Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;268395]It's just too much of a coincidence not to be from a higher design. The odds of all this being like this by coincidence is so astronomical I don't have enough space to place the odds. How can science honestly overcome those odds?[/quote]Ultimately, my continuing belief in the Lord comes down to this. The theroy of evolution as it pertains to creating life says that life was begun through occurences of astronomically small probabilities. Ridiculously astronomically small. Would never, ever be duplicated again. But merely because it's possible, it's become a haven for "nonbelievers" who think that the Bible was a work of fiction.

The scientific method DEMANDS that an experiment be recreatable for it to be truly scientific. Evolution will likely never be recreated because of the nature of the theroy (A bunch of completely random occurences coming together just perfectly). So why Evolution would ever be passed off as "Scientific" is beyond me.

The much more logical explination is Creation, that instead of any random fluctuations of dumb luck, that there in fact IS a supremely intelligent being. Once it can be proven that creatures can be supremely intelligent (that is to have limitless knowledge), the rest of the Creation theroy makes perfect sense.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;268458]Ultimately, my continuing belief in the Lord comes down to this. The theroy of evolution as it pertains to creating life says that life was begun through occurences of astronomically small probabilities. Ridiculously astronomically small. Would never, ever be duplicated again. But merely because it's possible, it's become a haven for "nonbelievers" who think that the Bible was a work of fiction.

The scientific method DEMANDS that an experiment be recreatable for it to be truly scientific. Evolution will likely never be recreated because of the nature of the theroy (A bunch of completely random occurences coming together just perfectly). So why Evolution would ever be passed off as "Scientific" is beyond me.

The much more logical explination is Creation, that instead of any random fluctuations of dumb luck, that there in fact IS a supremely intelligent being.
[/QUOTE]

Evolution is not random, it took billions of years.

[QUOTE][COLOR="DarkRed"]Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process. The animals that are best at whatever they do-hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging-whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes. It's because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away from lions, and fish are so good at swimming.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Evolution is akin to the learning processes we go throughout our lives. We learn from our mistakes and make sure we pass on lessons learned (ala traits) and skills to our descendants. It's how we get smarter. It's how we will continue to get smarter.

[QUOTE]Once it can be proven that creatures can be supremely intelligent (that is to have [B]limitless knowledge[/B]), the rest of the Creation theory makes perfect sense.[/QUOTE]

Limitless implies infinite and you cannot define infinity. In essence what you have just said is that creation theory can never be proven.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=steveo395;268426]Schneed, how could you believe in evolution if you have never seen it happen. It has never been observed anywhere, not in a lab or in nature. Isn't that the same reason why you don't believe in God? I know some species have slightly changed to their environment, but they have never been changed into a new species. How could you then believe it if it has never been seen?[/quote]

Because there are fossil records that show a gradual development of ancestral apes to homo sapien man. Again, getting back to that incredibly dumbfounding analogy, you don't need to see the wind to know it's there.

I don't need to see cro magnun man to realize that he looks an awful lot like a cross between a man and a gorilla. The scientists have studied the fossils, and the overwhelming majority of them agree that humans in their present form came from apes. I mean how else can you explain why chimpanzees are so similar to humans?

Getting to Saden's point about me chilling the F out, lucky for him I'm pretty much coming to the end of the conversation, because pretty much everything that can be said has been said. I can totally dig someone's viewpoint on faith; if you have it, that's fine and it's very noble. Jsarno is a good guy to debate with and I appreciate his views, because while he's religious and I respect him for it, he also acknowledges the overwhelming probability that evolution is on the money. I can agree to disagree with any religious viewpoint. But when someone refuses to believe evolution is probably right? I'm sorry. I find that ignorant. It's like ignoring the work of gaggles of scientists. It's intellectually lazy, and frankly just plain stupid.

Evolution is not a belief. It is a theory. Theories have evidence to support them, even though they cannot be proven. There is such thing as being 99% sure a theory is correct. Not everything is 100% sure, and not everything is 0% sure. It's impossible to get to 100% sure on evolution, we don't have time machines. But scientists are 99% sure evolution is on the money; despite the fact that many of those scientists are religious. There's no reason that religious [B]belief[/B] and the [B]theory[/B] of evolution can't coexist. One is a theory, the other is a belief. They'll only conflict if you're one of those morons who believes every single thing in the Bible (book of Genesis) is true. Thankfully, there aren't many of those people left in the world. Progress is good.

I'm done on this topic. I part by saying religion is great. I don't believe in it, but if you do, good for you. Evolution however, is not a belief. It is a theory. And if you refuse to consider the overwhelming evidence in favor of it, then you truly are ignorant.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

god says he made man in his image.but he never said what that image was!
is'nt it plausable that after he created us in his image,we evolved out of his image to our current image???

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

My favorite argument for a "god" was the first cause argument. I've always loved it...

You woke up this morning because your alarm clock went off. Your alive because your parents had sex. Your parents are alive because their parents had sex.

Every cause has an effect, and if you trace every cause further and further back through time, to the big bang for instance, what happened before that?

What was the "First Cause" to set everything in motion.

It proves that reason itself is flawed, we live in a foward flowing "time" where every action has a re-action. The problem is that time cannot exist, it's a figment of our silly little brains, and an eternal entity is the logical explanation.

However I just proved that logic is flawed in itself... so now I proved that I can't prove anything, so that leaves me with catch 22 after catch 22. It's funny thinking we can actually know something... but the truth is... we can't "know" anything in the true sense of the word.

It's 2:00am. I'm going to bed.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

When in doubt, consult the Simpsons

[url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=QeqeNisXE2k]YouTube - The Simpsons - Myth of Creation[/url]

[url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=YKaaW8qtJ2U]YouTube - An Unbiased Comparison[/url]

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;268408]I also have the MBA in Finance. I also majored in math in college.

Masters or not, you're wrong.[/QUOTE]

Your previous post to this one had nothing to say about the content of my post...but I do agree with your assessment of evolution, and yes I am fully aware of how that happened. Just saying there is a bunch of holes. I think my whole point eluded you.

About this post...I am not...you'd know this if you tried my system. Funny how you're too afraid to even try. I gave you proof that it can work, and you ignored it. So yes, we are done with this subject because you're not willing to even look at the evidence.

ps- congrats on the MBA...I know it was the hardest thing I have done in my life, and I feel to do it you have to be a special person. Although I have to work twice as hard at school for some reason as others. That's why I feel it's an astronomical accomplishment.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;268724]ps- congrats on the MBA...I know it was the hardest thing I have done in my life, and I feel to do it you have to be a special person. Although I have to work twice as hard at school for some reason as others. That's why I feel it's an astronomical accomplishment.[/QUOTE]

Matty and I are special too! So is JoeRedskin, but in a different kind of way. But I always thought the hardest part of the MBA was getting in.

Ok, back to the Evolution Revolution

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;268415]Just wondering, where is it that your work begins at 2:00 pm New Mexico time? That's an interesting finance job. Sales maybe?[/QUOTE]

Actually it started at 3:30pm...I closed last night. Check out my profile...I am a restaurant manager for Chilis. Closes go from 3:30pm to 1:00am ish, 2:00am on friday and saturday night. Opens go from 7:30am to 5:30pm ish. This is why you'll notice I have some very early posts (2am) and sporatic appearances on here cause I work all the damn time. I'm wanting to get out of the business and back to banking.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=RobH4413;268521]My favorite argument for a "god" was the first cause argument. I've always loved it...

You woke up this morning because your alarm clock went off. Your alive because your parents had sex. Your parents are alive because their parents had sex.

Every cause has an effect, and if you trace every cause further and further back through time, to the big bang for instance, what happened before that?

What was the "First Cause" to set everything in motion.

It proves that reason itself is flawed, we live in a foward flowing "time" where every action has a re-action. The problem is that time cannot exist, it's a figment of our silly little brains, and an eternal entity is the logical explanation.

However I just proved that logic is flawed in itself... so now I proved that I can't prove anything, so that leaves me with catch 22 after catch 22. It's funny thinking we can actually know something... but the truth is... we can't "know" anything in the true sense of the word.

It's 2:00am. I'm going to bed.[/QUOTE]

This is a very good post. I often come to that conclusion and amuse myself by my conclusions. I have been round-abouts touching on this, but you summed it up well. Good post.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS;268726]Matty and I are special too! So is JoeRedskin, but in a different kind of way. But I always thought the hardest part of the MBA was getting in.

Ok, back to the Evolution Revolution[/QUOTE]

What do you mean..."getting in"? It's not like being accepted into Doctorate program.

I'm not saying, everyone with an MBA is special, and if you don't, then you're not. I just feel it was such a huge accomplishment for me, that I hold a high value on it. I apologize if I made anyone seem insignificant or small by my comment. That was not my intent.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;268731]What do you mean..."getting in"? It's not like being accepted into Doctorate program.

I'm not saying, everyone with an MBA is special, and if you don't, then you're not. I just feel it was such a huge accomplishment for me, that I hold a high value on it. I apologize if I made anyone seem insignificant or small by my comment. That was not my intent.[/QUOTE]

No I just meant applying to the different schools and getting accepted was the key. Once in, I felt like I didn't kill me to finish. Not like law school or med school where they kill you your first year to see what you're made of.

Either way, not really relevant to the overall topic of this thread. So I'll drop it.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

I actually thought my undergrad was tougher to get through. Longer program, more tedious type of work/tests.

Grad school was a different challenge, mainly being time management with juggling a full time job. I felt that the profs treated you different, more like an equal and as a result the classes were much more enjoyable. I liked the emphasis on original thought vs. just memorizing and spitting back info like in undergrad.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

My undergrad was a lot harder than grad school, as well. I think the professors tended to get on our asses a lot harder because they knew that if they didn't, we'd be back in our apartment playing beer pong all night. You're right, grad school professors didn't tend to push as hard.

Jsarno, there's just no way I can get through to you on your roulette system. I'll let these guys from the Wizard of Odds, with PhDs in statistics, do the explaining:

[url=http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html]♠The Truth about Betting Systems - by The Wizard of Odds[/url]

[QUOTE]The biggest gambling myth is that an event that has not happened recently becomes overdue and more likely to occur. This is known as the "gambler's fallacy." Thousands of gamblers have devised betting systems that attempt to exploit the gambler's fallacy by betting the opposite way of recent outcomes. For example, waiting for three reds in roulette and then betting on black. Hucksters sell "guaranteed" get-rich-quick betting systems that are ultimately based on the gambler's fallacy. None of them work. If you don't believe me here is what some other sources say on the topic.

A common gamblers' fallacy called 'the doctrine of the maturity of the chances' (or 'Monte Carlo fallacy') falsely assumes that each play in a game of chance is not independent of the others and that a series of outcomes of one sort should be balanced in the short run by other possibilities. A number of 'systems' have been invented by gamblers based largely on this fallacy; casino operators are happy to encourage the use of such systems and to exploit any gambler's neglect of the strict rules of probability and independent plays. -- Encyclopedia Britannica (look under "gambling.")
No betting system can convert a subfair game into a profitable enterprise... -- Probability and Measure (page 94, second edition) by Patrick Billingsley

The number of 'guaranteed' betting systems, the proliferation of myths and fallacies concerning such systems, and the countless people believing, propagating, venerating, protecting, and swearing by such systems are legion. Betting systems constitute one of the oldest delusions of gambling history. Betting systems votaries are spiritually akin to the proponents of perpetual motion machines, butting their heads against the second law of thermodynamcis. -- The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic (page 53) by Richard A. Epstein[/QUOTE]

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;268762]My undergrad was a lot harder than grad school, as well. I think the professors tended to get on our asses a lot harder because they knew that if they didn't, we'd be back in our apartment playing beer pong all night. You're right, grad school professors didn't tend to push as hard.

Jsarno, there's just no way I can get through to you on your roulette system. I'll let these guys from the Wizard of Odds, with PhDs in statistics, do the explaining:

[url=http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html]♠The Truth about Betting Systems - by The Wizard of Odds[/url][/QUOTE]



You wrote this on a previous thread:
[quote]No not directed at you, you are quality. We may butt heads, but I enjoy the discussions because you explain yourself, you consider opposing views, and you're civil.[/quote]
I appreciate your comments.
All I ask is you check out the proof I laid before you. That's it. Do you really think it's not even possible to find a loop hole in something? Just check it out, and if you still think that I'm wrong, then so be it. At least then I can honor your opinion on the subject. You say I consider opposing views, which I do...so if this is something you look for in a poster, why not practice it.
(I have seen you practice this in other areas, so why not here?)

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;268827]You wrote this on a previous thread:

I appreciate your comments.
All I ask is you check out the proof I laid before you. That's it. Do you really think it's not even possible to find a loop hole in something? Just check it out, and if you still think that I'm wrong, then so be it. At least then I can honor your opinion on the subject. You say I consider opposing views, which I do...so if this is something you look for in a poster, why not practice it.
(I have seen you practice this in other areas, so why not here?)[/quote]

I was planning on checking it out, but I didn't want to do it from the office. I didn't have enough time in my workday to devote to it.

I looked over your system and did what you said. I started with 5000. I put 5 on 2nd 12, 5 on 3rd 12, 5 on red, and 5 on odd. I repeated this exact betting pattern for 8 straight rolls. I was exactly breakeven after those 8 rolls. Then I began betting patterns like you said. The board shows the last 9 numbers to come up. So whenever I saw 6 or more blacks on the board, I doubled my money on black. Did the same thing when I saw 6 evens, 6 odds, or 6 reds. If I didn't see more than 6 of anything in the betting history, I went back to your original betting configuration.

After 40 rolls, I finished down 95 dollars. Reason? The wheel hit 00 or 0 three separate times, causing me to lose 25 on each one. So I was basically treading water aside from those hits on the green slots.

That's what happens. If you're going to tell me that you have to quit before 40 rolls, then you've proved my point. Over the long haul, the more spins you take, the more likely it is that you'll lose money.

If you don't like the system I used, give me another one and I'll try it. I won't try anything for less than 40 rolls, I'm looking to give it a real good test. If I rolled say 5 times and left the table up 20, I wouldn't be convinced at all. With only 5 rolls, I could have just simply gotten lucky. But if your system can win me money over the course of 40 rolls, then I'll be convinced.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

Atheist. "Reality wasn't created, it just is."

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;267726]Blah blah blah. Religion is simply something manifested by the human mind to provide comfort and solace when dealing with the unknown. Religion helps give humans the feeling that there is rhyme or reason to the world we live in. Religion provides the sense that there is a purpose to life: to live a good life and get into heaven. It provides comfort regarding the unknowns which humans face, like what happens to me when I die? Do I live on, or is the show over? Religion comforts humans; the presence of a higher power must surely mean that I'm in good hands, even when I'm entering the unknown: death.

People believe it because deep down they don't want to face the alternative: that when you die you go nowhere, your life is simply over. And that your life was not part of some grand scheme; you simply lived and died.

Those alternatives are scary, but they're the truth. Religion is just a crutch humans use to go about their daily lives in false comfort.[/QUOTE]

I couldnt disagree more,I think most people would be pretty damn happy if they didnt belive in a heaven or hell then they wouldnt have to worry about their actions on earth.It would make me happy as hell to know that once life ended that was it.
I've been going to church all my life but i wouldnt call myself a christian,been more or less forced to go by mom then married a christian and go occasionally for her sake.I feel like I'm a good person bit i'm afraid to die for fear of going to hell because of not doing everything the bible says or for not feeling the holy spirit like my wife and her fellow christians.
truth is I dont know what to believe anymore,I still pray almost everyday and ask God to protect my loved ones and so on,but then i think if there is a God he knows I'm full of shit and that i dont know whether I believe in him or not so the praying is probably for naught{but I'm still going to do it}
But getting back to the original point,it would make me happy to know that when you die that was it,but since we dont know I'm glad people believe in God because I think if they didnt this world would be a lot more fcked up then it is

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

The debate simplified:

A person of science wants to know where they came from, not where they are going.

A person of religion wants to know where they are going, not where they came from.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=htownskinfan;268857]I couldnt disagree more,I think most people would be pretty damn happy if they didnt belive in a heaven or hell then they wouldnt have to worry about their actions on earth.It would make me happy as hell to know that once life ended that was it.
I've been going to church all my life but i wouldnt call myself a christian,been more or less forced to go by mom then married a christian and go occasionally for her sake.I feel like I'm a good person bit i'm afraid to die for fear of going to hell because of not doing everything the bible says or for not feeling the holy spirit like my wife and her fellow christians.
truth is I dont know what to believe anymore,I still pray almost everyday and ask God to protect my loved ones and so on,but then i think if there is a God he knows I'm full of shit and that i dont know whether I believe in him or not so the praying is probably for naught{but I'm still going to do it}
But getting back to the original point,it would make me happy to know that when you die that was it,but since we dont know I'm glad people believe in God because I think if they didnt this world would be a lot more fcked up then it is[/quote]

I wouldn't call you religious, you have too many doubts about God's existence, heaven, hell, all that stuff. You are simply afraid of what might happen to you if it turns out there actually is a God.

Also, based on how fearful you are of God, I'm guessing you are either Catholic or Episcopalean?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

Something that kind of amuses me is that people tend to think that we have to come from somewhere like a creator, or omnipotent being, a god. But "God" is just omnipotent and doesn't need a creator. What great sense that makes...

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;268853]I was planning on checking it out, but I didn't want to do it from the office. I didn't have enough time in my workday to devote to it.

I looked over your system and did what you said. I started with 5000. I put 5 on 2nd 12, 5 on 3rd 12, 5 on red, and 5 on odd. [b]I repeated this exact betting pattern for 8 straight rolls.[/b] I was exactly breakeven after those 8 rolls. Then I began betting patterns like you said. The board shows the last 9 numbers to come up. So whenever I saw 6 or more blacks on the board, I doubled my money on black. Did the same thing when I saw 6 evens, 6 odds, or 6 reds. If I didn't see more than 6 of anything in the betting history, I went back to your original betting configuration.

After 40 rolls, I finished down 95 dollars. Reason? The wheel hit 00 or 0 three separate times, causing me to lose 25 on each one. So I was basically treading water aside from those hits on the green slots.

That's what happens. If you're going to tell me that you have to quit before 40 rolls, then you've proved my point. Over the long haul, the more spins you take, the more likely it is that you'll lose money.

If you don't like the system I used, give me another one and I'll try it. I won't try anything for less than 40 rolls, I'm looking to give it a real good test. If I rolled say 5 times and left the table up 20, I wouldn't be convinced at all. With only 5 rolls, I could have just simply gotten lucky. But if your system can win me money over the course of 40 rolls, then I'll be convinced.[/QUOTE]

I put in bold where you might have strayed from what I said. I didn't say to repeat it...I said stop playing the ones you win, and double the ones you lose. Did you do that and didn't explain that in your post? Or maybe I didn't explain myself well enough.
PS- I was VERY specific about leaving the table...so if you want to do a 40 roll example, there is no problem with that, just leave the table (ie: leave the website) then come back play again. That's what I do in real life, and that is what I preach to win in this system.
Also, you did not mention that you put $1 on 00 or 0 when they haven't hit after a while...did you do that? That was also in my instructions. I wasn't kidding when I said you HAVE to follow the instructions and not sway. If you do sway from the instructions, you will lose. You have to try to beat the odds through a loop hole, not beat it through straight odds...like you've pointed out, that won't work.

I went and played for EXACTLY 40 rolls, (leaving and coming back) and I "walked away" with $325. If you are losing, you're not doing it right. If you have the time, please print off the instructions, follow them, and try again. But like I said, you have to follow them 100%. Don't add your own instructions.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Rexi;268861]Something that kind of amuses me is that people tend to think that we have to come from somewhere like a creator, or omnipotent being, a god. But "God" is just omnipotent and doesn't need a creator. What great sense that makes...[/QUOTE]

OK, using your logic, then what did start everything? Knowing that life always has a beginning, it makes sense that something "non human" started it all. So I can understand you wanting to poke holes in the theory that God started it all, but what would add value to this conversation is your theory in what actually did start it all.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=htownskinfan;268857]I couldnt disagree more,I think most people would be pretty damn happy if they didnt belive in a heaven or hell then they wouldnt have to worry about their actions on earth.It would make me happy as hell to know that once life ended that was it.
I've been going to church all my life but i wouldnt call myself a christian,been more or less forced to go by mom then married a christian and go occasionally for her sake.I feel like I'm a good person bit i'm afraid to die for fear of going to hell because of not doing everything the bible says or for not feeling the holy spirit like my wife and her fellow christians.
truth is I dont know what to believe anymore,I still pray almost everyday and ask God to protect my loved ones and so on,but then i think if there is a God he knows I'm full of shit and that i dont know whether I believe in him or not so the praying is probably for naught{but I'm still going to do it}
But getting back to the original point,it would make me happy to know that when you die that was it,but since we dont know I'm glad people believe in God because I think if they didnt this world would be a lot more fcked up then it is[/QUOTE]

I agree...if everyone [b]knew[/b] that there were no repercussions for their actions, chaos would apply. I truely feel that everyone would be 100% out for themselves. I shouldn't say [i]everyone[/i], some would still have their own sense of right and wrong, but a lot would test the police.

If you pray to God, you do beleive in Him. Sure you have questions and doubt, but most everyone does. I don't pray to Mary, because I do not beleive her to be devine, or even there to listen. To me, she's just a dead person...a popular person in history, but a person none the less. I don't pray to her because I have absolutely no beleif in her...if I did, then I would. (this is in no way a slur on Catholics, just making a point). So obviously you do beleive in God somewhat. I would wager you just have difficulty understanding what MAN has taught you to this point. Even a little misguided because the bible can be overwhelming to understand.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;268860]I wouldn't call you religious, you have too many doubts about God's existence, heaven, hell, all that stuff. You are simply afraid of what might happen to you if it turns out there actually is a God.

Also, based on how fearful you are of God, I'm guessing you are either Catholic or Episcopalean?[/QUOTE]

haha! I wish i believed in the catholic religion because from what i understand someone like me would go to purgatory and other people could pray you into heaven and i've got a lot of people praying for me!lol
I might be wrong on that but thats what i heard
I was raised in the church of the nazerene,I guess i would call myself a protestant
oh,and I'm not afraid of God,I'm afraid of not meeting him!!!

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=htownskinfan;268890]
oh,and I'm not afraid of God,I'm afraid of not meeting him!!![/QUOTE]

You'll meet him, everyone will on judgement day. Hopefully Grace will save you like everyone else. So will God save Cowboys fans? Cause I can't stand the thought of having those guys around for eternity!
:D

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;268893]You'll meet him, everyone will on judgement day. Hopefully Grace will save you like everyone else. So will God save Cowboys fans? Cause I can't stand the thought of having those guys around for eternity!
:D[/QUOTE]

You want eternal serenity? Can you imagine how boring that would be? What better way to spend your time than snap your finger and get a game going between an All Cowboys team and an All Redskins team. This of course begs the question of weather clones or the real players will be paying in the game.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=saden1;268897]You want eternal serenity? Can you imagine how boring that would be? What better way to spend your time than snap your finger and get a game going between an All Cowboys team and an All Redskins team. This of course begs the question of weather clones or the real players will be paying in the game.[/QUOTE]

I know this, the bible says we have no idea of what heaven is like. I like to imagine heaven as my own greatest world. Everyone's heaven would be different.
I would imagine that since humans are flawed, there are a lot of us perfectionists in the world that can be happy for a minute, but ultimately always want more. So how can we be truely happy in that world? I don't know, maybe we'll be chemically altered? Just a thought though. What if heaven is the same for everyone?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;268878]I put in bold where you might have strayed from what I said. I didn't say to repeat it...I said stop playing the ones you win, and double the ones you lose. Did you do that and didn't explain that in your post? Or maybe I didn't explain myself well enough.
PS- I was VERY specific about leaving the table...so if you want to do a 40 roll example, there is no problem with that, just leave the table (ie: leave the website) then come back play again. That's what I do in real life, and that is what I preach to win in this system.
Also, you did not mention that you put $1 on 00 or 0 when they haven't hit after a while...did you do that? That was also in my instructions. I wasn't kidding when I said you HAVE to follow the instructions and not sway. If you do sway from the instructions, you will lose. You have to try to beat the odds through a loop hole, not beat it through straight odds...like you've pointed out, that won't work.

I went and played for EXACTLY 40 rolls, (leaving and coming back) and I "walked away" with $325. If you are losing, you're not doing it right. If you have the time, please print off the instructions, follow them, and try again. But like I said, you have to follow them 100%. Don't add your own instructions.[/quote]

OK I'll try it out with those modifications. If I hit on a bet, I will not bet it on the very next roll. Instead, I will double the ones I just lost on.

If I see that 0 or 00 have not come up within the last 9 rolls, I will put a dollar straddling the two of them.

When I am up, I will walk away from the website and come back. I will do this until I have rolled 40 times, and will let you know the results.

PS Let me know if I need to do anything differently.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;268915]OK I'll try it out with those modifications. If I hit on a bet, I will not bet it on the very next roll. Instead, I will double the ones I just lost on.

If I see that 0 or 00 have not come up within the last 9 rolls, I will put a dollar straddling the two of them.

When I am up, I will walk away from the website and come back. I will do this until I have rolled 40 times, and will let you know the results.

PS Let me know if I need to do anything differently.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like you seem to have it. Just remember, don't get greedy and you have to walk away.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;268880]OK, using your logic, then what did start everything? Knowing that life always has a beginning, it makes sense that something "non human" started it all. So I can understand you wanting to poke holes in the theory that God started it all, but what would add value to this conversation is your theory in what actually did start it all.[/quote]

If you can admit that something can be created without a creator (god) why not just skip a step and admit that we're created without a creator.

His logic is fine.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=RobH4413;269062]If you can admit that something can be created without a creator (god) why not just skip a step and admit that we're created without a creator.

His logic is fine.[/QUOTE]

No, I am not admitting that something can be created without a creator. I am admitting that something has to be "devine" or superhuman to be created without a creator. There is a big difference there.
The ONLY thing that was created without a creator was God.

So again I ask, if God didn't make it, then who or what did? Something had to have started it all, so who / what was it?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;269056]Sounds like you seem to have it. Just remember, don't get greedy and you have to walk away.[/quote]

OK, so when should I walk away from the table? After getting up by $25? Or maybe $50?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;269070]No, I am not admitting that something can be created without a creator. I am admitting that something has to be "devine" or superhuman to be created without a creator. There is a big difference there.
The ONLY thing that was created without a creator was God.

So again I ask, if God didn't make it, then who or what did? Something had to have started it all, so who / what was it?[/quote]

Better question (which I posed many posts ago but has gone unanswered):

Who says the universe was ever actually created? Why couldn't it have just always existed?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;269085]OK, so when should I walk away from the table? After getting up by $25? Or maybe $50?[/QUOTE]

It really has more to do with the patterns, but they are hard to explain. So just try my beginner lesson I gave and walk away after you're done winning on each area.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;269089]Better question (which I posed many posts ago but has gone unanswered):

Who says the universe was ever actually created? Why couldn't it have just always existed?[/QUOTE]

I already answered this...all of our known world had a beginning. Everything you know had a beginning. That's what science tells us, so of course it is very natural to believe that there is no way it just always existed. Something had to have made it.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;269190]I already answered this...all of our known world had a beginning. Everything you know had a beginning. That's what science tells us, so of course it is very natural to [B]believe[/B] that there is no way it just always existed. Something had to have made it.[/quote]

So based on your observations that everything IN our world has a beginning and an end, you BELIEVE that something had to have given a beginning to our world.

That's my point, that's your belief. Doesn't make it so.

And science does not tell us everything has a beginning. I'm not sure where you're getting that? Perhaps you could explain that one to me? One of the laws of thermodynamics is that matter cannot be created out of thin air or destroyed. You can separate it into tiny atoms, but you can't get rid of it. Likewise, you can't create it.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Schneed10;268468]Because there are fossil records that show a gradual development of ancestral apes to homo sapien man. Again, getting back to that incredibly dumbfounding analogy, you don't need to see the wind to know it's there.[/quote]
What about how there are tons of holes in the fossil record? And how come you can use that analogy for evolution, but someone else can't use it for religion?

[quote]I don't need to see cro magnun man to realize that he looks an awful lot like a cross between a man and a gorilla. The scientists have studied the fossils, and the overwhelming majority of them agree that humans in their present form came from apes. I mean how else can you explain why chimpanzees are so similar to humans?[/quote]
Because they came from the same designer.

[quote]Getting to Saden's point about me chilling the F out, lucky for him I'm pretty much coming to the end of the conversation, because pretty much everything that can be said has been said. I can totally dig someone's viewpoint on faith; if you have it, that's fine and it's very noble. Jsarno is a good guy to debate with and I appreciate his views, because while he's religious and I respect him for it, he also acknowledges the [B]overwhelming probability that evolution is on the money.[/B] I can agree to disagree with any religious viewpoint. But when someone refuses to believe evolution is probably right? I'm sorry. I find that ignorant. It's like ignoring the work of gaggles of scientists. It's intellectually lazy, and frankly just plain stupid.[/quote]
Do you realize how small the odds are against the first cell being formed by amino acids randomly coming together? Just for [I]one protein[/I] to form in an ideal atmosphere given 100 billion years is estimated to be 1 in 10^67.
[url=http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html]Origin of life, does evolution supply the answers?[/url]
And I don't feel like hearing your crap that this is a christian website. It is made up of scientific facts.

[quote]Evolution is not a belief. It is a theory. Theories have evidence to support them, even though they cannot be proven. There is such thing as being 99% sure a theory is correct. Not everything is 100% sure, and not everything is 0% sure. It's impossible to get to 100% sure on evolution, we don't have time machines. But scientists are 99% sure evolution is on the money; despite the fact that many of those scientists are religious. There's no reason that religious [B]belief[/B] and the [B]theory[/B] of evolution can't coexist. One is a theory, the other is a belief. They'll only conflict if you're one of those morons who believes every single thing in the Bible (book of Genesis) is true. Thankfully, there aren't many of those people left in the world. Progress is good.

I'm done on this topic. I part by saying religion is great. I don't believe in it, but if you do, good for you. Evolution however, is not a belief. It is a theory. And if you refuse to consider the overwhelming evidence in favor of it, then you truly are ignorant.[/quote]
Basically all of evolution has been unproven, so you're basically just making things up. You are being ignorant for not looking at all of the facts.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;269189]It really has more to do with the patterns, but they are hard to explain. So just try my beginner lesson I gave and walk away after you're done winning on each area.[/quote]

OK so here's what I did:

I started with 5 on 2nd 12, 5 on 3rd 12, 5 on red, and 5 on odd. From there, I watched what won and lost. If I won on something, I didn't bet it the next time and I doubled my money on the ones that I didn't win on. I kept doing this based on the patterns, and walked away when I got up. I also put a dollar straddling the 0 and 00 on occasion.

After 8 rolls, I got up by $50 and walked away.

Then I came back, and after 11 rolls I got up by $50 and walked away.

Then I came back, and after 14 rolls, I lost $120. It came up 00 on my very first roll, and I didn't have a $1 on it (because it was my first roll). Then 0 came up three rolls later, and again, since the green squares hadn't hit in a while, I didn't have $1 on it. So after losing $120, I figured the table was cold, so I got up and walked away.

I came back, and with my final 8 rolls, I lost $5.

Overall, I lost $25.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

Just a note about the odds of life...

It's easy to present extreme odds of life as evidence of a creator. However, you must also apply the same logic in reverse.

Our sun sustains life on Earth. There are billions upon billions of stars in our galaxy -- each possibly capable of sustaining life in their own capacity. There are billions upon billions of galaxies in the universe. So, that is billions upon billions times billions upon billions of possible environments able to sustain life. What's a billion squared? I don't know, but it's a number so large we can't really comprehend it.

So, let's assume that the odds of life are around 100 billion to one (pretty liberal, I know). That would mean that for every 100 billion environments able to sustain life, there would be one of them which actually does sustain life -- and there are FAR more stars in the universe than 100 billion.

The point is: there are SO many stars in the universe, each possibly capable of sustaining life, that even if the odds of life are incredible, the colossal number of stars in the universe offset those odds significantly.