Silkroad Online Forums

Barotix??
Where did I offer proof that God exists?
Why do you ignore my point and reply to a point that I didn't make?
This only compounds what I see as 'injury'.

~Grandpa

You didn't , but it would have to be inferred in order to have a proper discussion. I assumed God exist for the sake of discussion, now your question was:

"To assume a group of people could not use reason is bigoted". I didn't assume a group of people could not reason, there is reasoning in religion up to a certain point. That point is faith and that is where the reasoning stops.

It wasn't a question, it was a statement. The statement was followed by a question, one intended to ask if you could at least agree with me that much.

I appreciate your reply, I guess that's the only concession I'll get, right?. Thanks, it's ok. I am used to being dismissed by others.
Not too many people get to interact with real bible thumping, God fearing, saints who are ordained as priests by both man and God and filled with His Holy Spirit. It's partly my fault for "lurking". I should have confessed myself as a full out Jesus lover *sigh*. I also understand that you are a Moderator and as such have your hands fuller than I do. This fact alone mitigates any ire I may feel personally toward you, ya know? I do have a certain amount of resentment in me whenever I encounter lies or slander, you just caught me on a bad day is all (sometimes I don't sleep, it's not cause I'm old... it's not 'cause I'm old...).

Take a look at my other topic entitled Christian Bashing if you don't believe me, then slander me again and say that as a Christian I am not able to offer "proof". No, on second thought, that was spoken harshly and without wisdom. Don't expect an apology from me for it though, I honestly believe we may have irreconcilable differences.

~Grandpa

[EDIT]Oh, and before you correct me for the use of the word "slander" when I should have used the term "liable", understand that I do understand the difference. It's a common error. I was quoting the rules of this board when I used that specific term. I'm just really tired of the abuse. If you need more proof about this or any subject other than AGE or RELIGIOUS subject, just ask but use common sense and don't start a topic about other legally "protected class" subjects just because I didn't mention them in this post. In light of your correction I must have misunderstood your statement:


lol, by the way (this olive branch of humor and conciliation is sincere)
Wanna see proof of a Christian (so called) in hypocrisy?

To all readers of this topic, I offer my apologies for lying. I value truth, and absolutely hate admitting that I am wrong. But I am. Several posts ago I said to another person who posted here, "I'll be nice," in a Post Script.



My only "excuse" is (A). As previously stated, I am tired and (B). I felt for a moment that I was being treated worse than a bot user.

Thanks for listening, one and all (that goes to you too, 'other person')

~Grandpa

Hey Nuklear, Okay, right off you got me. The excuse that I have never had anybody close to me die of cancer doesn't excuse me much because you'd think that I would have been more so compelled to Praise Him for that, right?

I read your post when I first posted in this topic. It's a stretch, I know, but I did ask God today while I was at Wal-Mart shopping for kitty food to remind me if I had forgotten anything. I waited my customary amount of time (for His reply) and went on with my shopping trusting that He would provide an answer (if needed).

So then just now as I entered the bathroom and took a sniff I praised God.

My spontaneous thought was, "Hehehe, You must be teaching me a lesson." It stunk in there because GOD 'forgot' to remind me to buy kitty litter.

That count?

~Grandpa

hehe
I'm all for good stories but my decision ultimately came down to a few things, and I keep on learning. The thing that I can say is I care more about whether my beliefs are true and can be proven. I want to have as little false beliefs as possible.
You might want to proofread your posts before you submit them. You seem to go from a point into what reads like breaking the 4th wall. Just some constructive criticism.

I didn't say you can't provide proof, I typed you don't Need (as in) require proof when speaking of (the omnipotent and infallible) God - proof isn't necessary when 1]It is understood that the premise between the Scientist and Christian for seeking knowledge is different (although) both are fueled (to a certain extent) by Logic Reason and a Thirst for understanding. 2]When the written (living) word of God is considered infallible and 3]When it can be inferred that the Theist argument is based on the steadfast Belief (e.g.) faith or conviction that (the omnipotent) God is Real and Tangible. How tangible is a question of your level of faith.

Your example is "It smelled bad in the Bathroom" Conclusion "God is speaking to me and telling me to buy kitty litter", the thing is though; not every person (even Christians) think on that level. Every person (including Christians) won't attribute a bathroom smelling bad to God telling them to buy kitty litter most will infer that "Bad Smell" + "Washroom" = "Recently released Feces". I have yet to tell a lie or slander your religion. I respect your beliefs (faith based), but you implicitly trying to convince me God is real from my experience, as a Christian (Ex-Catholic), undermines the power of faith.

Another thing that must be understood is every Christian is different, no I'll rephrase that, Every Person is different and liable to have a different interpretation of certain events that 1]Occur in this NOW or 2]Occur in a past NOW such as the times the bible (Infer God from this) reigned supreme without any others questioning or expressing contrary opinions.

Finally, to conclude: If you believe strongly in faith, and the existence of God, no amount of evidence pointing contrary should change your faith; evidence should not be a necessity for one of faith (a matter of opinion). If times get tough in a discussion point out that God inspired the acts and actions recorded in the bible therefore it is infallible, it takes reasoning to sustain a religion for ~1700 years without much change or revolution (excluding the protestant reformation), Taking acts in the bible literal wasn't the omnipotent's intentions; It (referring to the living word) is one large metaphor on how to live your life as a good person

Thanks, you know I'm not trying to convince you of anything, right? It's ok for you to hold to your beliefs.

Anybody can tell a story, anecdotal "evidence" isn't evidence of anything. Can I even say I know God? Not really. Do I believe He knows me? Well, sure. I really doubt that I've tried to offer proof that God exists. To me it is enough that He said so, but how would any rational person think that his own personal experience applies universally?

There are so many people who attack religion on this forum and offer alternate theories of creation (for want of a better word). There are flaws in those theories. I've pointed out a couple without reply except more rhetoric. But I wasn't trying to prove that God did anything. Lots of people attempt to flame others, which is pretty easy to see through but for the most part I do enjoy the comments here.

I especially enjoy the logical fallacies that are used to refute declarative statements that were NEVER made. Rhetoric that adheres to straw man arguments (not you) isn't worth a reply. Somebody wants to 'throw down the gauntlet' and say, "Prove God Exists" as a challenge instead of replying to my actual statements? I'm like ahhhhh... no thanks. Here, have a cookie. I know it is anecdotal and doesn't prove anything, but please... let's change the subject a bit.

My question to your statement "I've never heard anybody praise God for bad things that happen to them," was replied to with my one example. Hence my attempt wasn't to disprove you, that task is impossible but only to provide you with at least one example and show that it does indeed happen. That's all.

In the above you first state that I did not try to prove the existence of God but that it must be inferred. (Quote, "You didn't ") then later you state that my implication was implicit (Quote, "but you implicitly trying to convince me God is real") Again, I am not trying to prove to you that God exists.

In one of your previous posts you stated Your declarative statement is equal to All "A" = "B". If I were to demonstrate then that at least one part of any religion was not an assumption your statement (not your implications but your actual statement) would be disproved. You see?

Another example:
Particle physicists cannot directly observe subatomic particles because the particles are too small. They must make inferences about the weight, speed, and other properties of the particles based on other observations. A logical hypothesis might be something like this: If the weight of this particle is Y, when I bombard it, X will happen. If X does not happen, then the hypothesis is disproved. Thus, we can learn about the natural world even if we cannot directly observe a phenomenon. In Quantum Physics, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was derived precisely this way. It has been tested and verified.

• The problem with most of the theories advanced on both sides of our discussion (in my view) is that they are not directly testable. It's fine to take a look at the fossil record for the Eohippus and from direct evidence demonstrate that two (2) toed horses were around before the three toed horses. There is direct evidence. But how can we test things that take billions of years?
  
• If an observer went to Wall-Mart and looked at all the vehicles in the parking lot they could arrange them according to complexity. Motorcycles on the left, then VW Bugs, etc. through Cadillacs (obviously the most complex). The theory could then be advanced that there was a natural progression from the simple to the complex. But what actual proof is there? Is the theory testable? An analogy is a story that lines up in some but not all ways. It's easy to debunk my parking lot comparison, but the real purpose is to ask a direct question: Are any of these (religious or otherwise) theories testable?
  
• Is there any evidence that could formally disprove these theories? I've asked in previous posts, (given that evolution is true) how is it possible that insects evolved millions (if not billions) of years before birds or mammals and didn't wipe out all plant life on the face of the earth? Not including bacteria, insects comprise the vast majority of life on the planet. The only thing that keeps their population in check is their natural predators (birds and bats and to a much lesser extent other insects). Is there any evidence that can account for this? Any theories whatsoever?

I like to believe that truth matters. Previously I pointed out that my own assertion regarding my own belief constitutes proof. The same goes for you. Every person is fully entitled to their own belief. It's easy to point out that neither side has all truth. Your reply on the top of the page, quoted above, was more thoughtful, I respect that.

Oh, and the "bathroom stinks" story -- It might be difficult to understand but I was laughing at myself and don't think God had anything to do with it. It was an anecdotal story in response to another persons direct request. I've been trying to use humor to lighten it up in here, because this "room" was getting stinkier than the one I spoke of.

~Grandpa

DNA testing mate, that is what ties it all together. DNA and RNA testing, I recently read about this interesting experiment that is on the threshold of discovering where life began, it was so pwnage. Scientist can recreate the situation postulated to be necessary for life to spawn. Its the same concept as your quantum mechanics one, and the great thing is; There isn't just one opinion on how life began or progressed.

Now regarding the insects: Assuming after the Earth heated we started in the sea, insects were sea creatures. As time progressed and the carboniferous era dawned on our ancestors they by that time had gone from fish ~> amphibians and reptiles (two separate lines) the insects lungs became stronger over time and they grew larger; everything was quite large during the carboniferous era. There was an abundance of oxygen, meaning natural occurring wildfires and the predator of the insects would have been our reptilian cousins amphibian ancestors and the wildfires that occurred due to earth being a powder keg. Its quite Fascinating . Its good to meet a theist ready to learn.

----One Celled Organism----
--V----------------------V--
-Fish------------------Insects-
-V------------V----------V
Amphibians---Reptiles--Insects-

I could go on.

I, like millions of other kids, loved dinosaurs when I was a boy. Especially the T-Rex. King of the "Terrible lizards" Rawr!. The other day my son told me that he read an article about how DNA Testing has "proven" that it never existed.

Looks like my "King" had been an amalgamation of several different animals and was the product of somebodie's imaginations. I didn't like hearing that.

Arthropoda (insects) phylogeny (according to evolution) is on the same tree as crustations (crabs, , Lobsters, Crayfish, Shrimps, Barnacles, waterfleas and the like because of the exoskeletons) NOT amphibians . I liked your attempt to reconcile it though, thanks. Problem is that the "timelines" are pretty much fixed in current evolutionary thought. They simply cannot be mucked around with without messing everything up. A better attempt is to show that birds evolved concurrent to dinosaurs which puts them much earlier on the timeline but not fast enough to save the earth.

O o . <~ Earth, "That really bugs me."

Instead of arranging our model from simple to complex (shellfish are not as complex as fish, lacking gills) it could as easily be rearranged so that form follows function. But that would necessitate having to rethink the entire process and would be impossible unless the vast majority of some very intelligent people out there admitted they were w-w-w-w-wrong . Not gonna happen. It's a serious flaw but you might be right about DNA testing. It could force (with sufficient proofs) a major rethink.

I'm really looking forward to next year for the information released about the macroverse more than the microverse. Check for quasars, black holes and galaxy formation. That's what really caught my eye. Look up. It's like information is figuratively raining down on us. Very exciting.


----Plants (both on land and in the sea)----------
-------------------Function: Life---------------------
-----YOM---------------------------YOM--------------
--Fish / Birds / Whales (the Cadillac of the sea)-
----Function: Movement / Function: Flight---------
-----YOM---------------------------YOM--------------

2nd main land development (after birds and flight)
-------Function: Herding (cattle types)-----------
--------Function: creeping (land & sea)-----------
-----------------Other beasts-----------------------
-----YOM---------------------------YOM--------------

Final main land development: MAN
(no need to 'go on')




~Grandpa

There are two main lines with variations across them, lol.
The One that spawned us and the one that Spawned modern insects and birds, I didn't go deep because that would take all day. The T-Rex not existing is a minority opinion, they're still testing certain variables. The current majority opinion is that birds came from Dinosaurs specifically the Velociraptor and that the nature of Dinosaurs is quite different than we had ever imagined. Another matter, your model requires all insects to eat vegetables or plants, but according to niches certain insects would've fit the niche of the bird (i.e.) Dragon Flies the size of Vultures. Variations occur across the line, once again the "absolutes" thought pattern shows itself.

Yes. I just felt like over explaining myself.

OH, Hey!
Lol - I was editing when you posted.

As far as my "absolutist thought pattern" - lol, if by that you mean that I think God didn't lie, you're right. When you were telling me about how insects came from reptiles you complimented me. Did you mean it, or am I locked into my way of thinking?


I really like science but if I were to ask you "How many planets are in our solar system, according to science?" you're only right reply would be, "that depends". Answers other than that would prove your absolutist way of thinking. Definitions would first have to be agreed upon like "what is a planet" and distinctions would have to be made, "do you mean minor planets also?" and finally we would have to agree about when. There was a long period of time where all scientists agreed there were 8, then a period of time where they thought 14, and Pluto has only recently been added. Then for over 50 years everyone was happy, there are 9 planets in our solar system... but...

lol, you get the idea. Regarding "my" absolutist thinking, People in glass houses shouldn't throw bricks. Regarding yours? Define "cousins".

My prediction:
----Plants (both on land and in the sea)----------
-------------------Function: Life---------------------
-----YOM---------------------------YOM--------------
--Fish / Birds / Whales (the Cadillac of the sea)-
----Function: Movement / Function: Flight---------
-----YOM---------------------------YOM--------------

2nd main land development (after birds and flight)
-------Function: Herding (cattle types)-----------
--------Function: crawling (land & sea)-----------
-----------------Other beasts-----------------------
-----YOM---------------------------YOM--------------

Final main land development: MAN

Man isn't "done", but in the process of creation even now. I don't know what we are gonna be.

The real problem with the model that I propose is that the time elements are taken directly from the biblical account in genesis. That's a taboo thought to the evol guys and would require a paradigm shift to their classification method from a "simple to complex" model to one that more closely follows function. Another real problem (on the creationist side) is that death (as we know it now) wasn't working then. I have no clue what limited the population growth. They HAD to reproduce. (Grandpa scratches his head, maybe it was simply that death didn't effect man?) But, given that our thinking about the timelines were re-arranged according to function (and DNA might bring us closer to proving that) I'd be like, "well, shut my mouth and leave it shut" and astonished!


Okay, you didn't go deep but you did draw a picture:

----One Celled Organism----
--V----------------------V--
-Fish------------------Insects-
-V------------V----------V
Amphibians---Reptiles--Insects-

It's wrong and would result in all plants being consumed off the face of the earth, ie. the destruction of all life as we know it. Ahhhhh, that's a bad thing. Seriously, I think that birds and bats (flight) had to come before insects (crawling).

~Grandpa

PS. If we are gonna ever actually discover "truth" we can start by agreeing that we need creative thinkers. Those who think differently. When you complimented me above you labeled me a "theist" (which is true enough) but I didn't put my "theist" hat on when I entered this forum, I didn't try to prove that God exists. I am wearing my "creationist" hat only, you see? Divergent thinking is a good think, it only needs some collaboration to be added. Oh, about the question "how many planets?" if we include the "outer solar system" there are 10 planets according to my best source, lol ~> K-PAX, the movie. I'm gonna go search to prove this too.)

PPS.
Search performed and results are: 2003 UB313 (also known as ERIS) is a minor planet and 27% more massive than Pluto. But they demoted Pluto and now there are 8 again. At least it isn't likely that Chemistry will be affected, or are they going to "demote" plutonium too

Final thought: *Grandpa scratches his head yet again, "Maybe the Buddhists are at least partially correct in their thinking about life and death (especially as it applies to pre-flood times). They aren't theists but that doesn't matter. It would answer my dilemma regarding how "death" affected the world prior to man."

I didn't say insects came from reptiles. You misread, I'll answer the rest of your post after reading it, I just had to clarify that misconception.

EDIT: eh, like wtf mate? Prophet beat me to the punch

Mind if I sneak in?

The exponential growth model is hardly applicable in the field due to natural occurring constraints. In 1910, reindeer was introduced in St. Paul, Alaska. Due to the lack of natural predators, they grazed the habitat successfully and experienced an exponential growth. With an initial population of 24, the whole population reached 2000 in 30 years. The St. Paul reindeer reached their maximum population of more than 2000 before 1940. However, due to overexploitation, the population crashed and in 1950, only 8 out of the 2000 remained. Another example is the paramecium. An individual can reproduce asexually in twenty minutes, completing most of its life cycle. In around forty minutes, we would have four. In just a matter of days, they should cover the entire planet. However, this is not the case. The exponential growth model only takes into account birth and death rates. A much more accepted model for population growth is the logistic model as it takes into account not only the birth and death rates but how they change as the population reaches its carrying capacity.

Population regulation involves density dependence. As the population increases, competition (both interspecific and intraspecific) for resources also increases - leading to growth, development, and reproduction limitation, increase in regulatory dispersals and territoriality.

As you have already pointed out, not all insects are herbivorous. Most of them adapted this strategy but there were also other species that have taken predatorial ways, and others who evolved to be detrivores. To further break this down, not all herbivorous species consumed the same plants. Diversity - partly owing to specialization (e.g. crawling vs. flying)- limited different insect species to consume every plant. If resources between two species overlapped, competition (both scramble and contest, with exploitation and interference) occurs.

Geographical constraints also limited the plant domination of insects. Notable islands have already formed during the Devonian period, limiting colonization to only winged insects, and to a few fortunate ones who managed to exploit plants for sailing (unlikely). Even if colonization was possible, the new habitats (islands or "islands") most likely contain different resources - plant species - that were absent in the source population's environment. If the resources meet their needs, the new subpopulation will flourish and may continue on to develop full populations, to metapopulations, to subspecies, and to species. If the resources do not meet their needs, the subpopulation experiences a local extinction.

There are more things to take into account such as abiotic density-independent factors, but I'll stop here. I think there's enough to chew on in this post.

Yes, lots to "chew" on. I like that. Kinda insect like, isn't it? Okay, are you saying that we don't know enough to conclude that insects without their major predators (bats more than birds) wouldn't overrun the world? Can this conclusion be substantiated more than mine? Another thought, maybe there were different restraints (no longer in effect) to the populations then?

Just asking for your opinion and grateful for your input.

~Grandpa
He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

[EDIT] Oh, I learned a new word Abiotic: of or characterized by the absence of life or living organisms

Different creatures adapt to fit their specific niches.

When I type absolute thinking I refer to how unless it works out as you know it or learned it to be it won't work otherwise.

EDIT: I already know what he will type, He just beat me to the punch . Every person capable of having an opinion is plagued by what I like to call "absolutes". When someones opinion is contrary to your own (such as you and I) there tends to be a battle of wits in this case via text.

My Absolutes (e.g.) Knowledge VS Your absolutes (e.g.) Knowledge. Its just Barotix shorthand for; Once again we have hit a stall due to difference of opinion and knowledge.

No offense Barotix, but I'll wait for Prophet Izaach's reply. I was talking to you about "absolutist thinking" (you brought it up again when you accused me of it and excused yourself of the same thing). Your thoughts on that, please? In other words, take that lie back, dude.

English, please. (I am confused by your reply)

What I was trying to ask Prophet was perhaps better phrased as, "given your understanding of our subject, do you know of any way we can resolve our differences?

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

You and I have advanced different models that have different timelines and this is significant. Perhaps he has some critical research that can shed light on our differences.

We know enough to conclude that insects, without their major predators, wouldn't overrun the world, due to population regulating mechanisms (density-dependent), due to the class' diversity (flying vs. crawling, herbivorous vs. carnivorous), due to plant diversity (different modes of self-defense), due to interspecific interaction (herbivorous and carnvorous predation are not the only kinds of interspecific interaction observed in nature), due to geographical limitations (islands in the Devonian period, altitude differences that only favor winged insects), and due to density-independent factors (climate, high levels of oxygen, temperature). I have provided two examples: one general, with the paramecium, and one specific, with the St. Paul reindeer, the latter introducing a new regulator - overexploitation. The St. Paul reindeer simulated a competitive release - remove predators, expand the realized niche to the fundamental niche, and let the species overgraze the whole habitat. This example only shows one of the numerous obstacles that could have prevented the insects from domination.

Greetings, Prophet Izaach!

Major Premise: Insect life without major limiting factors = destruction of life

Two Competing Theories:
Model A: Insect population is not kept in check by life with flight (because they don’t exist) called “Evolution Theory”
Model B: Insect population is kept in check by predators who fly called “Creation Theory” (Note: This model is based on progression that follows function over complexity, hence there would be no life with flight.

Your Reply:

• due to population regulating mechanisms (density-dependent)
  This affects both Model A & B (Creation and Evolution)
• due to the class' diversity (flying vs. crawling, herbivorous vs. carnivorous)
  This affects both Model A & B (Creation and Evolution)
• due to plant diversity (different modes of self-defense)
  This affects Model A & B (Creation and Evolution)
• due to interspecific interaction (herbivorous and carnvorous predation are not the only kinds of interspecific interaction observed in nature)
  This affects both Model A & B (Creation and Evolution)
• due to geographical limitations (islands in the Devonian period
  This affects both Model A & B (Creation and Evolution)
• altitude differences that only favor winged insects)
  This affects A (Evolution) only
• and due to density-independent factors (climate, high levels of oxygen, temperature)
  This affects both Model A & B (Creation and Evolution).

Your conclusion: "We know enough to conclude that insects, without their major predators, wouldn't overrun the world."
Yes, you did supply an example of a study of the St. Paul reindeer, but I don't see how we can directly compare this to our models. The differences between the consumption rates alone throw everything out of whack. Let me ask you, during that study, did they even postulate the elimination of all plant life? But even if they did, there is still no rational conclusion that can be drawn by comparing things that eat plants with blunt teeth and things that eat plants with mandibles.

My question reiterated, "You sure we know that much?"
Knowing what we don't know is okay, right?

oh jeez how did we get to this, i read almost every word of the first 7 pages, this this page with all these technical jargons and pictures its making my head ache, how did we get into insect domination anyways?

lol, There were and are flying insects, Grandpa redo the chart including flying insects. I already explained it and so did Prophet: its all about adapting to fill a specific niche (flying Vs crawling).

I like techie.... hehehe... sry

This "head ache" came from me proposing an idea about creation theory vs. evolution theory. Sweep all the jargon away and consider: Is it possible for insects to eat themselves into extinction if they don't have any predators (except themselves)? What would happen if they existed before birds and bats? Would they be able to consume enough plant life to limit their overproduction like the St. Louis Reindeer did?

Okay, then what? How could the insects repopulate? They must have, you know? But if they didn't have food, we would no longer see any herbivorous insects today and obviously we do.

You see? What I am trying to point out is that even if Barotix and Prophet and I can't agree about all this the fact that insects did not eat themselves into extinction adds weight to the creation theory. The problem is evolution theory is left at a disadvantage because there are no (zero, none, nada, not even one) quick adaptive methods. They don't like to admit it and I don't blame them. Regarding the function of locomotion, it seems clear: Flight came before crawling.

If we adhere to the evolution model "complex came after simple in all cases" there is a problem. If we adhere to the creation model (form follows function), the problem doesn't exist but insects and plants do.

[EDIT] I think it's worth it though and it will all be over (as far as I'm concerned) on the following page. Stay tuned.

~Grandpa

Good thought![Edit: I've redone the charts]

You missed my point: The explanation doesn't apply. Think again.
What I was trying to ask Prophet was perhaps better phrased as, "given your understanding of our subject, do you know of any way we can resolve our differences?

* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results


You and I have advanced different models that have different timelines and this is significant. Perhaps there is some critical research that can shed light on our differences. I dunno. The statements given were not "proofs" of the premise. According to your several replies, insect population can not be used when trying to resolve competitive theories as listed above unless we consider flying insects vs. crawling insects. I disagree and suggest that common sense only is needed to resolve it.

The other statements regarding limiting factors (that all began with the words, "due to") in Prophet's long list were listed to support this belief. It is like you pointed out, the only one that mattered was "Altitude" that gives preference to flying insects. I respect both Prophet's and your right to your beliefs, but proofs are different than opinions. As you know, I have lots of opinions, but they don't apply to this subject either.

~Grandpa

mind if i pop in a little idea, i may be horribly wrong and may bring the whole argument to a completely wrong direction:D

i am not going to attempt to trace back to how this got started but... does insect domination have anything to do with the topic?

anyways according to the bible the earth only existed for a few thousand years, other religions may or may not contradict this

if the earth is really only a few thousand years old then where did these million year old fossils come from?

more to prove that religions are made up by man, why are there so many different versions of it? and why do religions from the same region share so many similarities

europe: god creates everything, prophet resurrected after 3 days, virgin mother, 12 follower
asian: Buddha, some say its a way of life not a religion at all, i dont like how that is worded
america: i dunno exactly, there are so many of them with so many different names, but they all share remarkable similarities

why do religion keep getting created, like falun gong, which is pretty much dont go to doctor just pray you'll get better

I'll List it out.

1. Absolute thinking: I already typed that both you and I are subject to it. I define it as a difference in thought due to differences in knowledge (i.e) you know things I don't and vice versa. This difference in thought leads to stalemates because each party is misunderstanding what the other is saying, in this case: typing.
2. I was quite aware that the number of planets has been demoted to 8 and Pluto is no longer a full fledged planet. Thats old Grandpa, what was the point of bringing it up now?
3. Our models are not competing, if by competing you mean that between the theist and scientist then yes they can be considered competing. I was raised Christian just as you may have been, I know how creationist think; been there, done that. In order to adhere to creationism or, as it is more commonly called, "intelligent design" a Deity (God) is necessary and because it is understood among most theist and scientist that intelligent design is not by definition science, but because it adheres to religious dogma it would be considered a sect of Religion. To be specific Christianity.
4. I never typed insects came from reptiles, I was hoping you would know Insects came from crustaceans (which you did ) so that way it could be inferred that the natural predator of insects are other insects, reptiles, and amphibians as they evolved along side each other.
   
5. I don't want to assume because my assumptions so far have done nothing but insult you (which I'm sorry for), so I will ask: Do you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, Is the center of the Universe, Is flat, and doesn't move as the bible postulates?

Where your comment goes to creation theory, I can't speak for all Creationists, but maybe this will help.

The Genesis account was written in Hebrew (we all know this) and the word for "Day" as in "... the evening and the morning were the first "Day"..." in Hebrew is 'Yom' or 'Yowm'. Hebrew is more of a poetic language then English so the direct translation of these things is oftentimes difficult. It is my belief that the word "Yom" doesn't literally mean a 24 hour period 100% of the time.

I hope that helps to resolve the question about millions of years.

I like your questions and had the privilege of working along side a Anthro major for a long time... Perhaps your other questions would be better answered if you opened a new thread about the study of man. You might want to start out by sorting the major religions into "Abrahamic vs. Non-Abrahamic because more than half of the world's population share common origin as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions This goes directly against your assertion that they are "all made up" and it can be shown that Abraham is the ancestor of Muhammad for instance. Hope this helps as well.

Buddhism isn't a religion? Sure it is. It isn't a monotheistic (also called Abrahamic) religion, that's all. In other words they don't advance ideas that support a belief in any god. Dharmic religions all follow "the path of the higher way" including Sikh Dharma, sanatana dharma, Buddhadharma and Jain dharma.

I hope you don't mind me not answering all your questions and implications directly, as I've said, it will all be over on the following page. Stay tuned.

~~~~~>> To Barotix: Barotix, regarding your “Point 5”

If you really want to know more about the Age of the Universe, an expanded discussion can be found here: The Age of the Earth


~Grandpa

Grandpa: Oh! sry! I already saw your answer and erased the quote you listed above - my bad. I'll answer your post if you like though. Want me to?

Catholic school for 14 years; apparently Satan hid them there for misdirection and to corrupt our hearts.