidgeot didn't post...

Point to TMTS and Pidgeot 79

Ciborg and Assassin Guild.

This week's theme:

The Religous Debate
Yup... It was coming eventually. Debate Religon! Aboslutely no flaming though.

Kenny_C.002
07-19-2005, 04:33 AM
rust...that's a horrible topic...

Jack of Clovers
07-19-2005, 07:59 AM
I agree. Religion's been overdone. not to mention, maybe you should be more specific in what to debate :eh:

~Jack~

Lord Celebi
07-19-2005, 03:24 PM
rust...that's a horrible topic...
I know... I'm tired. I had a really good topic in mind, then I forgot...

Now I remember;

Okay, here's the real topic:

Downloading Music, Fair or Not?

TMTS
07-19-2005, 04:21 PM
Name: TMTS
Team: C.I.B.org

Before anyone starts on the whole "Oh, CD prices are waaay too expensive nowadays! This is payback! Nah nah nah nah nah" *mocking*, I have a few points I'd like to note.

○ Costs

Before you complain about shelling out up to $20 for a CD with anywhere from 9-21 songs, consider the costs that the CD producer/artist/manufactuar had to pay.

-Rental/use of recording studio.
This cost, like most everything, has gone up. It's general inflation. There's more money in circulation, and prices need to be reflected as such. They have also gone up because there are more and more recording artists nowadays. They have a right as a buisinessowner to charge more, and thusly gain more profit.

-Artist contribution.
Songwritters don't just go to the breakfast table and come up with lyrics in a matter of a few seconds out of sheer boredom. The process is made up of writting, re-writting and editing. "Will this song effectivly send the message? (if any).

-More general costs
Instruments, hired talent, and many other factors need to be considered as well.

Making an album is an investment with hopeful returns. In illegally downloading songs, you're hurting the maker. And, in time, the more people do it, the closer the artist is to going out of business.

In cases like iTunes, Napster, etc, which are legal download services, the artist is actually getting revenue for what they do. Isn't that a lot more fair?

Let's say you like A song or two off the album. I say buy it! If you like the one song, chances are you may find you like the artist as well. It's this close-minded thought that you'll only like the song that's actually limiting you from finding what you really like.

And on a final note, let me put it this way- in case of a records error, or a computer crash, it's nice to have a tangable copy of the songs to re-copy to the computer.

Lord Celebi
07-19-2005, 05:09 PM
Although I'm judge... I still wanna debate :wink:

Name: TMTS
Team: C.I.B.org

-Artist contribution.
Songwritters don't just go to the breakfast table and come up with lyrics in a matter of a few seconds out of sheer boredom. The process is made up of writting, re-writting and editing. "Will this song effectivly send the message? (if any). Heard any rap lately? Fo Shizzle this, F*ck that! Fo Shizzle! Yeah... Not at the breakfast table.

-More general costs
Instruments, hired talent, and many other factors need to be considered as well.

Making an album is an investment with hopeful returns. In illegally downloading songs, you're hurting the maker. And, in time, the more people do it, the closer the artist is to going out of business.This is what concerts are for. And the artist is under contract, so the comapny that has their contract and they're paid whether they sell or not. Companys lose money, Britney Spears doesn't give a damn about who downloads her music, cuz she's paid no matter what.

And on a final note, let me put it this way- in case of a records error, or a computer crash, it's nice to have a tangable copy of the songs to re-copy to the computer. iTunes stores all the songs on your hard drive and you can put your copy of your iTunes on 2 other computers. You can also burn iTunes CDs.

TMTS
07-19-2005, 05:20 PM
Although I'm judge... I still wanna debate :wink:

Heard any rap lately? Fo Shizzle this, F*ck that! Fo Shizzle! Yeah... Not at the breakfast table.

See, you fail to notice that rap isn't music.

Rap is s███. It's talking with a beat.

iTunes stores all the songs on your hard drive and you can put your copy of your iTunes on 2 other computers. You can also burn iTunes CDs.

I wasn't dissing iTunes in the first place.

so yah.

Matthew
07-21-2005, 09:57 AM
Matthew of Ciborg

Although I'm judge... I still wanna debate :wink:

Heard any rap lately? Fo Shizzle this, F*ck that! Fo Shizzle! Yeah... Not at the breakfast table.

Not all Rap is like that rust. It is this close-mindedness that makes you seem so ignorant, and many others like you. Some rap is meaningful, and the artist who writes they lyrics sometimes pour their hearts and sould into it. The rap you are talking about is usually reffered to as 'gangsta' rap. IF you want a meaningful song, look at Eminem's Mockingbeard... it may have some cussing in it, but it is explaining how he loves his daughter and how he will get her anything... I am not that into rap anyway, so my knowledge is rather limited. However, I do know that any form of expression is bueatiful in its own way... just wanted to mention that ;)

This is what concerts are for. And the artist is under contract, so the comapny that has their contract and they're paid whether they sell or not. Companys lose money, Britney Spears doesn't give a damn about who downloads her music, cuz she's paid no matter what.

Yes rust, but the companies pay their artists... so in retrospect, teh artists do care if their music is downladed or not. Artists and record companies alike are losing money to those who illegaly download thier music that they worked many many hours upon. Is it fair to deny them the right to make a fair earning? Though they do make a lot, they are losing alot to illegal downloaders.

iTunes stores all the songs on your hard drive and you can put your copy of your iTunes on 2 other computers. You can also burn iTunes CDs.

And I think TMTS meant what if your computer (hard-drive included) crashed? All memory deleted... you would be screwed out of probably hundreds of songs.... making an inconvenience for you.

Read the bold... :rolleyes:

Jack of Clovers
07-22-2005, 03:14 AM
I'll start by saying... most music these days isn't worth listening to. As an avid listening to the radio of various stations, new songs are often played but most hardly last. A few I only heard twice and never heard again. Within a couple months, most new songs are forgotten and only unique songs stay. Remember...
"I'm blue, if I were green I would die...."
That song was popular for a while but was quickly forgotten. Would anyone complain if that was downloaded (since the song is at least four years old I think and the album is probably off most shelves of stores).

I have nothing against people downloading one or two songs from an albumn. It's those people that download the whole thing that gets on my nerve. It takes more time to download when they could easily drive over and buy the song. Time... Money... Time... Money... hmmm...

But let's move further into this. Think of who is downloading music, games, and movies. The age range is early teens to late twenties with most of the downloads coming from teens in highschool. How many teens in HS do you know that had a job or regularly kept cash around to buy their music? None of my friends had jobs nor enough cash often enough to buy music. Food and gas were more important. In this technological age, most findd it easier to download the music with their high tech computers and fast Internet. And they can keep all the songs in one section and randomly play them in any order without having to switch CD's. That, I think, is the main reason people download music: to listen to them like the radio except without the commercials. And if they didn't feel like listening to the song, they can skip it.
Yes, downloading music does hurt the industry, like downloading moves (curse those theatre prices). One or two songs from an albumn is okay, and if they have the CD, downloads are fine. Downloading old forgotten songs not in stores is okay too. But I know people that download all tracks of albumns and that's where I draw the line.

Assassin Guild
~Jack~

Matthew
07-22-2005, 05:03 AM
I'll start by saying... most music these days isn't worth listening to. As an avid listening to the radio of various stations, new songs are often played but most hardly last. A few I only heard twice and never heard again. Within a couple months, most new songs are forgotten and only unique songs stay. Remember...
"I'm blue, if I were green I would die...."
That song was popular for a while but was quickly forgotten. Would anyone complain if that was downloaded (since the song is at least four years old I think and the album is probably off most shelves of stores).

I have nothing against people downloading one or two songs from an albumn. It's those people that download the whole thing that gets on my nerve. It takes more time to download when they could easily drive over and buy the song. Time... Money... Time... Money... hmmm...

But let's move further into this. Think of who is downloading music, games, and movies. The age range is early teens to late twenties with most of the downloads coming from teens in highschool. How many teens in HS do you know that had a job or regularly kept cash around to buy their music? None of my friends had jobs nor enough cash often enough to buy music. Food and gas were more important. In this technological age, most findd it easier to download the music with their high tech computers and fast Internet. And they can keep all the songs in one section and randomly play them in any order without having to switch CD's. That, I think, is the main reason people download music: to listen to them like the radio except without the commercials. And if they didn't feel like listening to the song, they can skip it.
Yes, downloading music does hurt the industry, like downloading moves (curse those theatre prices). One or two songs from an albumn is okay, and if they have the CD, downloads are fine. Downloading old forgotten songs not in stores is okay too. But I know people that download all tracks of albumns and that's where I draw the line.

Assassin Guild
~Jack~


Heh =P

I agree with you entirely Jack. I was just picking on rust... lol.

I download music because I usually am interested in, at most, a few songs from any given album. I see it as a waste of money to spend up to twenty dollars for 15 songs when I am only going to listen to only a few of them. It is a waste of money... and it's not like I'm an avid music enthusiast... it isn't my most favorite past-time... You will only catch me listening to music very rerely, and I'll only really listen to one song on repeat.

As for movie prices are concerned, Jack, there is a reason they are so high... one reason is inflation. As prices and wages increase, we need to raise ticket and concession prices in order to still retain a profit. Theaters have the right to do so. Another reason is the production value of the movies... they are really expensive because of inflation and the cost for the actor's wages and props and all that. They ask for a large percentage of box office revenue so they can earn back what they wasted on making the movie. Theater corporations only earn a small percentage of those high box office ticket prices. As for concession prices are concerned, they are so high because that is the main income for the theater... they need to pay the employees and they do so with that money they earn. It is all because of our inflating economy that movie prices are so expensive =P Some lady commented to me yesterday at work: "I have to take out another mortgage everytime I come see a movie," and I replied back: "Yeah, seriously."

Oh, and if you didn't guess, I work at a theater... so yeah =P

Pirating movies is wrong in my opinion... if you want to see a movie that badly, shell out the ten bucks and go see it... you don't need to buy food... eat before you go, or smuggle in your own soda... it isn't that hard. Just be respectful and clean it up before you leave... that is why most theaters don't let you bring it in.

Pidgeot79
07-23-2005, 12:33 AM
ASSASSIN GUILD - PIDGEOT79


I know... I'm tired. I had a really good topic in mind, then I forgot...
Now I remember;


LOL! :rolleyes:


Downloading Music, Fair or Not?


Downloading music is fair, downloading music that is copyrighted isn't. However downloading copyrighted music can be fair if it is paid for and the proceeds go to the company/artist/whatever.

Hey I'm the first person to say something about copyrights. :eh:


Heard any rap lately? Fo Shizzle this, F*ck that! Fo Shizzle! Yeah... Not at the breakfast table.


I'm tired of anti-rap people saying these kind of things. :sad: Not every single rap song is like that. You should really check out some songs from Emenim and Kanye West. I'm sure there are others aswell, but I'm not a great rap fan.


This is what concerts are for. And the artist is under contract, so the comapny that has their contract and they're paid whether they sell or not. Companys lose money, Britney Spears doesn't give a damn about who downloads her music, cuz she's paid no matter what.


So it's not wrong for companies to lose money? Companies are paying the artist, for the marketing, etc., shouldn't they get something back? Also like Matthew-sensei stated, the money the company gets goes to the artist. If the company doesn't get money from CD sales they can't pay the artist.

Also let's imagine if you were an artist, rust.

Ok, so you just finished your first album with titles such as

I'm In Love With You Baby
The Pizza Dance
Coagulation
Super Happy Fun Go Go Time (feat. Pidgeot79 :biggrin:)
Bionicle Boogy

Anyways let's say of your thousands of fans, Jack and his leprechaun friends, download your album instead of buying it. Making the total money earned: $0

That $0 goes to the company helping you out, Homicidal Matthew Incorporated. You and Homicidal Matthew Incorporated agreed that 85% of the CD sales goes to you while the rest was kept my Homicidal Matthew Incorporated (I love saying that). 0x0.85=0 According to my calculations you earn $0 and Homicidal Matthew Incorporated earns $0. While Jack and his leprechaun friends all get a free copy of your album. Now I ask you:

DO YOU REALLY WANT JACK AND HIS LEPRECHAUN FRIENDS GETTING MORE THAN YOU DO?


Woah I just debated, atleast I think I did. I probably made a million of mistakes.

Matthew
07-23-2005, 09:27 AM
Also let's imagine if you were an artist, rust.

Ok, so you just finished your first album with titles such as

I'm In Love With You Baby
The Pizza Dance
Coagulation
Super Happy Fun Go Go Time (feat. Pidgeot79 :biggrin:)
Bionicle Boogy

Anyways let's say of your thousands of fans, Jack and his leprechaun friends, download your album instead of buying it. Making the total money earned: $0

That $0 goes to the company helping you out, Homicidal Matthew Incorporated. You and Homicidal Matthew Incorporated agreed that 85% of the CD sales goes to you while the rest was kept my Homicidal Matthew Incorporated (I love saying that). 0x0.85=0 According to my calculations you earn $0 and Homicidal Matthew Incorporated earns $0. While Jack and his leprechaun friends all get a free copy of your album. Now I ask you:

DO YOU REALLY WANT JACK AND HIS LEPRECHAUN FRIENDS GETTING MORE THAN YOU DO?


And if we spent One Million dollars producing, releasing, and advertising, that is $150,000 that rust owes Homicidal Matthew Incorporated (I love saying it too.. what do you know?), and 850,000 you lost....

Wait... rewind!!! I GET TO BE FRIGGIN HOMICIDAL!!!??!?!?! friggin sweet... :cool:

Lord Celebi
07-23-2005, 04:25 PM
Also let's imagine if you were an artist, rust.

Ok, so you just finished your first album with titles such as

I'm In Love With You Baby
The Pizza Dance
Coagulation
Super Happy Fun Go Go Time (feat. Pidgeot79 :biggrin:)
Bionicle Boogy

Anyways let's say of your thousands of fans, Jack and his leprechaun friends, download your album instead of buying it. Making the total money earned: $0

That $0 goes to the company helping you out, Homicidal Matthew Incorporated. You and Homicidal Matthew Incorporated agreed that 85% of the CD sales goes to you while the rest was kept my Homicidal Matthew Incorporated (I love saying that). 0x0.85=0 According to my calculations you earn $0 and Homicidal Matthew Incorporated earns $0. While Jack and his leprechaun friends all get a free copy of your album. Now I ask you:

DO YOU REALLY WANT JACK AND HIS LEPRECHAUN FRIENDS GETTING MORE THAN YOU DO?


Woah I just debated, atleast I think I did. I probably made a million of mistakes.
You forget that at least one person has to buy my album to put it up for download. And if 1 Million leprehcauns want to downlad it, I'd make a nice Contract with Steve Jobs and get my tracks on iTunes. Then, I'd pay off my royalty to LEGO.

Matthew
07-23-2005, 06:05 PM
You can do that... but how many people are going to pay to download a song when they can do it for free (illegally)?

Lord Celebi
07-23-2005, 06:27 PM
You can do that... but how many people are going to pay to download a song when they can do it for free (illegally)?
Those who are afraid of the law.

Jack of Clovers
07-23-2005, 07:24 PM
DO YOU REALLY WANT JACK AND HIS LEPRECHAUN FRIENDS GETTING MORE THAN YOU DO?
On a personal note, I've never downloaded music. Hence, why I said I'm an avid listener of the radio.

And whether we like it or not, people will find a way around issues of legality. Alcohal, smoking, illicit drugs. Same will go with downloading music (movies, games, etc...).

Yes it's illegal and there's nothing people can do to fully stop it. Unless of course the Internet was shut down, which would probably end the world of technology as we know it.
The best plan companies have against these downloaders is to catch them one at a time. People are caught with huge penalties (I think some are insane) but there are billions of people on this planet and they won't all be caught. Plus with all the PTP servers and networks, it's basically "lending your friend music you bought". The downside is, I'm sure they don't know every single one of the 30,000 downloading their shared song. :rolleyes:

Personal View-
I think a music artist shouldn't care about revenue because they're doing it solely for the love of music, aren't they? Anyone who follows the Arts (drawing, music, writing) do it because that's what they love to do, even if they don't make money. But the Music industry EXPECTS to make money off of every single artist. In my opinion, they're all greedy and probably have made enough money to live on... they just need to learn how to spend money correctly.

~Jack~

Lord Celebi
07-24-2005, 06:44 PM
The winners are Jack of the Assassin Guild and Kronos of Ciborg!

This week's topic;

Cloning
How do you feel about cloning? Do you agree ? Do you think its playing god?

Matthew
07-31-2005, 09:20 AM
I don't believe in cloning... Actually, let me rephrase that... I don't believe that it will do society any good, though I am glad that our technological boundries are expanding. It depends on what purpose the cloning is being done for. Cloning plants and food are all fine and dandy, but to clone a living, feeling, emotionally driven creature for cruel, self-promoting reasons is immoral. Like in the movie, The Island, where they basically had a clone farm where they would clone the famous and the rich for replacement parts if they ever needed them. I believe the reffered to them as an 'insurance policy.' It's wrong, and demoralizing.If you clone a person, you are cloning a moral, sentient being... aren't those clones going to have the same feelings? They have the same brain cells. Mankind is taking the power of creating life into his own hands... he is playing god by cloning life and it is wrong... I know I didn't present any scientific fact, but I'm arguing the emotional aspect of this subject which plays just as big of a part.

Phoenix004
07-31-2005, 02:20 PM
Team Soul

Although I understand that Cloning does have certain benefits, I strongly believe that Cloning causes a lot more harm than good. First of all, many people say that Cloning could be used to provide children for infertile couples. However, this would be dangerous as it decreases the genetic variation in society.

Cloning is also still a very new process and can be highly dangerous and painful for the test subjects. For example, the famous sheep clone called Dolly was created after 277 attempts, and even then Dolly contracted disease too early in her life. How many attempts could it take to clone a human? Humans are much more complicated creatures. How many lives would be destroyed before a satisfactory clone is created?

Even if we could manage to clone a human, why would that be a good thing? It could be used for terrible reasons, such as cloning government officials, or perhaps even an army of mindless slaves. Is that really a humane practice?

Cloning has very few uses which would benefit society. It is mostly a waste of scientific time and resources which could be spent on much more worthy causes.

Lord Celebi
07-31-2005, 03:43 PM
Unfortunatately, you 2 are late for this week... But since no one posted, we're having the same topic next week too.

Phoenix004
07-31-2005, 10:58 PM
In that case does my previous post count for next week? I hope so as I won't be here next week!

Lord Celebi
08-01-2005, 12:11 AM
In that case does my previous post count for next week? I hope so as I won't be here next week!
Yup!

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/4429/tahut0dx.jpgTahu Hates that this week is the last week of the war...