Recent posts by jjuanksta on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should both Religious people and Atheists believe in Evolution?

Let me begin by saying micro-evolution is a fact (Small mutations within a species)
that being said the Creation vs. Evolution Debate is on whether Macro-Evolution (One species mutating into another) has happened and still is happening.

now as far as Macro evolution being a scientific fact? HAHA that’s funny. when put under speculation it is clear that this theory is not supported by science and must be accepted by faith.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

Sorry I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Any chance of human evolution?

1. Actual scientific evidence suggests that humans are not evolving today. 2. We don’t have any evidence that they were evolving in the past either. 3. But we think that they were!

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

In other words, the idea of human evolution is entirely based on faith and storytelling that is typical of Darwinists.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof that god is fake

Originally posted by Almanza:

I have a slightly off-currenttopic question.

Can an omnipotent god kill himself? He has the ability to do anything, yet he is immortal.

What if there are two omnipotent beings, can they kill each other?

This is known as a pseudo-question. It’s like asking, “Can God win an arm wrestling match against Himself?” or, “If God beat Himself up, who would win?” or, “Can God’s power defeat His own power?” The question is nonsense because it treats God as if He were two instead of one. The phrase “stronger than” can only be used when two subjects are in view, for example, Bill is stronger than Bob, my left arm is stronger than my right arm, etc. Since God is only one, and since He has no parts, it makes no sense to ask if He is stronger than Himself. That’s why this is a pseudo-question. It proves nothing about any deficiency in God because the question itself is incoherent. This pits one aspect of God’s ability against another—in this case, His creative ability against His ability to lift. The goal is to show that there are some things God can’t do, thus undermining the Christian concept of an omnipotent Creator. This illustration, however, miscasts the biblical notion of omnipotence, and is therefore guilty of the straw man fallacy. Omnipotence doesn’t mean that God can do anything. The concept of omnipotence has to do with power, not ability per se. In fact, there are many things God can’t do. He can’t make square circles. He can’t create a morally free creature who couldn’t choose evil. He can’t instantly create a sixty-year-old man (not one that looks sixty, but one that is sixty). None of these, though, have to do with power. Instead, they are logically contradictory, and therefore contrary to God’s rational nature. The “Can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?” challenge is no threat to Christian theism (As said by Gregory Koukl of STR)

As for the website link in the beginning of the thread, maybe it would be wise to use some critical thinking skills before just agreeing with everything it says. I found this website rather useful (even though I don’t agree with everything on it, he shows the myriad of logical errors in godisimaginary.com )

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your opinions of Abortion

Medical science already refers to a spontaneous heart rhythm and the presence of brain waves to determine whether someone is alive at the other spectrum of human existence. In simplistic terms, if an organ donor is in an automobile accident and is on life support in a hospital, the physician cannot “pull the plug” and donate the patient’s organs to others unless the patient is “brain dead” and his heart is not beating on its own. If the medical community maintained consistency with this generally-accepted medical definition of human life, then we would condemn every abortion after the time when the average woman discovers she is pregnant. Every abortion, by the generally-accepted standards of medical science, aborts an innocent human life.
science is rather inconsistent on this subject.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your opinions of Abortion

Well the way I see it, our value has been given to us by God. All human life is equally precious in His eyes so I should do my best to value other humans and do my best to preserve their lives and make it as enjoyable as possible.

But than again, when you don’t believe in God that question becomes nearly impossible to answer. I don’t mean to bring religion into the topic, but this is truly how I feel. We should love everybody and value them because each of us is unique and makes our own unique impact on the world around us.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your opinions of Abortion

There is a tremendous consensus in the scientific community about when life begins. This is hardly controversial. If the claim were made that life was discovered on another planet, for example, there are well-defined criteria to which we could refer to conclusively determine whether the claim was accurate. How do scientists distinguish between life and non-life?
A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized. 2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy. 3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment. 4. All living things have an ability to reproduce. 5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.

Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, however, this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it. Moreover, dependence upon a parent for survival is not a capital crime.

Medical science already refers to a spontaneous heart rhythm and the presence of brain waves to determine whether someone is alive at the other spectrum of human existence. In simplistic terms, if an organ donor is in an automobile accident and is on life support in a hospital, the physician cannot “pull the plug” and donate the patient’s organs to others unless the patient is “brain dead” and his heart is not beating on its own. If the medical community maintained consistency with this generally-accepted medical definition of human life, then we would condemn every abortion after the time when the average woman discovers she is pregnant. Every abortion, by the generally-accepted standards of medical science, aborts an innocent human life.

sorry I know it’s long but please read all :D

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your opinions of Abortion

It’s easy to be for abortion when you yourself have already been born.

As for the other 42 million (equivalent of 7 holocausts) that die each year from abortion. Oops oh-well for them, they aren’t important enough to be born.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Evolution - true or not?

Originally posted by EPR89:

Maybe, just maybe because it takes quite some time. It’s not like a bird crawling out of a lizard’s egg.

It is funny how “really slow” looks a lot like “not happening”

Originally posted by JohnRulz:

Macro has never actually been seen or recorded in history.

Yes, it has. Here is a nifty list of examples
Sorry it is a blog, but everything he says is cited by legitimate scientific studies and papers.

EDIT: Alternate source

I looked at your link and these “proof for macro evolution” are all example of microevolution. I dont care if a fly turns into a different kind of fly or if corn turn into a different kind of corn. Show me a fish that turn into a tree or bird or a bacteria that turns into a fly.
I appreciate taking the time to link me tho.

Topic: Serious Discussion / God, the Bible, and religion - a Kong search for truth

I know I’m a little late, but in response to fuzzybacons link on the miller-Urey experiments, they are so full of holes you cant possibly imagine to use it as support for life to have just popped out of nowhere

http://othello.alma.edu/~07tmhopk/millerurey.html

Topic: Serious Discussion / Evolution - true or not?

Just to clarify are we talking about micro or macro evolution?

Micro evolution is an observable fact so there is not room for much debate there.

However Macro evoltion or evolution from one “kind” to another different kind has not been observed, repeated, or recorded. Macro has never actually been seen or recorded in history.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Westboro Baptist Church wants to protest funeral of murdered 9-year-old girl

1. The media is stupid for blaming Sarah Palin.
2. That church is stupid for protesting at the funeral(if they even do show up).
3. To assume that all or the majority of Christians are as dumb as WBC would be stupid.
Not much more to the converstation.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Homosexuality being justified by Christianity?

I agree with most of what beauval says.
Paul even says that it is his personal style, not that a woman can’t be a clerics no matter what, just that Paul personally did this. However, this is no invitation to read all scripture like that or in a relative fashion, we just have to understand context. context is king.

And I equate homosexuality with other sin because it is a condition of the heart. At least from what I have seen, and in talking to homosexual friends, it is apparent that lust is the core of the relationship. If two men have a healthy loving relationship and wait till marriage to have sex then I mean I honestly dont know whats wrong with that. however, I have yet to hear or see of such relationships, if there even are any they are a serious minority.

Also I believe that homosexuality can not be justified by saying “I was just born that way.”
If so whats wrong with being a pedophile if “I was just born that way” or raping another mans wife “if he was just born with that desire.”

my point is at one point their is a conscience choice to do something. no matter what your tendencies are, there is still a choice.
That is another way I equate homosexuality with other sins, there is a choice to disobey God.

PS: Do not take this in a hateful manner. I love everyone regardless of what they believe, its just their sin I hate, just like I hate my own sin.
I am filled with nothing but love for homosexuals, they are some of my friends and family.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Homosexuality being justified by Christianity?

The Bible condemns homosexuality however (some) christians have blown it out of porportion. Homosexuality is a sin, but so is lying, stealing, killing, and coveting. Jesus said it best to the condemning pharisees “let him who is perfect cast the first stone” like wise let the perfect christian condemn the homosexual(hint there aren’t any). As Christians our job is not to hate, only to love and stand for what is good. A homosexual can be christian just like a thief, murderer, and liar can. Being christian is just saying “I put my trust in Jesus Christ”. nothing more, nothing less.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Evolution; scientific fact or believed by faith?

well as BSG stated, micro evolution is a fact and this is proven scientifically. However the theory of Macro evolution runs into a multitude of problems scientifically. As scientist research and discover the complexity of our bodies, environment, and universe the probability of all of this coming as product of random chance only decreases more and more each day from what we discover.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hell/Purgatory

care to explain how it is not so simple?

So just because you don’t like how the story ends you can take out the author and make your own ending?
Sorry the story is already written, and just because you dislike how it ends does not mean you are free from its consequences.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hell/Purgatory

Purgatory does not exist.

Hell is the ultimate demonstration of free will. God does not send people to hell, people make their own choice to either accept Jesus and acknowledge they are a sinner, or reject him and suffer eternal separation. It is really that simple.

As for pain and suffering and Nithos’s arguement. Just because he allows Satan to do evil on earth and tempt people, does not mean that He will let Satan do it forever. You have to understand that we only see one piece of the puzzle. Do you read half of a novel and then throw the rest away because you are mad that the author has not solved the problems in the story yet? The same applies, we do not see the whole picture and it is rather ignorant to say that God is malevolent, or that he is not omnipotent, because we do not see how the story ends.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

I really dislike it when science and religion is talked about like they are total opposites. They are not always, at least from my understanding Christian faith and studying the bible. In fact there is a lot of good science that was in the Bible before scientists even discovered it(although you need to understand it isn’t a science text book). In my view, you can not truly appreciate God unless you love him with your mind and logic and study science.I don’t turn my brain off when I go to church of read the Bible, if anything my critical reading mode kicks in and I really analyze whats being said and why. A true Christian should not be a brainless zombie. It is also unfair for the media to portray us like we are a bunch of ignorant bigots that can’t think for ourselves.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Man: Basically Good or Basically Evil?

If morality is completely subjective, then why was it wrong for Hitler to kill 6 million Jew’s if he thought he was doing the right thing? Why are there people in jail if they thought what they were doing was okay?

And if you say that each society chooses for itself what is right and wrong and who goes to jail, what makes societies opinion worth more then that of the individual?

Not to mention that racism is no longer wrong because I can label anyone what ever I want and not give jobs or money to black people because they are inferior. is that wrong?
(I dont really think that, its just and example)

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is there a single good argument for free will?

Well my question is, if we are only limited to predestination, what predestined us?
Is it the human level?
The god level?
Or the total random level?
Are our every day actions just a product of random chemical changes and explosions?

Just trying to understand where your arguement is coming from.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Truth and Morality-Objective? Subjective? or Unknowable?

“This topic is insulting. To say there is even a dilemma here that needs solving is tacitly saying you must believe in some absolute truth/universal being/superior intelligence. We are what we are and that’s all that we are; we will make discoveries based on our senses and/or intuition; such discoveries will be true based on what we observe.”

Is that statement objective or subjective?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Truth and Morality-Objective? Subjective? or Unknowable?

What are your views on truth, are there any absolute moral laws or do you make your own moral standards? Can we really know what the truth is? what is truth? is whats true for me true for you?

PS: I’m sure there was a thread on this before but I did not see one for 5 pages so I made one.

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Church in Florida is (not) going to hold a 'burn the Qu'ran' day.

I’m not trying to say that Christians are the victims, just that we should look at both sides of the arguement. Like why are they burning these books in the first place? Did any of these protesters lose a love one in 9/11?(not that, that justifies anything)
For all I know they can just be as hateful and ignorant as people say they are, or maybe they aren’t. Maybe there is a justifiable reason for their actions. I dont know and thats why im not particularly for it or against it. My point is that we should give it a fair look before calling the christians at that one chuch ingnorant or wrong.

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Church in Florida is (not) going to hold a 'burn the Qu'ran' day.

pretty funny how Christians do this and everyone thinks they are crazy and ignorant. But where is the thread on satanist tearing pages out of the bible and smoking weed with them? was the universal church of love there to protest against them? how about the beatings and arrests of Christians in India for no reason other then their faith?

I dont by any means agree that the christian church should burn the quran.
Not all christians are like that so dont put us all on that boat. My main point is why are we criticizing Christians so much, and not other religious groups for essentially doing the same thing.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

well saintAjore, it’s alarming because because so many pro-abortion people argue that rape and health issues account for many if not most abortions, which is wrong.

Exemplary: so your saying that money is more important then the lives of between 32,000,000-48,000,000 babies each year?

OK vika, you make a good case. But that is an argument of depence. It is true that, in order for a baby to develop into a human it needs its mother for nourishment. but that does not disqualify that baby from being alive nor does it justify abortion, it siply means it needs it’s mother to grow as a human.

If the mother didn’t want to deal with it, she should have had safer sex. A failure of a mother to have safe sex should not result in the killing of a baby. Not to even begin the many physiological effects that abortion has on the woman who had one.
And, as previously stated, health problems of the mother and rape account for less then 8 percent of abortions. So dont even pull that card out.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

here is an alarming fact
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
http://www.cirtl.org/abfacts.htm
http://prolife.org.ohio-state.edu/Facts.htm

and also helkaine, you are faking a connection. if you give cocoa powder 9 months, it will still be cocoa powder. give a baby zygote 9 months and you have a functional human being.
And if we measure life on the development, then a 96 year old man is worth more than a 15 year old? from the point of conception that zygote is human, it just developed as one. Not into one. The problem is not defining life but rather, what quality of the baby disqualifies it from being considered life.