Quote by Persocom01Although we did
not, in the end, manage to sort out our differences (because there were so many)
on guestbook, I did notice that alexjohnc3 asked me for a reason why
homosexuality is wrong. My answer for this question is, in short, using an
Atheistic worldview, there isn't. In fact, using Atheistic worldview there isn't
an perfectly defensible basis for morality of any kind at
all.
No, there isn't. Morality is relative, not absolute. I
myself define morality as the property of whether something contributes to,
detracts from, or has no effect on the standard of living of a society. Anything
that causes pain/suffering is immoral. Anything else either contributes or is
neutral. Homosexuality is neutral since it does not detract from society in any
way hence I see nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Although we did not, in the end, manage to sort out our differences (because
there were so many) on guestbook, I did notice that alexjohnc3 asked me for a
reason why homosexuality is wrong. My answer for this question is, in short,
using an Atheistic worldview, there isn't. In fact, using Atheistic worldview
there isn't an perfectly defensible basis for morality of any kind at
all.
I did mention in my previous post that I got into a debate on the moral law on
another forum. The reason for this is because one person (of unknown religious
orientation) believed that we should be tolerant towards hacking and scamming,
and even criticised people who were up in arms about it. I did not want to
reason with him, the reason being I knew that using an Atheistic worldview, I
could not logically justify any kind of morality at all. However since he was
insistent of it, we did have a little war of words, at the end of which, as
expected, I was unable to convince him that hacking and scamming were wrong.
Here are some of his replies:
1. My stand was, of course, that an absolute truth exists. After several
exchanges, this was his reply:
Quote by anonymous
No matter how strong the argument is, someone somewhere will still find ways to
undermine it, even if it's completely correct. I'll just use the "smoking
causes cancer" example: people still smoke even though it's been known for
quite a while now that it can kill you. If they couldn't defend their argument
that smoking DOESN'T kill you, then why would they smoke. The validity of an argument is heavily
reliant on one's point of view.
2. He rebutts my assertion that 1+1 is equal to 2 (an example I used to show
that an absolute truth exists) here:
Quote by anonymous
It does not matter if it's self imposed. I'm merely informing you that there are
deviations from the norm: not everyone is the same and live to the same
principals you do. 2+2=10, in base 4. 1+1 is 10 in base 2. etc.
3. This was his last reply:
Quote by anonymous
I'd say this one is going no where.
But my basic point is: People can still believe that their beliefs are right
even if it's been proven that it's wrong. It's as they say: ignorance is bliss.
It doesn't matter if it's REALLY wrong or not; it's only what they believe that matters.
His last statement was to me rather puzzling, because he seems to acknowledge
that a right and wrong exists, yet goes on and says that it doesn't matter.
Throughout the debate, I made it clear that my morality was on the Law of God,
otherwise known as the Law of Love[1], a faith based position, and repeatedly
questioned him on the logical premise of his morality. However not only did he
avoid the question repeatedly, and even at the debate's conclusion he did not
give me a single logical (in his worldview) premise for morality.
References:
[1] Romans 13:10 - "Love works no ill to its neighbor, therefore love is
the fulfilling of the Law."
Now the reason I brought the above up is so that I can contrast here one of the
differences between the Christian and Atheistic worldviews, and to explain why
it is impossible to justify why homosexuality (hacking and scamming, or anything
for that matter) as wrong using the latter. I'll make this clear first of all,
before I begin, that unlike alexjohnc3, who defines an Atheism as a "lack
of belief" in God - a rather all inclusive definition, which includes
Buddhists, Agnostics and babies, I don't. evilbible.com lists reasons why this
is a bad definition here: http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm
However, when I say Atheism, I'm refering to Scientific Materialism, which is
the worldview of people such as Richard Dawkins, and which I shall define
here.
To distinguish between the two worldviews, I'll use 4 criterion:
a. Creation (origin)
b. Fall (what's wrong with the world)
c. Redemption (solution)
d. Consumation (how everything ends)
1. The Christian Worldview:
a. Christians believe that the God has always existed, and that the universe was
created by God.
b. All suffering and evil is directly or indirectly the result of rebellion
against God, whether it be yourself or other morally accountable entities now or
in the past. (eg. Satan, Adam and Eve, or a rapist who causes
pregnancy)
c. God paid the price for our sins, allowing whosoever believes (this does not
solely consitute intellectual aknowlegement of God, otherwise Satan would be
counted as God-believing) in him redemption and the chance of living with God in
the redeemed world when he returns.
d. God will judge the living and the dead give them their eternal reward. (the
wages of sin is death, so my usage of the world reward does not necessarily mean
something beneficial)
With the Christian Worldview, justifying the wrongness of homosexuality is easy.
Homosexuality is evil because it goes against God's plan and design for
sexuality,[1] and thus against his will. Obviously when men copulate with other
men they are unable to produce babies, as seen in reality.
2. The Atheistic Worldview:
a. Atheists believe that nothing 'supernatural' exists. (I don't believe in the
supernatural either - God is natural to me) All that exists, including
consciousness and the mind, are causally derived from matter, which has always
existed. (some say matter and energy, but they are interchangable, as shown by
Albert Einstein) By logical deduction, evolution, a blind, purposeless process
of chance and necessity is true. (which is also why Atheists are almost always
Darwinistic Evolutionists. A belief in evolution is necessary for interllectual
consistency)
b. Because evolution is assumed to be true, Good and Evil are essentially a
matter of opinion and do not exist in reality to the Atheist. (obviously
evolution isn't going to care about rape, murder[2][3] or stealing. Evolution is
essentially a chain of survival and death) No perfect basis for morality exists,
although more common bases include some form of societal pragmatism or societal
consensus. However what's good for society (the former) and what's the
prevailing societal opinion, (the latter) has varied greatly, from the heavily
Christianised western values that Secular Humanists borrow today to the baby
abandoning practices of the Greek Spartans and the genocidal movements of
Hitler.[4]
c. There is nothing to be redeemed for, and Atheists have their own personal
goals, which can range anywhere from world domination, maximisation of pleasure,
ease of living, to the advancement of human society. Many Atheists, however
believe that religion is evil and must be destroyed by science.[5] (seems
contradictary to b. but that's how many Atheists act in reality - somehow evil
exists when it suits them but the moral law doesn't)
d. People return to nothingness when they die, although a few people believe
that it might be possible to attain immortality using science. It doesn't really
matter what the end of the universe is, although at present it doesn't look like
it will be capable of supporting life in future.
It should be obvious why it's not possible to logically justify the wrongness of
homosexuality if one does not believe in God but rather evolution. However, many
Christians, especially those without philosophical training, in debates with
Atheists, get lured into trying to justify their own morality using the
Atheistic worldview, which is imo ultimately futile, and often end up being
called called illogical by Atheists. This is half true. It is true that it is
not possible to have a perfectly defensible basis for justifying morality using
an Atheistic Worldview. (which is the reason why Christians so often fail when
they try) However it is not true that the Christian is illogical. He is just
using a different premise. In allowing himself to intellectually battle an
Atheist on his premise, (the Atheistic Worldview) the Christian has already lost
the argument before he even begins. (there might exist Christian apologists who
may be able to do that though, I don't know)
Sadly though, since the government is secular, arguments in court on this issue
use the Atheistic worldview, in which Christians are forced to fight losing
battles over issues such as gay marriages. (even if they win it's due to some
consensus opinion I think)
Also as usual comments on my guestbook are welcome if you want a reply. I do not
guarantee replies to any questions addressed to me on the group itself,
(sometimes are just not worth answering, sometimes because I'm absent for long
periods of time and there are too many) although if you want a reply on the
group guestbook, you are most welcome to request it.
I myself was wondering where the wing might've come from and these links
certainly help. Well, thanks again for this info. Here's something I came across
which I found very interesting. Now I feel guilty over eating fish. LOL! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_fish
Well, off to the forums for me.
There are many reasons why the wing might've evolved, though if you just want to
know the ancestor to birds amphibian-wise... I don't know, nor do I know of any
webpage that explain anything on any early-stage birdlike evolutionary
traits.
I still believe that wings evolved as full blown reptilian exaptations since
there are so many other similar exaptations throughout history. I know there is
also a theory that wings could've evolved from elongated back plates (Longisquama ...took me
forever to find him... I've seen its picture, but never could remember the name
) or modified scales (Compsognathus). All could be considered
exaptations, scales modified for a new purpose. Biologists already preach that
bird feathers are modified scales made from keratin... why then is the evolution
of the feather a big debate?
I guess its because we only know from what the feathers came from, not where.
I hope I'm not too much of a bother but I was thinking further back to the point
where amphibious organisms took to the land. According to the site below, wings
evolved from 'articulated gill plates' in fish but it doesn't elaborate on it.
This is of course one of quite a few theories currently trying to explain the
evolution of the wing.
BTW, not sure if any of you have forgotten about this but today, November 11, is
armistice day. If you don't know, that was when both warring sides in World War
1 signed a ceasefire approximately 89 years ago. I should know, I have a deep
interest in that subject.
The evolutionary tree/cladistics way and not with convergent evolutionary way,
right? Ok, so... I think scientists have called wings exaptations (an adaptation
that is kept but used for another purpose than originally intended... might have
to check a dictionary). To my knowledge, the development of wings was a display
in macroevolution. If you look at the tree, you'll see that there are many forms
with transitional fossils.
If you support Archaeopteryx as being the first dinosaur with wings, then it all
began with the Dromaeosaurid dinosaurs (Deinonychus or Veceloraptor or any other
"raptor"). They began as diapsid dinosaurs. Which one in particular, I
don't know. They are supposed to be part of the first of the bird lineage. These
dinosaurs had something with the way that they used their forearms and the
actual bones, their structures, and their movements.
Now I know that there were Pterosaurs, but the bone structure in the two
different groups were different. Also, Pterosaurs were gliding, not actual
flying ((i.e. Pterosaurs were like an Albatross and the Dromaeosaur decendants
would be like a House Sparrow... Albatrosses must have enough lift and glide
more than fly. They are usually found on cliff faces since they cannot produce
enough lift with their wings for actual flight... in class we called it
"dynamic soaring." Sparrows are obviously better adapted for flight.
However, I do want to point out that sparrow actually have very complex flight
abilities.)) They believe that Archaeopteryx was only able to glide and fly
primitively. However, newer forms adapted having better flight forms. Pterosaurs
did not adapt much further and continued to "dynamically
soar."
Sinornis, Confuciusornis (resembles Archaeopteryx by having claws but had the
first beak without teeth... however its family branch stops soon afterwards),
and Ichthyornis all improved in their flight forms and abilities. I will say
that there were also quite a few "flightless" birds on the
evolutionary tree too (i.e. Hesperornis and Diatryma... Diatryma being one
that's head was as big as a horse and is thought to have been a predator to
early man.) I think the flightless bird ancestors were the ancestors of the
Ratite Family of birds (penguins, kiwi, and ostriches).
Did I answer your question?
merged: 11-11-2007 ~ 09:30am
I found this picture... maybe it might help a little. I
think the red arrows are where they are showing that they meant to place
Archaeopteryx. ^^ Hope I helped.
Heck yeah. Its very important for the
building blocks for evolution since it produces the actual genetic variation
seen throughout history. When the cells divide, there can be so many
possibilities for "accidental changes" within the process of DNA
replication. Then you have the genetic recombination afterwards... there is so
much room for error... leading to many different ways of having some sort of
variation. Any of it could be due to the recombination: paring of chromosomes,
replication of DNA, replication of cells and some genetic material from one cell
is lost from one and gained by another, or even a mutation somewhere inbetween
process somehow. I'm only describing what I can think of relating to
gametes.
I'm can't even begin to think of all the ways that variation can find its way
into a newly fertilized zygote/embryo. Not only do you have the two different
gametes coming together and mixing to make one organisim, but all of the
replication and division within that process itself and all the possibilities
for genetic variation there is also beyond my scope. Getting everything to
replicate perfectly (even though there are specific things that are supposed to
be a back up like RNA, that itself could be flawed or changed because of a
mutation), the lining up of the chromosomes, the actual pairing of chromosomes
and sister chromotids, or even the splitting itself (like I said earlier with
the possibility of a loss or gain in genetic information that way).
OH! I also thought about gene expression by itself. Those individual variations
in that would also have a big role in evolutionary changes. You can have a child
that has a dibilitating disease, but not show it because the gene was turned
off. The opposite is also the same for one who's gene is turned on. That's why
many parents have tests done to see if they're carrying specific genes. I'm not
sure if they know if the gene will be turned on or off (I highly doubt they can
tell that), but I know that many people debate that who know they are at a high
risk of passing something like that along to their possible children.
I would personally like to know if I somehow did have
some corrupted gene like that. I do never want to bring a child into this world
that won't live for more than a few months or will live their whole life not
being able to live it like I'd want them to... that is, if I had the ability to
know before hand wether I had a dysfunctional gene like that. To me, knowingly
bring a child into the world and knowing that they would not live very long or
be horribly sick all their life is selfish. Its selfish to want so much to have
a child that you'd not even care about their quality of life. Yes,
I want to eventually pass on my genes/herritage to a child, but there are so
many children out there who could be adopted and need a loving home. I don't
want to sound weird or anything, just know that this is only my opinion and I'd
be happy to expand upon it if anyone asks. I think I've actually posted this
little opinion in a thread not so long ago...
Its really mind boggling how many different ways things can change. I can't
believe I didn't think of this last night.
LOL I haven't had to think like this in quite some time. Its kinda fun, but at
the same time, my head kinda hurts.
Quote by yothsothgothThe article
also seems to talk about the possibity of mutation causing new genetic
information to be formed. Wow. "There is no known natural process for
generating new, more complex, traits." ...however, there are still many
examples of which this has happened. As in, no other explaination other than the
mutation causing new genetic information to be made. Also, I wonder... with the
translocation of genes along the same chromosome... could be creating a
"new species"?
"Where such 'improvements' have been investigated on a molecular basis,
researchers have found that the 'new' trait is not due to the appearance of a
new protein, but the modification of an existing one." Modifications in
existing genes create new and "improved" traits in some animals and
plants... (there are lots of examples of this where humans in labs have done
this artificial specitation to improve crops and other things.) Perhaps its more
of these modifications rather than "random mutations" throughout
history that account for most of the variation within specific populations...
Also I wonder if perhaps the movement of these genes within the chromosomes
could be thought of as a 'mutation' of sorts? I'm sure many people would agree
with that.
I believe that in closed populations where new genetic information isn't likely
to come into the population from an outside source (if you put inbreeding
occuring in the population aside), that the translocation of genes on the
chromosome might be the only way that the population might have any speciation
within that closed breeding system. Genetically speaking, other than a different
kind of 'mutation' within the DNA itself, polyploidy (in sympatric speciation)
not using the extra chromosomes, or perhaps loss of genetic information within
the chromosome...
Most of what I was talking about I think is just allopatric/geographical
isolational speciation. If I were to talk a little about sympatric speciation in
reference to the article... it would work for that too... with the extra genes
and chromosomes doubling.
...I hope I made some kind of sense in what I wrote, I'm really tired right now.
I didn't get to finish my complete thought, but I can't think
anymore. I've begun to talk in circles.
I looked up Meiosis and I think that it would play a role
in speciation/evolution. Would I be correct in saying this?... Sorry, the
curiosity is killing me and you're a biologist... Makes me want to major in
biology...
Quote by ProgramZERO http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp
BTW, the website Persocom01 provided (above) is quite interesting. Do you know
of a way in which genetic information is accumulated overtime because I am
unfamiliar with the genetic side of evolution or with genetics in general... I
didn't pay much attention during my 9th grade biology class.
The argument made in this website is that although speciation does occur, we
don't get new animals or new genetic information, only animals which cannot
interbreed. My belief is that speciation that can be seen occurs after MANY
years of species isolation and continued variation between isolated populations
with different exterior pressures although I'm unsure about the genetic part.
What's your thought yothsothgoth?
The article also seems to talk about the possibity of mutation causing new
genetic information to be formed. Wow. "There is no known natural process
for generating new, more complex, traits." ...however, there are still many
examples of which this has happened. As in, no other explaination other than the
mutation causing new genetic information to be made. Also, I wonder... with the
translocation of genes along the same chromosome... could be creating a
"new species"?
"Where such 'improvements' have been investigated on a molecular basis,
researchers have found that the 'new' trait is not due to the appearance of a
new protein, but the modification of an existing one." Modifications in
existing genes create new and "improved" traits in some animals and
plants... (there are lots of examples of this where humans in labs have done
this artificial specitation to improve crops and other things.) Perhaps its more
of these modifications rather than "random mutations" throughout
history that account for most of the variation within specific populations...
Also I wonder if perhaps the movement of these genes within the chromosomes
could be thought of as a 'mutation' of sorts? I'm sure many people would agree
with that.
I believe that in closed populations where new genetic information isn't likely
to come into the population from an outside source (if you put inbreeding
occuring in the population aside), that the translocation of genes on the
chromosome might be the only way that the population might have any speciation
within that closed breeding system. Genetically speaking, other than a different
kind of 'mutation' within the DNA itself, polyploidy (in sympatric speciation)
not using the extra chromosomes, or perhaps loss of genetic information within
the chromosome...
Most of what I was talking about I think is just allopatric/geographical
isolational speciation. If I were to talk a little about sympatric speciation in
reference to the article... it would work for that too... with the extra genes
and chromosomes doubling.
...I hope I made some kind of sense in what I wrote, I'm really tired right now.
I didn't get to finish my complete thought, but I can't think
anymore. I've begun to talk in circles.
Quote by ProgramZERO
*cough cough* I'm amused enough that they actually said "challenged the
theory of creationism", but to make things worse, they actually think that
dog breeding is evidence against creationism. This is a kind of strawman argument so old the AiG article for it is
dated 1996:
This article demonstrates that natural
selection is a valid mechanism since there exists little difference between
artificial and natural selection. Depending on what definition of Creationism
you go by, this shows that a species can change overtime with the right
selective pressures contrary to the belief that all creatures were created as
they are today.
Quote: I'm personally very
disappointed by the extremely poor quality of evidence for Darwinistic
Evolution. (for example dog breeding) Let's also remind ourselves that some
evidence against evolution should be ready in 3-10 years time: Scientists
Believe Artificial Life Will Be Possible in 3 to 10 Years - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293764,00.html,
since evolution pretty much always fails in real life
anyway.
Well, as they say, don't count your chickens before
they hatch. Also, I'm unsure how this would disprove evolution and such. If
scientists fail, I wouldn't be surprised since this isn't a simple
undertaking.
Quote by yothsothgothI'd love to
help with the debate, but where is the debate? Is it a private one or is there a
thread that I'm missing? I have some good articles that scientifically explain the gaps in
transitional fossils and some information I know from my textbooks on several
specific species.
I would have to agree with you in the belief that all fossils are transitional
ones. They are only that, to the extent of the fact that all species are
constantly evolving (at whatever rate of reproduction and evolutionary
influences/finess needs/etc). I can discuss this further if you let me know
where you'd like me to post. ^^
It's been going on for some
time now. Just post your opinion here and hopefully, he'll believe a Chrisitian
scientist... unless your not of the "right" sect of Christianity.
LOL!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp
BTW, the website Persocom01 provided (above) is quite interesting. Do you know
of a way in which genetic information is accumulated overtime because I am
unfamiliar with the genetic side of evolution or with genetics in general... I
didn't pay much attention during my 9th grade biology class.
The argument made in this website is that although speciation does occur, we
don't get new animals or new genetic information, only animals which cannot
interbreed. My belief is that speciation that can be seen occurs after MANY
years of species isolation and continued variation between isolated populations
with different exterior pressures although I'm unsure about the genetic part.
What's your thought yothsothgoth?
Hmm during my long absence, I did quite a number of things, including a debate
about the moral law on another forum, multiple exams in my university, and a
visit to Chiang Mai, Thailand. I visited Doi Suthep, the most famous temple in
the city. According to my tour guide, Mr Ball, (he was quite a friendly guy - as
expected from a tour guide) although Thailand Buddhists 'worship' Buddha, the do
not believe him to be a God, and are thus Atheists. (by alexjohnc3's and
Shinsengumi89's definition) Just outside the inner temple they also 'worship' a
statue of the hermit from whom the name of the mountain was derived, as well as
a number of other inanimate entities I don't recognise.
A picture of some cute Mong kids =) Mong is the name of a Chinese hill tribe.
*cough cough* I'm amused enough that they actually said "challenged the
theory of creationism", but to make things worse, they actually think that
dog breeding is evidence against creationism. This is a kind of strawman argument so old the AiG article for it is
dated 1996: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp
I'm personally very disappointed by the extremely poor quality of evidence for
Darwinistic Evolution. (for example dog breeding) Let's also remind ourselves
that some evidence against evolution should be ready in 3-10 years time:
Scientists Believe Artificial Life Will Be Possible in 3 to 10 Years - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293764,00.html
, since evolution pretty much always fails in real life anyway.
Quote: first,you cant say God made
them that way without having doubts...if a child has a mental problem,it
involves the genes,and the process of mitosis,ect.Even so,if God created
gays,then its just as effective as creating a human who steals,swears,and
lies.We are all sinners,but there is a way out.as for animals being homosexual,i've never personally seen one,but it
could be a message to mankind,and for mankind to watch these animals and observe
how no matter how there animals act,they will never produce life.they will both
die out,with no family made by themselves,and changing the population
possibly.like humans,you may feel like your in love with the same
gender,but you must undertand that its just like a disorder,making your brain
fall in love with the same gender,other than the
opposite.
Not only is that the biggest load of crap I've ever read in regards to
homosexuals, but in one part he actually supports natural selection, almost
leads into evolution......I doubt that was his intention so he's obviously just
typing out his rear.
I'd love to help with the debate, but where is the debate? Is it a private one
or is there a thread that I'm missing? I have some good articles that scientifically explain the gaps in
transitional fossils and some information I know from my textbooks on several
specific species.
I would have to agree with you in the belief that all fossils are transitional
ones. They are only that, to the extent of the fact that all species are
constantly evolving (at whatever rate of reproduction and evolutionary
influences/finess needs/etc). I can discuss this further if you let me know
where you'd like me to post. ^^
Lol, if you dont know where to find a list, I'll post one for you. He already
rejected it as false for whatever reason, picking out one that he says was
disproven and shunning the rest. Good on you is you can get anything through his
thick skull.
Fish to Amphibians
Tiktaalik roseae
Osteolepis
Eusthenopteron
Panderichthys
Elginerpeton
Obruchevichthys
Hynerpeton
Tulerpeton
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega
Pederpes finneyae
Eryops
Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)
Proterogyrinus
Limnoscelis
Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus
Paleothyris
Synapsid (mammal-like "reptiles") to mammals
Protoclepsydrops
Clepsydrops
Dimetrodon
Procynosuchus
Thrinaxodon
Yanoconodon
Diapsid reptiles to birds
Yixianosaurus
Pedopenna
Archaeopteryx
Changchengornis
Confuciusornis
Ichthyornis
Evolution of whales
Pakicetus
Ambulocetus
Kutchicetus
Artiocetus
Dorudon
Basilosaurus
Eurhinodelphis
Mammalodon
Evolution of the horse
Hyracotherium
Mesohippus
Parahippus
Merychippus
Pliohippus
Equus
Non-human apes to modern humans
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
Ardipithecus
Australopithecus
Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Yothsothgoth, I am currently participating in a very arduous debate with KingRay
over transitional fossils, among other things. My argument is that most, if not,
all fossils are TFs to varying degrees and KR claims there are no such things as
TFs. Your input would be greatly appreciated since he doesn't believe the
"Atheist scientists".
Quote by BobaFett2haThere's a place
in Santa Cruz, CA called "Mystery Spot" which is supposed to have
weird gravity.
Yeah, that's the one I heard about. It turns
out it's actually an optical illusion. The ground is tilted and the horizon is
blocked from view forcing you to use the surrounding areas as points of
reference (which are tilted) so that it feels like you need to stand on your
side in order to feel like you're standing up straight... Wow, now I feel like a
"negative Nancy" (South Park reference, sorry). Very
interesting article on artificial selection.
I can't think of exactly... but I think there are quite a few places like that.
Also, there are places where rocks grow and move from year to year. Most of the
places I've heard of are supposedly on *lay lines* or places where they
say/think that the earth's magnetic lines are. ...might be able to find
something about it on the internet somewhere.
Quote by littlejonny100So although
I don't think there's a god, I do think there must be 'something else', whether
that be a superhuman, an alien race or just a group of humans with advanced
technology who haven't told anyone. There have been plenty of documented
impossibilities and everyones experienced some sort themselves, so what do
people think?
One specific example is one day years ago I was throwing a football with my
friend who lives about 50 meters away on his front lawn. At one point a big red
4wd came driving up the road with sounds and all and then disappeared behind a
tree. When I saw that happen I instantly turned to my friend who was giving me
the exact same "what the" look. Things to note are that the car could
not physically hide behind the tree in any way, it drove out of site on one half
of the tree and didn't appear on the other half. We looked around and at all
angles and it was definitely impossible that it did what it did.
Most things can be explained rationally but I'm yet to find a decent one where
two people have the exact same delusion with sight and sound and no previous
influences.
Another interesting one was with a different friend, this one I hadn't seen for
about a month before this incident. He came in and we talked for a bit. (I'll
talk in bold, him in italics) I had this really
strange dream last nightyeah I did
toomine was about a magpieoh yeah, a talking one and it's name wasphoebe...right?and it was
sitting on the rocky ledge outside (person X)s house........pause where
we both stared at each other followed by various explicits.
Again I fail to find what could have sparked two friends who haven't seen each
other in a month with no influences to be able to have the same dream with those
specifics. We tried to find any reason why we dreamt those specific details and
there was nothing.
Again the question was, have you had such an experience and how do you explain
to yourself things like that?
No, I've never had a
'supernatural' event occur to me... I would've liked to have seen what you saw
so I could investigate it also but... I wasn't there so...
Quote by DarkRoseofHellI still
rest with the theory of aliens or people with crazy technology messing with our
minds for their own entertainment! :P
Also, the bird thing is kind of creepy, its like an omen...
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH -.- Oh, that year during 6/6/06, math class, the overhead
projector thing stopped working, the light suddenly turned off for like 10
seconds, and there was a sonic boom that shook the whole builiding, :P
There are still many things we have yet to find out, though it would be sort of
fun to screw around with physics, though sort of scary
too.
Yeah, I remember 6/6/06... Nothing happened... Except
that some women refused to give birth on that date and 'held it in', so to
speak.
Quote by yothsothgothHouses where
people are injured by unxplained entities, places where gravity and physics seem
to be backwards, seeing birds rapping on a window sil before someone's death,
butterflies after someone's death.
About that physics part,
where are you talking about exactly because I have a feeling I've heard of the
place.
I still rest with the theory of aliens or people with crazy technology messing
with our minds for their own entertainment! :P
Also, the bird thing is kind of creepy, its like an omen...
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH -.- Oh, that year during 6/6/06, math class, the overhead
projector thing stopped working, the light suddenly turned off for like 10
seconds, and there was a sonic boom that shook the whole builiding, :P
There are still many things we have yet to find out, though it would be sort of
fun to screw around with physics, though sort of scary too.
Where logic fails me, I usually think that its possibly due to things that have
yet to be explained. Yes, I have my religious beliefs too... however, I also
believe in other *unexplained* phenonomenon. Houses where people are injured by
unxplained entities, places where gravity and physics seem to be backwards,
seeing birds rapping on a window sil before someone's death, butterflies after
someone's death... I believe that there are things that just can't be explained
logically or by science. ...and personally, I'm okay with that. ^^ I will say
that I'm not always comfortable with the idea, but I'm okay knowing that there
are *unexplained* forces at work...
No, there isn't. Morality is relative, not absolute. I myself define morality as the property of whether something contributes to, detracts from, or has no effect on the standard of living of a society. Anything that causes pain/suffering is immoral. Anything else either contributes or is neutral. Homosexuality is neutral since it does not detract from society in any way hence I see nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Although we did not, in the end, manage to sort out our differences (because there were so many) on guestbook, I did notice that alexjohnc3 asked me for a reason why homosexuality is wrong. My answer for this question is, in short, using an Atheistic worldview, there isn't. In fact, using Atheistic worldview there isn't an perfectly defensible basis for morality of any kind at all.
I did mention in my previous post that I got into a debate on the moral law on another forum. The reason for this is because one person (of unknown religious orientation) believed that we should be tolerant towards hacking and scamming, and even criticised people who were up in arms about it. I did not want to reason with him, the reason being I knew that using an Atheistic worldview, I could not logically justify any kind of morality at all. However since he was insistent of it, we did have a little war of words, at the end of which, as expected, I was unable to convince him that hacking and scamming were wrong. Here are some of his replies:
1. My stand was, of course, that an absolute truth exists. After several exchanges, this was his reply:
2. He rebutts my assertion that 1+1 is equal to 2 (an example I used to show that an absolute truth exists) here:
3. This was his last reply:
His last statement was to me rather puzzling, because he seems to acknowledge that a right and wrong exists, yet goes on and says that it doesn't matter. Throughout the debate, I made it clear that my morality was on the Law of God, otherwise known as the Law of Love[1], a faith based position, and repeatedly questioned him on the logical premise of his morality. However not only did he avoid the question repeatedly, and even at the debate's conclusion he did not give me a single logical (in his worldview) premise for morality.
References:
[1] Romans 13:10 - "Love works no ill to its neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the Law."
See also:
Argument from Love: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_love
----------------------------------------------
Now the reason I brought the above up is so that I can contrast here one of the differences between the Christian and Atheistic worldviews, and to explain why it is impossible to justify why homosexuality (hacking and scamming, or anything for that matter) as wrong using the latter. I'll make this clear first of all, before I begin, that unlike alexjohnc3, who defines an Atheism as a "lack of belief" in God - a rather all inclusive definition, which includes Buddhists, Agnostics and babies, I don't. evilbible.com lists reasons why this is a bad definition here: http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm However, when I say Atheism, I'm refering to Scientific Materialism, which is the worldview of people such as Richard Dawkins, and which I shall define here.
To distinguish between the two worldviews, I'll use 4 criterion:
a. Creation (origin)
b. Fall (what's wrong with the world)
c. Redemption (solution)
d. Consumation (how everything ends)
1. The Christian Worldview:
a. Christians believe that the God has always existed, and that the universe was created by God.
b. All suffering and evil is directly or indirectly the result of rebellion against God, whether it be yourself or other morally accountable entities now or in the past. (eg. Satan, Adam and Eve, or a rapist who causes pregnancy)
c. God paid the price for our sins, allowing whosoever believes (this does not solely consitute intellectual aknowlegement of God, otherwise Satan would be counted as God-believing) in him redemption and the chance of living with God in the redeemed world when he returns.
d. God will judge the living and the dead give them their eternal reward. (the wages of sin is death, so my usage of the world reward does not necessarily mean something beneficial)
With the Christian Worldview, justifying the wrongness of homosexuality is easy. Homosexuality is evil because it goes against God's plan and design for sexuality,[1] and thus against his will. Obviously when men copulate with other men they are unable to produce babies, as seen in reality.
2. The Atheistic Worldview:
a. Atheists believe that nothing 'supernatural' exists. (I don't believe in the supernatural either - God is natural to me) All that exists, including consciousness and the mind, are causally derived from matter, which has always existed. (some say matter and energy, but they are interchangable, as shown by Albert Einstein) By logical deduction, evolution, a blind, purposeless process of chance and necessity is true. (which is also why Atheists are almost always Darwinistic Evolutionists. A belief in evolution is necessary for interllectual consistency)
b. Because evolution is assumed to be true, Good and Evil are essentially a matter of opinion and do not exist in reality to the Atheist. (obviously evolution isn't going to care about rape, murder[2][3] or stealing. Evolution is essentially a chain of survival and death) No perfect basis for morality exists, although more common bases include some form of societal pragmatism or societal consensus. However what's good for society (the former) and what's the prevailing societal opinion, (the latter) has varied greatly, from the heavily Christianised western values that Secular Humanists borrow today to the baby abandoning practices of the Greek Spartans and the genocidal movements of Hitler.[4]
c. There is nothing to be redeemed for, and Atheists have their own personal goals, which can range anywhere from world domination, maximisation of pleasure, ease of living, to the advancement of human society. Many Atheists, however believe that religion is evil and must be destroyed by science.[5] (seems contradictary to b. but that's how many Atheists act in reality - somehow evil exists when it suits them but the moral law doesn't)
d. People return to nothingness when they die, although a few people believe that it might be possible to attain immortality using science. It doesn't really matter what the end of the universe is, although at present it doesn't look like it will be capable of supporting life in future.
It should be obvious why it's not possible to logically justify the wrongness of homosexuality if one does not believe in God but rather evolution. However, many Christians, especially those without philosophical training, in debates with Atheists, get lured into trying to justify their own morality using the Atheistic worldview, which is imo ultimately futile, and often end up being called called illogical by Atheists. This is half true. It is true that it is not possible to have a perfectly defensible basis for justifying morality using an Atheistic Worldview. (which is the reason why Christians so often fail when they try) However it is not true that the Christian is illogical. He is just using a different premise. In allowing himself to intellectually battle an Atheist on his premise, (the Atheistic Worldview) the Christian has already lost the argument before he even begins. (there might exist Christian apologists who may be able to do that though, I don't know)
Sadly though, since the government is secular, arguments in court on this issue use the Atheistic worldview, in which Christians are forced to fight losing battles over issues such as gay marriages. (even if they win it's due to some consensus opinion I think)
References:
[1]Romans 1:27 - "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error."
[2] Dr. "Doom" Pianka Speaks - http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2006/04/transcript_dr_d.php
[3]The beliefs of a Finnish school shooter - http://ermi.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/amoklauf-in-finnland/
[4] From Darwin to Hitler - http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/FromDarwintoHitler.htm
[5] Religion Must Be Destroyed, Atheist Alliance Declares - http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200710/CUL20071003a.html
merged: 11-15-2007 ~ 08:27pm
There was an article about the Sinosauropteryx in your picture just this year, although I don't know if it affects the validity of the picture.
Feathers fly over cornerstone fossil - http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=nw20070523091808579C659855
Also as usual comments on my guestbook are welcome if you want a reply. I do not guarantee replies to any questions addressed to me on the group itself, (sometimes are just not worth answering, sometimes because I'm absent for long periods of time and there are too many) although if you want a reply on the group guestbook, you are most welcome to request it.
I myself was wondering where the wing might've come from and these links certainly help. Well, thanks again for this info. Here's something I came across which I found very interesting. Now I feel guilty over eating fish. LOL!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_fish
Well, off to the forums for me.
This is interesting: http://ori.msnbc.msn.com/id/21673631/
There are many reasons why the wing might've evolved, though if you just want to know the ancestor to birds amphibian-wise... I don't know, nor do I know of any webpage that explain anything on any early-stage birdlike evolutionary traits.
I still believe that wings evolved as full blown reptilian exaptations since there are so many other similar exaptations throughout history. I know there is also a theory that wings could've evolved from elongated back plates (Longisquama ...took me forever to find him... I've seen its picture, but never could remember the name
) or modified scales (Compsognathus). All could be considered
exaptations, scales modified for a new purpose. Biologists already preach that
bird feathers are modified scales made from keratin... why then is the evolution
of the feather a big debate? 
I guess its because we only know from what the feathers came from, not where.
Here's something I found if anyone's interested on scales, feathers, and their evolution originating from the skin and scales:
http://www.usm.maine.edu/bio/courses/bio205/08_integument.html
I hope I'm not too much of a bother but I was thinking further back to the point where amphibious organisms took to the land. According to the site below, wings evolved from 'articulated gill plates' in fish but it doesn't elaborate on it. This is of course one of quite a few theories currently trying to explain the evolution of the wing.
http://www.nurseminerva.co.uk/adapt/evolutio.htm
BTW, not sure if any of you have forgotten about this but today, November 11, is armistice day. If you don't know, that was when both warring sides in World War 1 signed a ceasefire approximately 89 years ago. I should know, I have a deep interest in that subject.
The evolutionary tree/cladistics way and not with convergent evolutionary way, right? Ok, so... I think scientists have called wings exaptations (an adaptation that is kept but used for another purpose than originally intended... might have to check a dictionary). To my knowledge, the development of wings was a display in macroevolution. If you look at the tree, you'll see that there are many forms with transitional fossils.
If you support Archaeopteryx as being the first dinosaur with wings, then it all began with the Dromaeosaurid dinosaurs (Deinonychus or Veceloraptor or any other "raptor"). They began as diapsid dinosaurs. Which one in particular, I don't know. They are supposed to be part of the first of the bird lineage. These dinosaurs had something with the way that they used their forearms and the actual bones, their structures, and their movements.
Now I know that there were Pterosaurs, but the bone structure in the two different groups were different. Also, Pterosaurs were gliding, not actual flying ((i.e. Pterosaurs were like an Albatross and the Dromaeosaur decendants would be like a House Sparrow... Albatrosses must have enough lift and glide more than fly. They are usually found on cliff faces since they cannot produce enough lift with their wings for actual flight... in class we called it "dynamic soaring." Sparrows are obviously better adapted for flight. However, I do want to point out that sparrow actually have very complex flight abilities.)) They believe that Archaeopteryx was only able to glide and fly primitively. However, newer forms adapted having better flight forms. Pterosaurs did not adapt much further and continued to "dynamically soar."
Sinornis, Confuciusornis (resembles Archaeopteryx by having claws but had the first beak without teeth... however its family branch stops soon afterwards), and Ichthyornis all improved in their flight forms and abilities. I will say that there were also quite a few "flightless" birds on the evolutionary tree too (i.e. Hesperornis and Diatryma... Diatryma being one that's head was as big as a horse and is thought to have been a predator to early man.) I think the flightless bird ancestors were the ancestors of the Ratite Family of birds (penguins, kiwi, and ostriches).
Did I answer your question?
merged: 11-11-2007 ~ 09:30am
I
think the red arrows are where they are showing that they meant to place
Archaeopteryx. ^^ Hope I helped.
I found this picture... maybe it might help a little.
Here's another question I've got and again, I thank you for your time: What evolutionary path did the wing traverse?
Heck yeah. Its very important for the building blocks for evolution since it produces the actual genetic variation seen throughout history. When the cells divide, there can be so many possibilities for "accidental changes" within the process of DNA replication. Then you have the genetic recombination afterwards... there is so much room for error... leading to many different ways of having some sort of variation. Any of it could be due to the recombination: paring of chromosomes, replication of DNA, replication of cells and some genetic material from one cell is lost from one and gained by another, or even a mutation somewhere inbetween process somehow. I'm only describing what I can think of relating to gametes.
I'm can't even begin to think of all the ways that variation can find its way into a newly fertilized zygote/embryo. Not only do you have the two different gametes coming together and mixing to make one organisim, but all of the replication and division within that process itself and all the possibilities for genetic variation there is also beyond my scope. Getting everything to replicate perfectly (even though there are specific things that are supposed to be a back up like RNA, that itself could be flawed or changed because of a mutation), the lining up of the chromosomes, the actual pairing of chromosomes and sister chromotids, or even the splitting itself (like I said earlier with the possibility of a loss or gain in genetic information that way).
OH! I also thought about gene expression by itself. Those individual variations in that would also have a big role in evolutionary changes. You can have a child that has a dibilitating disease, but not show it because the gene was turned off. The opposite is also the same for one who's gene is turned on. That's why many parents have tests done to see if they're carrying specific genes. I'm not sure if they know if the gene will be turned on or off (I highly doubt they can tell that), but I know that many people debate that who know they are at a high risk of passing something like that along to their possible children.
I would personally like to know if I somehow did have some corrupted gene like that. I do never want to bring a child into this world that won't live for more than a few months or will live their whole life not being able to live it like I'd want them to... that is, if I had the ability to know before hand wether I had a dysfunctional gene like that. To me, knowingly bring a child into the world and knowing that they would not live very long or be horribly sick all their life is selfish. Its selfish to want so much to have a child that you'd not even care about their quality of life.
Yes,
I want to eventually pass on my genes/herritage to a child, but there are so
many children out there who could be adopted and need a loving home. I don't
want to sound weird or anything, just know that this is only my opinion and I'd
be happy to expand upon it if anyone asks. I think I've actually posted this
little opinion in a thread not so long ago...
Its really mind boggling how many different ways things can change. I can't believe I didn't think of this last night.
LOL I haven't had to think like this in quite some time. Its kinda fun, but at the same time, my head kinda hurts.
I looked up Meiosis and I think that it would play a role in speciation/evolution. Would I be correct in saying this?... Sorry, the curiosity is killing me and you're a biologist... Makes me want to major in biology...
The article also seems to talk about the possibity of mutation causing new genetic information to be formed. Wow. "There is no known natural process for generating new, more complex, traits." ...however, there are still many examples of which this has happened. As in, no other explaination other than the mutation causing new genetic information to be made. Also, I wonder... with the translocation of genes along the same chromosome... could be creating a "new species"?
"Where such 'improvements' have been investigated on a molecular basis, researchers have found that the 'new' trait is not due to the appearance of a new protein, but the modification of an existing one." Modifications in existing genes create new and "improved" traits in some animals and plants... (there are lots of examples of this where humans in labs have done this artificial specitation to improve crops and other things.) Perhaps its more of these modifications rather than "random mutations" throughout history that account for most of the variation within specific populations... Also I wonder if perhaps the movement of these genes within the chromosomes could be thought of as a 'mutation' of sorts? I'm sure many people would agree with that.
I believe that in closed populations where new genetic information isn't likely to come into the population from an outside source (if you put inbreeding occuring in the population aside), that the translocation of genes on the chromosome might be the only way that the population might have any speciation within that closed breeding system. Genetically speaking, other than a different kind of 'mutation' within the DNA itself, polyploidy (in sympatric speciation) not using the extra chromosomes, or perhaps loss of genetic information within the chromosome...
Most of what I was talking about I think is just allopatric/geographical isolational speciation. If I were to talk a little about sympatric speciation in reference to the article... it would work for that too... with the extra genes and chromosomes doubling.
...I hope I made some kind of sense in what I wrote, I'm really tired right now.
I didn't get to finish my complete thought, but I can't think
anymore. I've begun to talk in circles. 
This article demonstrates that natural selection is a valid mechanism since there exists little difference between artificial and natural selection. Depending on what definition of Creationism you go by, this shows that a species can change overtime with the right selective pressures contrary to the belief that all creatures were created as they are today.
Well, as they say, don't count your chickens before they hatch. Also, I'm unsure how this would disprove evolution and such. If scientists fail, I wouldn't be surprised since this isn't a simple undertaking.
It's been going on for some time now. Just post your opinion here and hopefully, he'll believe a Chrisitian scientist... unless your not of the "right" sect of Christianity. LOL!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp
BTW, the website Persocom01 provided (above) is quite interesting. Do you know of a way in which genetic information is accumulated overtime because I am unfamiliar with the genetic side of evolution or with genetics in general... I didn't pay much attention during my 9th grade biology class.
The argument made in this website is that although speciation does occur, we don't get new animals or new genetic information, only animals which cannot interbreed. My belief is that speciation that can be seen occurs after MANY years of species isolation and continued variation between isolated populations with different exterior pressures although I'm unsure about the genetic part. What's your thought yothsothgoth?
Hmm during my long absence, I did quite a number of things, including a debate about the moral law on another forum, multiple exams in my university, and a visit to Chiang Mai, Thailand. I visited Doi Suthep, the most famous temple in the city. According to my tour guide, Mr Ball, (he was quite a friendly guy - as expected from a tour guide) although Thailand Buddhists 'worship' Buddha, the do not believe him to be a God, and are thus Atheists. (by alexjohnc3's and Shinsengumi89's definition) Just outside the inner temple they also 'worship' a statue of the hermit from whom the name of the mountain was derived, as well as a number of other inanimate entities I don't recognise.
A picture of some cute Mong kids =) Mong is the name of a Chinese hill tribe.
Other comments:
*cough cough* I'm amused enough that they actually said "challenged the theory of creationism", but to make things worse, they actually think that dog breeding is evidence against creationism. This is a kind of strawman argument so old the AiG article for it is dated 1996: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp
I'm personally very disappointed by the extremely poor quality of evidence for Darwinistic Evolution. (for example dog breeding) Let's also remind ourselves that some evidence against evolution should be ready in 3-10 years time: Scientists Believe Artificial Life Will Be Possible in 3 to 10 Years - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293764,00.html , since evolution pretty much always fails in real life anyway.
"Evolution isn't a reality, it's a fantasy."
I've used this line before... and I will again in reference to the newest of kingray's mortifying posts:
"A narrow mind has a broad tongue."
Firstly....what the hell is atheist scientist?
Not only is that the biggest load of crap I've ever read in regards to homosexuals, but in one part he actually supports natural selection, almost leads into evolution......I doubt that was his intention so he's obviously just typing out his rear.
I'd love to help with the debate, but where is the debate? Is it a private one or is there a thread that I'm missing?
I have some good articles that scientifically explain the gaps in
transitional fossils and some information I know from my textbooks on several
specific species. 
I would have to agree with you in the belief that all fossils are transitional ones. They are only that, to the extent of the fact that all species are constantly evolving (at whatever rate of reproduction and evolutionary influences/finess needs/etc). I can discuss this further if you let me know where you'd like me to post. ^^
Lol, if you dont know where to find a list, I'll post one for you. He already rejected it as false for whatever reason, picking out one that he says was disproven and shunning the rest. Good on you is you can get anything through his thick skull.
Fish to Amphibians
Tiktaalik roseae
Osteolepis
Eusthenopteron
Panderichthys
Elginerpeton
Obruchevichthys
Hynerpeton
Tulerpeton
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega
Pederpes finneyae
Eryops
Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)
Proterogyrinus
Limnoscelis
Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus
Paleothyris
Synapsid (mammal-like "reptiles") to mammals
Protoclepsydrops
Clepsydrops
Dimetrodon
Procynosuchus
Thrinaxodon
Yanoconodon
Diapsid reptiles to birds
Yixianosaurus
Pedopenna
Archaeopteryx
Changchengornis
Confuciusornis
Ichthyornis
Evolution of whales
Pakicetus
Ambulocetus
Kutchicetus
Artiocetus
Dorudon
Basilosaurus
Eurhinodelphis
Mammalodon
Evolution of the horse
Hyracotherium
Mesohippus
Parahippus
Merychippus
Pliohippus
Equus
Non-human apes to modern humans
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
Ardipithecus
Australopithecus
Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Yothsothgoth, I am currently participating in a very arduous debate with KingRay over transitional fossils, among other things. My argument is that most, if not, all fossils are TFs to varying degrees and KR claims there are no such things as TFs. Your input would be greatly appreciated since he doesn't believe the "Atheist scientists".
An observation about reality that challenges the literal interpretation on something in the Bible?! That's unheard of! :P
Yeah, that's the one I heard about. It turns out it's actually an optical illusion. The ground is tilted and the horizon is blocked from view forcing you to use the surrounding areas as points of reference (which are tilted) so that it feels like you need to stand on your side in order to feel like you're standing up straight... Wow, now I feel like a "negative Nancy" (South Park reference, sorry).
Very interesting article on artificial selection.
There's a place in Santa Cruz, CA called "Mystery Spot" which is supposed to have weird gravity.
I can't think of exactly... but I think there are quite a few places like that. Also, there are places where rocks grow and move from year to year. Most of the places I've heard of are supposedly on *lay lines* or places where they say/think that the earth's magnetic lines are. ...might be able to find something about it on the internet somewhere.
No, I've never had a 'supernatural' event occur to me... I would've liked to have seen what you saw so I could investigate it also but... I wasn't there so...
Yeah, I remember 6/6/06... Nothing happened... Except that some women refused to give birth on that date and 'held it in', so to speak.
About that physics part, where are you talking about exactly because I have a feeling I've heard of the place.
I still rest with the theory of aliens or people with crazy technology messing with our minds for their own entertainment! :P
Also, the bird thing is kind of creepy, its like an omen... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH -.- Oh, that year during 6/6/06, math class, the overhead projector thing stopped working, the light suddenly turned off for like 10 seconds, and there was a sonic boom that shook the whole builiding, :P
There are still many things we have yet to find out, though it would be sort of fun to screw around with physics, though sort of scary too.
Where logic fails me, I usually think that its possibly due to things that have yet to be explained. Yes, I have my religious beliefs too... however, I also believe in other *unexplained* phenonomenon. Houses where people are injured by unxplained entities, places where gravity and physics seem to be backwards, seeing birds rapping on a window sil before someone's death, butterflies after someone's death... I believe that there are things that just can't be explained logically or by science. ...and personally, I'm okay with that. ^^ I will say that I'm not always comfortable with the idea, but I'm okay knowing that there are *unexplained* forces at work...