Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: No religion in the Flood; yet evolution and big bang are permitted?
  • Subject: No religion in the Flood; yet evolution and big bang are permitted?
Subject: No religion in the Flood; yet evolution and big bang are permitted?

Tom Achronos
Bungie.net Overlord
twitter: http://twitter.com/Achronos

"I have no words that would do justice to the atrocities you commit to the English language, as well as your continued assaults on the concepts of basic literacy and logical reasoning."

The short version or the long version?

Posted by: masterchief200
I honestly no idea in what you just said.

  • 08.27.2007 6:01 PM PDT

Life can be dangerous
╔╗╔══╦╦╦╦╗
║║║╔╗║║║║║
║╚╣╠╣║║║║╚╗
╚═╩╝╚╩══╩═╝

Posted by: Achronos
The short version or the long version?

Posted by: masterchief200
I honestly no idea in what you just said.


The medium- long version.

  • 08.27.2007 6:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: masterchief200
Posted by: Achronos
The short version or the long version?

Posted by: masterchief200
I honestly no idea in what you just said.


The medium- long version.

Achronos is trying to say that religion explains the why. For example "Why we were created". Religion doesn't have any evidence to proove why.
However, science explains the how. "How are we here" - a male + female. And there is evidence to support that. Because of the evidence, we talk about science. It doesn't offend people all too much because we all know science is the truth.

[Edited on 08.27.2007 6:13 PM PDT]

  • 08.27.2007 6:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Read about the Forgotten Spartan I Program
Butane: To protect the world from devastation!
sir_brilliant: To unite all people within our nation!
Rainman89: To denounce the evils of truth and love!
sir_brilliant: To extend out reach to the stars above!
SpaceGhostFlyer: Jessie!
Butane: James!
sir_brilliant: Team Rocket blasting off at the speed of light
Butane: Surrender now or prepare to fight
sir_brilliant: Meowth, that's right!

Posted by: Recon Number 54
Man do I love the timestamp on edits.


But in reality, couldn't Achronos just change the code so that it looked like he posted before you?

  • 08.27.2007 6:42 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Rainman89
Posted by: Recon Number 54
Man do I love the timestamp on edits.


But in reality, couldn't Achronos just change the code so that it looked like he posted before you?

In reality, it's probably more trouble than it's worth.

  • 08.27.2007 6:44 PM PDT

2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Alright, I think I see the reasoning behind it all. Of course, being a creationist I see things in a different light than everyone else. But I will respect the reasoning behind these rules coming from another's perspective. You can lock this now if necessary.

  • 08.27.2007 7:42 PM PDT

Sandswept Studios Design Director

Visit us and check out our games at Sandswept.net!

~~Pardon Our Dust.~~

Hehe, people complain about not being able to talk about things.. Some people complain about talking about things.. The world keeps spinning.

It makes me dizzy! :( I just think no matter how much discussion you have with someone on a forum about any topics like that, they still won't change their mind. I have my beliefs, and my opinions, but I won't bother describing them here. I fail to see the point.

I like the short answer, it works well.

  • 08.27.2007 7:49 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: SS_Zag1
Hehe, people complain about not being able to talk about things.. Some people complain about talking about things.. The world keeps spinning.

It makes me dizzy! :( I just think no matter how much discussion you have with someone on a forum about any topics like that, they still won't change their mind. I have my beliefs, and my opinions, but I won't bother describing them here. I fail to see the point.

I like the short answer, it works well.

Agreed. People are entitled to there opinon and the site to its set rules. More or less the reason that religion topics are not allowed is because its a sensetive subject, and almost always ends in flaming and bickering between b.net members before it gets lock.
Also theres been a lot of repeat topics (this one is one, but is not repeated as often as others).

In short: Those who don't remeber the past, are doomed to repeat it.

  • 08.27.2007 8:01 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Elder Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Primum Agmen
A tosser is the same as a wanker. To toss oneself off is to fondle the trouser weasel.


Achronos

Joe Staten

Achronos, I always enjoy reading your point of view. Achronos for president!

  • 08.27.2007 9:03 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: gezab
  • user homepage:

Carrots.

Uhh... Theory of evolution = science

Theory of "god put us on earth" = religion.

  • 08.27.2007 11:05 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Man from Ape is not observed nor proven, therefore Evolutionism = Theory, not Fact.

  • 08.28.2007 12:07 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Man from Ape is not observed nor proven, therefore Evolutionism = Theory, not Fact.

That statement is too flawed for words.....

  • 08.28.2007 1:04 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Achronos
...post...


I remember reading a blog entry of yours in which you pretty much said Creationism is wrong, Evolution is right... (as far as I can remember)
I just hope you, and any other moderators, can take an unbiased approach when dealing with posts/threads/members who discuss Creationism.

  • 08.28.2007 1:33 AM PDT

Posted by: Recon Number 54
The devil's in the details, isn't it?

Religious discussions are prohibited, but philosophical ones are allowed (until they get out of hand). Political discussions are prohibited, but current events are allowed (until they get out of hand). Discussions of how the Halo story draws from literary, historical, mythological and religious sources are allowed, (until they get out of hand). Discussions about sociological issues are allowed, (until they get out of hand).

The common thread is the conversation getting out of hand. How do I define the "out of hand" situation? When the topic is no longer being discussed in a detached and impersonal way.

Recon goes on for a while

Here is an example. Someone asked a philosophical question. Nothing wrong with that. No different than someone asking a cosmology, sociology, or biology question.

The fact that many of those questions are answered (by most people) with a religious, theological, scientific response (or some combination thereof) tells me that ALL of us ask these questions, and NONE of us have the whole answer.

Then why do we argue over who thinks they have "more truth" than someone else?

Arguments, especially those who attack others, those get locked. No matter the subject matter. The sad fact is that religious and political topics get to that point far sooner than most others.


Well said.

My views are that evoloution and the big bang should be allowed to be talked about freely.. seeing as there is evidence, whereas with creationisim we have none, and it's totally in-concievable.

  • 08.28.2007 1:43 AM PDT

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the clichéd lines.

Posted by: odmichael
It doesn't offend people all too much because we all know science is the truth.

I don't think science is truth. I think science is trying to answer certain questions by using physical evidence. Which brings me to this next quote.

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Man from Ape is not observed nor proven, therefore Evolutionism = Theory, not Fact.

Many things in science are theories. And the theory of man coming from ape comes from the fact that we are extremely close genetically. The theory didn't just come out of thin air.


And I agree with what many people have said. Science and religion aren't the same beasts. And so they shouldn't be treated the same.

  • 08.28.2007 3:58 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

A Guide to Networking, Matchmaking, and Host in Halo (HBO mirror)

Bungie Friends and Family invitee, and sender of "random emails" about networking.

Some might argue that "why" is in some cases a redundant question; it has no bearing on what actually happens, and there might not be an answer to give. For instance "Why were we created" essentially demands a purpose for our existence

Science makes NO stand regarding theology. It is not capable of doing so within its own parameters. Science is only capable of explaining the measurable, the definable where as theology attempts to define the undefinable, that which defies measurement or quantification.

Science cannot disprove the beliefs of something that has been defined as disprovable (which nicely shields these views from attack). If I were to postulate the existence of a flying pink unicorn that is invisible and changes any scientific measurements aimed at detecting it to measurements which would indicate it is not there, there is no way to prove it's existence.

However, you can argue against the reason for why it is supposed to be invisible and undetectable, and in a lot of cases the belief will be arbitrary, or the reason for believing it possesses those particular characteristics is on extremely shaky grounds. Why was my object invisible? Because I chose it to be arbitrarily. Or I had a vision of such an object. Or it might have been misconstrued by someone I was telling a story to, or otherwise mistranslated. Or someone told me it was invisible, etc.

However, the point to make is that there is no evidence whatsoever for these beliefs, or the evidence is extremely poor. They cannot be disproved, but they cannot be proved either. Also, by applying Occam's Razor, which all things being equal states that the simplest theory is the best, you can see that not having to explain a complex entity which defies all measurements is a lot simpler than there not being one in the first place. All other things being equal (which is certainly not true in this case incidentally), the theory of there being no flying unicorn is a better one.

There is no reason to believe in the existence of Homer's gods over say, Allah, and these various beliefs all stem from somewhat arbitrary human beliefs. Why is Allah all powerful? Because people believe he is.

Science sucks at the "why", but it excels at the "how" - describing the mechanisms of the natural world. Now, the difference between the two is that one is philosophical, and one is based in observation. You can gather evidence against the observations, but not against a philosophy.

Science cannot provide a scientific answer to some philosophical or moral ideas. There's no scientific proof that it is "wrong" to steal, for instance; that comes for most people from our upbringing and an inbuilt sense of morality (which probably stems from our generally altruistic behaviour. As for where that comes from, some would argue it evolved ... and it effectively made us into the most powerful species on this planet ... I can quickly see this post is getting rather deep ...).

However, for various other things the "why" falls out by it's own right, until you reach the laws upon which nature is based (.e.g the laws of physics and the various constants that define them).

I think that's deep enough for today. At any rate, what other people believe is not really my concern :-)

  • 08.28.2007 6:05 AM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: Snap Dragon
Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Man from Ape is not observed nor proven, therefore Evolutionism = Theory, not Fact.

That statement is too flawed for words.....

Flawed? We cannot observe something that takes millions of years, and we still haven't found a link between our two species. Not to mention it is strange to see one portion of the species unchanged and the other so far evolved, usually both portions change alot. Normal evolution and adaptation is a given, since we can actually record and find clues that prove it exists. There is no proof that proves Man from Ape evolution, just some strange coincidences that people think are proof.

Science may have alot of theory, but too many people assume theory as fact.

[Edited on 08.28.2007 6:23 AM PDT]

  • 08.28.2007 6:21 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Posted by: Snap Dragon
Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Man from Ape is not observed nor proven, therefore Evolutionism = Theory, not Fact.

That statement is too flawed for words.....

Flawed? We cannot observe something that takes millions of years, and we still haven't found a link between our two species. Not to mention it is strange to see one portion of the species unchanged and the other so far evolved, usually both portions change alot. Normal evolution and adaptation is a given, since we can actually record and find clues that prove it exists. There is no proof that proves Man from Ape evolution, just some strange coincidences that people think are proof.

Science may have alot of theory, but too many people assume theory as fact.

The main reason people think that scientific theories are not true is because they often only thing of the basic definition of theory
(these quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)
In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.
And then theres the definiton that is used in science
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity
I'm not going to chose a side on this issue, since its a sensetive subject that often ends in flaming, but I will try to help clear things up a bit.
Now go and speculate/think about this information :P

  • 08.28.2007 6:34 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Posted by: Snap Dragon
Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Man from Ape is not observed nor proven, therefore Evolutionism = Theory, not Fact.

That statement is too flawed for words.....

Flawed? We cannot observe something that takes millions of years, and we still haven't found a link between our two species. Not to mention it is strange to see one portion of the species unchanged and the other so far evolved, usually both portions change alot. Normal evolution and adaptation is a given, since we can actually record and find clues that prove it exists. There is no proof that proves Man from Ape evolution, just some strange coincidences that people think are proof.

Science may have alot of theory, but too many people assume theory as fact.


A common misconception seems to be that Man evolved from modern ape. This is not the Theory of Evolution. Both Man and modern ape evolved from the same ancestor. The link is not direct, it is from long ago. The simple analogy is a tree branching out in different directions. The branches are not directly connected, but began from the same point.

The statement that "usually both portions change alot" is correct, but not necessarily noticable. Evolution is not simply a change in appearance, but many aspects of physiology. Modern apes have evolved quite significantly from our shared ancestors, just as we have.

  • 08.28.2007 6:40 AM PDT

Strange evolution how people have come to believe
That we are it's greatest achievement
We're barely, we're just a collection of cells
Overrating themselves

Posted by: Anton P Nym
I will no more freeze threads on evolution than I would those on heliocentrism. I apologise to those who find this distasteful, as I apologise to those who find my inaction against discussions of bacon or hamburger distasteful.

-- Steve will certainly act to prevent proselytizing in the forums, though, even in its strange athiest form.


Careful.

Galileo was sentenced to, and eventually died under house arrest due to his "heretical" belief in heliocentrism.

  • 08.28.2007 6:59 AM PDT

.||./

My gamertag is SHADOWRIDERJP.

Posted by: NJ248

A common misconception seems to be that Man evolved from modern ape. This is not the Theory of Evolution. Both Man and modern ape evolved from the same ancestor. The link is not direct, it is from long ago. The simple analogy is a tree branching out in different directions. The branches are not directly connected, but began from the same point.

The statement that "usually both portions change alot" is correct, but not necessarily noticable. Evolution is not simply a change in appearance, but many aspects of physiology. Modern apes have evolved quite significantly from our shared ancestors, just as we have.


Finally, someone who was listening in their freshman year.

  • 08.28.2007 8:23 AM PDT

Sandswept Studios Design Director

Visit us and check out our games at Sandswept.net!

~~Pardon Our Dust.~~

Posted by: Snap Dragon
Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Man from Ape is not observed nor proven, therefore Evolutionism = Theory, not Fact.

That statement is too flawed for words.....

See? This is how it starts. Grow up. ;)

Ultima, you should know better to not even say something that would cause such contention. :P
You guys are turning this thread into a debate over the subject, not a debate over discussing the subject.

Sheesh.

[Edited on 08.28.2007 8:46 AM PDT]

  • 08.28.2007 8:45 AM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: SS_Zag1
Posted by: Snap Dragon
Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Man from Ape is not observed nor proven, therefore Evolutionism = Theory, not Fact.

That statement is too flawed for words.....

See? This is how it starts. Grow up. ;)

Ultima, you should know better to not even say something that would cause such contention. :P
You guys are turning this thread into a debate over the subject, not a debate over discussing the subject.

Sheesh.

I didn't do anything wrong, merely corrected him that Evolutionism, not evolution, is a theory. That is fact and cannot be debated. That doesn't mean it is wrong or right, just not proven.

  • 08.28.2007 9:14 AM PDT

"That's about all that can be said for plots, which anyway are just one thing after another, a what and a what and a what.

Now try how and why."

The reason we can't disscuss religion is because maybe ten or eleven people on b.net are mature enough, and all people end up doing is having insult contests. Sure I'd like to disscuss religion, but the chapters that allow it rarely have anything other than "so and so is ignorant" and "you are stupid." Thats why I left all of them. I'm a devout christen, but I understand the purpose of apologetics is not to convert but to counter, and if there isn't anything to counter there is no need for it.

Making references is alright I'd guess, If you want to say John 1:17 is "for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" go right ahead, or if you want to make a reference to the flood and ark of the covenant, I doubt the mods will stop you.

  • 08.28.2007 10:32 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Posted by: SS_Zag1
Posted by: Snap Dragon
Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Man from Ape is not observed nor proven, therefore Evolutionism = Theory, not Fact.

That statement is too flawed for words.....

See? This is how it starts. Grow up. ;)

Ultima, you should know better to not even say something that would cause such contention. :P
You guys are turning this thread into a debate over the subject, not a debate over discussing the subject.

Sheesh.

I didn't do anything wrong, merely corrected him that Evolutionism, not evolution, is a theory. That is fact and cannot be debated. That doesn't mean it is wrong or right, just not proven.


I though I cleared the whole theory thing when I posted a while back. Let me just quote myself :P
Posted by: El Roboto
The main reason people think that scientific theories are not true is because they often only thing of the basic definition of theory
(these quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)
In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.
And then theres the definiton that is used in science
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity
I'm not going to chose a side on this issue, since its a sensetive subject that often ends in flaming, but I will try to help clear things up a bit.
Now go and speculate/think about this information :P

Lets hope I don't have to do that again, and lets please get back to the original discussion of why we can talk about science stuff, and not religion cause currently all this is turning into is a Religion Vs Science post feast.

[Edited on 08.28.2007 11:06 AM PDT]

  • 08.28.2007 11:05 AM PDT