as everyone seems to be in this thread, i thought i'd post this here, the free 3D program Blender, tutorials 2 hours long $15
http://www.cartoonsmart.com/blender_basics.html

Intermission.

oooohhh claf has a shitting emoticon... ...it's not fair.....how many votes does that cost???

Cantuna......i mean canuck .....Reindude said close it down....i was trying to say ....not til we discuss the aliens....i did not want it closed...i'll try and be more whitty with my responces and future post...Now that don't mean they will be more whitty.....it just means i will try. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip....ooohhhh look BLENDER.

So to sum up this little miss understanding....i introduce another piece of the puzzle...one that not one person here even knew existed.... but after watching i think we will all realize one thing...WE ARE TRYING TO DEBATE A QUESTION AS OLD AS MAN....and in the end we will all still disagree....we will all still have our own personal belief.....and we will all be just as full of shit as before we started...oooohhh yeah..heres the video....which may just be the missing piece to this puzzel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFwvs8eYt6E

1. Who's a professed atheist? I'm an agnostic with theistic leanings.

2. Proof of existence requires predictability. Numbers don't lie. If you can mathematically extrapolate the influence something will have on its surroundings in a quanitfiable and repeatable manner, you're in. As I said, the same rules apply as do for quanta. It's not about seeing what's there and writing it down (senses) but rather about hypothesizing a rule and using that rule to predict results. If the results are correct, then the rule lives to be tested again. If not, it is discarded and a new rule is hypothesized. If no data can be found to negate a rule, it becomes a working theory... until something comes along that runs contrary to the predictions of that rule when applied, at which pint it is discarded (or the equation is reworked to account for the new information. Newton did this with planetary orbits - he postulated epicycles. Then Kelper came along and postulated eliptical orbits, which we now believe to be the case. So even if we can't define God, such an entity should be able to be proven to exist simply by virtue of it's effects upon the universe around it. Remember: as we learn more, we are chipping away at what we call "metaphysical." As we find the physical properties previously unknown to man that are responsible for effects, we do not have non-physical explanations anymore. case in point, we know "know" (that is to say we have a theory that strongly suggests) that disease is caused by bacteria, viruses and protein "misfolds." Not demons. We now "know" (again, this is a theory that could one day be disproved) that gravity keeps the planets in orbit, not the spheres as postulated by the Greeks.

IMHO, we should not be looking for God through a telescope, but a microscope.

Nevertheless, in order for one to define the character of God, one must first be able to determine if God exists, and although many of us - myself included - feel strongly that such an entity exists, are we not rather remiss in insisting it based solely upon our senses, which you have so adeptly pointed out, can be very flawed? Good and evil, then, can only be responsibly characterized by their effects upon the world. So which are you asserting is in accordance with the character of God? The hypothetical molestation, or the hypothetical doing nothing to stop the death of a million people? The closest to a moral absolute that I can see is the responsibility to minimize harm. Ahimsa.

Actually, we *do* have a reason to believe the future will be the same: it always has been. You have very nicely tapped into the essence of science. If ever a single piece of evidence arises to suggest that fire will NOT burn tomorrow as it does today, our understanding of the universe will fly right out the window. You are correct. However, no such evidence has come to light as yet. So we can PREDICT with relative certainty that it will be as it has always been. And guess what: that prediction is always true. When it fails, then we will have to start over, but for now we will work with what we have, as it seems to work quite well.

So what does the theist have that the non-theist lacks? They, too, believe fire will burn the same, only they attribute this to an arbitrary whim of God? How does this effect your living? Do you still have a smoke detector in your child's room? Or is that just one of those blind faith sciency things that seeks to deny a God who could make a fire burn up your child in his bed without a wisp of smoke?

You are suggesting a very clear misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. One thing does not "become" another, nor does an ape give birth to a human. You are not the same as your father, right? And he is different from his father? If you can concede that reproduction produces variety within a species, then you must conceed that that variety, over billions of years, would result in speciation. Germ theory rests entirely upon evolution and allows us to develop vaccines, antibiotics, and other treatments for disease. We have seen it happen. Like the theory of gravitation, and like your fire burning today as yesterday, there has never been any evidence to the contrary, so while God may have the ability to shake it all up for us, He hasn't yet, so we work with what we have.

Be careful - I'm enjoying this conversation. Please don't bash and get us shut down!!

Who's a professed atheist? I'm an agnostic with theistic leanings.....
HEY....HEY.....wait a second.....let's not cram all the big words together in one sentence..... .....i get CON' FUZ' ED

We should not be looking for God through a telescope, but a microscope.....EUREKA....i have got it......everyone gather round.......come on squeeze in... Who farted????..........What if we place a slide prepared for the microscope...infront of the telescope?????.....HUH???...tell me that ain't just genius.....what would ya'll do without me.. ..by george I have done it again....Just when i thought i could get no lower....i go and redeem myself.

hail wesley

Damn, I adore the Marks!! I'm a Jersey girl, and I've been reading the WNJ mag for years. remember, though - their job is recording local folklore, not facts! :lol

AMEN!

You have to believe the assumptions made about it.
I believe in the fossil record.
I do not believe in the assumptions that every x-number of feet is another million years.
for example, there are fossilized trees standing straight up that go through "millions of years" in the fossil record.


You don't have "amazingly clear" evidence.
you take scattered pieces and piece together a supposed progression of creatures.

I think genetic material supports the claim, though. Also, it's not the depth that helps to determine age, but the strata.

I think Canuck has done. I mean, if a God could arbitrarily make fire cease to burn, things would get pretty choatic, would they not?

(I liked Butterfly Effect. Very much.)

What FF said about fossilized trees. There are fossilized trees, whole forest of them that are erect and passing through several strata which are undisturbed around them. The trees would have had to have fossilized, and stood erect for millions of years for the different layers to form around them.
I also do not think any genetic material has been proposed in the making of the horse, or whale evolutionary ladder , whatever ya call it, they are a collection of fossils which have similarities that have been laid out side by side to be used as proof of progression, yet we have no reason to believe that any of those fossils had offspring that became the other fossils.

not fossilized trees, petrified trees
fossilized trees are called coal,

Petrified wood (from the Greek root "petro" meaning "rock" or "stone", literally "wood turned into stone") is a type of fossil: it consists of fossil wood where all the organic materials have been replaced with minerals (most often a silicate, such as quartz), while retaining the original structure of the wood. The petrifaction process occurs underground, when wood becomes buried under sediment and is initially preserved due to a lack of oxygen. Mineral-rich water flowing through the sediment deposits minerals in the plant's cells and as the plant's lignin and cellulose decay away, a stone mould forms in its place.

Elements such as manganese, iron and copper in the water/mud during the petrification process give petrified wood a variety of color ranges. Pure quartz crystals are colorless, but when contaminants are added to the process the crystals take on a yellow, red or other tint.