Meaningless Violence

wilson, the bible says something about god writing the knowlege of right and wrong on everyone's heart. everyone who didn't get the chance to hear about jesus will be judged according to how they followed their heart.

---

i eat paint

One thing. Was there like more people other than Adam and Eve? Because if there wasn't...our family tree look more like a web.

---

Reckless disregard for childrens well being, women and nothing but utter contempt for other cultures.

DIdn't life originate in Africa?

fishy, that's a good point, I didnt know that.

Toasted Frenchman, modern humans did originate in Africa 1-2 million years ago according to anthropological evidence. According to the Bible, humans originated in the garden of Eden somewhere around 8000 years ago.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

Gaara said:
One thing. Was there like more people other than Adam and Eve? Because if there wasn't...our family tree look more like a web.

cain, when he was thrown out of the garden for killing his brother, went to the land of nod to find himself a wife(gen 4). my thinking on this is, that when god said "let us make man in our image, after our own likeness" (gen 1:26), what he was saying was , "let us take one of these men things, and mod him to be more like us". this would mean that the wife that cain found was an un-modded human, possibly along the lines of a sexy neanderthal chic that had a kink for murderers.

this doesn't sit well with most christians, because it conflicts with the traditional view of 'intelligent design', but is it so unbelievable?

---

i eat paint

Intelligent Design is thought up by <span style="color: lightblue;">smart people<span style="color: white;"> for <span style="color: lightblue;">not smart people.<span style="color: white;">
Any Christian that has read the Bible and believes that the words there
in are true shall not support ID, because the Bible speaks of 1 Creator
and says who He is:

"</span></span></span></span>In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.<span style="color: limegreen;">"(Gen 1:1)

And the next thing that is stumbled upon
are the reference to 7 days. I believe those are days and I'm not
speculating wether they are days days or years or millenia. If He says
"JUMP!" I do not reply with how high, I just jump.

</span>

intelligent design is a poor thing, i have no grudges against anyone
who has their own beliefs, but teaching creation as a science isn't
right.

---

'Tonight, we dine in hell! I hear the buffet there is to DIE for' - Leonidas I

NameWithHeld said:
intelligent design is a poor thing, i have no grudges against anyone who has their own beliefs, but teaching creation as a science isn't right.

science has already created new forms of life through tampering with DNA. frost resistant wheat because it has fish DNA etc, so don't think that ID is a non-starter, because we're doing it ourselves now.

Paladin, ID is a term that i imagined would cover ANY creation theory, yours included. or did god not show any intelligence in his design of the universe?

---

i eat paint

fishy said:
science has already created new forms of life through tampering with DNA. frost resistant wheat because it has fish DNA etc, so don't think that ID is a non-starter, because we're doing it ourselves now.

Wheat? You traitorous slimwad. Don't you know by now that the signature grain of choice for most Snarkpit members is RICE! If your going to make an example of nature, pick a more perfect grain.

SnarkPower[size=10][color=#cccccc] made this page in 50.297 seconds

[/color][/size] Personally, I am just about tired of near minute pages.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

UD, your rice fixation is getting out of hand :biggrin:

And seriously, this thread is only six pages and it took:

SnarkPower made this page in 92.142 seconds

Addicted to Morphine said:
UD, your rice fixation is getting out of hand :biggrin:

And seriously, this thread is only six pages and it took:
SnarkPower made this page in 92.142 seconds

SnarkPower[size=10][color=#cccccc] made this page in 97.284 seconds

[/color][/size] Seriously. Not counting the time it took the page to load for me to SEE your reply, it took over 5 minutes for the subsequent pages to load so I could reply, and now, there is no telling how long this reply will take to post. I am figuring about 7 minutes per post.

As for the rice thing. I use it as a simple tension breaking measure. This thread is to serious and needs a comic relief moment. Its not heated or anything. Its just to deep for a forum.

I have had discussions with religious people in the past. Its a topic that cannot end on a good note. It may end cordially, but never end well.

Religious people tend to act 3 ways when you discuss things religious.

1) If you pin them down with scientific fact, they will slither away with Gods will that science exists so science is gods will.
2) benignly, if you show scientific proof they will act as if its sad that you cannot see the religious beauty of science. but otherwise not hinder you in any way.
3) denial- there is no science that can ever explain things. ever.

In the end, everyone can only hope that the discussion will end with a parting on good terms in so far as "agreeing to disagree"

Rice on the other hand. Everyone loves rice. If not to eat, then to throw, or make alcohol. Everyone uses rice in some form even if its only the paper they use to smoke with. :biggrin:

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

we don't need babysitters, tbh.....

---

i eat paint

fishy said:
we don't need babysitters, tbh.....

You know, there is absolutely no good way to take a comment like this. Why would you even think of posting it unless, you intend to be an ass?

My viewpoint on religion, is just as valid as anyones. Even if I think that discussing it can come to no good thats no reason to insinuate that I cannot comment any way I please within a public forum and format.

If I think that the discussion needs a breather, I can interpose one any time I feel like it as long as there is no harmful comments in doing so.

Unless, you are suggesting that this thread must remain pure for some reason?

And, you guys say I post without thinking first. :rolleyes:

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

Something I've learned is that if you talk to people who know enough of physics and chemistry and things like that (i.e. Physicists). There's just no doubt in their mind that all of this isn't a probability or an accident. It's far too precise. If any "basic" property was changed (such as the peculiar bonding properties of water) we wouldn't exist. (It'd be crappy if water was a linear molecule ... ice would sink.)

Not saying it's God or anything like that, that's up to whom ever to decide for themselves. But, the more you analyze how things work, the more peculiar everything becomes. It's just too convenient. There is most likely some intelligent design behind it, whether that be a creature or force of some sort or whatever.

It turns out, for a planet to be habitable (by what we would consider life) there are some specific things that need to happen to the planet its self. Then the star of the system needs to be of a specific radiation (main, ours is in the green part of the spectrum mostly ... G2 it the type I think. Something like an M star wouldn't sustain life too red, meaning, it's too cold. If you had a planet close enough to get warm it'd have terrible consequences with gravity and would move veeeeerrrryyyyyy sloooooowwwlllyyyyy around the sun. It would make it so one half of the planet is warm the other half is frozen ... which has some other effects on the atmosphere.)

I honestly don't understand why the general majority of people insist on pitting religion against science (since that very idea is ridiculously flawed).

Chances are if someone does that they probably know very little of either side.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

I find that the biggest hurdle that man in general cannot overcome is the immense time frames involved when discussing how man got here. Most would like to think themselves capable of envisioning it clearly but the fact is damned few actually can. A good analogy I guess would be one that my teacher used upon us when I was in school. If someone could ask an ant, how long they had been there, the would most likely say, "Always". The tree's, and rocks have been around as long as they can know so in their viewpoint, their world has been around nearly forever. It would be a massive overstatement to say that man is on the same level as an ant in relation to our place in the universe but it does have some basis for contemplation.

Man just cannot wrap his mind around millions upon millions of years of natural selection. The very idea that man cam from a lower order of primate truly makes some cringe. It doesn't matter that most of the scientific evidence says that this is exactly how it happened. These people cannot envision the slow be inevitable actions of natural selection when it comes to how an organism evolves from one stage to the next.

Personally, I have always been of the mind that we are the accident from some mishap eons ago. Some cosmic spaceship dumped their toilets and the blue ice of doom landed on this planet. I do not believe in some higher power governing our progress. I believe that given time we will find life elsewhere (or it will find us) but in effect it will show that life is basically the same everywhere within our realm of the universe.

Our makeup is predominately iron based. Not because iron makes the best building block but because its one of the most common elements available on this burg we call home. I do believe that a metal will probably be a base for all life throughout the galaxy, but whether its iron or not will depend on whats most common on the other worlds.

If there is an entity at work, its not driven by how smart it is, but by how smart we are. Natural selection is the only true power.

Anyway, thats my view.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

Underdog said:
My viewpoint on religion, is just as valid as anyones. Even if I think that discussing it can come to no good thats no reason to insinuate that I cannot comment any way I please within a public forum and format.

feel free to comment any way you like, there's no special request from me to ask anyone not to post in a discussion i'm involved in, not even Crono. :rolleyes:

you may have noticed that i'd ignored the insult in your earlier post, prefering to let it be what you now claim it to be, some sort of attempt at lightening the thread. maybe that's all it was intended as. however, and this is what my response was aimed at, if you further reasoned that the thread was destined to end in tears, and you took it upon yourself to attempt to derail it before that happened, then i'm sure there's no need to repeat myself.

---

i eat paint

Our makeup is Carbon based, there buddy.

Iron is important however. But so is hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen (want to talk about a weird ass atom, nitrogen.)

Another plausible base is silicon, except it's impossibly hard to separate silicon from oxygen once they attach. Carbon, however, attaches to oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen fairly easily (By the way, removing oxygen from a C-O setup, making it C-H is how we gain energy from food. Plants make the C-O combination from direct sunlight, which "traps" energy in the bond. Our digestive track simply releases it and we get that energy.)

Anything we would consider life would most likely be carbon based. That's not to say they'd look like us or something like that.

It was something like a distance of 0.9 - 1.3 Atu planet's distance from a moderate sized star for it to inhabitable. Closer would be too hot and farther away would be too cold (Venus and Mars respectively).

It's really interesting if you look at a planet like Venus, because the abundance of elements is almost the same as Earths, so is the size of the planet. It was just too warm.

But, all of this is just talking about the actual ability for something like life to be created (and I wasn't talking about OUR lives being governed. I'm talking about the entire system that exists in our universe).
You have to consider the possibility that if there are other beings out there that they may have never had the need for something like mathematics (or whatever they would potentially call it) We developed math to show self worth through possessions. Even cultures on our planet (like in Fiji) only have a slight concept of counting: 1, 2, many.

That part is a completely different discussion, since it is a social science type topic.

One more thing. Even saying that there's such a thing as "natural selection" is implying that there is a force. When in all actuality ... there could be none ... so ... saying you believe there's no force then saying there is one is really flawed. As far as I can tell, this is done simply for people to understand it and identify it. We always assign "forces" and people to arbitrary events.

However, I don't that it isn't actually like that. But then, nobody does. I think that's the point though. That's also why it's a matter of personal choice and belief.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

I ahve a book called "Case for a Creator."

It's about a guy that goes out trying to prove his christian wife wrong so she will stop going to church because he's and Atheist and it makes him mad. He ends up finding out that just about everything he was taught about Evolution was a big fake and that the main things he had always used as proofs of evolution (as opposed to creationism) were outdated or completely false. It's a great book that lays down the scientific facts, not just untraceable addages and stuff like you normally hear. It's cool. In the book it not only says a lot of what Crono just said, but that the earth has a PERFECTLY round orbit, and all the other planets have elliptical orbits. If the earth had an ellitpical orbit, the earth would fry for half the year, and freeze the other half.

we don't know of any other planet with plate tectonics, either. Without plate tectonics, there would be no land and this would be a salt-saturated WaterWorld. Just a dead sphere of water... That would suck.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Venus and Mars have plate tectonics. (We know Mars does, we're sure Venus does)

If they didn't there'd be no atmosphere now. Jupiter is the only planet in our system that was large enough to keep its (supposed) original atmosphere. The current atmospheres are secondary atmospheres.

Earth's orbit is elliptical around the sun, the axis is tipped though (what 46? or something like that). The moon has a round orbit around the Earth though.

The reason(s) why the Earth doesn't fry: 1) Covered in water, water is a wondrous liquid that can absorb massive amounts of energy and stay the same temperature (Ever wonder why you can bring water to a boil so fast ... but it takes forever to evaporate?) Rock, doesn't have this property, which is why something like the moon has such extreme temperatures (this doesn't mean the moon landing is a hoax, there are explanations on how those astronauts didn't die. They are true, also) 2) We have a large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It acts like a blanket and keeps a lot of heat in ... and IR/UV out. (This is the reason why you can't melt lead on the surface of Venus. There's a very thick blanket on the planet from CO2 and Sulferic Acid clouds.)

If we didn't have plate tectonics ... I don't think there'd be much water to speak of.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

fishy said:
you may have noticed that i'd ignored the insult in your earlier post,

My deepest apologies. I was told that light blue meant humor. It won't happen again.

and yes, "Carbon" not Iron. Swap out the word please.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

<span style="color: lightblue;">Light blue is sarcasm :smile:

</span>

Paladin[NL said:
]<SPAN style="COLOR: lightblue">Light blue is sarcasm :smile:

</SPAN>

Yes, same thing I said but I was told that its used for humor as well and that people generally know the difference.

Just forget it, I guess a smiley isn't as good an identifier as I thought.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

an insult is an insult, whatever colour you dress it in. unless i'm wrong of course, and should just have laughed, and replied that you're a f*cking retard, and we all could have laughed.

---

i eat paint

Ja, the sarcasm blue is just a way to get away withj saying stuff you really mean without getting owned for it.

Sarcams Blue: a Free-verse Poem
By Nickelplate

Sarcasm Blue is like an Abortion.
If a Girl knows she can always just kill it,
there are no consequences,
for her actions,
and she can go ahead,
with bad behaviour.

If a snarkpitter wants
to dis another,
He can use,
Sarcastic Blue
It takes away the consequences:
Pwnage.
He gets off scot free.

I personaly believe that after we die, there is absolutely nothing..

Yeah nothing. I can hardly imagin being anything there. Mainly due knowing that people make up facts and are very biased to forget important details from earlier events, weeks after already. That is why i dont think there could be anything except energy. As the rule go's that energy cant be destroyed/lost i think that the form we came from we will return to, energy.

---

RUST Gamedesign
pepper design

The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee.

But, by definition and logic, you've contradicted yourself. If there is nothing, then it's NOTHING, no energy or anything... Since energy is SOMETHING, you still have not imagined nothing. The human mind cannot comprehend "nothing" even as we speak about "nothing," we speak of it as an object or a state of being, which is a "thing," which is not "nothing." I don't think there is "nothing." I think there is no such thing (with "thing" being the word to describe something that is[or even is not]) as "nothing."

You cannot prove that "nothing" exists anywhere, see?

The "soul" that Christianity and Judaeism and Islam are always talking about very well may be an energy form of ourselves. Nothing ever really tells us WHAT a soul is made of. So, I'm willing to accept the "energy" theory as just as valid as any other. as for me, I'd want my energy-being (soul) to go somewhere that there is GOOD energy (heaven) not bad energy.... :biggrin:

Now you're assuming there's such thing is good or bad energy (Or even good or bad). You should define what you mean by energy. Like ... Energy (i.e. our physical world) or energy (i.e. Karma).

How is it defined as good or bad? Good and bad are points of view.

Also, what makes you think your "energy" (lower case 'e') stays in one place? Or that you ever have a consciousness once you die/become (E)energy? You could be completely unaware of everything. In which case, how does "good" or "bad" even come into play? How can energy have a point of view?

Not trying to discredit you, I'm just giving valid counter arguments.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Crono said:
How can energy have a point of view??

what are each of us, if not very complex arrangements of energy?

---

i eat paint

I'm not explaining that, since you'd be bored to tears (And I wouldn't explain it properly). Take a physics class and you'll learn everything you want to know ... however, I can only assume you're not actually that interested in the question and you're asking purely for conversational sake ...

You should at least look around at some definitions for energy. That'll give you a much better idea of what you're asking about.

It's easy to show how we're not that mathematically ... but you don't want to see that I'm sure. (Even if it's really simple)

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Conversely, Crono, how can MASS have a point of view?

I was actually kinda joking about the whole "good and bad energy" thing. Kinda making fun of new-ageists who talk about such things.

And, The same thing that makes our mass stay in one place would probably keep our energy in one place as well.

Futhermore, If we were completely unaware of ANYTHING, that would mean that we are aware of NOTHING, and as we have said "nothing" does not exist. It is impossible to be unaware of everything. Included in "everything" is also the fact that you even exist. If you and everyone else are unaware that you exist, do you truly exist anyway.

This is where you get into the question: "What is it to BE?"

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

"Point of view" is really only applicable to conscious thought, which is what the brain does. The mass/energy of the brain itself has no point of view, it in itself is just a lump of grey/white matter. You can look at mass, or energy, in the form of an object, and say it is "good" or "bad" if you want, say, flowers are good and guns are bad. These are just arbitrary terms we use to desribe the world around us, and are entirely subjective.

As Crono said, you should probably at least think about physics, perhaps do some reading on the topic.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

i'm no physicist, but i was under the general impression that matter was condensed energy. something to do with the big bang expanding faster than the speed of light.

---

i eat paint

Matter can be converted to energy, and vice versa. I dont know where that big bang thing came from though. Leperous is doing physics, so maybe he can explain it when/if he ever comes back.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

Still, you have to think:

If you are not conscious, do YOU really exist. I know brain-dead ppl's BODIES still exist after thier consciousness is allegedly gone, but do THEY exist.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

It depends how you define the person. If you define the person as the physical entity, then yes, they do exist, but theyre dead. If you define the person as behavioural traits, that is, a consciousness, then they do not exist. However, not enough is known about the human brain to definitively say.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

I just want to say, congratulations on a successfull hijack of someone's post :biggrin:

wil5on said:
It depends how you define the person. If you define the person as the physical entity, then yes, they do exist, but theyre dead. If you define the person as behavioural traits, that is, a consciousness, then they do not exist. However, not enough is known about the human brain to definitively say.

Yeah, not enough is known, and I dunno if there ever will BE enough known when it comes to the human consciousness. because... what IS it? lol

Paladin- its only a hijack within 2 weeks of the original post... after that its a digression

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Paladin- its only a hijack within 2 weeks of the original post... after that its a digression

Okay! :razz: