Tagred

Why this leads me to say there is no god, is because there is a mountain of evidence to say there isnt one. We dont need a god, that is a creation of man, without man there is no god. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to say there is a god. The attack on the twin towers was precisely because of religion. Indeed you can read many passages in the bible that says similar things to islam, to totally destroy anything that does not conform to the will of this so called god. The bible tells christians to kill, to allow women to be raped, practice infanticide, and torture. Again, the notion that good or bad is down to a religious belief is a falacy. Our notion of good and bad is from the evolutionary process that has nothing to do with a deity. Interstingly, the top countries reported by the UN to have the best standard and quality of life are those that are secular or indeed atheistic in tone, such as Norway and Sweden. Again i think an earlier poster's view that "godless" societies are predisposed to evil is wrong. You dont need god or religion to be good, god is unimportant as a guide for moral standards, since the bible very often teaches the opposite. This thing simply doesnt exist.

Actually Hitler had stated many times in his speeches that he was a Christian, and that he believed in God. Whether that was just rhetoric or not is arguable. Please point out where in the guinness book of records it shows number of dead caused by atheism and number of dead caused by religion. How many godless philosophical countries are there? Lets take a look at just a tiny bit of what religion has done in murdering people. In india, 4 million people were killed precisely because of religious divide Islam - need we say any more about the twin towers, or about the moors, or what about the Ottoman empire What about christianity - holy roman empire, spanish & italian inquisitions, crusades, the killing of doctors who perform abortions, salem witch trials. What about jews, when told to take over some cities, told to utterly destroy them and everyone inside including women and children early in their history (if the bible is to be believed) Where does the moralisation come then? Stalin done that because he was godless? What about those who do that because they have a god? The whole concept of good and evil has nothing to do with religion, we don't need any scriptures to define what is good or bad, we can be atheists and still be moral and ethical, religion is not a path to good, nor does (especially the bible) teach much difference in good or bad. Indeed, if you need a handbook in to practising genocide, how to commit rape, destroy cities, vilify those who dont believe the same as you, then the bible has it in spades. It is because of peoples faith in religion that so many attrocities have happened and will continue. People do evil things because they believe in their religion and think that the scriptures tell them. So the argument that people are bad because they are atheist is utterly wrong. Im an atheist and evolutionist and proud of it, yet i have no compunction to murder, i help people. The notion of good and bad is a consequence of the evolutionary process not religion.

I disagree. god hadn't given anyone any free will of choice. If there ever was such a thing as god then the so called "choice" was worship me or i'll make sure your afterlife is hell, so to speak, what sort of choice is that. Then we get the caveats from Catholicism that says its ok to repent everything on your deathbed and everything will be fine, so some of us hedge our bets and no matter how cruel or nasty we were, we say a few quick hail maries, and bobs your uncle, in through the pearly gates. The accepted age of Earth is approx 4.5-4.6 billion yrs. There is no heaven or hell, and there is no devil. if there was a god, he is one and the very same person. in fact the bible has more stories of the nasty stuff god did to his supposed children than the devil. No, god and the devil are the same thing, there is no difference. if there is a god it is cruel, ruthless, vengeful, and down right nasty. God does not need angels, or annointed ones, he is omnipotent, what does good need with anything apart from himself. The whole misprinted, misrepresented, hidden remade, rehashed, selected, multi-authored books of the bible are nothing more than a collection of stories made to control masses of illiterate people of the time. The mention of a satan figure only tries to support conformance to a particular idea.

You are quite right, the dead sea scrolls pre-date Jesus, a goat herder found the first in 1947. Dating from 35BC to 200 BC or so. Yet, the old testament has contradictory stories in itself, and as you move on through the books, it can't be said that Moses wrote them. Such fundamental differences on the "creation" of adam & eve. And quite a few of the dead sea scrolls were not included in the old testament, because the Essenes weren't keen on them. The bible old or new testament is not in its full form. It has been picked and chosen over hundreds of years finally resulting in the accepted version people read now. There is one other irony; that people are happy to believe science when it says they pre-date Jesus, yet completely refutes the very same science for other things, for say like the age of the Earth. Still, since god is absolute and perfect in every way, he planned satan, and nothing that satan does is against god's plan, surely then as gods creation, satan cannot be evil, and god planned for man to be cast out. If satan was an annointed one of god, wouldnt god know the type of being he was having as his right hand? Wouldn't god make sure that his closest would sing from the same hymm sheet as it were? (no pun intended). In my opnion if there was a god, then god is both good and evil, god is the ultimate power, and does not need to fight against evil, because it can just get rid of it. Or on the other hand, gods wants there to be an "evil." Kind of calls into question the whole point of putting temptation. why would he want to test his creation if he knew it was good? And why threaten those with much smiting who were given the choice not to believe. hmmm, confusing

In any case, it's all a human construct imo. The old testament has many stories that completely contradict each other, and besides, all the books were written long after jesus was killed, just as the new testaments were, which seem to be adaptations of the previous versions of the books before, changing the stories or embelishing them for whatever reason is unclear

But surely if god was all powerful and all knowing, it was part of the plan to cast out man and satan? Surely therefore it was god's design. It is isnteresting that there are more than one version of genesis and how man was created.

Well, there is an interesting saying i've heard a few times over the years, it kinda goes like this. Kill 1 man, you're a murderer Kill 10 men, you're a serial killer Kill thousands you're a tyrant Kill millions, and you are a god. Since god is accepted as having all knowledge and being all powerful, it would mean that satan was part of god's plan. And since we are supposed to rejoice in all of god's creation, then surely the presence of satan should also be celebrated. In my opinion, satan is god and vice versa, they are one and the same thing.

the problem with logic is that it is not always scientific, or good logic. For instance; "Einstein didn't do well in school, therefore any kid who does poorly in school is like Einstein." It seems logical but not very scientific. and using bad logic myself ;), it seems that religious doctrines are full of bad logic and very light on scientific data. Which is why I think it has no place in the science classroom. I suppose you could sort of merge them into a philosophy class though.

1) In terms of the terraines they were formed early on in earth history (relatively). And terraines as most geologist would know them (at least the years of my study) were normally restricted to central land masses. Although I gather the goal posts can be moved, which is no bad thing. 2) Absolutely right, but in general terms density of continental rock is lighter than oceanic. trying to keep within the question, maybe im being too generalistic 3) I purposely added the caveat not including any other fault system. In subduction zones oceanic rock will always subduct under continental. I tried to reply in the context of the question rather than add perhaps more confusion. I could have gone into minute details of the whole convection & tectonic cycle but though it best to keep it at a "general" level to answer the question. Perhaps I was wrong. I need to read more posts on this forum, and gather more info as to what amounts of detail and qualification is needed to avoid confusing others and embarrassing myself. Please excuse me if I'm not up to standard just yet, i need a little time ;) . I hate being technical when theres no need and vice versa. :doh:

As someone who is probably diametrically opposite to your views on creation etc, I would agree with you on this. Science to be taught in science class and theology or any sort of religious beliefs should be taught within the RE class, if not anything else but to keep it within its own context.

1. Though not ALL terrains are of the same age most continental rock was formed early on in earth's evolution. 2. Not too sure what its asking but, continental rocks are different in composition and density to oceanic rock again, micro terranes could be the last remnants of previous continental drift episodes 3. I would disagree that upwellings are driven by the sinking of lithosphere. Upwellings, hotspots, spreading centres etc are a result of either a wekaness or increased activity below the oceanic crust and when heated are less dense than cool rock, which is why at spreading centres you see ridges, as it spreads out it is eroded, cooled and increases in density. Subduction of oceanic lithosphere is a driver of continental drift however, along with spreading centres. Oceanic rock will always subduct under continental rock because of density (without going into any other fault systems) I think that passage doesnt describe enough about either convection systems of continental drift, it seems more like a half explanation for both, if u know what i mean.

I voted the second no ;) Anywho, ID isnt exactly a science so it shouldn't be in a science class. When you have states like Atlanta that stamp high school biology books with "evolution is a theory not a fact" on them it makes you think exactly what the governors are trying to do. Taking the No Child Left Behind Act to extremes is not science. Creationism should be left in the realms of RE and other philosophical teachings. It infuriates me when the word "theory" is completely misunderstood by those who use pretty much the same arguments to prove the existance of a divine being through "logical assumption" Of course evolution is a thoery, by definition it can never be proven, most scientific thinking will always be theory even though there might be overwhelming evidence that might never be contradicted. No, keep creationism for those who can't accept that humans are just another organism on this planet in religious context and not in the science clasroom. Surely this would increase the brain drain and slow down the progress of science and technology?

One of the funniest things i've read in a while. Just shows the irony of organised religion imo.

All very interesting facts and figures, beautifully crafted arguments against the need to have any alternative sources of energy. But the simple fact is that they will come to noaught when carbon based fuels will no longer be sufficient to choke the atmosphere of its biggest user. Carbon based fuels are finite. When they do become uneconomical what would the proponents of it recommend as alternatives? I think there is still some near sightedness going on. Of course it would be nice if we could increase our use of hydrocarbons tenfold say, especially in the developing countries, help them go through the development process we've all blundered our way through and never worry about where energy is coming from, but it remains that new energy must be sought from somewhere. There are some good arguments here about how much damage a wind farm would be to ecologies, and how much toxic chemicals and resources used in their manufacture. The simple truth is that it is a fraction of the resources used to design, develop, build and maintain any hydrocarbon power generator. The near sightedness I think comes in because people are unwilling to see that these technologies move forward. Wind turbines are more efficient now than they were 10yrs ago, and they continue to develop, it is the same with pv's, and they will continue to be more efficient. Surely people who work within the oil industry can acknowledge that you do not get a 100% efficient system by initial design. They above all are looking for cheaper and more effective ways of getting oil/coal from the ground. At best 40% efficient right now, 30yrs ago lucky if the managed to get 35% out of the rocks. Nuclear fission stations are a cheap way of getting electricity sure, but then they are expensive to build and have 30yr lifespans by design. The waste has to be gotten rid off, either to the UK or some defined geological inert area, for cheap electricity fine, but for long tern use is no good. Wind/wave and other alternative power generation is feasible, and will be economical and will provide whats needed. We will not need to cover the planet with wind farms, they are by default limited to certain areas. In the UK wind farms are also offshore, with some more huge farms proposed, so there will be no impact to ecologies, indeed their footprints will enhance oceanic environments. I can understand why people dont like the idea of alternative fuels, we are used to guzzling 5miles /gallon, wasting fuel because we can, we dont care what happens to other nations because we are concerned about our pleasant energy rich homes. But, in the near future, alternatives must be sought and developed whether we like it or not.

OK, not free but close :eek2: For Iceleland their average domestic cost in 2003 was $130p.a http://www.statice.is/?pageid=1253&src=/temp_en/visitolur/neysla.asp For the UK electricity, i got that completely wrong, I apologise. There is a target to achieve 10% wind energy by 2010 rising to 15% by 2015. Think I should really check my sources properly next time :xx:

efficiencies are increasing on a yearly basis. You can get approx. 60% energy conversion in some small cases at the moment. For a national use it is a way off yet to be viable 1million times the energy in coal per kilogram. Although I agree, waste could be an issue. Maybe good for short term use. Exciting prospects, probably still 30yrs or so to go (if possible) but i believe it is something worth investigating, at least so we can prove that it is feasible or not. 10% or UK's energy is derived from wind power. Which will be rising to 20% by 2015. Limited to certain geographical areas though, and not good for many places. FYI, currently 20% of UK's energy is derived from nuclear power. Studies in the UK are delivering good results from wave power, but huge areas are needed. If it can work then I agree with you. Already used in Iceland to generate electricity and hot water. The Icelanders do not have electric bills. I would have no idea so wont comment on that. Apart from giving us a warm feeling inside, i think its pretty unlikely. The chap seems to like to drown us once in a while though :eek2:

I dont understand what point you are trying to make. The point of sustainable development is that resources are used effectively and efficiently. Weight means absolutely nothing in these terms. The fact is that the energy resources we currently have cannot sustain human baing for an indefinate period of time. Of course, we dont need to worry about it now or for the next 50-75yrs or so, why should we, we will be in the ground. The fact that oil reserves are limited, means that sometime in the future humans will have to find alternative cleaner technologies to solve the problem. None of the new technologies that may solve the problem will appear overnight, and probably not be economic for at least another couple of decades, couple that with the vested interests and lobbying of energy producing companies, it will take longer. When there are brownouts and blackouts such as you see in the American eastern seaboard, and when they become more common than not, then there will be moves towards finding these technologies. But why not do the work now of being able to have the ability to solve these issues before they become real major problems. Like all technologies they have to start somewhere, and they will not be efficient enough at the beginning, but they will be. Almost all technologies improve and evolve through time, it is far better to plan than to be forced into it. Of course we could use nuclear technology, which pound for pound is 1million times more efficient than coal or oil. But then, do you want a nuclear waste facility in your back yard? Clearly you do not know what sustainability is. Managed forests do not exclude fauna, nor should they. It would be appreciated if you could take the post within its context. Wood, is a good example of sustainability, it has zero net loss of carbon, indeed in some farms there is a net lowering of carbon to atmosphere. The cycle when managed correctly has little atmospheric impact. I used wood as an example of sustainability, in no way am I proporting that that should be used as an energy resource. You stated that sustainability is Luddism, care to explain how? Im sure people said exactly the same thing with the spinning jenny. Technologies move on, more effective and efficient systems developed. That is what sustainable development is partly about. Yes it is. How would you propose to develop a technology that will have clear benefits? Surely we cannot just make a nano-bot to manipulate on the atomic scale from scratch? We have to start somewhere, and as it's developed more applications will be realised. I'm sure you would appreciate that without minimisation and downscaling that we would still be sitting at our desks using Coloussus to surf the net. Nanotechnology is being researched in biotechnology as well as electronic applications, it is achievable and given time will be done. So? The USA is the world largest energy consumer and worlds largest waste producer. By developing nuclear fusion technologies, wind, wave power or any other cleaner technologies, the energy requirements could be easily fullfilled. What is going to happen to the USA when the reserves of oil in the Middle East, and southern US start to run dry? It is simply not sustainable, when its gone, its gone. Surely it would be better for the future to have something to turn to when the USA can no longer invade or economically strangle another country for its energy resources, but that's a different thread.

Hi I'm new to this site and there seems to be a good few discussions :eek2: I had to register to reply to UncleAl's post, because I think he may be misinformed on a few subjects. Firstly nanotechnology is something that is being and has being acheived, it will take more time and resources to get to the level where it can be true nanotech, so it isn't something that doesnt exist, and it is something that can be achieved. Secondly, sustainable development is in no way Luddism, it is a practical approach to managing limited resources for long term use. Perfect example of unsustainable living can be seen on Easter Island where the inhabitants used every resource and ended up as a small collection of cannibals before being discovered. Poverty: I find that a rather naive commenti. Take the 5million or so children dying in Africa on a yearly basis. Each starving family cannot make good their existence, no matter what responsibility you may think they have. Their responsibilioty is to feed themselves, yet they are not allowed to. Environmentalism: clearly you either do not understand what it is, or how it works Conservation: is the protection of a system, building, habitat, ecology, almost anything so that it is not lost to the world, either for aesthetic, scientific, historic, religious or any other many reasons. Can "clean" energy be produced, absolutely, the return on even todays inefficient systems such as wind, wave, photovoltaic energy are greater than the energy needed to make them. There is a slow convergeance of technologies which will have dramatic effects in the future. It is because of the lack of political will or ignorance that it will take longer than may be necessary. Large companies are unwilling to spend money because they are largely concerned with their return to be within months rather than years so it is left to the fringe to solve the issues. Whether or not something llike a manhattan project will happen, it is clear that there is a need for some form of efficient, economical, and sustainable energy. An example of a sustainable resource that has been used for thousands of years and can be managed for thousands to come; wood