unicycle for chirst

[skroboskim]

ok i know some of you guys are atheist so w/e don't write here if you have any respect @ all

but anyways how many of you guys are christian ... catholic? im just wondering
... i say i unicycle for christ and have it written on my helmet ... i get positive comments on it a lot, and its really cool

i was also wondering if you guys wanted to start like some unicycle for christ thing all over the place so we could say that its a group of unicyclists all across the country ... just pm me if you want to join or w/e

stay cool people

[trials_uni]

use the search function...there is a big thread on christian unicyclists i myself dont really have a religion anymore...i believe in god and a higher power but i dont do alot of praying and havent been to church in years.

[forrestunifreak]

ok i know some of you guys are atheist so w/e don't write here if you have any respect @ all


Careful saying that here :p the opposite will happen

but anyways how many of you guys are christian ... catholic? im just wondering
... i say i unicycle for christ and have it written on my helmet ... i get positive comments on it a lot, and its really cool

i was also wondering if you guys wanted to start like some unicycle for christ thing all over the place so we could say that its a group of unicyclists all across the country ... just pm me if you want to join or w/e


Sure. I'm solid christian, all the way man. People have talked about this very idea before, but nothing really happened...

[EvanWilson]

No offense to you or your religion, but doesn't it seem sort of trivial to say "we're unicycling for Christ?" I mean, I could understand unicycling to raise money for your church, or something along those lines, but unicycling for Christ seems extremely arbitrary. Why not make ice cubes for Christ? Why not draw a circle on a piece of paper for Christ?

To me, it seems like people use Christianity as another way of excluding people from their activities. Not that you specifically are doing that, but so many people bring religion into facets of life that are really unrelated to religion at all.

I'm starting to sound like Holden Caulfield, so I'll quit, but hopefully you'll consider what I said.

[forrestunifreak]

use the search function...there is a big thread on christian unicyclists

Bah. All you'll find is a bunch of 'fluff' about atheist vs. christianity.

[harper]

Would you like me to move this to the Just Conversation forum where it really kind of belongs?

[juggle508]

We need some rubber bracelets that say like Unicycle For Christ.

I would buy like 10 of them lol.


KH.

[forrestunifreak]

Ha, me too



Would you like me to move this to the Just Conversation forum where it really kind of belongs?
Fine by me, as long as it doesn't end up like the last christian unicyclists thread...

[Gilby]

i was also wondering if you guys wanted to start like some unicycle for christ thing all over the place so we could say that its a group of unicyclists all across the country ... just pm me if you want to join or w/e
This thread appears to be about making a movement of unicyclists that have a similar interest. While, in the past we have had lots of discussion about religion, let's try to keep this thread on topic and put the rest in those past threads, no matter how controversial, and against my personal beliefs this is. ;)

[skroboskim]

No offense to you or your religion, but doesn't it seem sort of trivial to say "we're unicycling for Christ?" I mean, I could understand unicycling to raise money for your church, or something along those lines, but unicycling for Christ seems extremely arbitrary. Why not make ice cubes for Christ? Why not draw a circle on a piece of paper for Christ?

To me, it seems like people use Christianity as another way of excluding people from their activities. Not that you specifically are doing that, but so many people bring religion into facets of life that are really unrelated to religion at all.

I'm starting to sound like Holden Caulfield, so I'll quit, but hopefully you'll consider what I said.

im not trying to imply that we are all unicycling for christ, but i thought it would be cool to start something new and diffrent

[skroboskim]

Would you like me to move this to the Just Conversation forum where it really kind of belongs?

no because even if it does belong there not nearly as many people will look at it or join and it would be a complete flop (it wouldn't work)

-stephen-
im changing my sig now ... add this ... ><> Unicycle for Christ <>< ... to your signature if you want to be a part of this

[uni57]

... doesn't it seem sort of trivial to say "we're unicycling for Christ?"

...

Why not make ice cubes for Christ? ...Not trivial. Unicycling is what he loves to do. He presumably dedicates a lot of time and effort to be the very best unicyclist he can be. He derives great joy and happiness from unicycling. Unicycling is a BIG part of his life. And so...

And so he dedicates that effort and that joy to Christ. He is saying, "Jesus, this joy is for you, from you, and through you. I do this for you."

Sort of like in the front of a book -- "I dedicate this book to my wonderful wife and children. Thank you for standing by me. This book is for you." Or in The Little Drummer Boy -- the boy does not have a gift for the baby Jesus, so he plays music for Him.

And if you were unicycling for Christ, you would try to do your very best, wouldn't you?


skroboskim, I don't mean to put words in your mouth. This is just my interpretation. And speculation, actually. Because I'm an atheist.

Lastly, Greg, I don't know where this thread belongs. He is trying to start a unicycle club based on an idea -- a common bond -- rather than a geographical location. This is unique, I believe. I think the thread should stay in RSU. It will stay more on topic in RSU (we atheists will be less tempted to have "fun" :) with it in RSU).

[GhettoSmurf]

So how exactly does one unicycle for Christ? Explain to me how this actualy helps him. Do you spread the word of Christ whilst riding a unicycle.
Because uh, just unicycling doesn't really mean your unicycling for Christ.

[skroboskim]

Not trivial. Unicycling is what he loves to do. He presumably dedicates a lot of time and effort to be the very best unicyclist he can be. He derives great joy and happiness from unicycling. Unicycling is a BIG part of his life. And so...

And so he dedicates that effort and that joy to Christ. He is saying, "Jesus, this joy is for you, from you, and through you. I do this for you."

Sort of like in the front of a book -- "I dedicate this book to my wonderful wife and children. Thank you for standing by me. This book is for you." Or in The Little Drummer Boy -- the boy does not have a gift for the baby Jesus, so he plays music for Him.

And if you were unicycling for Christ, you would try to do your very best, wouldn't you?


skroboskim, I don't mean to put words in your mouth. This is just my interpretation. And speculation, actually. Because I'm an atheist.

Lastly, Greg, I don't know where this thread belongs. He is trying to start a unicycle club based on an idea -- a common bond -- rather than a geographical location. This is unique, I believe. I think the thread should stay in RSU. It will stay more on topic in RSU (we atheists will be less tempted to have "fun" :) with it in RSU).

lol actually i have to say thank you ... you seem like a respectable person :) i'm not going to challenge you

[Ghandi]

Ack.

[maxisback]

Well in a while I havent got pissed off like this.. but... SOMEONE PLZ KILL ME !!!!! first of this belongs in jc, and also dont bring religion into unicycling PLZ.. I wonder what would happen to hockey if someone did that ?

[JUNGAUNI]

i shal join this club because i have always wanted one like it and i want it extended to canada please oh yeah and once a year we could have a club meat and do some cool trials muni and street:D

[siafirede]

I wheelwalk for Vishnu!

...not really, but it seems just as absurd.

This is sort of like seeing people at shows who have shirts that say "I mosh for Jesus". It is ridiculous on every level imaginable.

[JUNGAUNI]

Well in a while I havent got pissed off like this.. but... SOMEONE PLZ KILL ME !!!!! first of this belongs in jc, and also dont bring religion into unicycling PLZ.. I wonder what would happen to hockey if someone did that ?
and to you Jesus is cool i'd rather be in heaven than burning in hell.

[maxisback]

Thank You I Love You

[maxisback]

and to you Jesus is cool i'd rather be in heaven than burning in hell... read davinchis code.. then come see me and we can talk about this over a cup of whatever u drink k ?

[skroboskim]

i shal join this club because i have always wanted one like it and i want it extended to canada please oh yeah and once a year we could have a club meat and do some cool trials muni and street:D
lol yeahhh that would be a long term goal

[skroboskim]

So how exactly does one unicycle for Christ? Explain to me how this actualy helps him. Do you spread the word of Christ whilst riding a unicycle.
Because uh, just unicycling doesn't really mean your unicycling for Christ.

no ...you could just be a person who is riding a unicycle and would be otherwise, but choses to say that they are doing it for christ- im not saying that you have to go around preaching or anything, but i think it would be cool to Unicycle for Christ ok?

and it helps him because it helps people realize that you can give anything you want to christ ... you can even unicycle for him :)

[zaro]

i hate when u ppl talk about unicycle and Jesus Christ at the same thread...
even when its acctually named - unicycle for 'chirst'...
misspeling his GOD'S name... now THAT must be a sin.

did i ever told ya guys i have a friend named jesus?!!!
he freestyles.

[maxisback]

I mean cant ppl just uni for fun ? or do you absolutly need a reason to ride with other ppl ? I woudnt mind riding with christian ppl nothing aginst them at all.. just the idea of having to ride for a reason makes me go :confused: its like saying unicycling for xbox live ..

[siafirede]

and to you Jesus is cool i'd rather be in heaven than burning in hell.

Stop and think for a second. This kind of statement and belief is very detrimental to your organized religion and the way that people view it. Believe in our religion or your going to burn in hell! Give me a break.

[JUNGAUNI]

okay thats the thing its true Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life and if you don't except it i sure hope God will find you

[skroboskim]

I mean cant ppl just uni for fun ? or do you absolutly need a reason to ride with other ppl ? I woudnt mind riding with christian ppl nothing aginst them at all.. just the idea of having to ride for a reason makes me go :confused: its like saying unicycling for xbox live ..

no it isn't ... what if your mom was dying of cancer ... and you wanted to do anything you could to help her ... and you just wanted people to support her ... not necessarily w/ money or anything, but yeah you *could* unicycle for your mom if you had half a heart

so basically jesus (not your friends or w/e the REAL one) lived and died for our sins the X box did not and i think that the LEAST we could do is unicycle for christ

[JUNGAUNI]

amen brother! you have got a good point there

[red_rider]

This thread appears to be about making a movement of unicyclists that have a similar interest. While, in the past we have had lots of discussion about religion, let's try to keep this thread on topic and put the rest in those past threads, no matter how controversial, and against my personal beliefs this is. ;)
Seems funny how you want to chime in on how this is "off topic", and so many other forums "off topic" dont even get a response from you. HMMM?:rolleyes:

[siafirede]

okay thats the thing its true Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life and if you don't except it i sure hope God will find you

Oh its true!? Im sorry, I didnt know that you had objective proof for this doctrine of truth. Of course you will probably bring up Biblical inerrancy and say the bible is without error and therefore it is true. There is no way to escape its circular logic.

[keevhren]

while this "jesus" character may have lived, i find it very very improbable that he was the son of some "god". Religion is man made. Jesus was man, who may have died, but didnt die for everyone's sins. The romans didnt like him, and put him on a cross, just like they did to several people during those times.

this is an absurd idea, just as bad as campus crusade for christ and all organized religion in general.

way to mess up the one thing that i love in life. leave my unicycling religion free.

[caw89]

No offense to you or your religion, but doesn't it seem sort of trivial to say "we're unicycling for Christ?" I mean, I could understand unicycling to raise money for your church, or something along those lines, but unicycling for Christ seems extremely arbitrary. Why not make ice cubes for Christ? Why not draw a circle on a piece of paper for Christ?

To me, it seems like people use Christianity as another way of excluding people from their activities. Not that you specifically are doing that, but so many people bring religion into facets of life that are really unrelated to religion at all.

I'm starting to sound like Holden Caulfield, so I'll quit, but hopefully you'll consider what I said.

Well by riding for Christ you are using unicycling to help spread the word about Christ. Making Ice Cubes isnt exaclt preaching the gospel to others..

[JUNGAUNI]

read the books of mattew mark luke and john then you will understand and it is at the beggining of the new testament

[ThisGuyIKnow]

The whole concept bothers me. Not that you personally decide to unicycle for Christ but that you're trying to make this elitest group out of it. It's the prothelising Christians that bother me the most, unless someone asks why don't you just keep it to yourself. I don't bring up atheismunless the conversation is already about religion, why can't christians do that to.

[keevhren]

Well by riding for Christ you are using unicycling to help spread the word about Christ. Making Ice Cubes isnt exaclt preaching the gospel to others..

so are you going to unicycle around and pass out pamplets?

[koebwil]

i was also wondering if you guys wanted to start like some unicycle for christ thing all over the place so we could say that its a group of unicyclists all across the country ... just pm me if you want to join or w/eThe image that popped into my headhttp://www.modernrandomness.com/images/jesus/jesusridingbackwards.gif

[siafirede]

read the books of mattew mark luke and john then you will understand and it is at the beggining of the new testament

I was right. Circular logic.

[siafirede]

The image that popped into my headhttp://www.modernrandomness.com/images/jesus/jesusridingbackwards.gif


Look his unicycle hub is displaying where this thread belongs!

[maxisback]

okay thats the thing its true Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life and if you don't except it i sure hope God will find you

First off, lotsa stuff prooves that jesus might ahve existed but that some of the stuff you find in the bible isnt the truth, you can belive in jesus but do not impose what you belive on other ppl. Eternal life if I belive in jesus eh ? Well that tell me about budah and all those other persons ? I do belive there is a god, just not all that stuff you ahve been made to belive..

Now if my mom was dying of cancer I would uni for cancer yes, but I woudnt try n get everyone to do it with me. Also if my mom was dying of cancer it's dateh we r talking about not some character... If YOUR mom was dying of cancer I'd probly join in cauz that is a FACT your mom has cancer would be a fact unlike this whole thing.. If your idea was to create a community of ppl unicycling together that's cool.. you DO NOT need JESUS in there to help you have fun.

[maxisback]

read the books of mattew mark luke and john then you will understand and it is at the beggining of the new testament

How about you read other stuff (that does make more sence).. If you do read davinchis code, it does have pretty good "facts" about jesus having a fmailly and kids, witch would actually proove that your whole bible stuff is a lie.. I'd name you who he had kids if I only rememberd..

[juggle508]

Jesus is Lord, he says "Do all things through me." Therefore, when you unicycle...you are suppose to do it for him. Implying- Unicycle for Christ!

KH.

[siafirede]

How about you read other stuff (that does make more sence).. If you do read davinchis code, it does have pretty good "facts" about jesus having a fmailly and kids, witch would actually proove that your whole bible stuff is a lie.. I'd name you who he had kids if I only rememberd..

Da Vinci Code is a fictional book.

[Spudman]

Before the flame wars get too involved...

I doubt you could actually get a club of unicyclists together for 'unicycling for Christ'. The unicycling community is so small as it is, and the chances of finding a group in your area that would meet for that purpose is very slim. It's probably better to just stick with making a normal unicycling club in your area and just putting your bumpersticker in your sig line.

[keevhren]

Jesus is Lord, he says "Do all things through me." Therefore, when you unicycle...you are suppose to do it for him. Implying- Unicycle for Christ!

KH.

so he is a selfish person then? also. when you masturbate...do you do it for him? how about when you do bad things? ever killed something? did it in his name i suppose... woohoo, bring back the crusades! let blood be shed in the name of a false creator!

[skroboskim]

How about you read other stuff (that does make more sence).. If you do read davinchis code, it does have pretty good "facts" about jesus having a fmailly and kids, witch would actually proove that your whole bible stuff is a lie.. I'd name you who he had kids if I only rememberd..

I have seen jesus act in so many ways it would blow your mind

[juggle508]

I ain't going to answer but I have another question. Is it kinda sad that you have to create a new account just for this topic?
KH.


so he is a selfish person then? also. when you masturbate...do you do it for him? how about when you do bad things? ever killed something? did it in his name i suppose... woohoo, bring back the crusades! let blood be shed in the name of a false creator!

[madmattunipro]

Those of you who don't believe in God, Christ, Salvation etc. There is no point in arguing with you. The life of Christ, Creation, the flood, all these things can be backed up with archealogical and/or scientific proof. But arguing with you about that just creates bitterness.

As for those who say unicycling should be seperated from religeon; a true religeous belief will influence your entire life. Unicycling included.

I have read threads in here about whether Kris Holm is hot, whether femal orgasm is of any use, etc. So how is people discussing and relating a part of their lives that is pivotal to them trivial?

Anyways, I'm not going to argue too much, but I thought I might as well make a point or two. So yeah, I unicycle, I am a Christian, and I believe that unicycling can be a strong witnessing tool for Christ. I ride for Christ.

-matt

[keevhren]

I ain't going to answer but I have another question. Is it kinda sad that you have to create a new account just for this topic?
KH.

i am new to this board. is there a problem with that?

obviously in order to post i need to make an account. i havent thus far but this thread is so absurd that i had to post in it.

[juggle508]

Hmm okay just checking....I guess we can agree to disagree.

KH.

[siafirede]

To anyone who is wondering (gilby) if our IPs look similar it is because he is my roomate, who became interested after seeing a thread about this subject matter. It is not me creating another account so I wouldnt really want to be held responsible for what he says. If I have something to say I dont mind saying it under my account I have been using. I have nothing wrong with someones religious beliefs, I do like discussing philosophy and interpretations of truth.

The Bible is a book that has been read more and examined less than any book that ever existed. --Thomas Paine

[keevhren]

The life of Christ, Creation, the flood, all these things can be backed up with archealogical and/or scientific proof. But arguing with you about that just creates bitterness.


-matt

please refer me to this scientific proof. i am interested to see it in all its glory. and i hope you dont say the bible...

[siafirede]

Also please note, he is not really in tune with the ettiquette of the board. I think that the start of this thread might have belonged in RSU...maybe...but it was bound to end up as a JC thread.

Getting back to the original subject matter...the unicycling community is small, so why segregate it further by bringing up the issue of religion when it comes to a "club"?

[uni57]

If you don't like this topic, stop reading this thread. He's not talking about bothering anyone or taking over the forums -- just linking up with like-minded people. And I agree, this thread went way off-topic (as soon as people started protesting and arguing).

Where is Dustin Kelm? I doubt Dustin would have gotten the same negative reaction if he started this thread.

skroboskim, maybe you should contact Dustin Kelm (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/member.php?u=920) for ideas. Follow that link to his profile, which has a link to his web site. Also, what did you mean about not challenging me? Are you intolerant of atheists? Or did I say something wrong? I tried -- respectfully -- to counter unwarranted criticism. One of my good friends is Orthodox Jewish. I respect (and learn about) his beliefs not because I share them, but because they are very important to my friend. (sorry, we should steer this thread back on topic -- PM me if you want)

[foxx]

riding for christ!

felix

[tholub]

Those of you who don't believe in God, Christ, Salvation etc. There is no point in arguing with you. The life of Christ, Creation, the flood, all these things can be backed up with archealogical and/or scientific proof. But arguing with you about that just creates bitterness.


The idea that creation and the flood as described in the Christian Bible can be verified archaeologically or scientifically is completely ridiculous. You might as well claim the scientific veracity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (You'd think, when the Christian God was describing the process of creation to man, that he would have maybe mentioned "oh and there were dinosaurs for a million years or so". Oh, I forgot, the dinosaur skeletons were planted in the Earth's crust by the Devil to mislead us.)

Really, you just look absurd when you make claims like that. Stick to theology and you might have a chance. Keep it out of people's faces and you'll do even better.

[harper]

no because even if it does belong there not nearly as many people will look at it or join and it would be a complete flop (it wouldn't work)





No discussion of forming a single minded unicycle gang ensues.

Well, this seems to be degenerating quickly. I'm glad to see it's still in RSU getting all of the unicycling discussion attention it deserves. Why don't you beg to have it moved?

[maxisback]

just as fictional as the bible hommie.. u take what u want, u leave what you dont

[Jerrick]

I ride for Christ!

[red_rider]

Those of you who don't believe in God, Christ, Salvation etc. There is no point in arguing with you. The life of Christ, Creation, the flood, all these things can be backed up with archealogical and/or scientific proof. But arguing with you about that just creates bitterness.

As for those who say unicycling should be seperated from religeon; a true religeous belief will influence your entire life. Unicycling included.

I have read threads in here about whether Kris Holm is hot, whether femal orgasm is of any use, etc. So how is people discussing and relating a part of their lives that is pivotal to them trivial?

Anyways, I'm not going to argue too much, but I thought I might as well make a point or two. So yeah, I unicycle, I am a Christian, and I believe that unicycling can be a strong witnessing tool for Christ. I ride for Christ.

-matt
AMEN:)

[ColDawG]

The idea that creation and the flood as described in the Christian Bible can be verified archaeologically or scientifically is completely ridiculous. You might as well claim the scientific veracity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (You'd think, when the Christian God was describing the process of creation to man, that he would have maybe mentioned "oh and there were dinosaurs for a million years or so". Oh, I forgot, the dinosaur skeletons were planted in the Earth's crust by the Devil to mislead us.)

Really, you just look absurd when you make claims like that. Stick to theology and you might have a chance. Keep it out of people's faces and you'll do even better.


Haha, go tom

I think this thread had a fine intention, but people have turned it into a debate...
So I might as well put in my 2 cents :-)

You can unicycle for whatever you want, Christ, Xbox, Spaghetti Monsters, fun, whatever..

but don't try and impose Christ, Xbox or whatever on other people who uni, and find me some scientific proof, please do:D

[phlegm]

I was right. Circular logic.

So what?! Circular logic really only matters when doing math, writing computer code, or dealing with other logical language systems.

There are numerous Christian organizations for athletes of other sports. Certainly a query of interest in starting such an organization for unicyclists is not so harmful, right? :confused:

[ThisGuyIKnow]

unicycling can be a strong witnessing tool for Christ.

-matt

Witnessing is the problem with Christianity. You say you don't force your beliefs on other people but the whole point of witnessing is to do jsut that force our beliefs on other people.

unicycling is not a good tool for witnessing because it will turn people off of unicycling and think of them negatively because they will associate them with having christ forced on them.

[tomsey]

!!!UNICYCLING IS MY RELIGION!!!!

can i get an amen brutha??!!!!

[caw89]

ok i know some of you guys are atheist so w/e don't write here if you have any respect @ all

but anyways how many of you guys are christian ... catholic? im just wondering
... i say i unicycle for christ and have it written on my helmet ... i get positive comments on it a lot, and its really cool

i was also wondering if you guys wanted to start like some unicycle for christ thing all over the place so we could say that its a group of unicyclists all across the country ... just pm me if you want to join or w/e

stay cool people

I ride for my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ..So im in!

[Eddbmxdude]

!!!UNICYCLING IS MY RELIGION!!!!

can i get an amen brutha??!!!!

Amen bro!

I think we should leave christianity in the church, and unicycling on the streets (or gym hall, skatepark etc.)

Rock on!
Edd

p.s, Can we please see less christianity threads? Its starting to drive me crazy!

[siafirede]

So what?! Circular logic really only matters when doing math, writing computer code, or dealing with other logical language systems.

There are numerous Christian organizations for athletes of other sports. Certainly a query of interest in starting such an organization for unicyclists is not so harmful, right? :confused:

1) The bible contains no errors.
2) The bible says that Christ is a savior
3) The statement that Christ is a savior must be true.

This is circular logic as we both agree. The deduction that it must be true that Christ is a savior is logical when using circular logic. This statement is nothing more than a tautology...a statement true by virtue of its logical form. This statement is not "true", and will not serve as proof(to me) for the belief that Christ is indeed a savior.

[Jerrick]

For the people who are finding religious thread to be annoying, just don't look at them anymore, or respond to them, if you don't like it, don't throw yourself into it and let the others that do like it and want to discuss it to do so freely =p

P.S. Eddbmxdude, don't think i was targeting this on you, cause i wasn't =p i just have noticed a lot of people are getting annoyed by a lot of the religious thread, that's all.

[domesticated ape]

I really don't see why so many people are so bothered by the idea of starting a Christian unicycling group. Skroboskim wasn't asking YOU to become a Christian unicyclist, just appealing to other already Christian unicylists to form a group with him. What's the big deal with that?

[epistolize]

!!!UNICYCLING IS MY RELIGION!!!!

can i get an amen brutha??!!!!

rap on brother rap on...

on reading this thread, the first absurd idea that popped into my head was about jc cycling on water (about the time i saw the drawing of him blowing on a trumpet). then i realised how uncool that was because i think i'd rather see someone hop some gnarly rocks like over a really fast river or something- sormeone learning to do something hard and the happiness that they get on their face when they finally get it.

cycle for whatever you want.

the gita says that people come to the lord for 4 reasons, namely:

wealth
distress/heath
knowledge
because they are wise


and out of all of them he likes the last the most.

i like your thinking tomsey

[matt_t]

Stop being so childish. We're all people who ride unicycles so why do you have go on a unicycling forum and try to separate yourselves out from the rest of us. Face it, on here you're in here with everyone else so don't tell atheists not to post.
So, in the childish spirit that this thread was started, and with a twist of christian logic:
Jesus could walk on water, but he couldn't unicycle. I can unicycle, therefore I am better than Jesus. QED!:p

[matt_t]

Those of you who don't believe in God, Christ, Salvation etc. There is no point in arguing with you. The life of Christ, Creation, the flood, all these things can be backed up with archealogical and/or scientific proof. But arguing with you about that just creates bitterness.

-matt

OOO just found that, how amusing. Every archaeologist now knows that Sinai was in the hands of the Egyptians at the time of the Exodus (apart from ones working for christian universities surprisingly!) They're dug up Egyptian military posts out there and all sorts, so the Israelites fled from Egypt to Egypt!
http://www.baseinstitute.org/faqs/egyptcontrol.pdf

Also there is no evidence that the Israelites were ever enslaved in Egypt. All the big public works there were built on a national-service type basis for the pharoah, and any domestic slaves tended to be Nubian.

Jericho didn't exist at the time its walls were blown down by trumpets (lol)

Oh and "intelligunt desine" hahahaha!!!:p

Stick to faith, science doesn't do your religion any favours.

[skroboskim]

I really don't see why so many people are so bothered by the idea of starting a Christian unicycling group. Skroboskim wasn't asking YOU to become a Christian unicyclist, just appealing to other already Christian unicylists to form a group with him. What's the big deal with that?

thank you ... forget the arguments about religion ... you can do that whenever you want join or not join its up 2 u and im not trying to make a big separation

so please if you want to join you can write here ... put ><>Unicycle for Christ<>< in your signature, or PM me

[forrestunifreak]

Amen bro!

I think we should leave christianity in the church, and unicycling on the streets (or gym hall, skatepark etc.)


I think we should take christianity OUT of the church. Church isn't some building you go to once a week and sit like a good little boy and get preached at. I don't even go to church, we have a ''church'' study meeting in our house. Sometimes it's just our familiy.

[forrestunifreak]

I doubt you could actually get a club of unicyclists together for 'unicycling for Christ'. The unicycling community is so small as it is, and the chances of finding a group in your area that would meet for that purpose is very slim. It's probably better to just stick with making a normal unicycling club in your area and just putting your bumpersticker in your sig line.

I know what you mean. Your right. But this isn't a Christians exsclusive club, anyone else get out, it's just some fellow christians wanting to hear about other people who share their faith and sport. I'm not even trying to find a group of christian only unicyclists in my area to meet with. I know some unicyclists around here who are christian, and some who aren't. I ride with them all.

[forrestunifreak]

First off, lotsa stuff prooves that jesus might ahve existed but that some of the stuff you find in the bible isnt the truth, you can belive in jesus but do not impose what you belive on other ppl. Eternal life if I belive in jesus eh ? Well that tell me about budah and all those other persons ? I do belive there is a god, just not all that stuff you ahve been made to belive..

Now if my mom was dying of cancer I would uni for cancer yes, but I woudnt try n get everyone to do it with me. Also if my mom was dying of cancer it's dateh we r talking about not some character... If YOUR mom was dying of cancer I'd probly join in cauz that is a FACT your mom has cancer would be a fact unlike this whole thing.. If your idea was to create a community of ppl unicycling together that's cool.. you DO NOT need JESUS in there to help you have fun.

Excuse me, but I do believe you are trying to impose your beliefs on me.

[monkeyman]

Ok, I'll bite
ok i know some of you guys are atheist so w/e don't write here if you have any respect @ all
1. Screw you
2. If you really felt the need to request this, it should of been phrased something like "I know that some of you don't believe in Christianity, so please don't post anything against Christianity"

So how exactly does one unicycle for Christ? Explain to me how this actualy helps him. Do you spread the word of Christ whilst riding a unicycle.
Because uh, just unicycling doesn't really mean your unicycling for Christ.
This isn't jsut at you Ben.
I'm an agnostic Christian, if that makes any sense..this isn't me just taking the route of Jesus bashing like half of the rest of you are (great debate technique, by the way....:rolleyes: ), and I think it's perfectly reasonable to say you unicycle for Jesus....if doing that brings you closer to him...be that through praying before trying a hard trick, or just recognizing that its thanks to Him you can unicycle at all (I'm explaining their viewpoint, not necessarily agreeing with it, no flames needed)....there's no need to shoot someone down and tell them they can't do something for Jesus jsut because you don't understand or agree with it....my point is, if they feel that doing anything brings them closer to Jesus, or whoever they might believe in, who are you to try and take that away from them?

Well in a while I havent got pissed off like this.. but... SOMEONE PLZ KILL ME !!!!! first of this belongs in jc, and also dont bring religion into unicycling PLZ.. I wonder what would happen to hockey if someone did that ?

What is so inherently wrong about bringing religion into unicycling? Many sports stars have been quoted as saying God helps them....is there something wrong with that too?


.. read davinchis code.. then come see me and we can talk about this over a cup of whatever u drink k ?

You do realize that the same offense people attack the Bible with (it was written by people) could be applied to this too, right?

I mean cant ppl just uni for fun ? or do you absolutly need a reason to ride with other ppl ?

If unicycling from the mindset that they are doing it with His help makes them have more fun, what's wrong with that?


The whole concept bothers me. Not that you personally decide to unicycle for Christ but that you're trying to make this elitest group out of it. It's the prothelising Christians that bother me the most, unless someone asks why don't you just keep it to yourself. I don't bring up atheismunless the conversation is already about religion, why can't christians do that to.

So if someone had tried to start up a unicycling group for teens, you would of attacked them too, right?

How about you read other stuff (that does make more sence)..
So basically, if you don't understand it, it's untrue?

If you do read davinchis code, it does have pretty good "facts" about jesus having a fmailly and kids, witch would actually proove that your whole bible stuff is a lie
Why is the Da Vinchi Code any more credible then the Bible? It has books written against it too, you know

I'd name you who he had kids if I only rememberd..
Yeah, and I'll name Moses' kids too...
Just a question, when you go to the library/bookstore to borrow/buy Da Vinci Code, what section is it in?

Those of you who don't believe in God, Christ, Salvation etc. There is no point in arguing with you. The life of Christ, Creation, the flood, all these things can be backed up with archealogical and/or scientific proof. But arguing with you about that just creates bitterness.

There is just as much "proof" against it too

The idea that creation and the flood as described in the Christian Bible can be verified archaeologically or scientifically is completely ridiculous. You might as well claim the scientific veracity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If it can be scientifically proven, why not? I bet before the first dinosaur fossils were found, if you had told someone that they had existed, they would of though you insane

Witnessing is the problem with Christianity. You say you don't force your beliefs on other people but the whole point of witnessing is to do jsut that force our beliefs on other people.


No, witnessing is telling other people your beliefs, and giving them the opportunity to come to your religion

If the thought of someone unicycling for whatever they believe in (whether it be Jesus, Xbox, or the Spaghetti Monster) honestly pisses you off that much, you shouldn't interact with people, much less try to be involved in a debate over religion

[zaro]

.. read davinchis code.. then come see me and we can talk about this over a cup of whatever u drink k ?

dude... thats JUST a book.... it has pieces of true, pieces of theory and pieces of fiction...
u shouldn't read it as the ultimate true...
just like the bible... (o:

i've read both, and both amused me.. great fiction books.

i glide for buda,
trial for tupã,
and 360unispin for alah.

[dorkybarb]

very nice monkeyman.
it is good to see that even as heated as this subject is getting, there is still some people out there who will stand back and respond without getting all their emotional-underware in a bunch.

you show respect for all sides (from what i can tell) and you have earned a great deal of respect from me for your well thought out replys.

-b

[tholub]

If it can be scientifically proven, why not? I bet before the first dinosaur fossils were found, if you had told someone that they had existed, they would of though you insane


What does this mean? The ideas of the earth being 6K years old, and Noah's flood being a literal truth, cannot be scientifically proven, as all the available evidence contradicts those "theories."

Scientific theories are:


Parsimonious
Logically consistent
Logically falsifiable
Reproducible
Tentative


"Parsimonious" means that the theory should make as few assumptions as possible. This is Occam's Razor: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity). The Bible being literal truth is an underlying assumption of Creationism, and it's a huge and unwarranted one. (It is worth nothing that William of Ockham himself, as well as Thomas Aquinas whose work was a precursor of Ockham's, were trying to find logical proof for the existence of the Catholic God).

A specific result of ontological parsimoniety is that if the existence of the universe can be explained without assuming the existence of a god, then the assumption that there is a god should be discarded.

"Logically consistent" means that the theory should not contradict itself; that is, it cannot suggest two separate, contradictory explanations for a natural phenomenon. Genesis contradicts itself in numerous ways, and the theological resolutions of those contradictions are not themselves parsimonious; the resolutions of the contradictions in the Bible all begin with the assumption that the Bible is correct, therefore any contradictions must be something we don't understand. That assumption is unwarranted and unscientific.

"Logically falsifiable" means that the theory should predict something about natural phenomena, and those predictions should be testable. Even if you start with the assumption that there is A Creator, there is no test for whether the creator is actually the Christian God (and in fact, the New Testament specifically prohibits testing God). The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster notes that the FSM alters the results of scientific tests with his noodly appendage. The FSM is theologically and scientifically equivalent to the Christian God; you can assert its existence but its existence is untestable and unfalsifiable.

"Reproducible" means that the tests of the truth of the theory must be able to be reproduced. This eliminates miracles described in the Bible or other religious works as sources of scientific proof, as those miracles are not reproducible.

"Tentative" means that the theory should not assume that it is the correct or complete explanation for natural phenomena. A scientific theory must examine all other possible explanations, point out areas the theory fails to explain, and propose new areas of study. Creationism asserts itself as truth; science does not.


I point all this out not because I care what you believe. People believe all kinds of stuff; some people even believe that Paul McCartney is more talented than John Lennon was. But in the U.S., science is under attack by fundamentalist Christians, and their subversion of science and legislation is a significant danger to this country. So, believe what you want, put what you want in your signature, but don't call it science.

[Eddbmxdude]

I think we should take christianity OUT of the church. Church isn't some building you go to once a week and sit like a good little boy and get preached at. I don't even go to church, we have a ''church'' study meeting in our house. Sometimes it's just our familiy.

I wish people would leave it in church and not bother everyone else.

Edd

[Unitik908]

HEIL SATAN!!! nuff said

Chase

[forrestunifreak]

I wish people would leave it in church and not bother everyone else.

Edd

I don't see athiests or whatever they call themselves leaving their beleifs in athiest church.

[uni57]

Let this thread get back on topic.

Please post ALL further religious debate HERE (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49106).

[Erant]

I don't see athiests or whatever they call themselves leaving their beleifs in athiest church.

Lack of such a church, or mainly, lack of belief (which is what the word says, right? a-theist, non-believer) make that quite hard.

And calling 'science' our (notice, 'our') belief is just dumb. People usually become atheists because they know the chances of God existing are slim, and that religion is caused by a gene. What would be interesting is to see wether atheists have that gene ON, or OFF.

[musketman]

iam a christian, or at least i try to be. i go to the Penacostol (spelling?) church, and my grama goes to a Cathlic church.

[skroboskim]

ok, what the heck !!! this is a post about starting a unicycling group, not kindling the devil and god in all of us so shut up about that stuff
please
and post only if you want to join the club that is the awesomeness of ><>Unicylce For Christ<><
PM me if you would like to join!
and I will look into getting wristbands and bumperstickers that will cost like $2 each
having this group meet would be hard ... not all of us have a lot of $$ to go across country and meet wherever so yeah :) its all good for now

and to answer one of the few SEMI REVELLENT questions that was from the people against this ... this is not a group to seperate unicyclists from each other it is a group to get unicyclists together on a common ground! so forget your ANTI CHRIST comments and realize this is a post for a group not a playboard to get yourself to hell

[skroboskim]

.

[juggle508]

Yeah I would buy some wristbands....probably around 10 of them. KH.

[tholub]

and to answer one of the few SEMI REVELLENT questions that was from the people against this ... this is not a group to seperate unicyclists from each other it is a group to get unicyclists together on a common ground! so forget your ANTI CHRIST comments and realize this is a post for a group not a playboard to get yourself to hell

If I were to go looking for hell, Corpus Christi, Texas would be a good place to start.

[skroboskim]

Yeah I would buy some wristbands....probably around 10 of them. KH.
yeah thats cool, but who else ... should I make a new post so that it will be only christians and no crazy opposition, and how do I make a group on this site?

[juggle508]

Make a group?

[skroboskim]

Make a group?
well in our profiles it says member of groups... then it says no groups

[juggle508]

O i don;t know....but yeah, are you going to do all the bracelets and stuff?

KH.

[gordythegon]

hey Im a christian to. but i would say dont make a group. its like saying were all better cause were christians. but its really sweet that we all wanna unicycle of Jesus. keep ridein for Jesus!

[skroboskim]

hey Im a christian to. but i would say dont make a group. its like saying were all better cause were christians. but its really sweet that we all wanna unicycle of Jesus. keep ridein for Jesus!
i didn't want to make a big deal out of this, i just wanted to make it a unique thing to do because if its your beliefs then show it, just say youre unicycling for christ ... then if someone asks you further ... tell about it ... if not then oh well

[EvanWilson]

Well by riding for Christ you are using unicycling to help spread the word about Christ. Making Ice Cubes isnt exaclt preaching the gospel to others..

What if I make the ice cubes, put them in a drink, and talk to people about Jesus? Then I'm spreading the gospel.

And I have a question that I hope somebody could answer.

Why is it that Jesus had to die for our sins? What if when I die, I say "Hey, I'm dying for mankind's sins, got it?"

Would that count? And if not, why not?

[skroboskim]

What if I make the ice cubes, put them in a drink, and talk to people about Jesus? Then I'm spreading the gospel.

And I have a question that I hope somebody could answer.

Why is it that Jesus had to die for our sins? What if when I die, I say "Hey, I'm dying for mankind's sins, got it?"

Would that count? And if not, why not?

well put this in a post where it is revellant and I will answer you ...

[KrazyJeff]

yeah, I'm christian man and I'm keepin it cool.

[madmattunipro]

please refer me to this scientific proof. i am interested to see it in all its glory. and i hope you dont say the bible...

No, not the bible. I'm talking cold hard facts. A lot of the evidence is around you. If you closely look at most evolutionary proofs, you will find that they are unsupported. Homologous structures, the cambrian explosion, genetic mutation, fossil records. Honestly, a lot of the informantion I have obtained is through particular books and videos discussing the two main scientific theories(Creation and Evolution), so it's hard to point you to a specific scource. Truth is, a lot of the evidence for evolution is becoming outdated and disproved.

Here are a few examples, mostly pertaining to genetic evidence. I'm not as into the archeological evidence as biological.

*The cambrian explosion is a time in history that nearly all forms of life appear on the geological column at one time, as apposed to the gradual building up of life that was expected.

*Homologous structures are structures that are similar in basic build up. The human hand, the flipper of a seal, a bat's wing, all have similar basic structure. According to evolution, these structures should be formed and controlled by the same part of the genetic code; the same gene. But the truth is, homologous structures are formed by completely different genes, wich points against the idea of certain animal evolving into others.

*The galapagos finches, a classic example of evolution: It has been shown that the finch beaks can increase in size as much as 5% from one generation to the next, more than enough for evolution. These changes are usually to adapt to a dry season, scarcity of food etc. But the wrench in the gears is the fact that the changes are cyclical. They return to normal size when the food supplies return to normal.

*Dogs are an example of evolution. From one species to the hundreds, if not thousands we have now. There is only one problem. They are always dogs. A dog can never become another creature. They can adapt and change within the boundaries of what a dog is, but they can't change their DNA to become an entirely different animal.

*Bacteria that are resistant to drugs are actually weaker overall compared to the parent strain. When the drug is removed and the parents strain returns, the resistant bacteria can't keep up, and the population is significantly reduced resulting in no net change.

*The fossil record lacks any evidence for evolution, Darwin admitted this was a major problem for his theory, and hoped that further digging would bring more evidance to light. The opposite has happened.

*Mutations are often used as a proof for evolution. Most mutations are either insignificant, or detrimetal to the organism in which they occur.

*There is a woodpecker(I believe in Europe) that has it's tongue going out the back of it's skull, over it's skull under the skin, and entering it's mouth through a nasal cavity. How did this woodpecker get it's tongue? There is no evolutionary explanation. Other creatures such as the giraffe, bombadier beetle, that could not have evolved.

These are a few points that I scraped off the top of my head, and there are many others. I can't think of them at the moment. All I can say is be careful; if you seriously look into the evidence with an open mind, you may be supprised and challenged by what you find.

If you can get a hold of them, the videos "Icons of Evolution", and "Answers in genesis" are good discussions on the subject. "Incredible creatures that defy evolution" is another good one.

The Case For Christ is a book you might want to read. It is written by a man who was highly critical of the existance of Christ, untill he started looking for cold hard evidence.

[pkittle]

Okay, so I'm somewhere in the muddled ground between being an agnostic and an atheist (though I'm probably closer to the latter). I'm not planning to make this a rant of any kind--I find that to be non-productive. I'm pretty much a "live and let live" kinda guy, so I don't have a problem with people's belief systems, nor do I feel in any way superior because of my beliefs.

But here's the thing. With most people I encounter (through work or social situations), religion doesn't become a topic of conversation because we all know that, like politics, it's something that often brings on rancor rather than comaraderie. There are several couples with whom my wife and I socialize regularly who are very devout Christians, and while they mention their Bible study classes and church activities, they're never intrusive; they don't suggest that we go to their church or join their study groups or anything like that. But there's another couple who live near us, and they're very evangelical; the husband is always on at me to join his Promise Keepers group for some good ol' fellowship, and his kids are always asking my kids if they've accepted Jesus as their true and only savior. It's difficult to be around them, because although I'm willing to respect their beliefs, they don't seem to show that same respect for mine. In fact, there's a smugness in their attitude that's really grating--the "holier than thou" sensibility is all over the place, and the result is probably the opposite of what they would like. That is, I'm repulsed, and absolutely DON'T want to be part of their community because of the attitude of superiority they show.

And that's why I'm not a big fan of this "Unicycling for Christ" (UFC)movement. If there were a big UFC gathering near me, I'd want to go because how often do chances to unicycle with a bunch of people come up? But I absolutely would NOT go because I wouldn't want to spend time either (a) listening to them talk about their beliefs or (b) explaining my own reasons for not believing or (C) just feeling like I'm not really a part of the group.

I guess what I'm saying is that it seems to me that the UFC is more likely to divide the unicycling community than anything else. And I really, really don't want to have unicycling attached to a particular religious perspective in any way. I don't want people to see me on my muni and jump to the conclusions that they do when they see two young men in suits riding bikes (e.g., that they must be Mormons on door-to-door missions). I don't want to have to put a little fish-turned-into-lizard-with-"Darwin"-letters on my helmet to differentiate myself from the proselytizing unicyclists.

I'm going to keep my unicycling secular, thank you very much, but I don't want to have to advertise that fact. If you want to Unicycle for Christ, go ahead and do it--but why not keep it something between you and God? Why the need to parade your beliefs in front of everyone? I'm not suggesting that anyone feel the need to hide their beliefs, but I also don't understand the desire to wave them around like a flag. When you put "Unicycling for Christ" in your sig, regardless of your intent, many people will interpret that statement as an implied challenge: "So, I unicycle for the son of God. Who are YOU unicycling for?" I see it as a way of asserting an assumed superiority over others, even though I understand that this is not the intent of the person who started this. If I don't have the "UFC" tag in my sig, what will people assume about me? The whole thing is going to invite mockery (we've already seen a "Unicycling for Satan" comment), which will further divide people. I think there's an elitist tendency here that's unlikely to strengthen the community.

[Into the blue]

Pkittle speaks words of wisdom.

[tholub]

If you can get a hold of them, the videos "Icons of Evolution", and "Answers in genesis" are good discussions on the subject. "Incredible creatures that defy evolution" is another good one.

The Case For Christ is a book you might want to read. It is written by a man who was highly critical of the existance of Christ, untill he started looking for cold hard evidence.

Wow. I can't believe that anyone capable enough to learn to unicycle actually believes any of this utter crap. Everything in those videos and books has been thoroughly and entirely discredited; it's all based on flawed assumptions and complete ignorance of scientific methods in pursuit of religious ideology. There are dozens of scientific papers which address the supposed "flaws" in evolution that you mention (conveniently ignored by those pushing an agenda). And there is an even more fundamental fallacy involved, which is that even if Darwin's theory is 100% wrong, that doesn't prove anything at all about the Christian God. (This type of logical fallacy is known as "false dichotomy").

A U.S. federal judge (a Bush appointee, a Republican and a church-goer) just threw out as ridiculous the claims by "intelligent design" proponents. Some of the comments from his decision:


[I]t is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science.
[D]efense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.
Every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such.
ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed.
By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe (ID expert witness) attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument.
Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."
In addition, Dr. Miller refuted [the ID textbook's] claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information and pointed to more than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes.
In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing.
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.


Really. Open your eyes.

[MrBoogiejuice]

I'll ride for Christ if you'll ride for Bilious.

Think of it as a deity exchange program...

After all - a change is as good as a rest.

[lucky_8]

i will. also look at the thread i made about a christian club

[monkeyman]

Wow. I can't believe that anyone capable enough to learn to unicycle actually believes any of this utter crap....blah blah blah
-insert emotionally charged attack here-
Really. Open your eyes.

People like you should not be allowed to post on forums....did you notice how I kept my post anti-inflammatory? Is your reasoning for degrading his beliefs that you feel your own are threatened? Are you offended by him saying his own beliefs?
Could he feel the same way? :eek:
Control your anger, or get out of a sensitive debate.

[tholub]

People like you should not be allowed to post on forums....did you notice how I kept my post anti-inflammatory? Is your reasoning for degrading his beliefs that you feel your own are threatened? Are you offended by him saying his own beliefs?
Could he feel the same way? :eek:
Control your anger, or get out of a sensitive debate.

This debate shouldn't be in this forum. And yes, science is threatened in this country--not by ridiculous pseudo-scientific claims designed to dupe the credulous, but by the political agenda of groups espousing them.

[skroboskim]

by the way evolution happened... genesis happened its the exact same thing... think about it
one day to god isn't exactly a day in our lives (esp. since he knows no time)

unicycling rocks-jesus rocks more- put them together and u have awesomness

[tholub]

by the way evolution happened... genesis happened its the exact same thing... think about it
one day to god isn't exactly a day in our lives (esp. since he knows no time)


No, it's not the exact same thing. According to Genesis, creation is separated into the Earth and everything else; disputing that doctrine with scientific facts is what got Galileo thrown in prison. Genesis also has plants and fruit trees existing before the sun.

Genesis is a typical creation myth, created through verbal tradition by unscientific people with a need to come up with an explanation for things that they could see. They couldn't see dinosaur skeletons, so there are no dinosaurs in Genesis. They had no way to know that the sun existed before the earth, or that life began in the primordial seas before there was dry land, so the accounting in Genesis is at odds with what we now know through science.

It's a creation fable, as meaningful as the one about the earth being on the back of a turtle.

[skroboskim]

No, it's not the exact same thing. According to Genesis, creation is separated into the Earth and everything else; disputing that doctrine with scientific facts is what got Galileo thrown in prison. Genesis also has plants and fruit trees existing before the sun.

Genesis is a typical creation myth, created through verbal tradition by unscientific people with a need to come up with an explanation for things that they could see. They couldn't see dinosaur skeletons, so there are no dinosaurs in Genesis. They had no way to know that the sun existed before the earth, or that life began in the primordial seas before there was dry land, so the accounting in Genesis is at odds with what we now know through science.

It's a creation fable, as meaningful as the one about the earth being on the back of a turtle.


technically plants could have made unicycles before, but u know ... plants feed off the sun and land, so what if the sun wasn't there... they just get energy from something else ... and im not sure of the exact order of Genesis so ill check later :p

[James_Potter]

No, it's not the exact same thing. According to Genesis, creation is separated into the Earth and everything else; disputing that doctrine with scientific facts is what got Galileo thrown in prison. Genesis also has plants and fruit trees existing before the sun.
Galileo was a religious man who once said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use."

I unicycle for Buddha!

[skroboskim]

Galileo was a religious man who once said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use."

I unicycle for Buddha!

COOLNESS dude unicycle for what you believe in!!

[phlegm]

Genesis is a typical creation myth, created through verbal tradition by PREscientific people with a need to come up with an explanation for things that they could see. They couldn't see dinosaur skeletons, so there are no dinosaurs in Genesis. They had no way to know that the sun existed before the earth, or that life began in the primordial seas before there was dry land, so the accounting in Genesis is at odds with what we now know through science.

I don't like the politically charged connotation of "unscientific." Political forces aren't only ruining science.

It's a creation fable, as meaningful as the one about the earth being on the back of a turtle.

Well, maybe not entirely. The creation story includes the assertion of the fallen state of creation, placing humanity under God. Does the "back of a turtle" fable say anything about the human condition?

[forrestunifreak]

It's a creation fable, as meaningful as the one about the earth being on the back of a turtle.

And that real stupid one were people don't understand were the world came from, so they made up all this unscientific crap about evolution. :rolleyes: Ha.

[EvanWilson]

And that real stupid one were people don't understand were the world came from, so they made up all this unscientific crap about creationism. :rolleyes: Ha.

Word

[tholub]

The creation story includes the assertion of the fallen state of creation, placing humanity under God. Does the "back of a turtle" fable say anything about the human condition?

I'm not going to get further into theology here, except to say, as long as you don't claim it to be objective truth or somehow "scientific," I don't care if you believe that the world is a giant spitball, and Armageddon comes when an enormous Bart Simpson decides to blow it at his teacher's butt. My concern is only with physical reality. All of the ancient creation fables, including the one in Genesis, are at odds with physical reality; to claim objective truth for your particular favored fable is both ill-informed and societally dangerous.

[skroboskim]

ok then ... the world is a giant ball of play-doh and Nasa just made up the idea of space and sold it to the Russians before going more in-depth than that and selling it to us ... now what are you going to say? because space is fake ...the sun is fake ... it is with faith in people that you believe this... just thought u would like to know

[GhettoSmurf]

What would be interesting is to see wether atheists have that gene ON, or OFF.


I dont. I consider myself atheusts. I don't belive in a god, although I still wish there was one. I still occasionaly pray, hopeing that there's is something taking care of me. I wish there was someone in control other than myself, and that everything is going to be alright; but there's not.

[madmattunipro]

Wow. I can't believe that anyone capable enough to learn to unicycle actually believes any of this utter crap...

Really. Open your eyes.

Could say the same thing about your blind faith in poor science.

[phlegm]

I'm not going to get further into theology here, except to say, as long as you don't claim it to be objective truth or somehow "scientific," I don't care if you believe that the world is a giant spitball, and Armageddon comes when an enormous Bart Simpson decides to blow it at his teacher's butt. My concern is only with physical reality. All of the ancient creation fables, including the one in Genesis, are at odds with physical reality; to claim objective truth for your particular favored fable is both ill-informed and societally dangerous.

Good enough. I agree with not claiming to have the objetive truth, although I wouldn't go so far as to say that all fables are at odds with physical reality. This is because I believe that fiction can say something very meaningful about reality and that all truth about reality is not ultimately reducible to a scientific answer.

[tholub]

Could say the same thing about your blind faith in poor science.

I don't have blind faith in science. Science is testable and reproducible. We do not know everything about the physical world, and we never will. But there are things science knows a whole lot about, and the origins of the planet and evolution of the species are two of them. The idea that the earth is the center of the universe, or that the sun is, are not "theories" on par with accepted scientific cosmological theory. New phenomena and the behavior of new stellar objects are better predicted and understood based on a cosmology where the earth and our sun are not the center of the universe. Similarly, the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old, or that existing organisms on earth are irreducibly complex, are not theories on par with accepted evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is consistent with what we observe in nature and in the fossil record; "young earth" is not.

There are some assumptions in the scientific method, primarily that the universe is self-consistent and not capricious. If it were possible that we would wake up tomorrow and suddenly, instead of being at a fairly random location in an expanding universe, we were suddenly at the center of a static universe, it would throw a lot of scientific theory out the window. I am willing to believe that the probability of that happening is near enough to zero to be discountable.

That assumption is a lot simpler than the assumption that there is an all-powerful Creator, and that He Spoke His One Truth to a guy wandering in the desert five thousand years ago (but not to anyone else). By Occam's Razor, it should be true that the universe is self-consistent and not capricious.

[siafirede]

I'm not going to get further into theology here, except to say, as long as you don't claim it to be objective truth or somehow "scientific," I don't care if you believe that the world is a giant spitball, and Armageddon comes when an enormous Bart Simpson decides to blow it at his teacher's butt. My concern is only with physical reality. All of the ancient creation fables, including the one in Genesis, are at odds with physical reality; to claim objective truth for your particular favored fable is both ill-informed and societally dangerous.

I concur...mixing these two epistemologies (science/religion) just does not work.

[James_Potter]

Wow. I can't believe that anyone capable enough to learn to unicycle actually believes any of this utter crap.
<snip>
Really. Open your eyes.
Seems like everything you copied and pasted here only proves that religion hasn't been proved...I have yet to see anything that proves that religion is 100% false.
So, trying to be nicer to the beliefs of others, could you explain why you think that this is "utter crap"?

[James_Potter]

I don't have blind faith in science. Science is testable and reproducible. We do not know everything about the physical world, and we never will. But there are things science knows a whole lot about, and the origins of the planet and evolution of the species are two of them. The idea that the earth is the center of the universe, or that the sun is, are not "theories" on par with accepted scientific cosmological theory. New phenomena and the behavior of new stellar objects are better predicted and understood based on a cosmology where the earth and our sun are not the center of the universe. Similarly, the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old, or that existing organisms on earth are irreducibly complex, are not theories on par with accepted evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is consistent with what we observe in nature and in the fossil record; "young earth" is not.
You say there are things we don't know, and you are correct. So how is it impossible that the world was created by God, and God is still with us today, even several billion Earth years after he created it?
The way I see it, science and religion go hand in hand.

That assumption is a lot simpler than the assumption that there is an all-powerful Creator, and that He Spoke His One Truth to a guy wandering in the desert five thousand years ago (but not to anyone else). By Occam's Razor, it should be true that the universe is self-consistent and not capricious.
I think the latter is actually much simpler. It was 5,000 years ago, whereas, evolution and modern science took 5,000 years longer than that to figure out...makes it seem complicated, yeah?

I think, you (and everyone else) needs to figure out that Christians and other religious people think of atheists, the same way atheists think of Christians et al. Christians think you are misinformed, blind, closed minded, and completely wrong. Is that not how you think of Christians?

[tholub]

Seems like everything you copied and pasted here only proves that religion hasn't been proved...I have yet to see anything that proves that religion is 100% false.
So, trying to be nicer to the beliefs of others, could you explain why you think that this is "utter crap"?

Religion is not falsifiable; that is one of the things that distinguishes it from science.

However, the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence is that life began on this planet some 3.7+ billion years ago, and that complex organisms developed from simple organisms by the process of natural selection. To ignore two hundred years of well-documented and mature science, simply because it disagrees with one's theology, is as ridiculous as imprisoning Galileo for looking through his telescope and seeing something other than what the church wanted him to see.

[tholub]

I think, you (and everyone else) needs to figure out that Christians and other religious people think of atheists, the same way atheists think of Christians et al. Christians think you are misinformed, blind, closed minded, and completely wrong. Is that not how you think of Christians?

There is a difference; science is based on actual evidence that the religious, if they truly have open minds, can look at and verify for themselves. Many religious people manage to stay religious without making unverifiable claims about the origin of the planet or the species which are at odds with the evidence. It is when the religious begin to manipulate truth that I take issue with their belief.

[madmattunipro]

Yeah, the church has been extremely dumb with cases such as Galileo. Nobody is saying the church is perfect.

Scientists once thought that the world was flat, untill Columbus took a look in the bible and found that it says the world is a globe hung on nothing. Matthew Murray discovered ocean currents form a bible verse speaking of the "paths of the sea."

The church is made of people, it is not infallible. People screw up. But that doesn't make truth less true. Discrediting creation and intelligent design as religeously driven propaganda is bad science.

Good science questions. It questions everything INCLUDING evolution. Too many scientists today assume evolution is true, and ignore anything that says otherwise. I have questioned, and I have found that my faith is not based on fairy tales, but rather truth. By simply attributing creation to religeous beliefs, you are practicing bad science. It is no longer a religeon Vs. science question, rather it is two different interpretations of scientific data.

[koebwil]

Not trivial. Unicycling is what he loves to do. He presumably dedicates a lot of time and effort to be the very best unicyclist he can be. He derives great joy and happiness from unicycling. Unicycling is a BIG part of his life.I'm sure making ice cubes is an equally large part of his life.

[litldude2]

I have a question, for you people that believe god created the universe and stuff, where do you think god came from? and what do you think he is?
I could be wrong but wasn't the bible written at a time when alcohol was getting really popular?

[tholub]

Yeah, the church has been extremely dumb with cases such as Galileo. Nobody is saying the church is perfect.

Scientists once thought that the world was flat, untill Columbus took a look in the bible and found that it says the world is a globe hung on nothing. Matthew Murray discovered ocean currents form a bible verse speaking of the "paths of the sea."


That's complete nonsense. No one educated in Columbus' day thought that the earth was flat (including Columbus), and the knowledge of the roundness of the earth didn't come from the Bible.


The church is made of people, it is not infallible. People screw up. But that doesn't make truth less true. Discrediting creation and intelligent design as religeously driven propaganda is bad science.

Good science questions. It questions everything INCLUDING evolution. Too many scientists today assume evolution is true, and ignore anything that says otherwise. I have questioned, and I have found that my faith is not based on fairy tales, but rather truth. By simply attributing creation to religeous beliefs, you are practicing bad science. It is no longer a religeon Vs. science question, rather it is two different interpretations of scientific data.

The idea of intelligent design as a valid interpretation of scientific data has been rejected by every important scientific journal and institute. It has also now been rejected by the U.S. court system (as I noted, by a Bush-appointed church-going judge).

You're clearly not equipped to argue your own point, but let me ask you this; how is ID falsifiable? That is, what scientific evidence could appear which would refute the idea of ID?

[maxisback]

I uno just trying to add church with unicycling.. dosent seem right..

[Jerrick]

How come? I am christian, but i'm not gonna waste my time debating if what i believe in is right or wrong, provable or not, tis what I believe in, and that's all that matters.

On topic to what you said though, What do you unicycle for? for yourself? for fun? cause its different? its the only thing you've ever been really been able to be good at? i bet there are tons of reasons why one, like you and me, unicycle. But for the religious types out there, like me, i can proudly say i ride for Christ, i can also proudly say I ride for fun or any other reason.

Its kinda weird, I could of made a thread asking for people that ride their unicycles for icecream to join up for a fun group, and get no negativity or huge debates, but when you throw in a religious topic, everything goes downhill from there.

[maxisback]

fun g.. I dont mind christian ppl.. but there's a limit to everything.. I mean I like beer.. do you see me making threads about unicycling for beer ? no cauz thats pushing it to far.. (in my opinion anyways)

[Jerrick]

fun g.. I dont mind christian ppl.. but there's a limit to everything.. I mean I like beer.. do you see me making threads about unicycling for beer ? no cauz thats pushing it to far.. (in my opinion anyways)

Exactly, that's your opinion =p To me, it feels good to ride for Christ, just like a warm fuzzy feeling.

Think of it this way, you have a best friend that has been unicycling with you for the past 10 years, he ends up dying. Everyday after that, not only are you unicycling for yourself and fun, but your unicycling for your friend, some people will be like "who cares, he is dead, it doesn't matter" but to you, it would matter. well, they probably wouldnt say that, but you know what i mean, I hope.

Christianity is something i strongly believe in, even though I'm kinda new to it all, to others it is weird to hear that i ride for Christ, to me its perfectly fine =p

[maxisback]

I guess.. but your friend was actually real.. like he was a fact..

[Jerrick]

I guess.. but your friend was actually real.. like he was a fact..
I'm not gonna debate real or not, cause that's not the point I'm talking about right now.

All I'm saying is, some people ride for other reasons, mine may not be completely agreeable with what you believe, maybe something you do is something i don't completely believe in, the fact is, we are are still on one wheel by the end of the day =p

[maxisback]

yep haha.. but ou dont ride it for fun ? this not only directed to you.. but when you NEED a reason to uni.. I dono but I mean that's not unicycling for fun to me

[Jerrick]

yep haha.. but ou dont ride it for fun ? this not only directed to you.. but when you NEED a reason to uni.. I dono but I mean that's not unicycling for fun to me

Of course I ride for fun! =p there's a lot of reason i ride my uni, I could do an essay on it if i had to, actually i might do that on the next paper i have to write, but riding for Christ is just another reason to =p

[ThisGuyIKnow]

I know there adult Christians on this board, but it seems most of them are smart enough to stay out of it. Everyone here who is "unicycling for christ" seems to be under the age of 18. I think it's simply because adults realize that religion is not something that should be flaunted.

[Jerrick]

I'm not trying to debate whether or not my beliefs are right or wrong, able to be proven or not, or anything like that. I rather not get into all the worthless debating, I have never seen a religious debate end really, no one really wins and yeah, its pretty pointless in a way. but ill still defend my beliefs =p

Really the only to this thread is, some people are gonna ride for Christ, so let us, its just another reason for us to ride. There's no need to debate it, just as long everyone can still go out and ride while having fun.

[madmattunipro]

The idea of intelligent design as a valid interpretation of scientific data has been rejected by every important scientific journal and institute. It has also now been rejected by the U.S. court system (as I noted, by a Bush-appointed church-going judge).

Honestly, saying that one person rejects creation is a stupid agrument. So-what? A judge thinks intelligent design is not provable. I gave several examples in my second post that support id, and put huge holes in the evolutionary theory. All you've managed to come up with is a judge...And I'm not well equipped? So far you have spouted opinion, but no facts. I have the fossil record, microbiology, DNA evidence, microevolution... all supporting the idea of creation. Wow, if your judge's oppinion is great enough to rule over scientific data... I'd like to meet someone with that much power. Frankly, the evidence speaks louder than all the judges in the world.

The reason scientists try to keep creation a religeous rather than scienific claim, is because they cannot prove it wrong scientificly. There are creation scientists who have attempted to set up scientific debates about evolution and creation, but they are refused. Why is the world so scared of creation? Because it just might be true.


In fact, recently 100 leading scientists put their nemes on a petition stating that they are sceptical of the claims of evolution due to a lack of supporting evidence. It was published as an advertisement in a major magazine. I'll see if I can find it for you.

[madmattunipro]

I know there adult Christians on this board, but it seems most of them are smart enough to stay out of it. Everyone here who is "unicycling for christ" seems to be under the age of 18. I think it's simply because adults realize that religion is not something that should be flaunted.

I don't flaunt religeon, in fact I hate religeon. Religeon is why terrorist attack, why people go hungry. It is a reason for the rich to rule over subjects who are living in poverty(eg. the right of kings). Religeon causes death and destruction.

I have faith, and evidence. Honestly, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation. Think about the consequences for a second. If you are a atheist, and I am a Christian, what happens if you are right? What happens if I am right? If you are right, I die, life ends, nothing happens after that. If I am right, your life is on the line. No, not your soul, your spirit, your actual physical body will bear the consequences.

I'm not trying to pull out the "fire and brimstone" here, I'm not trying to scare anyone. But maybe you should just realise that the consequences of your choice on this issue are HUGE. Whether for good or bad.

If there was no strong proof for my beliefs, I would drop them in an instant. I am a "don't believe in what I can not see" sort of person. I am a sceptic, willing to question the widely accepted beliefs as well as the less so. I have questioned evolution, and creation. Creation has come out as the most scientificly logical, supportable explanation for the orgin of earth that I have come across.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Creation has come out as the most scientificly logical, supportable explanation for the orgin of earth that I have come across.

Than you haven't looked very hard

[Eddbmxdude]

Creation has come out as the most scientificly logical, supportable explanation for the orgin of earth that I have come across.

HA HA! Creation: Scientificly Logical?

[tholub]

Honestly, saying that one person rejects creation is a stupid agrument. So-what? A judge thinks intelligent design is not provable. I gave several examples in my second post that support id, and put huge holes in the evolutionary theory. All you've managed to come up with is a judge...And I'm not well equipped? So far you have spouted opinion, but no facts. I have the fossil record, microbiology, DNA evidence, microevolution... all supporting the idea of creation. Wow, if your judge's oppinion is great enough to rule over scientific data... I'd like to meet someone with that much power. Frankly, the evidence speaks louder than all the judges in the world.


You conveniently ignored the fact that I also mentioned that every major scientific publication and institute has rejected the claims of ID. Yes, ID is not disprovable by science; that's because it's not a scientific theory. All scientific theories are disprovable. You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either.

Every peer-reviewed and published scientist who has reviewed the fossil record, microbiology, DNA evidence, and microevolution has rejected the idea that the principles of ID are scientific. The points you raised earlier, showing the supposed holes in evolution, have all been addressed in peer-reviewed scientific studies, and even if they had not, holes in evolution provide no proof at all of the existence of the Christian God.

And if we have an intelligent designer, he's really not very good, as he has us walking upright on a skeletal system designed for a being with forelimbs.

[leo_h]

And if we have an intelligent designer, he's really not very good, as he has us walking upright on a skeletal system designed for a being with forelimbs.

But sure comes in handy for unicycling though!

[Bud-Litebulb]

(the following is a clone of a post I made to a clone of this thread in JC. it is so important that i think it needs to be rpeated here in RSU)

( by the way, JC means just conversation, but it also stands for Jesus Christ. Makes you think, doesn't it?:rolleyes: )

now here is the clone of my other post:

the only time i think of god or jesus or any of those guys is when i fall off my unicycle and say "god damn it!"

I unicycle for my girfriend (even though she wants me to stop, i still unicycle for her.

My girlfriend is HOT. Jesus is not. Sorry.

[madmattunipro]

You can walk around on all fours if you want, but obviously walking on two feet has been working well for quite a while. I wouldn't question the intelligence of the design.

Saying the every peer-reviewed scientist and every science publication rejects id is an unacceptably general assumption. You still haven't given one argument that is anything more than oppinion or vague assumptions.

Intelligent design is all around you. There is simply no way many animals could have evolved. The transitionary creatures would have been fatal to themselves. If the animal is laying there dying, is it thinking, "maybe I should evolve to avoid this problem?" There are simply animals that cannot survive unless they are made exactly as they are.

[forrestunifreak]

HA HA! Creation: Scientificly Logical?


HA ha ha, evoulution scientifically logical? When no evidence of anything having ever evolved or evolving has been found or observed? Please, this is called circular reasoning.

[phlegm]

HA ha ha, evoulution scientifically logical? When no evidence of anything having ever evolved or evolving has been found or observed? Please, this is called circular reasoning.

Microevolution has been observed. Macroevolution has been inferred from the fossil record.

[mscalisi]

Pushing it too far!!!???

I unicycle for beer ALL THE TIME!

fun g.. I dont mind christian ppl.. but there's a limit to everything.. I mean I like beer.. do you see me making threads about unicycling for beer ? no cauz thats pushing it to far.. (in my opinion anyways)

[forrestunifreak]

Microevolution has been observed. Macroevolution has been inferred from the fossil record.

Wow. Assuming that is true, macroevolution proves that the complex world and life in it came from some specks of dirt and some slime? You don't find that unlikely, but it is hard for you to believe that there is a God?


Circular reasoning to me.

[phlegm]

Wow. Assuming that is true, macroevolution proves that the complex world and life in it came from some specks of dirt and some slime? You don't find that unlikely, but it is hard for you to believe that there is a God?


Circular reasoning to me.

Macroevolution doesn't prove anything. Macroevolution is a variety of explanations of how simpler life forms eventually became more complex. I don't know that it's any more unlikely/likely than another explanation, but it a useful scientific explanation that yields useful scientific results.

It's not hard to believe in God. I believe in God because I don't have enough faith in science.

[monkeyman]

Circular reasoning to me.
Forrest, I mean no offense by this, but it really bothers me, and I'm blunt
Please figure out what circular reasoning is...it's not being a hypocrite, it's where something has to be true to prove itself.
If A, then B
if B, then A

A is true
Therefore B is true
Therefore A is proven
That is circular reasoning.

[tholub]

There are simply animals that cannot survive unless they are made exactly as they are.

The idea of irreducible complexity is not based on science, and it has been quite well refuted.

The fundamental logical flaw is a false dichotomy; "we don't understand how this works, therefore it must have been created by the Christian God." The second portion does not follow from the first, even if true.

The most important recent work claiming irreducible complexity is Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". His definition is:


A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning


Behe claims that blood clotting, the immune system, and the flagellum could not have evolved on their own; that the systems require too many parts working together to have been the result of gradual changes over time.


Semba, Shibuya, Okabe, and Yamamo (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9678675) showed that whales have blood which clots despite lacking parts of the clotting cascade.

Inlay (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html) describes how the immune system could have evolved one piece at a time.

Matzke (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html) describes a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum.

Shenks and Joplin (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Apologetics/POS6-99ShenksJoplin.html) point out that organisms have redundant complexity, not irreducible complexity.

There are dozens of other scientific papers which point out plausible ways that these supposedly irreducibly complex systems could have evolved. In some cases there is even fossil evidence, for example in the case of the inner ear, which evolved from a jawbone. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence shows that all of the systems we see today evolved from simpler systems through natural processes.

If Behe were truly a scientist, and if his theory were truly scientific, he would have to acknowledge that his idea has been refuted. Instead, he just claims (under oath in at least one case) that the evidence provided by the scientific community is "not good enough." He does not provide any description of what evidence would be good enough, because such evidence doesn't exist in his mind; his theory is based on ideology, not science.

[madmattunipro]

How about the woodpecker's tongue. The giraffe's brain? Bombadier beetle?

C'mon there are countless animals with irreducable complexity.

How about the cambrian explosion? This points out that nearly every type of life form existing today appears in the fossil record at the same time. If they all evolved, how did they all evolve form no existing life forms, to all of them at once? It is also shown that the layers of rock direcly beneath the cambrian explosion are ideal for preserving fossils, all they can find however, are sponge embryos. The cambrian explosion turns the tree of evolution on it's head.


There is simply no concrete evidence showing that evolution did occur. Much of the evidence presented to students has been falsified. Like the evolution of the horse fossils. Embriotic structure. Even though these examples have been shown to be wrong, they still use them.

I find it distrubing that you exercise such blind faith in what you have been taught in school. You interpret scientific data with the assumption that evolution is right, instead you should go about trying to disprove evolution, and creation... if you honestly did this, and considered all the facts from both sides of the issue, you may be suprised at where it leads. I'm not asking anyone to believe in my "religion," just consider the evidence. Perhaps the thing that is so hard for you is that if you find that creation is supportable, then you have no choice but to believe in a higher being.

[tholub]

How about the woodpecker's tongue. The giraffe's brain? Bombadier beetle?

C'mon there are countless animals with irreducable complexity.


Just to point out to everyone that didn't notice it, this is the typical tactic of the defender of "Intelligent Design"; make an unfounded assertion (the immune system is irreducibly complex), and then when confronted with direct evidence proving the assertion wrong, change the subject.

But it won't work.

Ryan (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html) dissects the woodpecker's tounge.

Darwin himself (http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/variation/variation20.html) described the evolution of the giraffe's neck and head.

Isaac (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html) explains a simple process by which the bombardier beetle could have evolved.


There are plenty of examples of things we don't understand fully. But upon examination, in every single case, natural explanations are found.


How about the cambrian explosion? This points out that nearly every type of life form existing today appears in the fossil record at the same time. If they all evolved, how did they all evolve form no existing life forms, to all of them at once? It is also shown that the layers of rock direcly beneath the cambrian explosion are ideal for preserving fossils, all they can find however, are sponge embryos. The cambrian explosion turns the tree of evolution on it's head.


The Cambrian Explosion is at the core of evolution; it's merely the period during which the largest number of species appeared. Foes of knowledge and science try to emphasize that this happened "all at the same time" and fail to note that the Cambrian period covered 53 million years; plenty of time for evolution to take its course. And animal fossils have now been found in Vendian strata dating back to 650 million years ago, over 100 million years before the Cambrian period.

Once again; the ideas of Intelligent Design have absolutely no basis in science, and the only way ID's proponents can defend their irrrational position is to ignore all factual evidence and any kind of scientific process. And then, bizarrely, claim that it is the scientists who are actually looking at the evidence are the ones who are acting on faith.

[unicycle dave]

i am a mennonite from PA i dont know if my parents woud let me be part in a club but i really support the idea:)

[nachos]

well i think its a good idea.... i mean yeah its cool woo.... i added that thing to my siggy \/ \/ woo so pretty

[maestro8]

(the following is a clone of a post I made to a clone of this thread in JC. it is so important that i think it needs to be rpeated here in RSU)
There is a special level in hell reserved for cross-posters. Especially bull-headed ultra-conservative trolling cross-posters. I hope there's a glass floor on my level so I can watch you enduring countless hours of public-access television dubbed with foreign folk music while being force-fed raw snails in the company of screaming infants with really smelly gas. And that's only what they have in store for you for the first 1,000 years of your stay...

[skroboskim]

luke 12:49- I have come to set the earth on fire, and how i wish it were already blazing! :)
i love u for who you are :)

[phlegm]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[skroboskim]

:)
pm me if you want to join :)

[BornUgly]

:)
I already sent you a PM :)

[skroboskim]

:)
I already sent you a PM :)
yeah ... apparently youre cool like that
but anyways ... who would buy stickers and how big should they be ??
i was thinking like 1"x4"/5"


any ideas?

[phlegm]

who would buy stickers and how big should they be ??
i was thinking like 1"x4"/5"

I think you should make them like several hundred yards long. The bigger the better.

[skroboskim]

I think you should make them like several hundred yards long. The bigger the better.
hey now this doesn't involve people who unicycle for endorphines... please just leave this thread alone ... or say something useful :) any ideas from serious people?

[madmattunipro]

Just to point out to everyone that didn't notice it, this is the typical tactic of the defender of "Intelligent Design"; make an unfounded assertion (the immune system is irreducibly complex), and then when confronted with direct evidence proving the assertion wrong, change the subject.

But it won't work.

Ryan (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html) dissects the woodpecker's tounge.

Darwin himself (http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/variation/variation20.html) described the evolution of the giraffe's neck and head.

Isaac (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html) explains a simple process by which the bombardier beetle could have evolved.


There are plenty of examples of things we don't understand fully. But upon examination, in every single case, natural explanations are found.



The Cambrian Explosion is at the core of evolution; it's merely the period during which the largest number of species appeared. Foes of knowledge and science try to emphasize that this happened "all at the same time" and fail to note that the Cambrian period covered 53 million years; plenty of time for evolution to take its course. And animal fossils have now been found in Vendian strata dating back to 650 million years ago, over 100 million years before the Cambrian period.

Once again; the ideas of Intelligent Design have absolutely no basis in science, and the only way ID's proponents can defend their irrrational position is to ignore all factual evidence and any kind of scientific process. And then, bizarrely, claim that it is the scientists who are actually looking at the evidence are the ones who are acting on faith.

There are some very good points within those materials, thanks. Honestly, I can't see why those would be used as examples for either side of the debate. (Assuming the info provided is corrrect)

The important thing here is that these cases are microevolution. Although the bombadier beetle may have adapted from other beetles, it is always a beetle. Same with the woodpecker, it is always a woodpecker. That isn't evidence for macroevloution.

One thing I would like to note, is that as a Christian I have no problems with microevolution. I believe that nature has greatly diversified, with creatures adapting withing the limitations of their genetic codes to produce more species. There still is no evidence showing that single celled organisms could have evolved into more complex, larger organisms such as humans.

[monkeyman]

Alright, I'm getting tired of this thread, so this will be my last post:
You know what I don't get? How each side tries to prove the other wrong by calling for undeniable proof. Or, as seen above, they try to disprove the other side by saying that there is no proof for it.

To the Atheists: prove evolution. I don't want to see a bunch of specific animal examples, or some theories on macro evolution, or any crap like that. I want you to PROVE evolution. Undeniable, on any level, PROOF. In the same way that we know there is gravity, prove evolution.

To the Christians: Prove Creationism in the same way. I don't care about the Cambrian Explosion, or any of that. Don't disprove evolution. Prove your side. Bring up unrefutable, scientific proof that God created the Earth, and everything in it, by saying so.


To both sides: You can't, can you? None of you can definitively prove your side right, or the other side wrong.
What does it all come down to?
Faith, and your personal belief.
You may choose to believe Evolution, you may choose to believe Creationism.
Why does it matter? It all comes down to personal opinions and beliefs, and nothing anyone says in this thread is going to change that. No amount of vitriolic criticism, no amount of shameless agenda-pushing, nothing.

My challenge to all of you: If you can't discuss (not debate, DISCUSS) religion in a calm, controlled, way (much as is happening here (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49106)), then don't.

It will accomplish nothing.

[wayde is a pirate]

So, this should be in JC, but I think this is an interesting discussion, so I will post.

I'm not going to get further into theology here, except to say, as long as you don't claim it to be objective truth or somehow "scientific," I don't care if you believe that the world is a giant spitball, and Armageddon comes when an enormous Bart Simpson decides to blow it at his teacher's butt. My concern is only with physical reality. All of the ancient creation fables, including the one in Genesis, are at odds with physical reality; to claim objective truth for your particular favored fable is both ill-informed and societally dangerous.(emphasis added)

Exactly. Christianity is experiancial. When the first people became Christians, it wasn't becasue of any theory archealogical evidince of the flood or anything, it was because something was happening to them or around them that they couldn't deny. I think a lot of it has to do with miracles and things like that, things that demand an explination beyond what we can see. I think that a better apology for Christianity might be the existance of things that science just cant explain, ie spiritual things. Ghosts, miracles, whatever. I am sure that some of these things have occured due to some unexplained scientific phenomena, but I highly doubt that every instance of supernatural occurance has such an explanation. I have talked to many people christian and agnostic who have been through some sort of supernatural experiance, and I definatly find it hard to discredit all of them.

I really dont want to get into a big supernatural argument, but I think Christianity should be more experiancial reather than simply intelectual, although Christianity by nature should effect how we think about everything.

I'm going to Pakistan in a couple of weeks with a evengalist that claims to have a ministry that experiances healings, like actual physical things you can see: tumors dissapearing, deaf peopel hearing, crazey stuff like Jesus talked about. I'll post a thread when i get back (in JC of course). It will definatly be interesting.

Also, it is impossible to keep true Christianity inside the church walls. Jesus himself told his followers to spread his message. People talking about Jesus will always be out there, it's just part of life.

Long winded, I know. Oh well. People will believe what they want.


PS I think it would be sweet to see Jesus uni on water!

[MrBoogiejuice]

PS I think it would be sweet to see Jesus uni on water!

Amen.

[zaro]

hell yeah! amen to that.
than he could join the cirque du soleil at that show.... the one with water.

[madmattunipro]

It's true, most people don't become Christians because of scientific evidence. That part usually follows.

Truth is neither side can really be "proved" as long as humans are in the mix. Poeple are too dumb, including myself. It's impossible to get everyone to agree. "Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong."

I will, at this point, attempt to use this forum to discuss unicycling. Unicycling for Christ is still talking about unicycling. Debating evolution and creation, although(in my opinion) interesting, is not. It is ultimately impossible to fully discuss the subject on a forum such as this, and will likely serve only to create rifts between riders. Nothing is to be gained by further discussing the subject here. We're all to thick-headed maybe. Anyone who rides a unicycle has my respect. Christian, atheist, Bhuddist, whatever... if you ride a unicycle, lets talk about unicycling.

[tholub]

There are some very good points within those materials, thanks. Honestly, I can't see why those would be used as examples for either side of the debate. (Assuming the info provided is corrrect)

The important thing here is that these cases are microevolution. Although the bombadier beetle may have adapted from other beetles, it is always a beetle. Same with the woodpecker, it is always a woodpecker. That isn't evidence for macroevloution.


Those examples focused on microevolution only because you hadn't given me any myths about macroevolution to dispel.

Theobald (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) does a good job with that, although his treatment is perhaps too formal and academic for most people.

Wilkins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html) explains that there really is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution; that the distinction lies in a misunderstanding of evolutionary mechanisms. The mechanism that increases the size of a woodpecker's beak is the same as the one that separated dogs from cats; once the populations are reproductively isolated, they evolve separately.

[tholub]

To the Atheists: prove evolution. I don't want to see a bunch of specific animal examples, or some theories on macro evolution, or any crap like that. I want you to PROVE evolution. Undeniable, on any level, PROOF. In the same way that we know there is gravity, prove evolution.


Such a request ignores the basic tenets of science. Science does not provide proof; it provides hypotheses, theories, and behavioral predictions that are testable. Science has not "proven" that gravity exists; generally people are more willing to believe it is so, since they don't tend to fly off the surface of the planet, but the scientific case for gravity is actually far weaker than the scientific case for evolution.

An idea that is undeniable on any level is not science.

[drebble]

Well, here are my thoughts:

The universe must have been created because it is impossible for it to be eternal. Our sun, for example, is using up all of its energy and will one day “die” (although it never was alive). In order for something to run out it must have had a beginning because no matter how slow the process is it would have “died” long ago because eternity has an infinite time before and after (it must be after if it is also before). All of the matter in our universe would have always had to have been here (aside from creation) according to the law of conservation of mass and energy. But somewhere along the way it would have had to sporadically form the sun and many other stars according to evolution.
Life can die but life cannot come from death (aside from supernatural powers). In order for the first cell to evolve it would need a cell wall, the ability to grow, the ability to process “food” to create energy, and the ability to split and reproduce. How would random atoms and molecules bond together to form something as complex as this and have the intelligence to know to split? It is pretty much impossible.
Even if the cell manages to reproduce and create many cells, how are coherent thoughts developed? Matter cannot think. It can feel because of nerves and interpret that into pain and maybe pleasure. But matter cannot have emotions; it can not love nor hate. Neither can matter puzzle about whether creationism or evolution is true. Therefore, there must be other forces and existences separate from the world of matter, namely souls or spirits. These spirits can effect what matter does. We control our bodies by thoughts in our spirits communicated into the brain and then to the rest of our body. It is possible for a soul to be eternal. If they exist why could there not also be an all powerful one able to create the universe? This would avoid having to explain all the nigh impossibilities such as cells forming and the formation of stars. The reason we like to believe the nigh impossibilities over this logic is because we are afraid to admit there is one so powerful out there (and so much more powerful than us and our personal spirits). Unless we become convinced that this almighty spirit, God, is out for our good, our hearts will suppress the knowledge of him. We are trapped in this suppression by our scared souls and the devil and we don’t even know it. The only way we can escape is if this God liberates us. This is a second proof of his goodness along with his amazing creation that continually entertains and enthralls us with new discoveries of its intricacies and workings.

[tholub]

Well, here are my thoughts:

The universe must have been created because it is impossible for it to be eternal.

By that "logic," God must have been created because it is impossible for him to be eternal. The construct of a creator doesn't solve any of the problems of explaining the universe; it merely pushes them up a level.


If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. (Bertrand Russell)

[drebble]

Spirits don't die and therefore can be eternal. Hence, it is possible for God, the all powerful spirit, to be eternal. Anything that is dying at all will eventually die in eternity. So the universe will die, don't forget this point. But spirits can be eternal.

[tholub]

Spirits don't die and therefore can be eternal. Hence, it is possible for God, the all powerful spirit, to be eternal. Anything that is dying at all will eventually die in eternity. So the universe will die, don't forget this point. But spirits can be eternal.

Evidence?

[drebble]

Well, something has to be and if the universe is not we must look to something else. I do not think your spirit can die. What would happen if today your spirit died but your body was still alive and you couldn't think at all but your body just went on beating but could not be controled? There is no utter proof that I can think of that spirits are eternal but since it is possible and the universe is not eternal I think they are.

[unicus]

Well, here are my thoughts:

The universe must have been created because it is impossible for it to be eternal. snip
Because you cannot understand how these things work you have decided to have faith that an all mighty being did it all, is that right?

Just because something is complicated and difficult to understand doesn’t mean it can’t be understood. You do not have to say “ooh that’s impossible, god must have done it”. People make comments that unicycling is impossible but of course it’s not. You have learned a lot in your life I’m sure but you are still young and will learn more, maybe even more than you can imagine.

[frankz]

What kind of evidence does you (Tholub) want?

Physical evidence that the spiritual can be eternal?

If you assume the existance of a spiritual "realm" and state that it does not have the same set of govering principles, how can you expect physical evidence of its realities accept through divine revalation?

[tholub]

Well, something has to be and if the universe is not we must look to something else. I do not think your spirit can die. What would happen if today your spirit died but your body was still alive and you couldn't think at all but your body just went on beating but could not be controled? There is no utter proof that I can think of that spirits are eternal but since it is possible and the universe is not eternal I think they are.

The number of flawed assumptions here is astounding. First of all, nothing "has" to be eternal, including the universe, and the universe can be eternal, even without an external creator. Even if you personally find it difficult to accept that time may not be infinite (or may be infinite in only one direction), there is no logical reason to believe that the physical universe is less likely to be infinte than some mystical, invisible spirit realm. Your ideas is that if you can't see, feel, or measure it, it must be infinite?

My "spirit" is contained within my physical body; it will pass away when my body stops functioning.

[phlegm]

Just because we have a word for a spirit doesn't mean it really exists. In spite of the common belief in of a spirit or soul among Christians, I believe it's just philosophical baggage from a bygone era that should be discarded in light of modern science.

[tholub]

What kind of evidence does you (Tholub) want?

Physical evidence that the spiritual can be eternal?

If you assume the existance of a spiritual "realm" and state that it does not have the same set of govering principles, how can you expect physical evidence of its realities accept through divine revalation?

It is certainly true that if you start with unfounded and incorrect assumptions, you can come to unfounded and incorrect conclusions.

drebble began with such an assumption: that the physical universe cannot be infinite in time (incorrect), but that "the spirit realm" can be (unfounded). He made the claim; I wanted to know if he had any evidence for it. "Divine revelation" is not evidence, it's assertion (it's neither falsifiable nor reproducible). Evidence would involve something which could be examined for truthfulness, and reproduced for testing.

[drebble]

The second law of thermodynamics.

This law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.
How is something eternal dying?

[frankz]

Where is your proof that the physical universe can be infinite in time?

I still ask what kind of evidence you would like?
You claim that evidence is can only be evidence if it can be reproduced for testing (I’m guessing testing in the physical “realm”). How can you expect evidence of the spiritual to be able to be tested by physical means?
You call every thing mentioned about the spiritual “unfounded” or the like. This would again mean no foundation in physical evidence, which I do not consider to be a good way to measure to truthfulness of the spiritual.

[unicus]

The second law of thermodynamics.

This law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.
How is something eternal dying?
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The energy in the Universe will always be the same it may only change form.

I don’t know why I’m posting this in RSU it should be in JC.

[frankz]

If we don’t understand the origins of the universe as you see it and have decided an almighty being did it.
Then also you don’t understand the origins of the universe (as God’s creation) as we see it and have decided on a natural explanation. The only thing we’ve established is that we have a difference of opinion.

Just because something is complicated and difficult to understand doesn’t mean it can’t be understood-Unicus

In the same way God can be difficult to understand for some, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be understood.

“ooh that’s impossible, god must have done it”-Unicus

I feel the evolutionist’s position is often times the same. “Ooh God is an impossibility; therefore it must have a natural explanation.”

[tholub]

The second law of thermodynamics.

This law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.
How is something eternal dying?

Again, you have at least two flawed assumptions here. One is that the universe has to be eternal. It doesn't. We may not like the idea that the universe had a beginning, or that it may have an end, but whether we like it or not, it's scientifically plausble. The other is that the heat death of the universe (if that's what's going to happen) would constitute an end; if the universe will continue expanding forever (scientists are not settled on this question), that is the closest we'll ever get to a physical manifestation of eternity. We won't be around to see it, but the universe really doesn't care.

[frankz]

One is that the universe has to be eternal. It doesn't. We may not like the idea that the universe had a beginning, or that it may have an end, but whether we like it or not, it's scientifically plausble.

Is it you view then that the universe had a begining?
If so what happened at this "begining" in your opinion?

[tholub]

Where is your proof that the physical universe can be infinite in time?

I still ask what kind of evidence you would like?
You claim that evidence is can only be evidence if it can be reproduced for testing (I’m guessing testing in the physical “realm”). How can you expect evidence of the spiritual to be able to be tested by physical means?
You call every thing mentioned about the spiritual “unfounded” or the like. This would again mean no foundation in physical evidence, which I do not consider to be a good way to measure to truthfulness of the spiritual.

I will reiterate a point I made earlier in this thread, which is that I really don't care what you believe. I care only when your beliefs, or the beliefs of others, attempt to take on the auspices of science, as in this Intelligent Design debate. The Discovery Institute was created with the specific goal of replacing scientific, materialistic explanations and education with theistic explanations and education, and through political manuverings they've gotten a number of states and school districts to begin teaching religion in science class. I think that trend is dangerous and worth fighting against.

So my objection is only to the characterization of religious beliefs as science. If you wish to assert the truthfulness of the spiritual and provide no materialistic evidence, we have a disagreement but not really a dispute.

[andycookuk]

Unicycling for christ.

This is perhaps the stupidest think I have ever heard of. Except maybe the Pope's infallibility.

Right on Evan Wilson!

Edit: It's stupider than infallibility.

[tholub]

Is it you view then that the universe had a begining?
If so what happened at this "begining" in your opinion?

In The Beginning there was the Big Bang. Ah, but I can hear your objection; what caused the Big Bang? It is fairly unlikely we will ever have a satisfactory answer to that question, but it is no more vexing than the question of "what caused God?" if God is your answer to the first question.

I don't think that the universe as we know it can meaningfully be said to have an existence before the Big Bang. But it may turn out that our assumption that ours is the one and only Universe is as flawed as the assumption that ours is the one and only planet. (The discovery of other planets, and the recognition of the stars as other suns, posed similar challenges to theology).

[drebble]

The big bang is pretty much a spontaneous appearing of all matter. Our view of creation is the same only that it is God who made it appear, it was not spontaneous. Nothing caused God; He is eternal. No human can fully understand the concept of eternity but we can try and come closer to understanding. Neither can a human fully understand the spiritual realm but we can know it is there.
Answer me this.How can matter think and have emotions? A living plant does not have emotions or thoughts.

You have been ignoring this whole part.



Life can die but life cannot come from death (aside from supernatural powers). In order for the first cell to evolve it would need a cell wall, the ability to grow, the ability to process “food” to create energy, and the ability to split and reproduce. How would random atoms and molecules bond together to form something as complex as this and have the intelligence to know to split? It is pretty much impossible.
Even if the cell manages to reproduce and create many cells, how are coherent thoughts developed? Matter cannot think. It can feel because of nerves and interpret that into pain and maybe pleasure. But matter cannot have emotions; it can not love nor hate. Neither can matter puzzle about whether creationism or evolution is true. Therefore, there must be other forces and existences separate from the world of matter, namely souls or spirits. These spirits can effect what matter does. We control our bodies by thoughts in our spirits communicated into the brain and then to the rest of our body. .

[tholub]

The mechanisms by which humans think and have emotion are fairly well understood by science. Even computers can think and have emotions, though not yet at the same level that humans can. There is no basis for your assertion that "matter cannot think." (If you want to get into philosophy, ask yourself; what is a thought? What is an emotion?)

Your point about the evolution of the cell is simply another restatement of irreducible complexity, and one of the easiest to refute. The cell didn't evolve in its current form; it evolved without a nucleus or cell walls, and developed those features over time by natural selection. See Lindberg's (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bDetailsoforigin.shtml) explanation.

[DarkTom]

What a load of pap.

Christ rides a bike and thinks unicycling is stupid. He hates us all.


T.

[skroboskim]

What a load of pap.

Christ rides a bike and thinks unicycling is stupid. He hates us all.


T.
UNICYCLE FOR CHRIST!!!
HARDXXCORE!!

[skianduniaddict]

I think this is the stupidest thing i ever heard of. Why do we have to bring this topic into everything?

PS I'm a good typer now.:p

[phlegm]

Why do we have to bring this topic into everything?

If there is Christian wrestling (http://www.christianwrestling.com/), why can't there be Christian unicycling? :rolleyes:

[skianduniaddict]

I think thats stupid, go to church for christ. If you must combine religion with unicycling unicycle at church.

[skroboskim]

I think thats stupid, go to church for christ. If you must combine religion with unicycling unicycle at church.
haha i already did that ... but its not enough to just go to church for christ as you would have found out if u actually read this :) but you are supposed to do everything for christ ... therefore unicycle for christ

join the awesomness !!

PM Me

[red_rider]

I guess Christians and Atheist can at least agree on something. You have to have some level of FAITH for either side of the debate. I personally like the logic that I would rather believe in God and be wrong, than to not believe in God, and be wrong. This is just my humble opinion. I have learned alot from reading this thread myself, and it has given me lots to think about and study!:)

[siafirede]

UNICYCLE FOR CHRIST!!!
HARDXXCORE!!

At least leave hardcore out of this.

[skroboskim]

I guess Christians and Atheist can at least agree on something. You have to have some level of FAITH for either side of the debate. I personally like the logic that I would rather believe in God and be wrong, than to not believe in God, and be wrong. This is just my humble opinion. I have learned alot from reading this thread myself, and it has given me lots to think about and study!:)
cool, just realize that this thread is heavily weighted on the athiest/anti-christ side

[skroboskim]

At least leave hardcore out of this.
nah im too HARDxxCORE ><> Unicycle For Christ <>< HARDxxCORE!!

[DK]

At least leave hardcore out of this.

MOSH FOR JESUS

CHRISTXxXCORE

IM STRAIGHTEDGE FOR JESUS

NORMA JEAN!

[drebble]

The mechanisms by which humans think and have emotion are fairly well understood by science. Even computers can think and have emotions, though not yet at the same level that humans can. There is no basis for your assertion that "matter cannot think." (If you want to get into philosophy, ask yourself; what is a thought? What is an emotion?)



Computers do not think. They do not have emotions. They are just giant calculators that can compute millions of calculations a second. Also they were programmed by humans, who can think, but does that mean that they can think?

[tholub]

Computers do not think. They do not have emotions. They are just giant calculators that can compute millions of calculations a second. Also they were programmed by humans, who can think, but does that mean that they can think?

You haven't defined your terms. What is a thought? What is an emotion? Why can't computers have them?

[siafirede]

MOSH FOR JESUS

CHRISTXxXCORE

IM STRAIGHTEDGE FOR JESUS

NORMA JEAN!


hahaha that about sums up everything wrong in this world.

I actually saw a really really bad metalcore band growl a song that went something like this:
"Your love is contagious (drawn out growl)
I love you ...JEEEESUSSSSS!"

horrible.

[Eddbmxdude]

nah im too HARDxxCORE ><> Unicycle For Christ <>< HARDxxCORE!!


You can't have hardcore and christianity in the same sentence!

Edd

[Eddbmxdude]

Doesn't a uni look a lot like a satanic cross? Perhaps we all ride for the devil, some of us just don't know it!

http://www.unicyclist.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=195957&g2_serialNumber=1&g2_GALLERYSID=6a2ffc7f6c4fd114f90b244591153171

Rock on!
Edd

[Seager]

I personally like the logic that I would rather believe in God and be wrong, than to not believe in God, and be wrong.

That's called Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager), and it's been shown to be a false dichotomy. It's not God or no God. It's God, or buddah, or krishnu, or Allah, or this or that. It's not christianity vs atheist, it's several hundred religions vs each other. Which one are you going to put your money on?

Besides, if the only reason you believe in God is because you like the odds, then you don't really believe.

[drebble]

You haven't defined your terms. What is a thought? What is an emotion? Why can't computers have them?


Think:v.intr.
1.To exercise the power of reason, as by conceiving ideas, drawing inferences, and using judgment.

2.To weigh or consider an idea: They are thinking about moving.

3.To believe; suppose: He thinks of himself as a wit. It's later than you think.


Thinking is the abbility to reason and evaluate and have new ideas. A computer is not able to come up with completely new ideas. It can make judgements about things by what it has been told by humans, but not by its own invention. It may be able to compile things better and make better judgements than a human because it can take information from many places and can find that information. If you have any reasons or things they can do that implies they can think I'd like to hear them.


Emotion:n.
1.A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love.

2.A state of mental agitation or disturbance: spoke unsteadily in a voice that betrayed his emotion. See synonyms at feeling.

3.The part of the consciousness that involves feeling; sensibility: “The very essence of literature is the war between emotion and intellect” (Isaac Bashevis Singer).

Emotion is the feelings of love, hate, fear, excitement, anxiety, sadness, happiness, etc... We cannot stop ourselves from feeling an emotion, we can hide it and try to supress it but we cannot make it go away. It is rather spontaneous although may be backed by reason. If something sad happens, like your dog that you love dies, would you while you were at work just let yourself go or would you try to hide your pain from others to keep up your self-image and you may be able to do this quite well. If you truely loved someone and they turned to someone else you would still feel your love although it may be mixed with other emotions even hate and these will be different from every person. One can just reprogram a computer. And it does not have these strong feelings that drive it to do certain things.

If you disagree with these definitions please tell me what you think they are. And if you agree please tell me how matter, atoms and molecules, can think.
I tried to search the scientific proof for thought but I couldn't understand it. If you could explain or post a link that would be great, thanks.

[skroboskim]

You can't have hardcore and christianity in the same sentence!

Edd
jesus was the most hardcore person ever ... he died for other people's sins i mean come on now if anything is hardcore it is christianity

-stephen-

[tholub]

Think:v.intr.
1.To exercise the power of reason, as by conceiving ideas, drawing inferences, and using judgment.

2.To weigh or consider an idea: They are thinking about moving.

3.To believe; suppose: He thinks of himself as a wit. It's later than you think.


Thinking is the abbility to reason and evaluate and have new ideas. A computer is not able to come up with completely new ideas. It can make judgements about things by what it has been told by humans, but not by its own invention. It may be able to compile things better and make better judgements than a human because it can take information from many places and can find that information. If you have any reasons or things they can do that implies they can think I'd like to hear them.


Computers are definitely able to come up with new ideas. To take a visible example, Deep Blue, the chess-playing computer that beat Kasparov, often came up with new moves which surprised both its creators and the chess experts following the match. There are plenty of other examples of neural-net computers being creative. As AI advances, the scope of problems which computers are able to be creative about continues to grow. We are a long way away from computers being as flexible as the human brain, but that's not because of any limitation of the physical implementation.


Emotion:n.
1.A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love.

2.A state of mental agitation or disturbance: spoke unsteadily in a voice that betrayed his emotion. See synonyms at feeling.

3.The part of the consciousness that involves feeling; sensibility: “The very essence of literature is the war between emotion and intellect” (Isaac Bashevis Singer).

Emotion is the feelings of love, hate, fear, excitement, anxiety, sadness, happiness, etc... We cannot stop ourselves from feeling an emotion, we can hide it and try to supress it but we cannot make it go away. It is rather spontaneous although may be backed by reason. If something sad happens, like your dog that you love dies, would you while you were at work just let yourself go or would you try to hide your pain from others to keep up your self-image and you may be able to do this quite well. If you truely loved someone and they turned to someone else you would still feel your love although it may be mixed with other emotions even hate and these will be different from every person. One can just reprogram a computer. And it does not have these strong feelings that drive it to do certain things.


It is certainly possible to model emotions in a computer. The AI systems that Hofstadter (http://www.cogs.indiana.edu/people/homepages/hofstadter.html) discusses in "Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies" have a concept called "temperature" which is basically a measure of how "happy" the system is with the work it has done so far. The happier the system is, the more likely it is to say "I'm done" and return a result; the less happy, the more likely it is to throw out what it's done so far and start over. That's a small example, but as AI systems get more complex they are likely to have more emotions.


If you disagree with these definitions please tell me what you think they are. And if you agree please tell me how matter, atoms and molecules, can think.
I tried to search the scientific proof for thought but I couldn't understand it. If you could explain or post a link that would be great, thanks.

Atoms and molecules don't think on their own; your brain has 100 million neurons. Each neuron has something like 10,000 connections to other neurons; it is in the electrochemical pathways betwen them that store our memories and drive our thoughts. It's all implemented in biological constructs; there is no mystical "spirit" required to make it work. You can read up on neural networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network) if you're interested.

[UniBrier]

An open letter to anyone with over 10 posts in this thread:

You’ve heard of the “Song That Never Ends”?

Well…

This is the debate that never ends
It just goes on and on my friend
Some people started it, not knowing what it was
And they’ll continue debating it forever just because:
This is the debate that never ends
It just goes on and on my friend
Some people started it, not knowing what it was
And they’ll continue debating it forever just because:
This is the debate that never ends…

Please move this conversation to JC and/or let this thread die on RSU.

[tholub]

Please move this conversation to JC and/or let this thread die on RSU.

It won't die on RSU because the evangelists will keep bumping it.
Move it.

[siafirede]

jesus was the most hardcore person ever ... he died for other people's sins i mean come on now if anything is hardcore it is christianity

-stephen-

this is hardcore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pssHxxHxtKQ&search=cro%20mags)

And this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-ZRWjquKlA&search=posi%20numbers)

or this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTgpcjZL_Jw&search=striking%20distance)

but definitely not Jesus.

[unicycle dave]

okay thats the thing its true Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life and if you don't except it i sure hope God will find you

correct

[frankz]

Computers are definitely able to come up with new ideas. To take a visible example, Deep Blue, the chess-playing computer that beat Kasparov, often came up with new moves which surprised both its creators and the chess experts following the match. There are plenty of other examples of neural-net computers being creative. As AI advances, the scope of problems which computers are able to be creative about continues to grow. We are a long way away from computers being as flexible as the human brain, but that's not because of any limitation of the physical implementation.



Just because you input the basic rules of how chess pieces move and tell it to reach a goal (the capture of the enemy king) doesn’t mean it thinks. It is no way thinking. The computer still required parameters and goals. Then within those parameters it was able to achieve the goal. I call this analysis not “thinking”.




the scope of problems which computers are able to be creative about continues to grow.

If by creative you mean coming up with an unexpected solution to a given problem. I still don’t qualify that as thinking.




I couldn’t find out much information about Hofstadter and "temperature", but it sounds to me as if it is just giving a computer a scale by which to grade the quality of its work, not the computers “feeling” about its work. Though I say again I couldn’t find out much information out with out owning a copy of "Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies".





It won't die on RSU because the evangelists will keep bumping it.
Move it.

If you’re sick of discussing this then say so. I personally am enjoying debating topics that are very important to me. This debate has made me really think about the reasons I stand were I do. It has also encouraged me to seek out knowledge on these topics in order to better understand them.


I agree that this thread should be moved to JC, but have no power to do so.

[tholub]

Just because you input the basic rules of how chess pieces move and tell it to reach a goal (the capture of the enemy king) doesn’t mean it thinks. It is no way thinking. The computer still required parameters and goals. Then within those parameters it was able to achieve the goal. I call this analysis not “thinking”.



So when you do analysis, you do it without thinking?
That might explain some of your beliefs.


I couldn’t find out much information about Hofstadter and "temperature", but it sounds to me as if it is just giving a computer a scale by which to grade the quality of its work, not the computers “feeling” about its work.


Perhaps emotion is the mechamism we evolved to grade the quality of our lives.

[phlegm]

Simulating consciousness is not necessarily the same as having consciousness. Whether a computer will ever have consciousness is more a topic for philosophical debate than for science and relgion.

[skroboskim]

a continuing list of members here...

1.skroboskim
2.juggle 508
3.jerrick
4.forrestunifreak
5.jungauni
6.madmattunipro
7.foxx?
8.caw89
9.gordythegon
10.nachos
11.bornugly
12.lucky_8
13.unijesse
14.UNIquelyCanadian
15.Unicycle dave

[skroboskim]

hm ... you guys are rediculous... there are posts to argue on... this isn't supposed to be one of them

[Jerrick]

This was just supposed to be, if you want to join, say aye, if not, then say no, not, say no then tell everyone els where wrong, or say yes and then have to argue with everyone else.

[tholub]

This was just supposed to be, if you want to join, say aye, if not, then say no, not, say no then tell everyone els where wrong, or say yes and then have to argue with everyone else.

Well, gee, rec.sport.unicycling is supposed to be where unicycling is discussed, not where self-righteous twits come to clutter the forum with crap that has nothing to do with unicycling.

[Jerrick]

How is a club for unicycling, not have to do with unicycling?

[tholub]

How is a club for unicycling, not have to do with unicycling?

Please point to any unicycle-related content in this post.

[Jerrick]

I'm sure there is some somewhere in the pages, but a very little amount, but The main idea was for a unicycling club. but from the first post, everything went downhill =p

[tholub]

I'm sure there is some somewhere in the pages, but a very little amount, but The main idea was for a unicycling club. but from the first post, everything went downhill =p

And I'm sure that couldn't have been predicted.

A topic isn't unicycle-related just because unicyclists are discussing it. "Unicyclists who like Bob Dylan" or "Unicyclists with blonde hair" or "Unicyclists with IQ < 100" are not appropriate topics for the forum, either (although most of this thread could be merged with the last of those).

[Jerrick]

Yeah, but creating a unicycling club does, asking if people are christian wouldnt go in RSU, but seeing how this is both, It should just not of been created at all =p

[skroboskim]

a continuing list of members here...

1.skroboskim
2.juggle 508
3.jerrick
4.forrestunifreak
5.jungauni
6.madmattunipro
7.foxx?
8.caw89
9.gordythegon
10.nachos
11.bornugly
12.lucky_8
13.unijesse
14.UNIquelyCanadian
15.unicycle dave

[Tim]

Witnessing is the problem with Christianity. You say you don't force your beliefs on other people but the whole point of witnessing is to do jsut that force our beliefs on other people.

unicycling is not a good tool for witnessing because it will turn people off of unicycling and think of them negatively because they will associate them with having christ forced on them.You were witnessed to right? Were you converted? Was there a choise of belief in the bible or death involved? No, you were not forced to beleive by someone witnessing to you.

I wouldnt have been turned off to unicycling if a scientologist rode up on a unicycle and started witnessing to me. I'm likely going to see MI:3 soon. Tom Cruise is way into scientology and I'll still watch movies with him staring in it. All of you have made your points. You're just repetitive now.

He never said anything about a localized area group.

Gilby made his choise to keep the thread in RSU respect it.

Dying on a cross is hardcore.

I unicycle for Christ.

[skroboskim]

a continuing list of members here...

1.skroboskim
2.juggle 508
3.jerrick
4.forrestunifreak
5.jungauni
6.madmattunipro
7.foxx?
8.caw89
9.gordythegon
10.nachos
11.bornugly
12.lucky_8
13.unijesse
14.UNIquelyCanadian
15.unicycle dave
16.Tim

[skroboskim]

:) unicycling for christ is so much fun!! its even more fun that unicycling for fun (i think)

[unijesse]

Please point to any unicycle-related content in this post.
UNICYCLE FOR CHRIST

[skroboskim]

UNICYCLE FOR CHRIST


and thats all i have to say about that, cuz life is like a box of chocolates!!
(don't ask im being random)

[onewheelisbetter]

No offense to you or your religion, but doesn't it seem sort of trivial to say "we're unicycling for Christ?" I mean, I could understand unicycling to raise money for your church, or something along those lines, but unicycling for Christ seems extremely arbitrary. Why not make ice cubes for Christ? Why not draw a circle on a piece of paper for Christ?

To me, it seems like people use Christianity as another way of excluding people from their activities. Not that you specifically are doing that, but so many people bring religion into facets of life that are really unrelated to religion at all.

I'm starting to sound like Holden Caulfield, so I'll quit, but hopefully you'll consider what I said.
were unicycling for Christ as in were giving the glory to God. and i think we can all agree that unicycling is glorious :)

[skroboskim]

a continuing list of members here...

1.skroboskim
2.juggle 508
3.jerrick
4.forrestunifreak
5.jungauni
6.madmattunipro
7.foxx?
8.caw89
9.gordythegon
10.nachos
11.bornugly
12.lucky_8
13.unijesse
14.UNIquelyCanadian
15.unicycle dave
16.Tim
17.onewheelisbetter

you people rock!

[juggle508]

We need apparel! haha. That or memorabilia....well spelled right anywyas.

KH.

[onewheelisbetter]

Juggle i like your sig. Joshua 1:9, i wish i could apply that to big drops:)

[juggle508]

HAHA, yeah its one of my favorite Bible verses.

KH.

[johnfoss]

(having not read most of the thread)

I unicycle for the whole world. If Christ is listening, that includes him as well, plus a bunch of other religious figures. I hope that's worth something.

But I think I'll draw the line at the world for now, extending out to a little past geosynchronous orbit (to include my TV satellite). Going beyond that might start sounding a little selfish... :)

[GILD]

To the Atheists: prove evolution.
While you're contemplating to what an extent that statement unreasonably links evolution with atheism (?!), here's (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article362546.ece) something interesting to read.


The first evidence of us walking upright comes from fossil footprints in Laetoli, Tanzania, discovered by Mary Leaky. They show two of our Australopithecus afarensis ancestors walking across a plain of volcanic ash in much the same way that we walk today. Their skulls, however, would still have been tiny.

Why we began to stand erect is a matter of debate. Dr Harcourt-Smith thinks it helped our ancestors find food and stay cool as the jungles were slowly replaced by grassland. But the fossil record is clear about one thing, he says: "Walking on two legs is the first thing that happens to us as we become human."

It then goes on to detail the development of the human foot.
It's pretty interesting reading and just suddenly made me accutely aware of the depth and scope of our understanding of our development as biological creatures, complete with the fossil record to 'prove' it.

It can't answer your challenge in isolation. That isn't the reason I posted the link. It's just some information to throw into your opinion-forming machine.

[heinrich]

Great Idea!

I think it's awesome and would like to join...I'll PM you in a moment.

[heinrich]

Ok I've been reading the thread a bit and have found all this use of ancient fossils for evidence..

A piece of info i found while doing a research project is that the continents would have eroded 5 times since teh dinosaurs if the Earth was really as old as they say it is. Many people will argue that tectonic forces explain the existence of the continents but it will not explain the existence of fossils

[tholub]

Ok I've been reading the thread a bit and have found all this use of ancient fossils for evidence..

A piece of info i found while doing a research project is that the continents would have eroded 5 times since teh dinosaurs if the Earth was really as old as they say it is. Many people will argue that tectonic forces explain the existence of the continents but it will not explain the existence of fossils

Really, do you have a reference to a scientific, peer-reviewed paper?

I didn't think so. Complete hogwash that ignores visible, physical reality.

[rob.northcott]

Complete hogwash that ignores visible, physical reality.
That's religion in a nutshell.

[onewheelisbetter]

can we please not start this? a Christian will refute what an atheist said, then youll refute us, then vice versa, and itll go on forever
and never solve anything. so, the original point of this thread was not to prove or disprove anything, so can we keep it that way? please?