I think everybody should just hold hands, stop bitching, and sing kumbaya
I DONT BELIEVE IN THAT SONG
Well your SOL go kill yourself
=Catholicism
Printable View
I think everybody should just hold hands, stop bitching, and sing kumbaya
I DONT BELIEVE IN THAT SONG
Well your SOL go kill yourself
=Catholicism
I have read just enough of the new posts to know that I love nik0tine.
Anyway, this was amusing (in my usual "humanity is stupid" type of manner), but not it's just getting retarded. Let's at least get our facts straight.
1. Evolution is a fact. Let's just get that out of the way first.
2. Evolution requires no faith; it merely requires eyes and a brain. Most Creationists are lacking the latter.
3. Intelligent Design is not a valid theory, unless you use the laymen's use of the word, which basically means "guess."
4. Evolution is a valid theory, which means it has so far been proven right.
5. Even though evolution is a fact, it is not a law, nor will it ever be.
6. There is no six.
Evolution is a fact of existence. We have observed it. Anyone who has taken a simple high school biology class would know this. Microevolution was proven way back in Mendel's time. Macroevolution by definition is "microevolution + time." Since both microevolution and the progression of time are also facts of existence, then macroevolution is a fact of existence. Macroevolution has no scientifically drawn line, though for convenience's sake, it's usually drawn at speciation - which has been observed.
Creationists say "most parts of the evolutionary theory are unproven." Like what? Blank. "You can't prove macroevolution from microevolution." Why not? Blank. ""Evolution requires faith." How? Blank. Gross generalizations, and when asked to specify, can't actually name anything.
Intelligent Design is creationism with a retarded name. It lies on the idea that, well, even though evolution happens, it couldn't have possibly resulted in the diversity/complexity of life we see today. Science estimates that life first appeared on this planet in its simplest form some 3 billion years ago. Yes, I think 3 billion years is enough time, as do tens of thousands of scientists.
I have more to say, but I just lost my motivation to continue. Either way, Creationism is based on an irrationality, so simple logic has no chance against it anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye
Since I'm a Christian I'll hold hands with you. However, I'll still feel awkward if you're black, Jewish, Mexican, Islamic, Catholic, Atheist, Asian, Female, gay, or sober.
lmfao, you have made this thread hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
I agree with Raistlin on most points. :monster:
This thread loses.
Farewell.
Because, genius, it isn't there anymore. It already came down. So there was nothing that the space program had to get through, and it won't come down again. I'm sorry, I didn't know you would have this much difficulty understanding it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
It changed. That doesn't mean it became less true. Are history books any less true, because things have changed since they were written?Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
First of all, as I said before, the earth wasn't as shapely then as it is now. The mountains weren't nearly as high, the seas weren't nearly as deep. The weight of the water during the Flood pushed down the sea bed and pushed up the mountains. And you can't honestly say that "continental shift" brought fossilized sea creatures hundreds of miles inland and thousands upon thousands of feet above sea level.Quote:
Actually, there isn't enough water in the ice-caps and the atmosphere for that. Even if all the water on earth was in liquid form, the sea levels would not rise by over half a dozen miles.
Besides, Everest fossils are due to continental shift. There is no way that the rock they are buried in could have floated up there.
I expected better from at least you, Raistlin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
1. Evolution is as fact as fact can be, while still being unproven, disproven, contradictory...and, well, even racist, and we all know how much the PC movement, while supporting Evolutionism, hates racism.
2. Since Evolutionism has not been proven, it requires faith to believe. Just like I have faith that my truck is still out in Lot Q since I parked it there twenty minutes ago. Unless I can see my truck, I don't know. Unless and until Evolution is proven -- which it will never be -- it requires faith to believe. But I guess that's hard for most anti-religion types to stomach.
3. Intelligent Design, while not supported (or, really, objected) by as much scientific evidence as Evolutionism, is still a valid theory in the same sense of the word. The problem is that most people are too set in their beliefs that nothing involves a god to listen to anything to the contrary -- just like they accuse Christians of being set in their beliefs. An even greater problem is that all too many people, in all beliefs, don't know why they believe what they do. Most Evolutionists believe it because it's what they were taught in school and doesn't involve god, and most Creationists believe it because it's what they were told to believe in church.
4. Evolution is a semi-valid theory. If it was so far proven right, there wouldn't be any evidence disproving it, or supporting any other theory.
5. If it was fact, it would be law. Or at least wouldn't have nearly as many arguments against it.
Like what? How about the link (or lack thereof) between micro- and macro-evolution? How about the "fact" that the earth is billions of years old?Quote:
Creationists say "most parts of the evolutionary theory are unproven." Like what?
You can't. Microevolution exists, yes, but would require much more time than the already outrageous amount of time some "scientists" say the earth has been able to sustain life. Not to mention, it's contradictory.Quote:
"You can't prove macroevolution from microevolution." Why not?
I've already explained this.Quote:
""Evolution requires faith." How?
I've got more to say, as I'm sure most of us do...but I've got more important things to do. G'night.
Hi there, Pharoh Amon Khan... Yeah, that's right, the "EOFF-Anti-Christ" is back...
I have been mistaken by many to be Nigerian, Arabic, French, Jamacian, Latino, Native American, and East Indian... And people naturally think I am of that or another religion.
I don't really sway the way of religion anymore. My father is a travelling Christian Minister and he accepts me for my beliefs in faith.
I don't like religion too much. When people ask me what is my religion I reply with rehearsed ease, as it's been asked to me before...
"I don't believe in religion. I believe in faith. When I ask someone of another ethnic culture I ask them what is their faith, NOT their religion. Religion is a set order of the way of practicing belief or faith. As a child my father travelled with his family in tow to various churches preaching his open-minded way to Christian Churches. Black, White, Asian, poor and rich... In each of these churches, as a child I attended Sunday School and each varied, teaching the same gospel, but denouncing the ways of the former churches as if "their" way was right.
I was raised a Christan, but what if I went to church out of town that was Christian but Eposcial Christian? I was finding God, but not "Their" way.
Because when you get down to it; when one has lost everything, love, family, materials, all one has is faith. Be it in a high powerful deity, or just in one's self... We all need, and all we are left with is... faith.
Go with Faith, because no matter what way you do it, you worship with Faith, there is no instruction book except in your heart where the love of your faith is born.
"You don't have to understand it; you just have to have it." -Aquaman "Justice League"
Wow, it's the Pharoh.
I have faith in myself.
It's hard to prove anything that we didn't directly observe.
So I'm I :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seymour_Guado_Goth
Power Catholic. I say I'm Catholic, I know moe about the religion than most, but I haven't been to church in about 6 years. I'm only Catholic by name. Am I proud? I really couldn't care less.
BTW I do have a religion, it is right in my hand right now *holds a figment of his imagination* See I posses it ^_^. I will sell it for five bucks to the next person who comes by!
Haha, God bless the person who didn’t post this in EoEO. This was SO hilarious to read. I like the way people can be complete and utter jerks here and no one can stop them (no sarcasm intended here, for those who seem to have an inability to pick it up…) .
I mean seriously, how the f@#$ did things get so out of hand? It started with one comment by Autumn Rain (who, it would seem, as since left this thread) and ended up with like….like this.
I still can’t believe that people haven’t work out yet that no matter how much people debate this topic, NO ONE is going to change their stance.
Anyway, don’t let me disturb you, go back to verbally abusing each other for no reason. Don’t worry; I’ll still be here, laughing at you all.
Now, back to debating serious topics, like how hot Tifa is in Advent Children….
EDIT:The people who came here just to post sarcastic comments are the intelligent ones…
EDIT: Is what you're doing much better than what they are? Nobody cares whether or not you are lauging at them, so next time please keep those comments to yourself. You actually posted something vaguely on topic, so I guess this post isn't completely worthless. Next time please just stick to the topic at hand. -Murder
EDIT: Oh, alright then.
ON TOPIC:I am/am not religious, and that makes me better than everybody else. I’m not sure why, but I think it has something to do with me being a complete jerk who is intolerant of others beliefs.
Or at least that's the gist of what I would have posted...
You're not an electronics engineer or a doctor! You can't be brown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharoh Amon Khan III
I don't really like the idea of organised religion, it eventually harbors corruption, one should be able to believe what one wants without an athority figure there to tell you how to believe.
i believe in reancarnation (i don't know how to spell it! :rolleyes2 )
i also believe that everything has a soul :p
it's wierd but that is what i believe!!!!
Christian.
Budhism?Quote:
Originally Posted by loza
Hinduism and Shintoism also have the beleifs of reincarnation and souls, not just Buddhism. Not to mention many smaller, less well known religions. In fact, so did the ancient greeks, to some extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
EDIT:
Absolute nonsense. There may indeed have been this 'seventh layer' you talk about, but it was millions, if not billions, of years before the first man-ape walked around on his furry little legs. i.e. Pre-dates any human activity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Well, yes, sometimes. Though, they would have been wrong at the time. For example, a 13th century Polish monk once claimed that the mongols (which he called 'tartars') had 'the head of a dog'. This is of course, not true. Similarly, the creation story was based upon the limited knowledge of simple people, and bears no relevance today.Quote:
It changed. That doesn't mean it became less true. Are history books any less true, because things have changed since they were written?Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Again, incorrect. The mountains were far higher. For example, the range of mountains that runs down through scandinavia, and winds up in Scotland (across the sea due to variou geological events) were once much, much higher than the Himalayas are today. The reason they shrunk is because the tectonic forces acting on them ceased, so they were gradually worn down. I can indeed 'say that "continental shift" brought fossilized sea creatures hundreds of miles inland and thousands upon thousands of feet above sea level.' because that's what happened. I don't understand why that idea is so incredible.Quote:
First of all, as I said before, the earth wasn't as shapely then as it is now. The mountains weren't nearly as high, the seas weren't nearly as deep. The weight of the water during the Flood pushed down the sea bed and pushed up the mountains. And you can't honestly say that "continental shift" brought fossilized sea creatures hundreds of miles inland and thousands upon thousands of feet above sea level.Quote:
Actually, there isn't enough water in the ice-caps and the atmosphere for that. Even if all the water on earth was in liquid form, the sea levels would not rise by over half a dozen miles.
Besides, Everest fossils are due to continental shift. There is no way that the rock they are buried in could have floated up there.
The sub-continent of India is part of the Australian-Indian continetal plate. This plate is quickly (by geological standards) moving into the eurasian plate, creating the himalayas. Fossils, which once lay at the bottom of the indian ocean, are dragged up with the rocks. Simple.
The weight of water would not, I repeat, NOT cause mountains to rise. Water is not nearly as heavy as rocks. The himalayas, for example, were created by two continetal plates, weighing hundreds of billion sof tonnes, smashing into each other. Water is just something that goes on top of the rocks, it doesn't move them about.
1.Evolution is not rascists. Only if the outdated and unproven idea of 'parrallel evolution' is meant. An idea which can also be, and often is, applied to creationism.Quote:
I expected better from at least you, Raistlin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
1. Evolution is as fact as fact can be, while still being unproven, disproven, contradictory...and, well, even racist, and we all know how much the PC movement, while supporting Evolutionism, hates racism.
2. Since Evolutionism has not been proven, it requires faith to believe. Just like I have faith that my truck is still out in Lot Q since I parked it there twenty minutes ago. Unless I can see my truck, I don't know. Unless and until Evolution is proven -- which it will never be -- it requires faith to believe. But I guess that's hard for most anti-religion types to stomach.
3. Intelligent Design, while not supported (or, really, objected) by as much scientific evidence as Evolutionism, is still a valid theory in the same sense of the word. The problem is that most people are too set in their beliefs that nothing involves a god to listen to anything to the contrary -- just like they accuse Christians of being set in their beliefs. An even greater problem is that all too many people, in all beliefs, don't know why they believe what they do. Most Evolutionists believe it because it's what they were taught in school and doesn't involve god, and most Creationists believe it because it's what they were told to believe in church.
4. Evolution is a semi-valid theory. If it was so far proven right, there wouldn't be any evidence disproving it, or supporting any other theory.
5. If it was fact, it would be law. Or at least wouldn't have nearly as many arguments against it.
Like what? How about the link (or lack thereof) between micro- and macro-evolution? How about the "fact" that the earth is billions of years old?Quote:
Creationists say "most parts of the evolutionary theory are unproven." Like what?
2. There is a difference between 'faith' in the religous sense, and believing a scientific theory. Indeed, we can't definitely prove evolution, but we can't definitely prove anything. Including creationism. The idea that religous convictions and scientific beleifs are one and the same is insulting to both religion and science- they just aren't.
Religous beleifs are based on not knowing- they try to explain what science can't. They're not meant ot explain what science can.
3. Intelligent design is not a credible scientific theory. And, even if it were, that does not mean, under any circumstance, that creationism would be. They're not nessecarilly the same- intelligent design just means the idea of a higher, controlling power, and the theory of evolution can be beaten into shape, so that it fits in with this. Creationism, on the other hand, is over 6,000 years out of date, and makes no sense (if god only created Adam & Eve, where did the people of Nod come from?).
4. There is no real anti-evolutionary evidence. Most, if not all, evidence can only be found to support it, or is so inconclusive that it means nothing.
5. People argued against the world being round- that wasn't in the bible. So, now they argue against evolution- as it is not in the bible. The bible is gradually losing all importance when it comes to explaining the physical universe.
What, 3,500,000,000 years? Sounds like a hell of a time to me... There was plenty of time for evoultion to take place. Plenty of time.Quote:
You can't. Microevolution exists, yes, but would require much more time than the already outrageous amount of time some "scientists" say the earth has been able to sustain life. Not to mention, it's contradictory.Quote:
"You can't prove macroevolution from microevolution." Why not?
I wasn't intolerant. I simply object to others stating un-proven and nonsesical ideas as facts. I have nothing against people's religion, but sometimes they need to think about what they're saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThroneofDravaris
That was mainly to the one that started it all, and just commentary on the basic undertone of this thread.
Bill Bryson mentioned this point in The Short History of Nearly Everything (a fantastic book, but a general overview rather than a deep analysis). As he put it simply, "no amount of water will make boulders float."Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Also worth noting: If not for tectonic forces pushing land higher and higher, then the entire surface of the globe would've been eroded smooth by now. Our world would be a marble-like sphere covered all over with 4 km of water.
I'm a self confessed atheist and I can tell you I live my life perfectly fine It does'nt make me a bad person.......there are a lot of people who say they believe in god and never even pray or think of him... I am not pretentious .......I have the most respect for people who really and honestly believe in their faith not hypocrites who go on like they do and never even mention God or go to church :mad:
I stopped caring, really. That and I went out of town yesterday. This thread was never about arguing beliefs, it was just stating what you believed. I follow no religion. But through years of following Christianity and studying the Bible, it has too many contradictions and I found some of the basis of their beliefs to be apalling IMHO. I'm not going into details on this or how I feel about Christians that don't research their beliefs, lest anyone claim that I'm oppressing them or their faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThroneofDravaris
Ahem. Anyway... Reading through most of the posts, I see why I didn't want to be apart of such an argument to begin with. No side could possibly when in such an argument as facts has no room for faith and vice-versa. It's pointless and pety. No one can win such an argument, as you both will refuse to see the other's side. Such an argument serves no purpose, but to piss each other off. Except those members who can find the humor in it, of course. nik0tine cracks me up. :p
You hater person, you. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ThroneofDravaris
Yeah, I've read A Short History of Nearly Everything. Brilliant book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
I recommend that all creationists should read it. In fact, everyone should read it. It's brilliant.
Isn't the Pharoh the IV'th yet? :p
I read a good part of it, but then stopped...Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
According to some, sure. Of course, it would be perfectly convenient for it to have been there only thousands of years ago...but that would support Creationism, so we can't have that now, can we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Unfortunately for your argument, Mongols have since been proven not to have heads of dogs, whereas Creationism has not been proven untrue.Quote:
Well, yes, sometimes. Though, they would have been wrong at the time. For example, a 13th century Polish monk once claimed that the mongols (which he called 'tartars') had 'the head of a dog'. This is of course, not true. Similarly, the creation story was based upon the limited knowledge of simple people, and bears no relevance today.
If that were true, there would be fossils of land animals -- especially those that dwell in higher altitudes -- deep into the sea. Which there's not. Also, if they were extremely high and only erosion has "shrunk" them, they would have steeper sides and duller peaks.Quote:
Again, incorrect. The mountains were far higher. For example, the range of mountains that runs down through scandinavia, and winds up in Scotland (across the sea due to variou geological events) were once much, much higher than the Himalayas are today. The reason they shrunk is because the tectonic forces acting on them ceased, so they were gradually worn down.
Because for one thing, the fossils are of sea creatures that supposedly hadn't "evolved" yet at the time some "scientists" would have estimated the area they're in would have still been underwater. As in, if bass evolved a million years ago, you're only going to find fossilized bass in places that there could have been bass a million years ago -- not places that have been out of water for many million years. Unless, of course, they were carried high out of the water by some type of freak "flood", deposited, and fossilized since.Quote:
I can indeed 'say that "continental shift" brought fossilized sea creatures hundreds of miles inland and thousands upon thousands of feet above sea level.' because that's what happened. I don't understand why that idea is so incredible.
So you're saying water doesn't change terrain. Nice. Try again.Quote:
The weight of water would not, I repeat, NOT cause mountains to rise. Water is not nearly as heavy as rocks. The himalayas, for example, were created by two continetal plates, weighing hundreds of billion sof tonnes, smashing into each other. Water is just something that goes on top of the rocks, it doesn't move them about.
Water has more than enough weight to form bowls and push up peaks. They're called seas/oceans and mountains. Here's to hoping you can't be so ignorant as to deny this.
All of Evolution is unproven, what's so special about "parallel evolution"? From quite a bit of what I've heard, racism fits right in -- sure, most people won't come out and describe it (hell, most people don't realize it's racist), but it's in there, alright. Even from what they teach in public schools.Quote:
1.Evolution is not rascists. Only if the outdated and unproven idea of 'parrallel evolution' is meant. An idea which can also be, and often is, applied to creationism.
And since science can't yet explain how we got here, what is so wrong with a religious belief in the same subject? Faith is faith -- whether it's having faith that there is a god, or having faith that we evolved from lesser primates (and them, from multi-cellular organisms, from single-celled organisms, from "primordial ooze", whatever), or having faith that this world is not the Matrix. What you may think requires little faith -- say, Evolutionism, or the idea that we're not in the Matrix -- another may see it as a belief that requires just as much faith as theirs do/does.Quote:
2. There is a difference between 'faith' in the religous sense, and believing a scientific theory. Indeed, we can't definitely prove evolution, but we can't definitely prove anything. Including creationism. The idea that religous convictions and scientific beleifs are one and the same is insulting to both religion and science- they just aren't.
Religous beleifs are based on not knowing- they try to explain what science can't. They're not meant to explain what science can.
Again. Just because you haven't seen much evidence for Intelligent Design (because you haven't been fed it like you have Evolutionism, and of course you can't go research anything contradictory to your own preset beliefs) doesn't mean it's not a credible theory.Quote:
3. Intelligent design is not a credible scientific theory. And, even if it were, that does not mean, under any circumstance, that creationism would be. They're not nessecarilly the same- intelligent design just means the idea of a higher, controlling power, and the theory of evolution can be beaten into shape, so that it fits in with this. Creationism, on the other hand, is over 6,000 years out of date, and makes no sense (if god only created Adam & Eve, where did the people of Nod come from?).
Adam lived 800 years, and had many more children than only Cain and Abel. It's extremely likely that Cain married one of his sisters. The laws forbidding "incest" weren't given for another two thousand years, and they wouldn't have had to worry about any of the genetic disorders we have today.
Again, wrong. There is plenty of evidence that goes against Evolutionism. And most of the evidence that can be interpreted(/manipulated) to support Evolutionism could just as easily (with a little more knowledge and background) be interpreted to support Creation. In fact, much of the evidence used to support Evolution has been discredited (can we say Nebraska Man?), and is still being used, as a precedent if nothing else.Quote:
4. There is no real anti-evolutionary evidence. Most, if not all, evidence can only be found to support it, or is so inconclusive that it means nothing.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say the world is flat. The Bible includes nothing contradicting the idea that the world is round. That was the Catholic Church -- and let's face it, most Christians don't take pride in the Catholic Church. Whereas it does indeed have an alternate theory to Evolutionism.Quote:
5. People argued against the world being round- that wasn't in the bible. So, now they argue against evolution- as it is not in the bible. The bible is gradually losing all importance when it comes to explaining the physical universe.
When it supposedly takes hundreds of millions of years for variations in geni to seperate, dozens of billions of years would have been needed to get anywhere close to the development of humans.Quote:
What, 3,500,000,000 years? Sounds like a hell of a time to me... There was plenty of time for evoultion to take place. Plenty of time.
...which is exactly what you're doing. A little hypocritical?Quote:
I wasn't intolerant. I simply object to others stating un-proven and nonsesical ideas as facts.
This debate is pointless, Just ask GOD.
I did, and strangely enough, he said Buddhism was the closest anyone has come.
Really? You got a word in with God.
'Course, we can't all have that privelage, God's a bit far off, so why not ask your closer-to-home Jesus! ...that's me. I'm very wise. Oaple is a market gland. You see?
Evolution is a scientific theory - not a fact. Claiming evolution to be a fact would be like making it your religion - a pointless act for one who seeks asking questions and answering them. Science is ever changing, composed of many theories and many facts - but in science, unlike religion, facts can be challanged.Quote:
1. Evolution is a fact. Let's just get that out of the way first.
Not to say evolution doesn't make sense - it does, at least to me. I consider it to be 99% certain, and that's really good enough to base other theories upon.
As for me... I'm Jewish. I don't believe in God (from that aspect, I'm agnostic, not eliminating the possibility of God's existence, but not believing it either, for lack of proof), but I celebrate the holidays and try to follow the teachings, out of respect for tradition, and the acknowledgment of the good it brings. Through my eyes I see great wisdom in Judaism, and I don't need a God to accept it.
You can't be a Jew then O_oQuote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
Agnostic....I know and trust science, but I believe there are things science just can't explain.
You forgot convinence store manager.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neel With A Hat
I'm pagan, I have been for nearly eight years now.
what's that?Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
I am a believer of Jessism. It's a religion I named after myself, since I invented it. I think religion should be a personal thing, and my personal beliefs disagree with all organized religious groups which currently exist. It's tennants are somewhat of a mix between Congregationalism, Buddhism, Confucianism, current hard science, and my own experience. It serves me well.
I wish I still had a link to the site we used in my World Religions class in college... It had every religion you could possibly want to learn about explained in a way that made it an easy read.
Well, this site at least appears to have a good grasp of the major religions, for those who keep asking questions about what a religion is: http://wri.leaderu.com/
Damn RightQuote:
Originally Posted by Primus Inter Pares
i would like a religion between Budda, Jebus and Starbucks
No, I don't have a religion... I guess I used to be... hmm... Catholic, not because of my family and friends, but because of my school. It was a Catholic-school-thingy... not that different, but we went to church once a month and all that. And of course we learned about different religions... Anyway, I don't believe in anything now.
Well yes I do, I am Catholic,but I need to be more intouch and repent for my sins. I have recently have been having sex with people when I'm supposed to be waiting until I am married.
im christian
Science isn't about convenience. You can't just back an idea because it enforces what you already believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Well, yes, it has, repeatedly. That's why they dig up dinosaur bones, and neandethals, and trylobites and stuff. That's why geologists have dated the earth to 4billion years old. Creationism has, rather definitely, been proven wrong. Maybe not Intelligent Design, but certainly creationism.Quote:
Unfortunately for your argument, Mongols have since been proven not to have heads of dogs, whereas Creationism has not been proven untrue.Quote:
Well, yes, sometimes. Though, they would have been wrong at the time. For example, a 13th century Polish monk once claimed that the mongols (which he called 'tartars') had 'the head of a dog'. This is of course, not true. Similarly, the creation story was based upon the limited knowledge of simple people, and bears no relevance today.
They don't dig deep in the sea. Cause of the water. Plus, there's layers of dirt and silt between the sea-bed and any fossils. Whatsmore, fossiles are less likely to occur on land than on sea- wrong kind of soil.Quote:
If that were true, there would be fossils of land animals -- especially those that dwell in higher altitudes -- deep into the sea. Which there's not. Also, if they were extremely high and only erosion has "shrunk" them, they would have steeper sides and duller peaks.Quote:
Again, incorrect. The mountains were far higher. For example, the range of mountains that runs down through scandinavia, and winds up in Scotland (across the sea due to variou geological events) were once much, much higher than the Himalayas are today. The reason they shrunk is because the tectonic forces acting on them ceased, so they were gradually worn down.
And have you actually seen Scottish mountains? They're peaks are incredibly dull. Benn McDuigh, for example, has a flat peak about 40 feet across, and rather steep sides.
You don't understand the concept, do you? you're analysis of the bass, although I realise hypothetical, is completely unapplicable to reality. That's why they've found two halves of the same bird in Brazil and Africa- not just the top and bottom, either. Split vertically, so the knew the bones were definitely the same. That could only be cause by continental drift, not a flood.Quote:
Because for one thing, the fossils are of sea creatures that supposedly hadn't "evolved" yet at the time some "scientists" would have estimated the area they're in would have still been underwater. As in, if bass evolved a million years ago, you're only going to find fossilized bass in places that there could have been bass a million years ago -- not places that have been out of water for many million years. Unless, of course, they were carried high out of the water by some type of freak "flood", deposited, and fossilized since.Quote:
I can indeed 'say that "continental shift" brought fossilized sea creatures hundreds of miles inland and thousands upon thousands of feet above sea level.' because that's what happened. I don't understand why that idea is so incredible.
OK, I admit that it sounded like I denied that water alters terrain. What I meant was, water has no effect on terrain the size of a continent. Seas, mountains and oceans are caused by continetal drift, as I have explained. You can't say that the evidence for your theories lies in the fact that mountains and seas exist- if that worked, you could use anything to prove anything.Quote:
So you're saying water doesn't change terrain. Nice. Try again.Quote:
The weight of water would not, I repeat, NOT cause mountains to rise. Water is not nearly as heavy as rocks. The himalayas, for example, were created by two continetal plates, weighing hundreds of billion sof tonnes, smashing into each other. Water is just something that goes on top of the rocks, it doesn't move them about.
Water has more than enough weight to form bowls and push up peaks. They're called seas/oceans and mountains. Here's to hoping you can't be so ignorant as to deny this.
Water is rather incredibly light compared to, say, the Alps. Water couldn't push up the Alps, no matter how much you got. Besides, as I've said, there isn't enough water in the whole planet for that to work- water is not going to distort a huge, trillion ton lava-ball. In fact, if there actually was enough, the world would be underwater to the distance about 300,000,000 miles. Which it, rather patently, isn't.
Anyway, the crust is at least 4km thick, in some places over 20km, and half a dozen kilometers of rock is too tough to be bent out of shape by just water. You'd need some kind of SuperWater!
Is it a volcano? Is it continetal drift? No, it's Superwater, come to distort scenery, and reality, in one watery swoop!
Actually, creationism leaves more room for rascism than evolution. Besides, parallel evolution is hideously out of date, and has lost all credit as a sensible theory long ago. Anyway, just because something could be interpreated in a rascist fashion, does not change scientific fact. It's just some people getting things wrong.Quote:
All of Evolution is unproven, what's so special about "parallel evolution"? From quite a bit of what I've heard, racism fits right in -- sure, most people won't come out and describe it (hell, most people don't realize it's racist), but it's in there, alright. Even from what they teach in public schools.Quote:
1.Evolution is not rascists. Only if the outdated and unproven idea of 'parrallel evolution' is meant. An idea which can also be, and often is, applied to creationism.
Science can and does explain how we got here. Scientists don't have faith- they believe whatever seems most plausible, and makes the most sense. Faith, in the sense you use, has absolutely nothing to do with it.Quote:
And since science can't yet explain how we got here, what is so wrong with a religious belief in the same subject? Faith is faith -- whether it's having faith that there is a god, or having faith that we evolved from lesser primates (and them, from multi-cellular organisms, from single-celled organisms, from "primordial ooze", whatever), or having faith that this world is not the Matrix. What you may think requires little faith -- say, Evolutionism, or the idea that we're not in the Matrix -- another may see it as a belief that requires just as much faith as theirs do/does.Quote:
2. There is a difference between 'faith' in the religous sense, and believing a scientific theory. Indeed, we can't definitely prove evolution, but we can't definitely prove anything. Including creationism. The idea that religous convictions and scientific beleifs are one and the same is insulting to both religion and science- they just aren't.
Religous beleifs are based on not knowing- they try to explain what science can't. They're not meant to explain what science can.
Actually, I went to a catholic school, and was fed a butt-load of creationist junk, but I didn't believe it, because it made no sense.Quote:
Again. Just because you haven't seen much evidence for Intelligent Design (because you haven't been fed it like you have Evolutionism, and of course you can't go research anything contradictory to your own preset beliefs) doesn't mean it's not a credible theory.Quote:
3. Intelligent design is not a credible scientific theory. And, even if it were, that does not mean, under any circumstance, that creationism would be. They're not nessecarilly the same- intelligent design just means the idea of a higher, controlling power, and the theory of evolution can be beaten into shape, so that it fits in with this. Creationism, on the other hand, is over 6,000 years out of date, and makes no sense (if god only created Adam & Eve, where did the people of Nod come from?).
Adam lived 800 years, and had many more children than only Cain and Abel. It's extremely likely that Cain married one of his sisters. The laws forbidding "incest" weren't given for another two thousand years, and they wouldn't have had to worry about any of the genetic disorders we have today.
I never said 'How did Cain and Able breed?'. I'm not stupid. I have actually read the damn creation story. Besides, genetic flaws don't give a damn about the date, or if the 10 commanddments have been given yet- incest leads to freaky mutie kids, end of story. And what about my question- where did the people of Nod come from?
Oh, and Adam didn't live 800 years, No one has. Ever.
Just because Jeff Holybob on the Zealot channel claims that Evolution is discredited, doens't mean every (or any) actual scientists do. Because they look at evidence. They think. They, slowly but surely, work things out. Besides, more creationist evidence has been disproved (can you say 'Round planet?' 'Earth orbits sun?' 'Neanderthals, homo habbilis, homo erectus, etc?'Quote:
Again, wrong. There is plenty of evidence that goes against Evolutionism. And most of the evidence that can be interpreted(/manipulated) to support Evolutionism could just as easily (with a little more knowledge and background) be interpreted to support Creation. In fact, much of the evidence used to support Evolution has been discredited (can we say Nebraska Man?), and is still being used, as a precedent if nothing else.Quote:
4. There is no real anti-evolutionary evidence. Most, if not all, evidence can only be found to support it, or is so inconclusive that it means nothing.
Yep, you're right, the bible never says the world is flat, except at the beggining. In fact, it rather definitely says it is a tabernacle. That's a flat bottom, and a big curved sky.Quote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say the world is flat. The Bible includes nothing contradicting the idea that the world is round. That was the Catholic Church -- and let's face it, most Christians don't take pride in the Catholic Church. Whereas it does indeed have an alternate theory to Evolutionism.Quote:
5. People argued against the world being round- that wasn't in the bible. So, now they argue against evolution- as it is not in the bible. The bible is gradually losing all importance when it comes to explaining the physical universe.
And, as for your comments on the catholic church, catholics make up more than half of the world's Christian population -952 million catholics, but only 337 protestants, 162 Orthodox, 70 Anglicans, and 148 million from other churches. That's 952M out of 1669M. That's 57%.
That statement makes less than no sense. You can't prove that. (After all, it's never happened, has it?) Besides, Earth's had a bit of a dangerous history, what with all the earthquakes and volcanos and ice-ages and so on, so there could have been some periods of 'accelerated evoultion', as it were.Quote:
When it supposedly takes hundreds of millions of years for variations in geni to seperate, dozens of billions of years would have been needed to get anywhere close to the development of humans.Quote:
What, 3,500,000,000 years? Sounds like a hell of a time to me... There was plenty of time for evoultion to take place. Plenty of time.
No. Evolutionism isn't nonsensical. The idea that a giant, all powerful being made the world in under a week, and made humans the all-powerful ruler (oh, actually, just men. Women are, of course, inferior to men in the bible, that's why they were created second, wasn't it?)Quote:
...which is exactly what you're doing. A little hypocritical?Quote:
I wasn't intolerant. I simply object to others stating un-proven and nonsesical ideas as facts.
Besides, I'm perfectly tolerant. If you want to beleive pure weirdness, be my guest, just keep it to yourself.
Oh, and if you want to enter a serious, proper argument, you have to actually disprove your opponents claims, not just deny them.
Being a Jew doesn't mean you have to follow the Jewish faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seymour_Guado_Goth
I was born to a Jewish mother, and that alone makes me Jewish, according to Jewish law. Add to that the fact I celebrate the holidays, study the philosophy, books and lore and try my best follow its teachings, know the history, speak the Hebrew language, live in Israel, serve in the Israeli army and have a refined, snide sense of humour... and you'll get the Jewish archi-type. All I need is a kipa, and a belief in God, and I'm set. :)Quote:
You can't be a Jew then O_o
Actuallyit's quite often convenience that leads to any evidence supporting Evolutionism -- that's why most of it is interpreted (read: manipulated ... or even fabricated) to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Actually, no, it hasn't, ever. Dinosaur bones, neanderthals, and trylobites don't disprove Creation any more than they "prove" Evolutionism. And the earth can be dated to anywhere from thousands to trillions of years old, depending on what methods are used.Quote:
Well, yes, it has, repeatedly. That's why they dig up dinosaur bones, and neandethals, and trylobites and stuff. That's why geologists have dated the earth to 4billion years old. Creationism has, rather definitely, been proven wrong. Maybe not Intelligent Design, but certainly creationism.Quote:
Unfortunately for your argument, Mongols have since been proven not to have heads of dogs, whereas Creationism has not been proven untrue.
So nobody looks for fossils underwater? You sure about that? And things can fossilize very well in a sea bed, by the way. Oh yeah, and forty feet across is not a huge flat peak for a large mountain. No, I've never seen anything in Scotland, just like I highly doubt you've seen the Rockies.Quote:
They don't dig deep in the sea. Cause of the water. Plus, there's layers of dirt and silt between the sea-bed and any fossils. Whatsmore, fossiles are less likely to occur on land than on sea- wrong kind of soil.
And have you actually seen Scottish mountains? They're peaks are incredibly dull. Benn McDuigh, for example, has a flat peak about 40 feet across, and rather steep sides.
I understand it all too well. You're trying to compare the supposed fossilized halves of the exact same bird to the fact that the age of the fossils on Everest is not congruent with the supppsed age of the fossilized creatures. Seems you don't quite understand.Quote:
You don't understand the concept, do you? you're analysis of the bass, although I realise hypothetical, is completely unapplicable to reality. That's why they've found two halves of the same bird in Brazil and Africa- not just the top and bottom, either. Split vertically, so the knew the bones were definitely the same. That could only be cause by continental drift, not a flood.
Do you have a source for that claim? I'm sure it would be well documented, so it wouldn't take much to back it up, right?Just like you're trying to do with Continental Drift. You're saying evidence for your theories lies in the fact that mountains and seas exist -- just like you accuse me of doing. Except, that would prettymuch require all seas to contain their own seperate tectonic plates, and all mountains to be at a junction of plates.Quote:
OK, I admit that it sounded like I denied that water alters terrain. What I meant was, water has no effect on terrain the size of a continent. Seas, mountains and oceans are caused by continetal drift, as I have explained. You can't say that the evidence for your theories lies in the fact that mountains and seas exist- if that worked, you could use anything to prove anything.
Actually, with a few hundred billions of gallons of water, yes, there'd be more than enough weight to push up the Alps, or any other mountain range. And more than enough weight to push down the seas.Quote:
Water is rather incredibly light compared to, say, the Alps. Water couldn't push up the Alps, no matter how much you got.
How many more figures can you pull out of your ass? That was a good one, but I'm sure there's more up there. Ah, don't worry about it, I'm almost positive some more will come out later.Quote:
Besides, as I've said, there isn't enough water in the whole planet for that to work- water is not going to distort a huge, trillion ton lava-ball. In fact, if there actually was enough, the world would be underwater to the distance about 300,000,000 miles. Which it, rather patently, isn't.
You're still trying to say water isn't powerful or heavy enough to change the balance of plates...which is wrong. There's not much else to it.Quote:
Anyway, the crust is at least 4km thick, in some places over 20km, and half a dozen kilometers of rock is too tough to be bent out of shape by just water.
And how, praytell, does Creationism leave more room for "rascism" than Evolutionism? How is "God created man" more racist than "black people evolved from apes, and we all evolved from black people"?Quote:
Actually, creationism leaves more room for rascism than evolution. Besides, parallel evolution is hideously out of date, and has lost all credit as a sensible theory long ago. Anyway, just because something could be interpreated in a rascist fashion, does not change scientific fact. It's just some people getting things wrong.
Science offers possibilities. None of which have been proven.Quote:
Science can and does explain how we got here.
"Scientists don't have faith- they believe..." Sounds a hellovalot like faith to me. One could use the same "logic", or lack thereof, to say "I don't have faith in God, it's just that the idea of God seems very plausible and makes the most sense to me." Faith is the belief in something unproven. Something like a religion. Something like Evolutionism.Quote:
Scientists don't have faith- they believe whatever seems most plausible, and makes the most sense. Faith, in the sense you use, has absolutely nothing to do with it.
And I went to a public school, "and was fed a butt-load of [Evolutionist] junk, but I don't believe it, because it made no sense." Congratulations.Quote:
Actually, I went to a catholic school, and was fed a butt-load of creationist junk, but I didn't believe it, because it made no sense.
Wrong again. The "freaky mutie kids", as you put them, are the result of genetic defects becoming much more probable in incest than in normal relationships. As in, if I'm a carrier of some type of genetic defect, chances are so is everybody in my family, and while it would be extremely rare for me to have a relationship with a non-related person that carried the same defect, another family member would be much more likely to be a carrier, and thus greatly increase the chances of our offspring having that defect. Or, for a better grasp of genetics -- if everybody in my family for generations has been blonde, and I'm blonde, and my sister's blonde, we're probably going to have a blonde kid...whereas if I go out and have a kid with a brunette, it'll be less likely that we'll have a blonde kid. And since way back then, there probably were no genetic defects (as they were only the second generation of humans, the first being created with no defects), they could inbreed all they wanted to and probably still end up fine.Quote:
I never said 'How did Cain and Able breed?'. I'm not stupid. I have actually read the damn creation story. Besides, genetic flaws don't give a damn about the date, or if the 10 commanddments have been given yet- incest leads to freaky mutie kids, end of story.
Cain.Quote:
And what about my question- where did the people of Nod come from?
It would be quite possible to live for hundreds of years if the environment was a type of hyperbaric chamber -- the type created by a 7th layer of the atmosphere, a layer made of water. Studies have been done that have shown such environments to produce larger, longer-living plants, and people have been shown to heal much faster in controlled high-pressure conditions.Quote:
Oh, and Adam didn't live 800 years, No one has. Ever.
You're on a roll, here. Nothing in Creationism says the earth is flat, or that the sun orbits the earth. Plenty of scientists -- more and more, actually, and quite a few who have set out to prove Evolutionism -- have "converted", if you will, to supporting Creationism.Quote:
Just because Jeff Holybob on the Zealot channel claims that Evolution is discredited, doens't mean every (or any) actual scientists do. Because they look at evidence. They think. They, slowly but surely, work things out. Besides, more creationist evidence has been disproved (can you say 'Round planet?' 'Earth orbits sun?' 'Neanderthals, homo habbilis, homo erectus, etc?'
Where? And if it refers to earth as a "tabernacle", it doesn't mean it's got the exact dimensions, or even that it was a physical reference. The Bible says your body is a temple, does that mean you've got pillars, a dome, marble, or anything else commonly thought of to apply to a temple? No.Quote:
Yep, you're right, the bible never says the world is flat, except at the beggining. In fact, it rather definitely says it is a tabernacle. That's a flat bottom, and a big curved sky.
Convenient, isn't it? Come up with a timetable, and when nothing fits, say oh it's not standard, things change. It's like looking at a huge tree and saying it was planted last year, there was just "a period of accelerated growth". As it were. Right.Quote:
That statement makes less than no sense. You can't prove that. (After all, it's never happened, has it?) Besides, Earth's had a bit of a dangerous history, what with all the earthquakes and volcanos and ice-ages and so on, so there could have been some periods of 'accelerated evoultion', as it were.Quote:
When it supposedly takes hundreds of millions of years for variations in geni to seperate, dozens of billions of years would have been needed to get anywhere close to the development of humans.
So the way you think, or don't, the idea that an omnipotent being created us is more "nonsensical" than the idea that we came from absolutely nothing, and, well, another omnipotent being (nature, time, etc.) created us? I think you're nonsensical. I won't even comment on the blatant ignorance of the latter part of that quote.Quote:
No. Evolutionism isn't nonsensical. The idea that a giant, all powerful being made the world in under a week, and made humans the all-powerful ruler (oh, actually, just men. Women are, of course, inferior to men in the bible, that's why they were created second, wasn't it?)Quote:
...which is exactly what you're doing. A little hypocritical?Quote:
I wasn't intolerant. I simply object to others stating un-proven and nonsesical ideas as facts.
I completely agree. You want to believe Evolutionism, that's up to you. Just don't try to brainwash it into our kids.Quote:
Besides, I'm perfectly tolerant. If you want to beleive pure weirdness, be my guest, just keep it to yourself.
Speak for yourself. I've inferred requests for sources for two pieces of your argument in this post, let's see if you can find them. Not the requests, I mean the sources.Quote:
Oh, and if you want to enter a serious, proper argument, you have to actually disprove your opponents claims, not just deny them.
I think your perspective is a little confused- scientists aren't unquestioningly supportive of a particular idea or theory, they support which ever they belive to be correct, and if evidence shows one theory to be wrong, they abandon it. It's happened before, even in terms of evolutionism. Just because you are unaware does not mean it hasn't happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Yet, somehwo, I never mentioned the rockies, nor used it as an argument, so what I have and haven't seen is irrelevant.Quote:
Actually, no, it hasn't, ever. Dinosaur bones, neanderthals, and trylobites don't disprove Creation any more than they "prove" Evolutionism. And the earth can be dated to anywhere from thousands to trillions of years old, depending on what methods are used.Quote:
Well, yes, it has, repeatedly. That's why they dig up dinosaur bones, and neandethals, and trylobites and stuff. That's why geologists have dated the earth to 4billion years old. Creationism has, rather definitely, been proven wrong. Maybe not Intelligent Design, but certainly creationism.Quote:
Unfortunately for your argument, Mongols have since been proven not to have heads of dogs, whereas Creationism has not been proven untrue.
So nobody looks for fossils underwater? You sure about that? And things can fossilize very well in a sea bed, by the way. Oh yeah, and forty feet across is not a huge flat peak for a large mountain. No, I've never seen anything in Scotland, just like I highly doubt you've seen the Rockies.Quote:
They don't dig deep in the sea. Cause of the water. Plus, there's layers of dirt and silt between the sea-bed and any fossils. Whatsmore, fossiles are less likely to occur on land than on sea- wrong kind of soil.
And have you actually seen Scottish mountains? They're peaks are incredibly dull. Benn McDuigh, for example, has a flat peak about 40 feet across, and rather steep sides.
I actually said that things fossilise on the sea bed- it was land that I said was no good for fossilisation. But, of course, you have just admitted defeat 'And things can fossilize very well in a sea bed, by the way.' If fossilisation takes place, the wold would need to be at least hundreds of thousands, even millions or billions, of years old. 6000 years is not enough time for fossilisation to take place.
Actually, my point was about continetal drift, not fossilisation. And I must asmit, that I cannot provide a source on my 'half a bird' thing. I saw it on a television documentary a few years ago, and I cannot track down another source.Quote:
I understand it all too well. You're trying to compare the supposed fossilized halves of the exact same bird to the fact that the age of the fossils on Everest is not congruent with the supppsed age of the fossilized creatures. Seems you don't quite understand.Quote:
You don't understand the concept, do you? you're analysis of the bass, although I realise hypothetical, is completely unapplicable to reality. That's why they've found two halves of the same bird in Brazil and Africa- not just the top and bottom, either. Split vertically, so the knew the bones were definitely the same. That could only be cause by continental drift, not a flood.
Do you have a source for that claim? I'm sure it would be well documented, so it wouldn't take much to back it up, right?
Err... no, actually, continetal drift is proved by geological and paelontological reserach, as well as the study of earthquakes and volcanoes. Geologist have though long and hard about this, and have been slowly working it out for centuries.Quote:
Just like you're trying to do with Continental Drift. You're saying evidence for your theories lies in the fact that mountains and seas exist -- just like you accuse me of doing. Except, that would prettymuch require all seas to contain their own seperate tectonic plates, and all mountains to be at a junction of plates.Quote:
OK, I admit that it sounded like I denied that water alters terrain. What I meant was, water has no effect on terrain the size of a continent. Seas, mountains and oceans are caused by continetal drift, as I have explained. You can't say that the evidence for your theories lies in the fact that mountains and seas exist- if that worked, you could use anything to prove anything.
Whatsmore, this theory was created based on certain research and investigation, not as way of proving another theory.
Err... that makes little or no sense... the eath is a huge, extremely dense ball of molten rock and metal... water simply souldn't distort the shape of the crust. You haven't actually researched this very well...Quote:
Actually, with a few hundred billions of gallons of water, yes, there'd be more than enough weight to push up the Alps, or any other mountain range. And more than enough weight to push down the seas.Quote:
Water is rather incredibly light compared to, say, the Alps. Water couldn't push up the Alps, no matter how much you got.
Well, here's some info on continetal drift:
http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...ontdrift.shtml
I admit the 300,000 miles thing was made up. Don't get worked up about it.Quote:
How many more figures can you pull out of your ass? That was a good one, but I'm sure there's more up there. Ah, don't worry about it, I'm almost positive some more will come out later.Quote:
Besides, as I've said, there isn't enough water in the whole planet for that to work- water is not going to distort a huge, trillion ton lava-ball. In fact, if there actually was enough, the world would be underwater to the distance about 300,000,000 miles. Which it, rather patently, isn't.
Firstly, 'we all evolved from black people' is a gross misinterpretation. We evolved from earlier humans, who's appearance may have been similar to modern africans. As each human group spread across the globe, they all eveolved to fit their new envirnoment. The differences between races are, evolutionary theory says, simply to do with environment, and are no cause for rascism.Quote:
You're still trying to say water isn't powerful or heavy enough to change the balance of plates...which is wrong. There's not much else to it.Quote:
Anyway, the crust is at least 4km thick, in some places over 20km, and half a dozen kilometers of rock is too tough to be bent out of shape by just water.
And how, praytell, does Creationism leave more room for "rascism" than Evolutionism? How is "God created man" more racist than "black people evolved from apes, and we all evolved from black people"?Quote:
Actually, creationism leaves more room for rascism than evolution. Besides, parallel evolution is hideously out of date, and has lost all credit as a sensible theory long ago. Anyway, just because something could be interpreated in a rascist fashion, does not change scientific fact. It's just some people getting things wrong.
And if you want to see how creationism leads to rascism, look at the Klu Klux Klan- they believed that white men had been created 'better' than other races. A misinterpretation, I know, but the point is it still happens.
By your standards, nothing has been, or even can be,proven. After all, there could always be some lying or falsification. How do you even know the world is real? Wake up! Wake up, Neo! You're in the Matrix! Fight the agents! Kappppppoooow!Quote:
Science offers possibilities. None of which have been proven.Quote:
Science can and does explain how we got here.
I admit few things have been definitely proven, but nothing that one has not personally witnessed can be true to one's self. And, you can't witness evoultion- it takes too long.
No, no, no. Scientists believe what they do based on facts and evidence. You beleive what you do based on things far less substantial (I do not mean this offensively- I simply mean 'spiritual' or 'immaterial').Quote:
"Scientists don't have faith- they believe..." Sounds a hellovalot like faith to me. One could use the same "logic", or lack thereof, to say "I don't have faith in God, it's just that the idea of God seems very plausible and makes the most sense to me." Faith is the belief in something unproven. Something like a religion. Something like Evolutionism.Quote:
Scientists don't have faith- they believe whatever seems most plausible, and makes the most sense. Faith, in the sense you use, has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Well, there you go. We both excerised our freedoms of beleif! Hurrah and huzzah for us! Only, I was fed creationism in school and church, so you may well have picked up your ideas from church, and not indpendent study.Quote:
And I went to a public school, "and was fed a butt-load of [Evolutionist] junk, but I don't believe it, because it made no sense." Congratulations.Quote:
Actually, I went to a catholic school, and was fed a butt-load of creationist junk, but I didn't believe it, because it made no sense.
Err... you just explained genetics, the idea you are putting down... And, if there were no genetic defects to start with, how did they occur. Evolution, perhaps?Quote:
Wrong again. The "freaky mutie kids", as you put them, are the result of genetic defects becoming much more probable in incest than in normal relationships. As in, if I'm a carrier of some type of genetic defect, chances are so is everybody in my family, and while it would be extremely rare for me to have a relationship with a non-related person that carried the same defect, another family member would be much more likely to be a carrier, and thus greatly increase the chances of our offspring having that defect. Or, for a better grasp of genetics -- if everybody in my family for generations has been blonde, and I'm blonde, and my sister's blonde, we're probably going to have a blonde kid...whereas if I go out and have a kid with a brunette, it'll be less likely that we'll have a blonde kid. And since way back then, there probably were no genetic defects (as they were only the second generation of humans, the first being created with no defects), they could inbreed all they wanted to and probably still end up fine.Quote:
I never said 'How did Cain and Able breed?'. I'm not stupid. I have actually read the damn creation story. Besides, genetic flaws don't give a damn about the date, or if the 10 commanddments have been given yet- incest leads to freaky mutie kids, end of story.
Also, I apologise for 'freaky mutie kids'. That may have been offensive or insensitive to you or someone else. I'm sorry.
BEEP. INCORRECT HUMANOID. THE NODLINGS PRE-DATED THE HUMANOID YOU CALL 'CAIN'. I SUGGEST YOU READ YOUR BIBLE MORE CLOSELY. BEEP.Quote:
Cain.Quote:
And what about my question- where did the people of Nod come from?
Wrong, just... just wrong... the materials in the heart and brain wear out, and are irreplacable. Even if Adam did live for 800 years, he would be a mindless vegetable by the end! Anyway, how long plants live, and how long people live, are two rather different things.Quote:
It would be quite possible to live for hundreds of years if the environment was a type of hyperbaric chamber -- the type created by a 7th layer of the atmosphere, a layer made of water. Studies have been done that have shown such environments to produce larger, longer-living plants, and people have been shown to heal much faster in controlled high-pressure conditions.Quote:
Oh, and Adam didn't live 800 years, No one has. Ever.
Then they're just dumb... how could someone masquerading as a man (or woman) of science possbly revert to such simplistic, unproven ideas? Science is meant to explain things we don't know, not defend what we think we do... That's religions job.Quote:
You're on a roll, here. Nothing in Creationism says the earth is flat, or that the sun orbits the earth. Plenty of scientists -- more and more, actually, and quite a few who have set out to prove Evolutionism -- have "converted", if you will, to supporting Creationism.Quote:
Just because Jeff Holybob on the Zealot channel claims that Evolution is discredited, doens't mean every (or any) actual scientists do. Because they look at evidence. They think. They, slowly but surely, work things out. Besides, more creationist evidence has been disproved (can you say 'Round planet?' 'Earth orbits sun?' 'Neanderthals, homo habbilis, homo erectus, etc?'
Firstly, Jesus himslef said that temples or churches do not have to be buildings- it means wherever people are gathered in the name of God. Besides, 'temple' is clearly a metaphor, as is 'tabernacle'. As is 'Eden', 'Adam and Eve', the 'Snake' and the rest of it.Quote:
Where? And if it refers to earth as a "tabernacle", it doesn't mean it's got the exact dimensions, or even that it was a physical reference. The Bible says your body is a temple, does that mean you've got pillars, a dome, marble, or anything else commonly thought of to apply to a temple? No.Quote:
Yep, you're right, the bible never says the world is flat, except at the beggining. In fact, it rather definitely says it is a tabernacle. That's a flat bottom, and a big curved sky.
Besides, I do have pillars. You're just jealous.
Convenient, isn't it? Come up with a timetable, and when nothing fits, say oh it's not standard, things change. It's like looking at a huge tree and saying it was planted last year, there was just "a period of accelerated growth". As it were. Right.[/quote]Quote:
That statement makes less than no sense. You can't prove that. (After all, it's never happened, has it?) Besides, Earth's had a bit of a dangerous history, what with all the earthquakes and volcanos and ice-ages and so on, so there could have been some periods of 'accelerated evoultion', as it were.Quote:
When it supposedly takes hundreds of millions of years for variations in geni to seperate, dozens of billions of years would have been needed to get anywhere close to the development of humans.
Well, no, it's not. It's like looking at a tree that's 50 years old, but looks 60, and saying... hmm, this may be accelearted growth.
Anyway, all your stuff about heavy water and 7th layers of atmosphere falls pretty neatly into the 'attmepting to explain something' category.
OK, don't bother explaining my blatantly accurate ignorance. I'll do the same for you.Quote:
So the way you think, or don't, the idea that an omnipotent being created us is more "nonsensical" than the idea that we came from absolutely nothing, and, well, another omnipotent being (nature, time, etc.) created us? I think you're nonsensical. I won't even comment on the blatant ignorance of the latter part of that quote.Quote:
No. Evolutionism isn't nonsensical. The idea that a giant, all powerful being made the world in under a week, and made humans the all-powerful ruler (oh, actually, just men. Women are, of course, inferior to men in the bible, that's why they were created second, wasn't it?)Quote:
...which is exactly what you're doing. A little hypocritical?Quote:
I wasn't intolerant. I simply object to others stating un-proven and nonsesical ideas as facts.
I completely agree. You want to believe Evolutionism, that's up to you. Just don't try to brainwash it into our kids.[/quote]Quote:
Besides, I'm perfectly tolerant. If you want to beleive pure weirdness, be my guest, just keep it to yourself.
Just try and stop me.
Besides, why don't you stop trying to brainwash 'our' kids. Or brainwash it 'into', whatever that means. Creationism walks hand in hand with 'brainwashing', because creationists are so absurdly sure that they're right, they don't take anything else into account. Scientists, on the other hand, are constanly examing and studying existing theories, to try and find flaws. Admittedly, some don't, but they're the exceptions.
No one ever said 'On the Origin of the Species' was a sacred and unchangable text. In fact, because of this, it's already been proven wrong in some ways. Because it's 160 years old. And the Bibles over 400 years old. I've nothing against you keeping your own faith but try to update it from time to time.
OK, you're right there, I haven't been sufficiently backing uo my sources. Here's a few links:Quote:
Speak for yourself. I've inferred requests for sources for two pieces of your argument in this post, let's see if you can find them. Not the requests, I mean the sources.Quote:
Oh, and if you want to enter a serious, proper argument, you have to actually disprove your opponents claims, not just deny them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
It contains various explanations and investigations into evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
This give general information about evolution.
http://www.origins.org/pjohnson/whatis.html
This is a short essay explaiming Darwinism.
I particularly like this exert:
Hmm... Interesting, no?Quote:
Our fifth and final term is truth. Truth as such is not a particularly important concept in naturalistic philosophy. The reason for this is that "truth" suggests an unchanging absolute, whereas scientific knowledge is a dynamic concept. Like life, knowledge evolves and grows into superior forms. What was knowledge in the past is not knowledge today, and the knowledge of the future will surely be far superior to what we have now. Only naturalism itself and the unique validity of science as the path to knowledge are absolutes. There can be no criterion for truth outside of scientific knowledge, no mind of God to which we have access.
Millitant Agnostic: I don't know and you don't either. :D
Damn man, just accept it...
Actually, most people -- scientists and not -- actually are "unquestioningly supportive of a particular idea or theory", whatever belief it may be. That's why most debates on religion and politics don't get too far for those involved -- it's a preference of beliefs. (Which I don't really have a problem with, until it becomes a case of "I don't know why, but I'm sticking to this".) However, these "scientists" have the benefit of manipulating evidence to support their theory when it's wrong, instead of abandoning it entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Let me slow this down. I haven't seen any mountains in Scotland. You haven't seen any mountains in America. You still following me? So it's pointless to bring out those topics, because only one of us has firsthand knowledge of them. It would be like me trying to talk about military topics to you, and you trying to talk...hell, rugby, or cricket, or whatever else you're into that I wouldn't have any experience with. Get it? Don't want to lose you any more than I already have, here.Quote:
Yet, somehwo, I never mentioned the rockies, nor used it as an argument, so what I have and haven't seen is irrelevant.
I read that wrong -- thought you said it was more difficult for something to be fossilized in the sea that it was on land. My mistake. I really don't see how I "admitted defeat", but hey, you keep on thinking that. You also tried to say nobody looks for fossils underwater. Keep it up.Quote:
I actually said that things fossilise on the sea bed- it was land that I said was no good for fossilisation. But, of course, you have just admitted defeat 'And things can fossilize very well in a sea bed, by the way.'
Let's see... This is a fossilized leg, in a boot.. Yes, a human leg, in a cowboy boot. This poor guy's leg (someone named him "The Limestone Cowboy") was either torn or shot off, apparently, and was found in a dry creek bed near Iraan, Texas. The maker of the boot, M. L. Leddy boot company (founded in 1936) says the boot is their make, from about 1950. Which means...stay with me now...it doesn't take millions of years for something to fossilize. There are also pictures of a petrified dog in a tree, chopped wood, and an Icthyosaurus giving birth. As my brother put it, "Despite what my mother says, it doesn't take millions of years to give birth." I don't know where I found it, but a few years ago I ran across pictures of a petrified twinkie, I believe -- they told us twinkies had a long shelf life, didn't they?Quote:
If fossilisation takes place, the wold would need to be at least hundreds of thousands, even millions or billions, of years old. 6000 years is not enough time for fossilisation to take place.
Your point was about continental drift, in argument to a point about fossilization and fossil locations. Good one. And it's no surprise you don't have a source, really, don't worry about it.Quote:
Actually, my point was about continetal drift, not fossilisation. And I must asmit, that I cannot provide a source on my 'half a bird' thing. I saw it on a television documentary a few years ago, and I cannot track down another source.
Actually, no, wrong again, it was thought up as a way of proving an aspect of Evolutionism, that being the idea that the earth is billions of years old. And again, wrong, it hasn't been proven. What's more, the main "evidence" for the idea is the fact that similar fossils have been found in Africa and South America, which would make perfect sense with any other theory, not just that one.Quote:
Err... no, actually, continetal drift is proved by geological and paelontological reserach, as well as the study of earthquakes and volcanoes. Geologist have though long and hard about this, and have been slowly working it out for centuries.
Whatsmore, this theory was created based on certain research and investigation, not as way of proving another theory.
Very good. Good start. Unfortunately, that's just information on the theoy, and not evidence supporting it, especially not against other possibilities. And yes, billions upon billions of gallons of water can (and did) work to shape the earth's crust.Quote:
Err... that makes little or no sense... the eath is a huge, extremely dense ball of molten rock and metal... water simply souldn't distort the shape of the crust. You haven't actually researched this very well...
Well, here's some info on continetal drift:
http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...ontdrift.shtml
Don't worry about it. I expected it, anyway.Quote:
I admit the 300,000 miles thing was made up. Don't get worked up about it.
That's not the way they taught it in my school...the three different school systems I was in that taught it.Quote:
Firstly, 'we all evolved from black people' is a gross misinterpretation. We evolved from earlier humans, who's appearance may have been similar to modern africans. As each human group spread across the globe, they all eveolved to fit their new envirnoment. The differences between races are, evolutionary theory says, simply to do with environment, and are no cause for rascism.
I like this. "You want a good example, here, look at this rare group of extremists." Try again. Better yet, let me point this out. You refer to the idea that Evolutionism is racist as being "a gross misinterpretation", then turn around and recognize that your one and only example of Creationism (which, according to you, "leaves more room for rascism [sic] than evolution") is racist is another misinterpretation.Quote:
And if you want to see how creationism leads to rascism, look at the Klu Klux Klan- they believed that white men had been created 'better' than other races. A misinterpretation, I know, but the point is it still happens.
Of course things can be -- and have been -- proven. Even to me. Just not Evolutionism. See how that works?Quote:
By your standards, nothing has been, or even can be,proven. After all, there could always be some lying or falsification.
Weren't you just telling me that we've witnessed evolution, so we know it's real? I could be wrong about that. Besides, there's always periods of "accelerated evolution", right?Quote:
I admit few things have been definitely proven, but nothing that one has not personally witnessed can be true to one's self. And, you can't witness evoultion- it takes too long.
Substantiated, you mean? Here's a tip. Don't tell me why I believe what I do. You don't even know why you believe what you do, there's no way you can see that for somebody else.Quote:
No, no, no. Scientists believe what they do based on facts and evidence. You beleive what you do based on things far less substantial (I do not mean this offensively- I simply mean 'spiritual' or 'immaterial').
Everybody has their own evidence for believing what they believe. What they see, what they feel, and their interpretations of it.
Once again. Don't try to figure out where I picked up my ideas. I might have been taught to believe Creation in church, but they certainly don't go in depth with the evidence. I went on my own and looked into things for myself -- I didn't believe everything I was fed, like most others, on both sides.Quote:
Well, there you go. We both excerised our freedoms of beleif! Hurrah and huzzah for us! Only, I was fed creationism in school and church, so you may well have picked up your ideas from church, and not indpendent study.
Defects happen -- it's simply a variation in a gene or two, some wires get crossed, and BAM, something's wrong. But while these crossed wires are passed down though generations, the first generation was created without fault, so there wasn't any defect to pass down, was there?Quote:
Err... you just explained genetics, the idea you are putting down... And, if there were no genetic defects to start with, how did they occur. Evolution, perhaps?
Also, I apologise for 'freaky mutie kids'. That may have been offensive or insensitive to you or someone else. I'm sorry.
Right. Anybody who disagrees with you is "just dumb". Great way to look at things, you'll go far.Quote:
Then they're just dumb... how could someone masquerading as a man (or woman) of science possbly revert to such simplistic, unproven ideas? Science is meant to explain things we don't know, not defend what we think we do... That's religions job.
I'm gonna do something more worth my time.
I like this answer. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara
I have no religion. Faith is irrational.
Why believe something that has absolutely no truth?
*posts his favorite quote from Alpha Centauri again*
"Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist." [/Russian Accent]
That quote sums up my view of religion. It's a childish desire to want some sort of universal parent figure that always watches over us and corrects our mistakes.
Humanity has been around for around 3 million years or so (at least homo sapiens sapiens has) I think it's about time we grew up, and left our parents protection. God's not going to fix our problems, nor is he going to punish us for our misdeeds. Notice a distinct lack of divine interaction? If /she/they ever existed, then I'm sure they feel the same way. We're being "kicked out of the house" so to speak. It is time we grew up and accepted our own responsibility.
You see, this is why I dislike atheism, and generally atheists as well. If you can know something is 100% wrong, when you have no solid proof of it being such (just like there's no solid proof of God's existence, or we'd all be believers), it's just as irrational as a faith in God. Blinding believing or blidnly dis-belieiving is about the same thing.Quote:
Why believe something that has absolutely no truth?
I know my knowledge and perception are limited. I can grasp things and concepts with my mind, intellect and logic... and that's why the idea of a God usually baffles me. However, I don't rule it out. I am open to God's existence, should concrete proof arise. I try to be open to ideas, in general. Everything has a little bit of truth in it, unlike this
sentence is trying to point. An ignorant phrase that proves blindness flows in both the ways - of the fanatic believer, and the fanatic dis-believer. You try so hard to stray from the ways of religion, disbelieving itself becomes your faith, your religion.Quote:
Why believe something that has absolutely no truth?
I don't think your outlook is entirely fair- you're basing this opinion on what you think poeple are like, not on any sort of substantial evidence. Besides, by your own standards, unquesting beleif is acceptable, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
OK, you're right there. We'll drop the mountain thingy.Quote:
Let me slow this down. I haven't seen any mountains in Scotland. You haven't seen any mountains in America. You still following me? So it's pointless to bring out those topics, because only one of us has firsthand knowledge of them. It would be like me trying to talk about military topics to you, and you trying to talk...hell, rugby, or cricket, or whatever else you're into that I wouldn't have any experience with. Get it? Don't want to lose you any more than I already have, here.Quote:
Yet, somehwo, I never mentioned the rockies, nor used it as an argument, so what I have and haven't seen is irrelevant.
I didn't literally mean that you admited defeat... though I can't see how else I was supposed to mean that... I was just over-glorifying a slight, and now it seems non-existant, victory. Oh well.Quote:
I read that wrong -- thought you said it was more difficult for something to be fossilized in the sea that it was on land. My mistake. I really don't see how I "admitted defeat", but hey, you keep on thinking that. You also tried to say nobody looks for fossils underwater. Keep it up.Quote:
I actually said that things fossilise on the sea bed- it was land that I said was no good for fossilisation. But, of course, you have just admitted defeat 'And things can fossilize very well in a sea bed, by the way.'
OK... manky fossil legs... weird. OK, fine, sometimes things can fossilise quickly. Under certain conditions, not all the time. For example, if you dig up a stone age man, from say, 8,000 years ago, he may not be fossilised. He may simply be a skeleton.Quote:
Let's see... This is a fossilized leg, in a boot.. Yes, a human leg, in a cowboy boot. This poor guy's leg (someone named him "The Limestone Cowboy") was either torn or shot off, apparently, and was found in a dry creek bed near Iraan, Texas. The maker of the boot, M. L. Leddy boot company (founded in 1936) says the boot is their make, from about 1950. Which means...stay with me now...it doesn't take millions of years for something to fossilize. There are also pictures of a petrified dog in a tree, chopped wood, and an Icthyosaurus giving birth. As my brother put it, "Despite what my mother says, it doesn't take millions of years to give birth." I don't know where I found it, but a few years ago I ran across pictures of a petrified twinkie, I believe -- they told us twinkies had a long shelf life, didn't they?Quote:
If fossilisation takes place, the wold would need to be at least hundreds of thousands, even millions or billions, of years old. 6000 years is not enough time for fossilisation to take place.
And that twinky wasn't a fossil. Bones fossilise, pastry doesn't. Though, I suspect you already knew that, and are simply mocking me. Dam it, everyone always does...
No suprise, hmm? Well, I've yet to see you produce a credible source, except for that cowboy's leg. And don't say 'Bible'. I meant a scientific source.Quote:
Your point was about continental drift, in argument to a point about fossilization and fossil locations. Good one. And it's no surprise you don't have a source, really, don't worry about it.Quote:
Actually, my point was about continetal drift, not fossilisation. And I must asmit, that I cannot provide a source on my 'half a bird' thing. I saw it on a television documentary a few years ago, and I cannot track down another source.
Actually, no, it was thought up independantly, by geologists, will evolution was the work of naturalists, biologists and paleontologists. They just happened to fit together. You'll often find that, when two things are true.Quote:
Actually, no, wrong again, it was thought up as a way of proving an aspect of Evolutionism, that being the idea that the earth is billions of years old. And again, wrong, it hasn't been proven. What's more, the main "evidence" for the idea is the fact that similar fossils have been found in Africa and South America, which would make perfect sense with any other theory, not just that one.Quote:
Err... no, actually, continetal drift is proved by geological and paelontological reserach, as well as the study of earthquakes and volcanoes. Geologist have though long and hard about this, and have been slowly working it out for centuries.
Whatsmore, this theory was created based on certain research and investigation, not as way of proving another theory.
Oh, yes, I agree, a sufficient amount of water cpuld cause the crust to distort. But, the earth does not, nor has it ever, contained that much water. At all. Ever.Quote:
Very good. Good start. Unfortunately, that's just information on the theoy, and not evidence supporting it, especially not against other possibilities. And yes, billions upon billions of gallons of water can (and did) work to shape the earth's crust.Quote:
Err... that makes little or no sense... the eath is a huge, extremely dense ball of molten rock and metal... water simply souldn't distort the shape of the crust. You haven't actually researched this very well...
Well, here's some info on continetal drift:
http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...ontdrift.shtml
Here's some evidence which you would have found, if you'd bothered to actually explore the first link to any depth. It's a kids site. It shouldn't be too hard:
http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/p.../evidence.html
Ah, well. I'll write it down, and in 6,000 years someone will be saying 'It's true because it's in the book!'Quote:
Don't worry about it. I expected it, anyway.Quote:
I admit the 300,000 miles thing was made up. Don't get worked up about it.
Well, you have rascist teachers. That's a problem for the school system, not a flaw in evolutionist theory.Quote:
That's not the way they taught it in my school...the three different school systems I was in that taught it.Quote:
Firstly, 'we all evolved from black people' is a gross misinterpretation. We evolved from earlier humans, who's appearance may have been similar to modern africans. As each human group spread across the globe, they all eveolved to fit their new envirnoment. The differences between races are, evolutionary theory says, simply to do with environment, and are no cause for rascism.
I know that only weirdo extremists use the bible to justify rascism, but the same applies to evolutionary theory- only weirdo extremists, like Hitler, attempt to use evolution to prove their rascist drivel.Quote:
I like this. "You want a good example, here, look at this rare group of extremists." Try again. Better yet, let me point this out. You refer to the idea that Evolutionism is racist as being "a gross misinterpretation", then turn around and recognize that your one and only example of Creationism (which, according to you, "leaves more room for rascism [sic] than evolution") is racist is another misinterpretation.Quote:
And if you want to see how creationism leads to rascism, look at the Klu Klux Klan- they believed that white men had been created 'better' than other races. A misinterpretation, I know, but the point is it still happens.
No. Not really- you deny any pro-evolutionary evidence on the basis of 'Well, I can't see how that could happen', rather than real evidence. Not good scientific practice, unfortuanately.Quote:
Of course things can be -- and have been -- proven. Even to me. Just not Evolutionism. See how that works?Quote:
By your standards, nothing has been, or even can be,proven. After all, there could always be some lying or falsification.
No. I was not. I said we had evidence for it, evidence so strong that it essentially proves evolutionism true. Not definitely, I'll admit it, but it's very good evidence, and the nearest rival theory lags far behind. And that rival is Evolution By Intelligent Design, not creationism, even scientific creationism.Quote:
Weren't you just telling me that we've witnessed evolution, so we know it's real? I could be wrong about that. Besides, there's always periods of "accelerated evolution", right?Quote:
I admit few things have been definitely proven, but nothing that one has not personally witnessed can be true to one's self. And, you can't witness evoultion- it takes too long.
OK, fine, but you told me that I beleived in creationism becasuse it's what I was taught in school. Incorrectly, as it turns out. So, don't "tell me why I believe what I do." Kay?Quote:
Substantiated, you mean? Here's a tip. Don't tell me why I believe what I do. You don't even know why you believe what you do, there's no way you can see that for somebody else.Quote:
No, no, no. Scientists believe what they do based on facts and evidence. You beleive what you do based on things far less substantial (I do not mean this offensively- I simply mean 'spiritual' or 'immaterial').
Everybody has their own evidence for believing what they believe. What they see, what they feel, and their interpretations of it.
Well, congratulations. You actually proved what they wanted you to think, when you should have been thinking for yourself. Whoop-de-doo.Quote:
Once again. Don't try to figure out where I picked up my ideas. I might have been taught to believe Creation in church, but they certainly don't go in depth with the evidence. I went on my own and looked into things for myself -- I didn't believe everything I was fed, like most others, on both sides.Quote:
Well, there you go. We both excerised our freedoms of beleif! Hurrah and huzzah for us! Only, I was fed creationism in school and church, so you may well have picked up your ideas from church, and not indpendent study.
If there was no defect to pass down, then there never should have been any defects. None of this "wires get crossed and BAM" stuff.Quote:
Defects happen -- it's simply a variation in a gene or two, some wires get crossed, and BAM, something's wrong. But while these crossed wires are passed down though generations, the first generation was created without fault, so there wasn't any defect to pass down, was there?Quote:
Err... you just explained genetics, the idea you are putting down... And, if there were no genetic defects to start with, how did they occur. Evolution, perhaps?
Also, I apologise for 'freaky mutie kids'. That may have been offensive or insensitive to you or someone else. I'm sorry.
[/quote]Quote:
Right. Anybody who disagrees with you is "just dumb". Great way to look at things, you'll go far.Quote:
Then they're just dumb... how could someone masquerading as a man (or woman) of science possbly revert to such simplistic, unproven ideas? Science is meant to explain things we don't know, not defend what we think we do... That's religions job.
I'm gonna do something more worth my time.
No, anyone who attempts to turn back the clock on scientific thought and attempts to use the ideas of bronze-age nomadic shepeards as a scientific theory is dumb. Well, maybe not dumb, that may be the wrong word... err, let's see, ignorant of the facts, OK?
A few questions:
1.What evidence is there for creationism. And by evidence, for creationism, I don't mean evidence against evolutionism or plate tectonics. I mean for creationism.
2. Why do scientists beleive in evolutionary theory if it's so obviously false? Why would people with PHDs and doctorates in bio-chemistry be so obviously duped? Care to explain? Or is it just some creationism of the godless scientists, out to destroy God and rule over the earth? You know that's not true, right? Yur not stupid.
3. How do you explain all the pre-6000Y.A. fossils? I know weve been over the 'fossilisation takes time' thingy, but what about neanderthals, dinosaurs and so on? Surely, if they'd been around 6,000 years, the bible would have made some mention of them, right?
4. How did so many species survive the flood? There's billions and billions of species that should have died, but all survived. Your not going to say that old Noah, and aging farmer, really had time to gather in all the millions of species of beetle in the rainforest? Even with the help of his three suns.
OFF-TOPIC-ISH: This isn't actually about the argument, but you the VHS of Dumbo, and at the end it has 3 old cartoons? Right? No? Well, it does... Anyway, in the Noah's Ark one, when they're building the ark, they've got all these monkey heping, but only two mnkey are gonna survive, so there's all these monkeys working cos they think they're gonna survive, but Noah's just gonna let them drown. That freaked me out when I was 7.
You yourself have talked about how Creationists (or others) believe blindly, in the face of opposing evidence. We all know all too often people don't know why they believe something, on both sides of any topic. Many people believe -- whatever they believe -- even though most others may think it's wrong, or have shown "evidence" to "disprove" it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Actually, that only goes to disprove the idea that Evolutionists live by, that something has to be hundreds of thousands or millions of years old to fossilize, and that fossilization happens very slowly. It proves that fossilization can happen within a couple dozen years. Something from 8,000 years ago could be fossilized, yes, or it might not -- actually, if it wasn't fossilized, it probably wouldn't make it 8000 years.Quote:
OK... manky fossil legs... weird. OK, fine, sometimes things can fossilise quickly. Under certain conditions, not all the time. For example, if you dig up a stone age man, from say, 8,000 years ago, he may not be fossilised. He may simply be a skeleton.
Actually, again, no. Things fossilize because they absorb minerals, prettymuch turning whatever it is to stone. A twinkie could absorb minerals just like flesh could.Quote:
And that twinky wasn't a fossil. Bones fossilise, pastry doesn't. Though, I suspect you already knew that, and are simply mocking me. Dam it, everyone always does...
I also haven't made such an outrageous claim as to say something like two halves of the exact same bird were found thousands of miles apart. You did. But I'll get to 'em.Quote:
No suprise, hmm? Well, I've yet to see you produce a credible source, except for that cowboy's leg. And don't say 'Bible'. I meant a scientific source.
Yes, you'll often find evidence interpreted in such a way as to fit one theory, if it can support another theory they're trying to prove. Just like polls and surveys can say anything the maker wants them to say, evidence can be interpreted many ways -- even manipulated to fit Evolutionism. As has been done, many times.Quote:
Actually, no, it was thought up independantly, by geologists, will evolution was the work of naturalists, biologists and paleontologists. They just happened to fit together. You'll often find that, when two things are true.
Nowhere in that site (which I read the first time, thank you) does it say there's never been enough weight from water to distort the crust. Or that there's never been enough water to do it. Any other sources that would claim that?Quote:
Oh, yes, I agree, a sufficient amount of water cpuld cause the crust to distort. But, the earth does not, nor has it ever, contained that much water. At all. Ever.
Here's some evidence which you would have found, if you'd bothered to actually explore the first link to any depth. It's a kids site. It shouldn't be too hard:
http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/p.../evidence.html
If evidence supports it, that's quite possible.Quote:
Ah, well. I'll write it down, and in 6,000 years someone will be saying 'It's true because it's in the book!'Quote:
Don't worry about it. I expected it, anyway.Quote:
I admit the 300,000 miles thing was made up. Don't get worked up about it.
Right. Three different school systems in two states, and all of my teachers were racist? So we have racist teachers (that haven't been sued and fired, that's a dream), instead of a racist theory. Nice try.Quote:
Well, you have rascist teachers. That's a problem for the school system, not a flaw in evolutionist theory.
There's a difference in manipulating it to be interpreted as being racist, and it being racist from the get-go.Quote:
I know that only weirdo extremists use the bible to justify rascism, but the same applies to evolutionary theory- only weirdo extremists, like Hitler, attempt to use evolution to prove their rascist drivel.
I haven't denied any logical "evidence" that supports Evolutionism. I've shown some to not be "evidence" at all, sure, but if it's there, I won't deny it. Whereas you've denied anything supporting my view.Quote:
No. Not really- you deny any pro-evolutionary evidence on the basis of 'Well, I can't see how that could happen', rather than real evidence. Not good scientific practice, unfortuanately.Quote:
Of course things can be -- and have been -- proven. Even to me. Just not Evolutionism. See how that works?Quote:
By your standards, nothing has been, or even can be,proven. After all, there could always be some lying or falsification.
You see it as lagging "far behind" because you haven't seen (read: looked for) evidence of anything else. Supporting something without knowledge of anything else...why am I not surprised.Quote:
No. I was not. I said we had evidence for it, evidence so strong that it essentially proves evolutionism true. Not definitely, I'll admit it, but it's very good evidence, and the nearest rival theory lags far behind. And that rival is Evolution By Intelligent Design, not creationism, even scientific creationism.
My mistake. It's what most people are taught in school, which is why they believe it.Quote:
OK, fine, but you told me that I beleived in creationism [(Evolutionism)] becasuse it's what I was taught in school. Incorrectly, as it turns out. So, don't "tell me why I believe what I do." Kay?
Yes, I actually went out and researched something for myself, instead of listening to what I was being fed. It's a good idea, trust me.Quote:
Well, congratulations. You actually proved what they wanted you to think, when you should have been thinking for yourself. Whoop-de-doo.
You're not making sense. Of course defects will develop, they're defects. That would be like buying a new car and saying hey, it's new and perfect, it should never have anything wrong with it.Quote:
If there was no defect to pass down, then there never should have been any defects. None of this "wires get crossed and BAM" stuff.
"Scientific thought"? "Nomadic shepeards[sic]"? Both wrong. And I'm pretty sure that scientists that set out to prove Evolutionism "converting" to Creationism isn't because they're "ignorant of the facts". Not them, anyway. Somehow I doubt that somebody who has devoted their life to learning about our "origins" would be completely ignorant of, well, our origins.Quote:
No, anyone who attempts to turn back the clock on scientific thought and attempts to use the ideas of bronze-age nomadic shepeards as a scientific theory is dumb. Well, maybe not dumb, that may be the wrong word... err, let's see, ignorant of the facts, OK?
Hold up on this.Quote:
1.What evidence is there for creationism. And by evidence, for creationism, I don't mean evidence against evolutionism or plate tectonics. I mean for creationism.
Is it really so "stupid" to believe that people are looking for any explanation that doesn't involve God? It's not "so obviously false" to the people that believe it -- you know that yourself. Everything they find supports their theory, whether it actually does or not -- you get my drift?Quote:
2. Why do scientists beleive in evolutionary theory if it's so obviously false? Why would people with PHDs and doctorates in bio-chemistry be so obviously duped? Care to explain? Or is it just some creationism of the godless scientists, out to destroy God and rule over the earth? You know that's not true, right? Yur not stupid.
Actually, the Bible does mention dinosaurs, two specifically. It just refers to them as "dragons", as did everybody of that time ... and still today, in certain cultures. Some dinosaurs still exist today -- tribes with prettymuch no contact with the outside world, like in the Amazon or Congo, have stories of them. They've found plesiosaurs washed up on beaches. There are seven "Lochs" in Scotland -- all of them have reported similar sightings. Plus they've been sighted in Lake Champlain in New Hampshire, the Ogopogo in british Columbia, Isa in China, Usa in Japan, and in Bushman and Australian aboriginal rock-carvings. As well as in the Nazca stones. As well as Five-toed llama's painted on Teotihuacan pottery, even though they were supposedly extinct 5 million years ago, and paintings of the Archeopteryx, supposedly extinct about 170 million years ago, in Mayan temples.Quote:
3. How do you explain all the pre-6000Y.A. fossils? I know weve been over the 'fossilisation takes time' thingy, but what about neanderthals, dinosaurs and so on? Surely, if they'd been around 6,000 years, the bible would have made some mention of them, right?
As for fossils...there are many types of dating techniques, and none of them are consistent. Any technique can be used to produce, literally, the desired numbers. They've even dated living things to be millions of years old.
Alright, let's see here. First of all, the rainforest. Since the Garden of Eden was around where Noah was, he didn't have to go extremely far to gather the animals he needed. It wasn't like there were any animals in the Amazon rainforest, because they hadn't moved there yet. Second. Insects are easy. God ordered Noah to take every creature that had the breath of life in its nostrils. No nostrils, no ticket. Insects can float. They can cling to debris, or burrow in the mud, enough survive.Quote:
4. How did so many species survive the flood? There's billions and billions of species that should have died, but all survived. Your not going to say that old Noah, and aging farmer, really had time to gather in all the millions of species of beetle in the rainforest? Even with the help of his three suns.
Alright. Here we go. Evidence for Creation, and evidence against Evolutionism.
http://www.origins.org/articles/john...hofdarwin.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohl...ecreation.html
http://www.origins.org/mc/index.html
http://www.origins.org/menus/design.html
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?cat=14
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/index.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c001.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.aspx
http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php
The first and last, I'd recommend greatly.
They'd have to absorb enough minerals BEFORE decomposing, to become a fossil.Quote:
Things fossilize because they absorb minerals, prettymuch turning whatever it is to stone. A twinkie could absorb minerals just like flesh could.
i am a practising jahovas witness who can have blood transfusions and celebrates christmas
To start off, have you heard that the Catholic Bishops in Britain have declared that not all of the Bible is 'literrally true'? I know this doesn't actually change the argument, but I just thought it was interesting- Creationism is slipping away so much, that even the Catholic Church is forced to update it's doctrines.
Well, many creationists do believe blindly. Many people also have blind beleif in evolutionism. But that's just normal, everyday people. Not scientists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Actually, any archaelogist/paeleontologist will say that the time taken for fossillisation differes depending on environment. Besides, proving that it can take just dozens of years, doesn't mean that it always does.Quote:
Actually, that only goes to disprove the idea that Evolutionists live by, that something has to be hundreds of thousands or millions of years old to fossilize, and that fossilization happens very slowly. It proves that fossilization can happen within a couple dozen years. Something from 8,000 years ago could be fossilized, yes, or it might not -- actually, if it wasn't fossilized, it probably wouldn't make it 8000 years.Quote:
OK... manky fossil legs... weird. OK, fine, sometimes things can fossilise quickly. Under certain conditions, not all the time. For example, if you dig up a stone age man, from say, 8,000 years ago, he may not be fossilised. He may simply be a skeleton.
Yeah, but that depends on your opinion. I find the idea that the world was made in a week 'outrageous', to say the least.Quote:
I also haven't made such an outrageous claim as to say something like two halves of the exact same bird were found thousands of miles apart. You did. But I'll get to 'em.Quote:
No suprise, hmm? Well, I've yet to see you produce a credible source, except for that cowboy's leg. And don't say 'Bible'. I meant a scientific source.
Just as you interpreted the Everest fossils so that they helped proved your idea. Hypocritical, maybe?Quote:
Yes, you'll often find evidence interpreted in such a way as to fit one theory, if it can support another theory they're trying to prove. Just like polls and surveys can say anything the maker wants them to say, evidence can be interpreted many ways -- even manipulated to fit Evolutionism. As has been done, many times.Quote:
Actually, no, it was thought up independantly, by geologists, will evolution was the work of naturalists, biologists and paleontologists. They just happened to fit together. You'll often find that, when two things are true.
A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It deal with the whole subject, including the point that if it were not for plate tectonics, the whole earth would be worn completely smooth.Quote:
Nowhere in that site (which I read the first time, thank you) does it say there's never been enough weight from water to distort the crust. Or that there's never been enough water to do it. Any other sources that would claim that?Quote:
Oh, yes, I agree, a sufficient amount of water cpuld cause the crust to distort. But, the earth does not, nor has it ever, contained that much water. At all. Ever.
Here's some evidence which you would have found, if you'd bothered to actually explore the first link to any depth. It's a kids site. It shouldn't be too hard:
http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/p.../evidence.html
Yes, evidence... Hmm... I'm afraid your all out of that, too.Quote:
If evidence supports it, that's quite possible.Quote:
Ah, well. I'll write it down, and in 6,000 years someone will be saying 'It's true because it's in the book!'Quote:
Don't worry about it. I expected it, anyway.Quote:
I admit the 300,000 miles thing was made up. Don't get worked up about it.
Maybe you could blame the poor American school system and it's hugely outdated educational material. Besides, this is a moot point- if my theories rascist, so's your's. There's no real way round that.Quote:
Right. Three different school systems in two states, and all of my teachers were racist? So we have racist teachers (that haven't been sued and fired, that's a dream), instead of a racist theory. Nice try.Quote:
Well, you have rascist teachers. That's a problem for the school system, not a flaw in evolutionist theory.
Dammit, I admitted that Nazism is a distortion of evolutionism, what more do you want?Quote:
There's a difference in manipulating it to be interpreted as being racist, and it being racist from the get-go.Quote:
I know that only weirdo extremists use the bible to justify rascism, but the same applies to evolutionary theory- only weirdo extremists, like Hitler, attempt to use evolution to prove their rascist drivel.
Anyway, you couldn't find a single shred of evidence that suggested that evolutionism was inherently rascist.
Yep. You have. And plate tectonics, a theory which in no way contradicts creationism, despite your opinions. You just denie any eveidnce that I put forward.Quote:
I haven't denied any logical "evidence" that supports Evolutionism. I've shown some to not be "evidence" at all, sure, but if it's there, I won't deny it. Whereas you've denied anything supporting my view.Quote:
No. Not really- you deny any pro-evolutionary evidence on the basis of 'Well, I can't see how that could happen', rather than real evidence. Not good scientific practice, unfortuanately.Quote:
Of course things can be -- and have been -- proven. Even to me. Just not Evolutionism. See how that works?Quote:
By your standards, nothing has been, or even can be,proven. After all, there could always be some lying or falsification.
Hell, you even called it "evidence". That's obvious denial.
I see it as lagging far behind because it is barely an advancement on the mysticism of bronze age shepeards.Quote:
You see it as lagging "far behind" because you haven't seen (read: looked for) evidence of anything else. Supporting something without knowledge of anything else...why am I not surprised.Quote:
No. I was not. I said we had evidence for it, evidence so strong that it essentially proves evolutionism true. Not definitely, I'll admit it, but it's very good evidence, and the nearest rival theory lags far behind. And that rival is Evolution By Intelligent Design, not creationism, even scientific creationism.
Well, like I said, I went to a Catholic School.Quote:
My mistake. It's what most people are taught in school, which is why they believe it.Quote:
OK, fine, but you told me that I beleived in creationism [(Evolutionism)] becasuse it's what I was taught in school. Incorrectly, as it turns out. So, don't "tell me why I believe what I do." Kay?
Cars are affected by wear and tear. The gentic structure is not .(Except from radiation, but that's really a different thing altogether- it tend to just kill, rather than cause wear and tear.)Quote:
You're not making sense. Of course defects will develop, they're defects. That would be like buying a new car and saying hey, it's new and perfect, it should never have anything wrong with it.Quote:
If there was no defect to pass down, then there never should have been any defects. None of this "wires get crossed and BAM" stuff.
I don't see how. How you spend your life is not a direct reflection of your knowledge.Quote:
"Scientific thought"? "Nomadic shepeards[sic]"? Both wrong. And I'm pretty sure that scientists that set out to prove Evolutionism "converting" to Creationism isn't because they're "ignorant of the facts". Not them, anyway. Somehow I doubt that somebody who has devoted their life to learning about our "origins" would be completely ignorant of, well, our origins.Quote:
No, anyone who attempts to turn back the clock on scientific thought and attempts to use the ideas of bronze-age nomadic shepeards as a scientific theory is dumb. Well, maybe not dumb, that may be the wrong word... err, let's see, ignorant of the facts, OK?
And, as I've said before, when the creation story was written, the Israelites were nomadic animal-herders, and not exactly the most adavnced scientific thinkers. It made sense at the time, yeah. But that time was about five or six thousands years ago.
Right. Now your using celtic folklore and meso-american mythology as evidence? Wooh... that's not gonna work.Quote:
Hold up on this.Quote:
1.What evidence is there for creationism. And by evidence, for creationism, I don't mean evidence against evolutionism or plate tectonics. I mean for creationism.
Is it really so "stupid" to believe that people are looking for any explanation that doesn't involve God? It's not "so obviously false" to the people that believe it -- you know that yourself. Everything they find supports their theory, whether it actually does or not -- you get my drift?Quote:
2. Why do scientists beleive in evolutionary theory if it's so obviously false? Why would people with PHDs and doctorates in bio-chemistry be so obviously duped? Care to explain? Or is it just some creationism of the godless scientists, out to destroy God and rule over the earth? You know that's not true, right? Yur not stupid.
Actually, the Bible does mention dinosaurs, two specifically. It just refers to them as "dragons", as did everybody of that time ... and still today, in certain cultures. Some dinosaurs still exist today -- tribes with prettymuch no contact with the outside world, like in the Amazon or Congo, have stories of them. They've found plesiosaurs washed up on beaches. There are seven "Lochs" in Scotland -- all of them have reported similar sightings. Plus they've been sighted in Lake Champlain in New Hampshire, the Ogopogo in british Columbia, Isa in China, Usa in Japan, and in Bushman and Australian aboriginal rock-carvings. As well as in the Nazca stones. As well as Five-toed llama's painted on Teotihuacan pottery, even though they were supposedly extinct 5 million years ago, and paintings of the Archeopteryx, supposedly extinct about 170 million years ago, in Mayan temples.Quote:
3. How do you explain all the pre-6000Y.A. fossils? I know weve been over the 'fossilisation takes time' thingy, but what about neanderthals, dinosaurs and so on? Surely, if they'd been around 6,000 years, the bible would have made some mention of them, right?
As for fossils...there are many types of dating techniques, and none of them are consistent. Any technique can be used to produce, literally, the desired numbers. They've even dated living things to be millions of years old.
Err... Eden was in mesopotamia (the Tigris and Euphrates ran out of it, and they're in Iraq, and the Pishon runs into 'Cush', or Kush, modern Ethiopia). The animals of the Brazillian rainforest are nor within reasonable distance of there. Besides, what about scorpions? They can't swim. Some of them live in the Sahara desert. No rivers there.Quote:
Alright, let's see here. First of all, the rainforest. Since the Garden of Eden was around where Noah was, he didn't have to go extremely far to gather the animals he needed. It wasn't like there were any animals in the Amazon rainforest, because they hadn't moved there yet. Second. Insects are easy. God ordered Noah to take every creature that had the breath of life in its nostrils. No nostrils, no ticket. Insects can float. They can cling to debris, or burrow in the mud, enough survive.Quote:
4. How did so many species survive the flood? There's billions and billions of species that should have died, but all survived. Your not going to say that old Noah, and aging farmer, really had time to gather in all the millions of species of beetle in the rainforest? Even with the help of his three suns.
Well, there are a few decent ones, but they're mostly either gibberish or just plain wrong. They seem to think that self-assurance and logic are the same thing... (Not all, remember- some were alright, if misguided).Quote:
Alright. Here we go. Evidence for Creation, and evidence against Evolutionism.
http://www.origins.org/articles/john...hofdarwin.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohl...ecreation.html
http://www.origins.org/mc/index.html
http://www.origins.org/menus/design.html
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?cat=14
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/index.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c001.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.aspx
http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php
The first and last, I'd recommend greatly.
OK, but one quesion:
Why the Bible?
WHat I mean by this is, why your particular religion? Why is it right? Because you beleive it? Why not Hinduism, or Taoism? Why not old Viking mythology? Frankly, most of them are as valid as Christian creationism.
That's why evolutionism is different- it isn't based on what you happened to believe- it's based on what's actually true.
for the record im a christian
born to a christian family
turned away -- rebelled
did my research
christianity made the most sence
now im back
dont get me wrong tho, there are some very interesting phyllosophical ideas that seem to make sence, but on that note, they're just ideas. words. no facts
EDIT: oh, and if ya wanna look up something interesting -- one fact i find that really disproves evolution -- look up the bacterial flagellum
it's this nifty little motor-like machine that bacteria have in order to "swim" arround. evolution works over time, borrowing pieces from other areas to construct new things, but at the same time has the "survival of the fittest" idea, eliminating anything that's not immediately useful. the bacterial flagellum doesnt work unless every single piece exists. if a piece was missing durring evolution and it didnt function, the "survival..." process would eliminate it.... but it's arround today. to add a little more, evolution takes time, again, slowly mutating to make addaptions. the bacterial flagellum has 13-some-odd pieces that are in no other organism anywhere. all of those pieces would have had to be instantly generated and put into their exact places all at once for the process of elimination not to have exterminated it. sounds like it took a little brains to put that whole ordeal together, but isnt evolution sponanious and random? hmmm
Dammit, I had this thing nearly done, and screwed up, and now I have to do it all over again.
You're probably taking this way out of context. Some parts -- few -- of the Bible are meant to be taken more figuratively than literally. Like Revelations. Not Genesis, or the Gospel. Anybody who has studied the Bible, or been taught the Bible, knows this. Just because some parts are to be taken more figuratively than literally doesn't mean any of it isn't true. Nice try. And like I said, the Catholic Church doesn't speak for all of Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Of course, except those scientists who believe Creationism. Can't forget them. But you, you know what you're talking about, so much moreso than those "dumb" scientists, right? No matter that they've been studying a subject for longer than you've been breathing.Quote:
Well, many creationists do believe blindly. Many people also have blind beleif in evolutionism. But that's just normal, everyday people. Not scientists.
Yes, they'll say time to fossilize varies. But few will admit (until confronted with the proof, anyway -- and some not even then) that it's possible for something to fossilize in a few years. And no, it may not always take just a couple dozen years for something to become a fossil, but the fact that it has, many times, disproves the well-spread myth that it takes millions of years to do.Quote:
Actually, any archaelogist/paeleontologist will say that the time taken for fossillisation differes depending on environment. Besides, proving that it can take just dozens of years, doesn't mean that it always does.
Just as you interpreted the Everest fossils so that they helped proved your idea. Hypocritical, maybe?[/QUOTE]Quote:
Yes, you'll often find evidence interpreted in such a way as to fit one theory, if it can support another theory they're trying to prove. Just like polls and surveys can say anything the maker wants them to say, evidence can be interpreted many ways -- even manipulated to fit Evolutionism. As has been done, many times.
Actually, the fossils on Everest I mentioned can only be interpreted that way. The "reasoning" you try to use would be like finding a Ford Mustang in a garage built in 1920, and saying the entire thing was built just like you found it. The fossils on top of Everest are of things that Evolutionists say didn't exist at the time they could have gotten where they are -- when Everest was still underwater, there was no way those organisms could have fossilized, because they didn't exist. See how your logic is contradictory?
Completely smooth by what? Because water doesn't have the power to influence the shape of the crust, right?Quote:
A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It deal with the whole subject, including the point that if it were not for plate tectonics, the whole earth would be worn completely smooth.
Alright, wrong on two parts here. Firstly, though the American pubic school system is nothing to be proud of (because it's run by our government), it certainly isn't "poor" or "hugely outdated". Of the three different school systems that tried to force-feed Evolutionism to me, in one, I was in a class of nearly 500 -- in the next, I made 60. Same material, new books, new "evidence". It doesn't really vary from teacher to teacher, school system to school system, state to state.Quote:
Maybe you could blame the poor American school system and it's hugely outdated educational material. Besides, this is a moot point- if my theories rascist, so's your's. There's no real way round that.
Second. Evolutionism is racist in nature. Just because you listed one extremist on either side that interpreted Christianity/Creation and Evolutionism as racist doesn't mean Evolutionism isn't racist in a moderate view as well. That doesn't make Creation racist, because nowhere in Genesis does it say that one race or color of people is any better, smarter, or more advanced than any other. Which is not the case with Evolutionism.
Wrong again. If I'm confronted with real evidence -- by anybody, in any debate -- I actually consider it. What you've presented, however, is not real evidence, only manipulations and downright fabrications.Quote:
Yep. You have. And plate tectonics, a theory which in no way contradicts creationism, despite your opinions. You just denie any eveidnce that I put forward.Quote:
I haven't denied any logical "evidence" that supports Evolutionism. I've shown some to not be "evidence" at all, sure, but if it's there, I won't deny it. Whereas you've denied anything supporting my view.
Hell, you even called it "evidence". That's obvious denial.
You'll learn about genetics in high school, so I won't go too far in depth with this. Basically, as genes are passed from parent to offspring, sometimes things go wrong -- wires get crossed, genes get misspliced, etc. -- and often, those -- we'll call them "defects" -- often, those defects pass from the offspring to their offspring, and so on. There are hundreds of thousands of genetic disorders in the world today, all going back to one defect long, long ago -- everything from Downs Syndome to Anemia to, hell, male-pattern baldness and webbed toes.Quote:
Cars are affected by wear and tear. The gentic structure is not .(Except from radiation, but that's really a different thing altogether- it tend to just kill, rather than cause wear and tear.)
Let me show you how you've just severely contradicted yourself with two consecutive statements. Here are the two arguments against this ... "logic".Quote:
I don't see how. How you spend your life is not a direct reflection of your knowledge.
And, as I've said before, when the creation story was written, the Israelites were nomadic animal-herders, and not exactly the most adavnced scientific thinkers. It made sense at the time, yeah. But that time was about five or six thousands years ago.
1.) "How you spend your life is not a direct reflection of your knowledge" -- which means, according to you, "nomadic animal-herders" may very well know quite a bit about the creation of the world. Hell, they may have been the most technologically advanced civilization in the world at that time, or for centuries to come. Because just because they were "nomadic animal-herders" doesn't mean they didn't know about more than that, right?
2.) "How you spend your life is not a direct reflection of your knowledge" -- Are you serious with this? Not only do you think you know more than those "dumb" scientists who believe Creation, but you think that studying something for ten, twenty, thirty years doesn't mean you know anything about it? I bet you know more about law than a career judge, and more about the military than a career soldier, and more about medicine than a career doctor, and more about architecture than a career engineer, huh? After all, just because they've done it all their life doesn't mean you don't know more than them about it.
I'm using dinosaurs that have been washed up on beaches. I'm using legends of interaction with creatures you say never co-existed with man. I'm using semi-accurate depictions of creatures which, according to you, nobody would have any idea what they looked like. I'm using depictions and stories from over a half-dozen cultures all over the world. But I guess you don't have any argument against it, so you'll attack it.Quote:
Right. Now your using celtic folklore and meso-american mythology as evidence? Wooh... that's not gonna work.Quote:
...Some dinosaurs still exist today -- tribes with prettymuch no contact with the outside world, like in the Amazon or Congo, have stories of them. They've found plesiosaurs washed up on beaches. There are seven "Lochs" in Scotland -- all of them have reported similar sightings. Plus they've been sighted in Lake Champlain in New Hampshire, the Ogopogo in british Columbia, Isa in China, Usa in Japan, and in Bushman and Australian aboriginal rock-carvings. As well as in the Nazca stones. As well as Five-toed llama's painted on Teotihuacan pottery, even though they were supposedly extinct 5 million years ago, and paintings of the Archeopteryx, supposedly extinct about 170 million years ago, in Mayan temples.
You didn't get it. There were no animals in the Brizillian rainforest. They were created in Eden (not near Brazil), and they hadn't yet migrated. Don't worry, you'll get it someday.Quote:
Err... Eden was in mesopotamia (the Tigris and Euphrates ran out of it, and they're in Iraq, and the Pishon runs into 'Cush', or Kush, modern Ethiopia). The animals of the Brazillian rainforest are nor within reasonable distance of there.
So instead of debating against them, all valid sources, you attack most of them and dismiss the rest. Nice.Quote:
Well, there are a few decent ones, but they're mostly either gibberish or just plain wrong. They seem to think that self-assurance and logic are the same thing... (Not all, remember- some were alright, if misguided).Quote:
Alright. Here we go. Evidence for Creation, and evidence against Evolutionism.
http://www.origins.org/articles/john...hofdarwin.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohl...ecreation.html
http://www.origins.org/mc/index.html
http://www.origins.org/menus/design.html
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?cat=14
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/index.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c001.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.aspx
http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php
The first and last, I'd recommend greatly.
Because I've researched Christianity and Evolutionism, as well as other religions, and I've come back to the one I have now. Evolutionism, believe it or not, was a big test of my faith, until I decided to research both sides of the issue and find out exactly why I believed what I believed, and whether or not I really should believe it. I've found the evidence to support my beliefs -- and I found it myself, I wasn't fed by some anti-religious textbook.Quote:
OK, but one quesion:
Why the Bible?
WHat I mean by this is, why your particular religion? Why is it right? Because you beleive it? Why not Hinduism, or Taoism? Why not old Viking mythology? Frankly, most of them are as valid as Christian creationism.
Wrong again. It's based on what you already happened to believe -- that no supernatural being played a part in the creation of the universe and life. Since you've chosen to close your eyes to every other possibility, you think its "actually true" -- whereas most others would realize that it's only a theory, one possibility of many, and nowhere near proven true.Quote:
That's why evolutionism is different- it isn't based on what you happened to believe- it's based on what's actually true.
Ok, then, why should we believe the Bible's true? Any of it? Why should we believe Genesis, when science has alternative explanations based on facts? Why should we take anything on "faith" instead of relying on our own minds to find explanations?Quote:
You're probably taking this way out of context. Some parts -- few -- of the Bible are meant to be taken more figuratively than literally. Like Revelations. Not Genesis, or the Gospel. Anybody who has studied the Bible, or been taught the Bible, knows this. Just because some parts are to be taken more figuratively than literally doesn't mean any of it isn't true.
I do not subordinate my life or judgment to the will of the majority/collective, and neither do you. Neither should you subordinate your life or judgment to the will of some "higher being," whether one exists or not.
Hmm... you guys should write my Thesis Statement. :D
Anyway. Yeah. I'm Roman Catholic, but I am open-minded enough to want to research and learn about other religions. Therefore, I know something about every religion from Black Baptist to Zoroasterism.
Mind you, I'm not an expert on any given religion...but I know enough to give some very general information about it.
Because it's part of the religion. When some people believe the religion, they can't pick and choose what they do and don't want to believe. Either somebody believes that religious text, or they don't. Since many people already believe Creation, and nothing has ben found to prove them wrong, why shouldn't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
It's all faith, and belief. When I believe that the "higher being" knows what to do with my life better than I do, I have no reason not to rely on the judgement of that "higher being". Just like when I was a kid, and might think "this seems like a good idea, but Dad wouldn't like me doing it, so maybe it's not." Same concept, really, inheriting the judgement of our Father.Quote:
I do not subordinate my life or judgment to the will of the majority/collective, and neither do you. Neither should you subordinate your life or judgment to the will of some "higher being," whether one exists or not.
Why can't you pick and choose what you want to believe? Why do you have to belong to a specific group? That's mob mentality - support in numbers.Quote:
Because it's part of the religion. When some people believe the religion, they can't pick and choose what they do and don't want to believe. Either somebody believes that religious text, or they don't. Since many people already believe Creation, and nothing has ben found to prove them wrong, why shouldn't they?
Nothing has been found to prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn theory wrong, either, so why shouldn't I believe in it? Something must first be proven to have some reason, some evidence, for it to be rationally believed true. Otherwise you allow for any stupid assertions.
Faith is the antithesis of reason, and of the value on one's own mind.Quote:
It's all faith, and belief.
If my dad disagrees with something I'm doing, he is free to give his reasons, and I will weigh them with my own reasons. I don't subordinate my life to anyone or anything - especially to something that I have no reason to believe in. Also, respecting God's judgment is absurd - does He talk to you at night? I didn't think so, so what is there to judge? A contradictory, absurd book (filled with more senseless violence than any other book in existence - if the Bible was a video game, it'd be Manhunt) written by some power-hungry tribal leaders thousands of years ago?Quote:
When I believe that the "higher being" knows what to do with my life better than I do, I have no reason not to rely on the judgement of that "higher being". Just like when I was a kid, and might think "this seems like a good idea, but Dad wouldn't like me doing it, so maybe it's not." Same concept, really, inheriting the judgement of our Father.
But I'm done. As EotW has shown, logic is useless against the irrational.
Wait a minute, that's why they banned me from there? Aw, man! Why didn't someone tell me sooner? I feel so out of the loop. :whimper:Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
You know, THIS is why I really don't post or look at here any more.
The internet makes me a sad panda, I hope you all learn one day that the internet, and indeed the whole world, doesn't give a damn about you or your internet arguments.
Atheist, I suppose. Is that condradictory? Well, I don't believe in any god or 'what not', so... yep. It's funny saying that, though. I've been taught all my life that there is a god, and to say there isn't is still strange for me. Like saying Santa isn't real.
Legally, I'm Roman-Catholic but I don't believe in little ol' God.
As for this creationism you boys have got going? Getting a little far into it. To be simple:Really? I was taught the bible. Before I was told anything I was told not to take most of the old testament seriously. It's mostly metaphors. Just stories used to explain life to people in a simple way. There was no Adam. No Eve. No Eden. None of that. It was stories. That's what I was taught.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Good point. In my opinion, you should never choose a religion 'cause it seems a little better than the others. That doesn't say too much about the religion. Never choose to believe every part of the religion for the reason that it is your religion. Take different ideas if you want and build something that makes an ounce of sense to you. That does leave you open to believe complete tripe, but in my opinion so do organised religions. ...he he? Having the religious authorities tell you what your every belief should be contradicts several of their other beliefs. I'd say it's very wrong to do that. Morally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Mabey if you read the thread, and told people where you think they were being irrational. I guess just kicking and screaming about it works as well :rolleyes2 Before you go calling my posts baseless mabey you should read them and adhier to some thought before you throw down a label. I think the "Plants can feel" debate was definatley a great example, I post some actual scientific proof, and you seemingly just disregard it anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by raistilin
Don't call me irrational because I have faith and knowlage in a religion that you think is false. Forcing your opinionated knowlage on someone else is just plaine rude. Granted, science holds many thruths, the bible also does, as well as the faith. Christianity is just fine, and being so, does not make you anyless of a person in any way.
Bipper
Doesn't make you any less of a person. True. Unless you started the crusades or you're Joan of Arch, that it is. Or Bush. But... that was really their fault, not Christianity's.
Hmm... it's true... because the rules say it's true? Well, that makes little or no sense to me, but, hey, I'm just a dumb old indepedndant thinker. What do I know about the universe? I never listen to semi-mad preachers or televangelist zealots! I'm nothing but a stupid, small-minded nincompoop who, for some reason, values the views of scienctists more than those of pre-historic nomads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
I mean, how could someone wandering the desert 8,000 years ago not know more about the world than someone with a PHD in zoology or geology? After all, these guys keep sheep, for God's sake! They're all geniuses! (Or geni-i, whatever you prefer).
But your not a kid. And, eventually, you had to start thinking for yourself, and not letting your dad do it for you.Quote:
It's all faith, and belief. When I believe that the "higher being" knows what to do with my life better than I do, I have no reason not to rely on the judgement of that "higher being". Just like when I was a kid, and might think "this seems like a good idea, but Dad wouldn't like me doing it, so maybe it's not." Same concept, really, inheriting the judgement of our Father.Quote:
I do not subordinate my life or judgment to the will of the majority/collective, and neither do you. Neither should you subordinate your life or judgment to the will of some "higher being," whether one exists or not.
That's the problem- creationists like their ideas because it removes a hell of a lot of effort from running their (and everyone else's) lives. It's all in the book. The untouchable, the all-knowing book. No need to think for yourself, or grapple with difficult moral issues! It'a ll there, written down, tried and tested.
Besides, why is god always the father? I'd think of him more as a mother. Or an a-sexual jellyblob thing.
Have you ever seen this?
http://www.venganza.org/
The interesting thing is that it's just about as plausible, and as easily proven, as creationism.
Check out the World Temperature/Number of Pirates graph. Classic.
EDIT:
That's true- even if I disagree with what you say, you do back up your ideas with valid points. I wish that were a more wide-spread habit...Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
lets just bitch on whether or not religion is real.
Thats what always happens with these threads lol.
Actually, the debate was on creationism vs evolutionism (evolutionism wins).
It's already been established that wether or not the concept of God is valid, is far too deeply philosophical too discuss here. It would just go badly.
Yes, water erosion would've completely smoothed out the planet's surface. Solid rock, even metal will gradually, inevitably be worn away by water action. Water erosion is ridiculously powerful, even though it takes time to act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
To my knowledge, there has never been a dinosaur or plesiosaur washed up on beaches anywhere. I'd love to see an article, photograph or report, since this would a particularly significant bit of info. Coelocanths are a common find, but they're merely an ancient fish species. The tuatara, similarly, is an ancient beaked lizard rather than a dinosaur.Quote:
I'm using dinosaurs that have been washed up on beaches.
Mythology has indeed given us a vast array of 'imaginary' creatures to admire... but again, many of these are based on other ideas. Chinese dragons were influenced by dinosaur bones, it is known that many of the world's greatest fossil fields are in China, and many fossils were ground up for use in medicines. Practically every culture has dragon myths, but with a few exceptions these creatures have no similarity to known dinosaur species. Strangely, none of the mythological entities resemble the truly great, fearsome dinosaur species. Rather than creating legends about the likes of archaeopteryx and plesiosaurus, why aren't there paintings and art depicting theriznosaurus, seismosaurus and quetzalcoatlus?Quote:
I'm using legends of interaction with creatures you say never co-existed with man. I'm using semi-accurate depictions of creatures which, according to you, nobody would have any idea what they looked like. I'm using depictions and stories from over a half-dozen cultures all over the world. But I guess you don't have any argument against it, so you'll attack it.
As for the notion that materials can fossilise quickly... this is, in some senses, true. There's a cave in England which is famous for making porous materials petrify rapidly, due to the mineral content of the water that drips from its ceiling. Cloth, plants, even stuffed toys are turned into silicate 'fossils' in a relatively short time.
However, this is utterly unrelated to vast geological strata of mudstone - the gunk from the sea floor - which has gone from being sand and mud, and truly become rock. Same's true for basically every other fossil-bearing stone.
Another relevant issue is geological stratification itself. Places such as cliffs - where the strata are visible - can provide a useful 'timeline', of sorts. Every year, as the seasons pass, different kinds of residue are laid down in sediment and soil. Volcanic eruptions leave layers of ash; many volcanoes are known to erupt on a regular, predictable basis. What I'm saying is, there's simply too much rock with too many layers to account for a mere 7000-10000 year history. Unless, of course, things started off extremely fast, then slowed down exponentially - thus giving the impression of a steady, continual process. Plate tectonics also comes into it. Rather than being a far-fetched theory, it is known that the continents are drifting at a rate of approximately one centimeter per year. Modern technology has confirmed this. Also, at faults on the sea floor, volcanoes can be seen creating 'new' sea floor, where the continents meet. The theory of all continents having previously been joined is further reinforced by geological evidence, with ancient cliffs in completely separate locations - for example, Europe and the Americas - having exactly the same rock in their lower levels. Not just similar types of rock in similar patterns, but the same stone. Same composition, same thickness and depth of the strata. A geologist could give a better explanation than me, but that's the gist of it.
Also, at the risk of causing my own death through sheer exhaustive repitition... I want to remind everyone, regardless of what "side" they're on, to try keeping this debate impersonal and at least superficially respectful. We're not going to change each others' minds anyway, so the best any of us can hope to accomplish is demonstrating that our own beliefs are justifiable. This isn't achieved by stating, "omgz u r rong cuz u r dum".
I never really understood the purpose of religion. :-\
I never liked religion. I've had christians and buddists literally follow me down the street trying to convert me. I've had catholics tell me I'm going to hell because I'm not a Catholic and I've had Jehova's Witnesses knocking on my door saying the same thing. I'm quiet sick of people trying to force me to follow their beliefs. Thats why I can't stand religion. Hell, i've even had athiests trying to bring me to their ways of combating religion. In my book they are just as bad.
Amen, brother.Quote:
Originally Posted by fantasyjunkie
I'm in atheist myself, as some of you may know, if any of you remember me from my previous arguements. And, by some cruel twist of fate, I was torn from California and placed with in the south, where many people wish to mug me for not believing in God. I was actually raised a Christian, but, like Autumn Rain, I found things about the religion that I did not like, as well as things that made no sense. I have not researched it to a great extent like Autumn Rain, but if left up to my neighbor, that will soon change. Still, I doubt this research will sway me. In fact, I believe it will only make it worse. But really, I can find no solid evidence to suggest that God exists, and unlike some, that is something I need. I'm just not capable of believing something without real evidence, which evolutionist have far more of. Now, if God came down and said "Sup, I'm God, believe in me." then that would be decent evidence. Until then, I remain atheist. Unless I join the Pastafarians...
Trowa: I couldn't say it any better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Faris
me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seymour_Guado_Goth
hmm... i dont think anyone addressed the issue of the bacterial flagellum. how'd evolution happen to mutate one of those?Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Random outcropping of additional protein that eventually proved useful? Could be. Selection pressures are a wonderful thing...Quote:
Originally Posted by annslow41
How did evolution happen to mutate anything? How did it mutate eyeballs? How did it mutate blonde hair? How did it mutate legs? The same way it mutates everything. That's what evolution is. It's not wonder you don't believe in evolution if you don't understand the very basics of it. xPQuote:
Originally Posted by annslow41
so explain.. you asked all those questions. if you "understand" evolution, enlighten me..
"How did evolution happen to mutate anything? How did it mutate eyeballs? How did it mutate blonde hair? How did it mutate legs?"
how exactly is "The same way it mutates everything," hmm?
something i dont get, is that if you're saying over time bits and pieces are put together and eventually, after some millions of years, make something useful, what's happened to the whole idea of "natural selection" over that time that the pieces do not make a whole? i mean, natural selection doesnt just allow random useless pieces to lie arround. if it's of no use, it dies off and doesnt get passed on. it isnt contributing to "the fittest" so it's getting eliminated. and if that's the case, nothing would ever get accomplished thru evolution. see my point? it's not very logical...
plus, doesnt evolution totally go agains the 2nd law of thermodynamics? there's a little fact that is that "devices always move from order to disorder" ... but it seems that evolution pretty much goes in dirrect violation of this fact. while evolution is just a theory, the other's a law -- a tested fact.
the main mutations i've heard of make people die, and that's called cancer. i mean sure, i've heard stories and seen pictures of turtles w/ 2 heads, or a cow w/ an extra leg, but that extra leg.. i mean look at it. it's not in a useful place. it's all weak and sickly looking. and usually those special animals' life expectancy is less than a normal one's. w/ all the creatures that live on this planet, it's strange that none of them have evolved during the existance of man.
and at least check out my earlier post before commenting -- i could repost it, but it'd be a waste of space
It makes perfect sense, when you take a different look at things: For example, the evolution of the eye. Imagine, if you will, a small multi-cellular organism with no eyes at all. An utterly blind, primitive organism living among other blind, primitive organisms. It may be eyeless, but there are plenty of stimuli out there. Then, by fluke chance, this organism's distant descendent gains a cell or two that are just a little more sensitive to heat and light. Not much, just enough that this creature's slightly more capable of determining whether the sun's directly over its head. This mutation adds a very slight bit of extra survival value, since sunlight is a key factor for primitive organisms. This critter's chances of reproducing go right up, as do any of its kin with a similar chance mutation. Soon (i.e. after many hundreds of generations), the slightly-light-sensitive organism is doing much better than it's not-at-all sensitive forebears. It's become the dominant species of its kind. Then, by further chance, some more of these guys develop just a little more photosensitivity in their photosensitive cells. More survival, more mutation, with each 'improved' version gaining more sensitivity to light. Given enough time, you get more complex multicellular organisms. A single over-developed cell which functions as a nerve allowing, for the first time, some perception of light and dark. Lo, the sense of sight is born - in a rudimentary fashion. In the eons that follow, more improvements take place: organisms with slightly convex photosensitive cells are better able to distinguish light and dark; this trait is 'selected' by natural processes since it improves the odds of survival, however infinitesimally. Over time, these convex cells give rise to the first lens - a clear shell of protein covering photosensitive cells, which can help to focus and deliver information to the first central nervous system.Quote:
Originally Posted by annslow41
And so on, until you get to the more complex, fully-developed organ we now call an eye.Evolution follows a certain amount of logic - traits that improve an organism's chances of survival are likely to be passed on to future generations, because that organism is more likely to breed. It happens around us today - big, strong, healthy animals in the wild are more likely to breed than weak, sickly variants of the same species.Quote:
plus, doesnt evolution totally go agains the 2nd law of thermodynamics? there's a little fact that is that "devices always move from order to disorder" ... but it seems that evolution pretty much goes in dirrect violation of this fact. while evolution is just a theory, the other's a law -- a tested fact.
Ah. I see there's a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of evolution, here. Evolution isn't about a new creature simply being born with a new organ or a new ability. It's an incredibly incremental process, dependent on miniscule mutations taking an effect over countless generations. One species can't simply "evolve" into another species in the space of a single generation. The 'mutations' we know as cancer and other deformities aren't part of the evolutionary process because they're radical, often actively harmful, mutations. Evolution involves tiny mutations, often of a single base in the DNA sequence. You never hear about this kind of mutation, because it's such an immeasurably small change that it's scarcely noticeable.Quote:
the main mutations i've heard of make people die, and that's called cancer. i mean sure, i've heard stories and seen pictures of turtles w/ 2 heads, or a cow w/ an extra leg, but that extra leg.. i mean look at it. it's not in a useful place. it's all weak and sickly looking. and usually those special animals' life expectancy is less than a normal one's. w/ all the creatures that live on this planet, it's strange that none of them have evolved during the existance of man.
"In shocking news, a child has been born with a brain that's 0.002% larger than predicted!"
Well, some have evolved during man's existance, you just weren't around to witness it. After all, 3,000,000 years is a long time. Horses, for example, have only been around for about 4,000,000 years. Slightly longer than man, but still not very long.Quote:
Originally Posted by annslow41
No major new speices have appeared, but there has been considerable evolution still. Horses, again, were very different 4,000,000 years ago- they were much smaller, and not nearly as big as the shire horses that you see today.
I noticed Traitorfish has conveniently passed over my last post debating him... not much of a surprise there. I went camping last night, and I'll probably be gone tonight, but don't worry, I'll add my two cents to the rest of this. Seems some interesting -- and some illigical and irrational -- topics have come up, I'll have plenty to add.
Especially on the oft-used concept of single mutations becoming new traits for a species -- and how Big D contradicted himself on this very topic, which nearly his entire last post was about.
On a non-related note. Did y'all know there's a town in Wisconsin called Nutbush? That's right. "Now entering Nutbush". Nice.
Oh wow, could it be that he doesn’t care anymore?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
I knew this thread was more about being right than it was anything else…
Im Atheist at the moment...
I guess truthfully I don't NOT believe in any religion, but I don't believe in one either...They're all pretty confusing and war inducing...Hey, that ryhmes!
Oh, I just can't decide which one would be the easiest to follow that won't make me lose my super-sensitive conscience and cement-like beliefs and morals.
*snigger*
meh, since im getting tired of reading this thread, im just going to say that it really appears that u guys who are biased toward evolution seem to have a lot more to defend than those who believe things were created. ya'll just have to try harder to think of ways for it to work. it'd say it takes more faithto believe in all that stuff than it is to believe it was simply created.
you all are smart people, and im no expert on this subject, but i dont really wanna be coming home and checking a thread on an arguement, so im out
I agree there, its sad when the people with "Scientific Facts" are more biased than those with the religion :D I really find the irony just humiliating there.
Scence is teh roxar and Spurtualliez enlightenz are Nubz cuz donkees cant talk and 40 yuths cant be killed... But I em Smart cuz sciece is teh r0x0rz:rolleyes2
I have seen a few people whom still argue based on facts, like D and Traitorfish, and I am sure a few others. When arguing facts, arrogance is a wet fish when knowlage is a borad sword! Huzzah!
When it comes down to it, the mobile of attack would be to look at the bible, which is a topic in EOEO. Unfortunatley, I realize some of us are Banned, but its truley a great topic thus far.
I stick to my guns when I say that science simply the process started by GOD, and runs the world. The both can exist, but bottome line is, we just don't know enough factual evidence to disprove the bible. Its hard to ask why did the sea split for Mosses or How did Jesus pull a coin out of a fish mouth when he had no money on him, when we can barely have factual evidnce on evolution. We are still guessing.
BipperQuote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Bipper has a point
No argument with that... (BIG SMILES!) :D
Of course it does. Evolution is far more complex than simply attributing all of existence to some higher force. Therefore, evolutionists do indeed have more to defend. However, their theory falls within the realm of the natural and the logical. Creationism, at least of the variety that ignores the numbers, falls within neither category and is therefore easily dismissed.Quote:
Originally Posted by annslow41
Some of evolution's opponents have pointed out, and rightly so, that there is a degree of nihilistic thought involved with evolution. If this is true, and the universe is indeed a place governed by might rather than right, would this not imply that the thesis of the Abrahamic faiths that human nature is inherently sinful is correct? Would undeniable proof of such an existence not merely increase the desire to rise above a universe where one must take life in order to sustain one's own? This of course rests on certain assumptions made by the followers of a given religion, but when operating from those assumptions, it seems to me that their theses are only strengthened. That said, I cannot hold with any religion that implies that nature itself (and by extension, logic and reason) is somehow wrong.
People who support the avenues of logical, rational inquiry can often appear to fierce religionists to be biased because they are indeed biased. Just like EVERYONE ELSE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. Do you honestly expect anyone advocating any position to offer evidence that doesn't support their side? It's irrational to do such a thing. Not only that, they possess emotions as well, and rightly become angry when logic is ignored in favor of what can best be described as an addicting drug.
Let me put it this way: slavery wasn't justified by evolution, it was justified by religion.Quote:
And how, praytell, does Creationism leave more room for "rascism" than Evolutionism? How is "God created man" more racist than "black people evolved from apes, and we all evolved from black people"?
Not really. Given the time scales were working with, humans ain't been around all that long. And one could argue that domesticating animals is a type of guided evolution.Quote:
w/ all the creatures that live on this planet, it's strange that none of them have evolved during the existance of man.
Let me put it this way: You're wrong. No religion justified slavery. Sometimes, religions were manipulated to "support" the idea of slavery, but that doesn't mean they actually did. Many things can be misinterpreted -- intentionally or unintentionally -- to support things they really don't. That's how Evolutionism gets most of its evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara
You're missing the entire point. While Christianity has to be manipulated and misinterpreted to support racism, or slavery or whatever evil you want to put out there, Evolutionism envokes racism even in any moderate belief. It has since the idea was thought up, and it still does today. Not to mention, the topic was how Creationism supports or does not support racism, not Christianity.
Minor evolution, yes. Speciation, no. What Evolutionists all too often forget is that nobody denies that evolution happens on a minor scale, only that one blob of cells can somehow, given an extravagant amount of time, become something incredibly complex. Yes, we've seen evolution happen. In nearly everything domesticated -- dogs, flowers, crops, you name it. Even viruses, to some extent. No, we haven't seen Evolutionism happen.Quote:
Not really. Given the time scales were working with, humans ain't been around all that long. And one could argue that domesticating animals is a type of guided evolution.Quote:
w/ all the creatures that live on this planet, it's strange that none of them have evolved during the existance of man.
everyone has a religeonQuote:
Originally Posted by Seymour_Guado_Goth
One point - evolution contradicts part of the Bible, it does not contradict the idea of a God. God could have had evolution as one of its many mechanisms of controlling the universe and all of existence.
I seperate between God and the Bible. The Bible is a human interpretation of what God is. God could exist with a 100% certainty, and still the Bible wouldn't have to be true. The Bible merely raises ideas, interpretations... it is not the end to all discussions.
Um, yeah, I really don't want to turn this into another Bible dispute, but I belive the Bible is the word of God being written down by humans. How else do you describe many of the truths in the Bible. Anyways, Like I say, its another debate for another thread: http://www.eyesonff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71534
As far as religion being used for slavery, there are very, very few that actually encourage slavery. I am talking very small relgions or primative peoples such as Amazonians and Incas. Christianity actually stands against slavery.
Bipper
Racism is not explicitly promoted by either point of view. It is implied in both. The Bible does not explicitly prohibit slavery anywhere in its pages - a fact Christian slaveholders of the Confederacy were well aware of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Besides, if you have evidence that can defeat the peer-reviewed facts supported by the vast majority of leading scientists, you shouldn't be here, you should be out telling them about it. If the idea is so incredibly false, how did it become so well-grounded in the scientific community?
Creatures have evolved during the existence of man. Men started to appear roughly three million years ago. Plenty of evolution has occurred during that time.
It is expressly stated in Evolutionism. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a certain color or race of people should be enslaved, does it? Whereas Evolutionism does indeed state that Africans are the "least developed" form of man.Quote:
Originally Posted by ?????
EDIT: By the way, if you didn't know, many people in the South did not own slaves, and many people in the North did at that time. You're probably one of the people who think "the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves!" Besides, what textile factories and such in the North did to their women and children was worse than most slaves had to go through. But we're not on that topic now.
Because it doesn't involve God. It doesn't matter if it holds water or not, because not involving God is all it needs for most of "science" to accept it. I thought I already explained this.Quote:
Besides, if you have evidence that can defeat the peer-reviewed facts supported by the vast majority of leading scientists, you shouldn't be here, you should be out telling them about it. If the idea is so incredibly false, how did it become so well-grounded in the scientific community?
Some have evolved, yes. But there's no evidence that any "new" creatures have evolved, just simple traits of old creatures. When in reality, there's no evidence that "new" creatures EVER evolved.Quote:
Creatures have evolved during the existence of man. Men started to appear roughly three million years ago. Plenty of evolution has occurred during that time.
[QUOTE=?????]
Quote:
Creatures have evolved during the existence of man. Men started to appear roughly three million years ago. Plenty of evolution has occurred during that time.
I just have to pipe in and say that Evolution not equal to recessive traits comming forth, or freak mutations occouring. In fact, most of these are stressed in Genesis. Name an animal that has evolved. I mean, evolved beyond the integrity of its genetic code with out any direct outside influences.
Bipper
It's true.... far easier to justify the enslavement of a race using "scientific" theories. Very easy, actually. Now, the enslavement of an individual is one that has a long and rich history in almost every religion. Usually, it's not so terrible a concept, and falls into a structure of belief in certain forms of honorable repairation of a debt. Kill a man: inherit his family (CRAP!!!). Save some guy's life, end up getting his daughter to marry. Hell, marriage was used as the ultimate form of slavery, and still is, in many ways.
As for evolution, I have only a couple questions.
1- why are fruit flies more genetically similar to humans than they are to house flies? And, for that matter, why are WE more genetically related to said fruit flies than we are to any mammals aside for other primates?
2- how did WINGS evolve. You can't argue "slight advantage"- halfway usable wings are still completely useless. More than useless: you get no flight, but you also lose a pair of perfectly useful forelimbs. Humans and raccoons have proven that hands are better than wings. You do NOT get winged flight from any form of gliding flight, it just doesn't work. The two designs are entirely incompatible, and if you evolve gliding it actually makes it impossible to evolve real flight. Aerodynamics. You can argue about evolution, you can't argue about elementary lift/thrust dynamics.
Evolutionarily, those are impossible scenarios. Absolutely impossible. Human DNA has the exact code for producing fruit fly wings- at no point in our evolutionary history should that have been picked up. No other primate, no other ANIMAL, except the fruit flies themselves have it. It's freakish to the point of B-movie science fiction involving teleportation machines. As for wings: useless unless they're usable. There's nothing in the animal kingdom that uses half-wings. Some animals have vestigial wings, this is true, but those are wings that once worked and have since stopped working. All the evolutionary influence in existance couldn't take a chicken or penguin and make it fly again.
They jsut did. I'm not an expert on evolution, but from the way I understand it, everything is just random mutations. If you happen to get a disadvantagous genetic mutation you are more likely to die and not pass on that gene, whereas if you receive an advantages mutation you are more likely to survive and pass on that gene. It's all random from the way I see it. Creatures didn't evolve a certain way because it would be advantagous, it's just that they DID evolve that way, it happened to be advantagous, and therefore they survived and passed on the genes.Quote:
how did WINGS evolve. You can't argue "slight advantage"- halfway usable wings are still completely useless. More than useless: you get no flight, but you also lose a pair of perfectly useful forelimbs. Humans and raccoons have proven that hands are better than wings. You do NOT get winged flight from any form of gliding flight, it just doesn't work. The two designs are entirely incompatible, and if you evolve gliding it actually makes it impossible to evolve real flight. Aerodynamics. You can argue about evolution, you can't argue about elementary lift/thrust dynamics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
I'm going to cut across the conversation, and say yes! I do have a religion. I'm Hindu. :D
Rudimentary wings, in the form of furred/feathered limbs, could provide some form of limited gliding ability. A lighter, longer, more densely feathered limb would provide better gliding, till eventually you get a wing that's capable of acrively providing lift, rather than just slowing a fall. I don't see how the two (glide and flight) are necessarily mutually exclusive. Pterosaurs and bats are useful examples.[q=Sasquatch]Some have evolved, yes. But there's no evidence that any "new" creatures have evolved, just simple traits of old creatures. When in reality, there's no evidence that "new" creatures EVER evolved.[/q]It's untrue to say there's "no" evidence, when there's plenty - mainly in the fossil record. It's a matter of simple logic that deeper rock is older than the rock above it. The deeper you go, the further 'back' you can see. In the oldest, deepest fossil-bearing rocks, the most primitve fossils are found. Basic plants, eventually a few insect-like creatures. Later on, you get slightly more complex forms: vertebrates, arthropods. Further still, you find larger fish and amphibians. Eventually, you see the emergence of reptiles, mammal-like reptiles and other land-dwellers - but still very primitive organisms. The further 'up' the record you go, the more elaborate, more complex creatures become: dinosaurs, mammals, primates, other examples. Significantly, it's not just that new species emerge in the fossil record; the more primitive ones often disappear. Like they've been 'replaced'. This is especially true where the fossil record appears to show speciation (the evolution of one species into another), as shown by fossilised horses. The earliest horse fossils are of a small creature, with toes rather than hooves. But as you come forward in time, this smallest horse has vanished, to be replaced by a larger relative; eventually, the toes disappear and are replaced by hooves. Either one species evolved into the other, or else the 'primitive' horses were destroyed one by one, and replaced with an 'improved model'. The same's true for every other species that shows an apparent change over time, in the fossil record.Quote:
2- how did WINGS evolve. You can't argue "slight advantage"- halfway usable wings are still completely useless.
It'd take one heck of a coincidence for the oldest rocks to contain only primitive life-forms, unless they really were the only form of life present then. Same goes for more recent fossils, too - the record clearly suggests the progressive emergence of more-developed species, and the progressive disappearance of many (but not all) lesser-developed species. It has been estimated that 99.99% of all species that ever existed, are now extinct.
So in reality, there is evidence of new species evolving. Not proof, but evidence.
Technically, Africans are biologically the least developed. Except for maybe one thing...damn, I watch too many pornos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
The Bible doesn't specifically say that any presently existing tribe or race should be enslaved. It also doesn't say that they shouldn't be, and need I remind you of the Israelites' crusades into Canaan?
Way to make assumptions. Slavery was ILLEGAL in the North. Bias against other races wasn't, of course, and it still ran rampant.Quote:
By the way, if you didn't know, many people in the South did not own slaves, and many people in the North did at that time. You're probably one of the people who think "the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves!" Besides, what textile factories and such in the North did to their women and children was worse than most slaves had to go through. But we're not on that topic now.
You didn't answer my question. If there is a bias against religion in the scientific community (and there demonstrably is) why do you think it got that way in the first place? Science strives for natural explanations of the universe's various phenomena. Postulating a reason outside of nature doesn't fit very well with that paradigm, does it?Quote:
Because it doesn't involve God. It doesn't matter if it holds water or not, because not involving God is all it needs for most of "science" to accept it. I thought I already explained this.Quote:
Besides, if you have evidence that can defeat the peer-reviewed facts supported by the vast majority of leading scientists, you shouldn't be here, you should be out telling them about it. If the idea is so incredibly false, how did it become so well-grounded in the scientific community?
Besides, in order for your idea to hold true, you have to make a highly unprovable and very broad generalization that science is some kind of anti-God cult. Science is only against religion when it gets in the way of progress. Basically, you don't tell us how to evaluate facts, and we won't tell you how to get people to not want to break the law.
Heh, if you want to argue against the craptons of evidence that have been established, be my guest. But know that doing so amounts to solipsism, because it's questioning the very validity of reason to promote a supernatural solution in place of a natural one. If you've got a better, natural theory, let's hear it.Quote:
Some have evolved, yes. But there's no evidence that any "new" creatures have evolved, just simple traits of old creatures. When in reality, there's no evidence that "new" creatures EVER evolved.Quote:
Creatures have evolved during the existence of man. Men started to appear roughly three million years ago. Plenty of evolution has occurred during that time.
Because most science types are VERY arrogant. I mean this in an eye gougingly mean way. Yes, they think if they cannot explain somthing, it cannot exist or it is simply too complex. If somthing does not present itself in the form of a scienctific text, or a logistacal theorom then it must not be explainable, and there for does not exist. This is why I have hated about 90% of science nerds I have met. From my experiences, the are so high on themselves and having to know every little thing that makes the universe tick that it gets sickening. While I don't mind people gaining as much knowlage possable, I do mind arrogance.Quote:
Originally Posted by ?????
/sigh. Science still has not disprovent the Bible, nor does it have much of a leg to stand on. Its a guessing game that entails looking at the small facts that we know, to wonder how the world came about. Like I always say, with enough knowlage, I think that Science and the Bible will have more in common than most science types would like to admit.
Off from this, who says that God even has to exist with in our scope of existance. It could be just as possible that he is a being outside our laws of science. After all, the clear idea of Creationism is that the universe was created. These rules were all made, and made for a reason. We could be comparable to a program written on a computer. The program may be instructed to follow certain rules, that the programmer does not neccesarily have to follow. /shrug If this is how it is, science may never find the proof it seeks.
Bipper
What I don't understand is why people think that evolution and religion are two contradicting concepts. They aren't.
[q=Bipper]Yes, they think if they cannot explain somthing, it cannot exist or it is simply too complex. If somthing does not present itself in the form of a scienctific text, or a logistacal theorom then it must not be explainable, and there for does not exist.[/q]I disagree. Sensible scientists are only too willing to acknowledge that science is limited and incomplete. Evolution, while it fits the facts and evidence, is not fully understood or explained. The origins and nature of the universe, too, aren't fully understood with much dependability.
It's true, however, that there are arrogant and self-righteous types in every field - science, religion, and so on.
Yes Big D, I agree. What I am saying, is that it is much easier to belive science than religion. Somthing that you can clearly see, over somthing you have to belive.
I am not trying to say that the whole field of science is flawed, I am trying to say that people whom are raised in schools, learning science laws and theories are going to simply be more prone to belive that scince > religion. The knowlage that they find in more research of science will fit into their conditioned way of thinking a lot better than religious concepts.
In my mind religion and science are about on the same level. The difference is Science can make you money, which makes it more important ( :confused: :mad: ) for children to learn so that they grow and serve thier government better. Millionares look better on paper than religious humble types.
I really wish that public schools might offer a brief class on at least an over view of religions. Not to spiritually enlighten people, but just for the fact that there is a loth of people whom see other religions as completley different, and just rediculous. I think it would be worth it (especially in the us) to create more of an understanding of other people. (almost on the same lines as cultural studies and social studies)
[/tangent]
Bipper
What, and religion doesn't make money? One word: televangelists. Those bastards make more money in a week than most scientists and engineers see in a year, for doing something that causes society to regress rather than advance. It's one of this age's ironies.Quote:
The difference is science can make you money, which makes it more important ( :confused: :mad: ) for children to learn so that they grow and serve their government better. Millionares look better on paper than religious humble types.
You've said that most scientific types are arrogant. That may very well be true, but it's wholly irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not their viewpoint is well-supported and based in fact.
One may say that science is limited. Of course it is. We don't know everything yet. But the epistemology that underlies scientific inquiry is utterly flawless.
I have plenty to reply to, but I'd like to point out this blatantly false and either severely misguided or extremely idiotic statement. Slavery wasn't made illegal until after he Civil War. Some states made slavery illegal, but it wasn't really enforced, and there was no nation-wide ban on slavery until well after the Confederacy broke off.Quote:
Originally Posted by ?????
That is just horrible. Yes, there are people whom take advantage of a religion to make a horde of money. I dont see the relevance in this though, as the origional point was that science can open more higher-paying careers to students. Which allow them to both make money, and be more of use (loosly used) to the government. As for your initial what, try reading the paragraph again. It made perfect sence, though I am a little tired, the idea should be discected quite easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by ?????
*Slaps forhead* What!? Look at the debate and main idea of my post. I was merley answering your querstion pertaining to bias.Quote:
You've said that most scientific types are arrogant. That may very well be true, but it's wholly irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not their viewpoint is well-supported and based in fact.
Why is there such a Bias. Well arrogance, and ignorance go hand in hand. A man whome looks at facts, will not accept much unless it is sustained by facts that he is The facts are all well and good, but are often portrayed by actual scientists whom are open minded, as Big D had pointed out. Unfortunatley, there is a majority of the Scientific populace whom will kick and scream, and say this is how things work, and when it comes to backing up what they say, will not throw down a single resource.
(personal experiences follow)
I have had several debates here that work in that mannor. If it goes against thier thinking, they will throw out hordes of insults, basless comments. Yet the moment a fact gets thrown down, they back off and simply dissapear, only to come back preaching the same crap that was just proofed wrong.
I have had to get in debates with teachers several times to prove the points I have put down on paper. I had a nasty habbit of studying from other textbooks at the library, and looking at university sites. Often times I would run across somthing that was not in the teachers scope, and it would usually result in a discredited paper, or a lowered grade (even with research information, and detailed logs of sites).
About my senior year in high school, I merely gave up on science for this reason, as it seemd if you thought outside of the box, you would just be ridiculed. Even though the box was never enclosed to begin with. Science has shown that same track record with the Earth is flat nonsence, as well as many other scientific discovereies, which are clearly depicted in the bible.... hmmm.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. So you are saying that philosiphical scince questions are flawless. I guess I really dont see what your sentance gets at here. I dont really say that scince is baseless, or that the root philosophy of the Scientific drive in humans is needless. I merely gest that Christianity and Scinece are prolly closer than we think.Quote:
One may say that science is limited. Of course it is. We don't know everything yet. But the epistemology that underlies scientific inquiry is utterly flawless.
Bipper
The way I used the word epistemology refers to a way of evaluating knowledge, that of the logical paradigm. It is often used in this manner because, as you said, epistemology is the study of the origin of knowledge.
I only wish science were more relevant in today's culture. South Korea, at one sixth of America's population, is producing an equivalent amount of hard-science specialists. No matter what your standpoint on religion is, that's pretty sad.
I and many others have theorized that there are laws of physics that govern the laws of physics. Take for example the beginning of the universe. To cause the Big Bang would require a theoretically infinite amount of energy to accelerate matter to a speed much, much faster than that of light, so matter would expand and the very forces that govern our present-day universe would become distinct. Time itself would be circular in such a situation. In a closed universe, time can be taken to be circular anyway. On the other hand, it's possible that the universe has never existed as a point, but that seems pretty convenient: holding to our current views of time and probability, why would the universe be any more likely to exist in this state than any other?
According to Feynman's sum-over-paths approach to quantum mechanics, a particle not only traverses multiple paths to a destination, it traverses every possible path at once: the path we actually "see" it take is based on the probability that it will take any particular path. This is similar to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, in that it cannot be predicted where a particular subatomic particle will be at any given time by any known method. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics extends this to say that it cannot be predicted by any method. So, consider this:
What if the universe itself operates the same way, and we're a possibility? It would definitely lend some new food for thought, especially regarding spacetime and relativity.
Excellent point, and a useful idea. It actually happens, too - in Geography class at high school, we were taught about the basics of many major religions, and the societies they're prominent in: Christianity and Islam, in particular. There was never any promotion or encouragement, rather just a description of the core beliefs, and how the cultures evolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
As for its "importance" as far as teaching goes... Religion's always gonna be a touchy subject. If schools even teach students about religions, some parents will start crapping bricks about it. Then there's the issue of ensuring that students get told an accurate account of each religion. With science, the theories are concrete and often quantifiable (on paper, at least) whereas religion involves a lot of personal interpretation and faith - which is perhaps why some people would say it's best left to parents, churches and personal choice. Although a truly balanced, objective overview of other religions would do wonders for countering prejudice and intolerance...
Yup, that's exactly it. If I see something, I'll believe it... but, there's always the arguement of Air. :pQuote:
Yes Big D, I agree. What I am saying, is that it is much easier to belive science than religion. Somthing that you can clearly see, over somthing you have to belive.
If someone says something completely unbelievable to me, I'd want to see whatever they're talking about, before I'd even think of believing them. :D
Are you saying, that science once followed the whole 'Earth is Flat' thing? If you aren't... ignore what I'm gonna say. No need to make any more arguements, right? :DQuote:
Science has shown that same track record with the Earth is flat nonsence, as well as many other scientific discovereies, which are clearly depicted in the bible.... hmmm.
Wasn't that because the early scientists were Christians? And they believed in what the bible said? If not... I'm being a silly 14 year old and making stuff up in my mind. :D
Actually, as per Evolutionism, there are many different versions to go by. Which one should be taught? Evolutionism is not a concrete theory, and certainly not quantifiable in any sense, and does involve "a lot of personal interpretation and faith" -- but that's still taught, and taught as fact usually. Where do we draw the line? Why is it alright to teach one religion as fact, but we can't mention any other religions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
Actually, you're right and wrong. Yes, scientists once followed the idea that the earth is flat. So did nearly everybody at the time, because they didn't know any better. No -- again, NO -- the Bible does not say that the earth is flat.Quote:
Originally Posted by yuna_elena
i dont call myself anything. But i belive in jesus. does that make me a bad person?
Um, because evolution has a bunch of support for it? You just don't get it. Seriously, you have just about the worst understanding of evolutionary theory, and the definition of "theory" in general, that I've ever heard of, but what's more, you have to go and try to add an air of intellectual legitimacy to your thoughts. There aren't any gaps in the theory. There are gaps in the evidence because (zomg!) there are still fossils left to be dug up. Like I said, if you've got a better, natural theory, let's hear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Revelation references the nations in "the four corners of the Earth." A sphere doesn't exactly have corners, now does it?Quote:
Actually, you're right and wrong. Yes, scientists once followed the idea that the earth is flat. So did nearly everybody at the time, because they didn't know any better. No -- again, NO -- the Bible does not say that the earth is flat.Quote:
Originally Posted by yuna_elena
Actually, I've studied Evolutionism for six or eight years now. And whereas I've debated my side since the topic came up in this thread, you came in the other day and have presented absolute dick, then have the gall to hurl insults towards me. By the way, this might help you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ?????
Tested: No. Obviously, can't test Evolutionism.Quote:
Originally Posted by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Widely accepted: Somewhat. Most Americans believe that some form of Higher Power had something to do with our creation, and highly doubt Evolutionism.
I hope I don't have to explain assumption, limited information or knowledge, or conjecture.
Looks like you've got some researching to do. Come back when you have something to add to the debate instead of insults, after you figure out what "Evolution" and "theory" mean.
Actually it's an elipse, not a sphere. And it doesn't matter, because "the four corners of the Earth" is obviously a figurative saying. Like "the ends of the Earth". There are four Cardinal Directions -- c'mon, we learned this stuff in Elementary School -- East, West, North, and South. "The four corners of the Earth" refer to the farthest extents of each direction. If you can't figure that out, that doesn't mean it's something wrong with the Bible, it's just yet another thing YOU can't figure out. There seems to be a pattern here, doesn't there?Quote:
Revelation references the nations in "the four corners of the Earth." A sphere doesn't exactly have corners, now does it?
Yep, "four corners of the Earth" is simply a figure of speech, one that's widely used even today.
Some old scientific beliefs were indeed encouraged by religious belief, such as the idea that Earth is at the center of the solar system, and the center of the universe itself. However, I think this had more to do with the belief that humans were the focal point of creation and the greatest of God's work.
Anyway. As for teaching evolution in schools... sure, it's fine in science class, because it's a widely accepted scientific theory. It's taught as such - the theory is explained, along with the evidence for it. Just the same as how they teach atomic structure in chemistry class, or Newton's laws in physics.However, evidence can be obtained from such sources as the fossil record, and from the observation of processes such as point mutation and intraspecific variation, in the real world. "Theory that fits the facts", basically...Quote:
Tested: No. Obviously, can't test Evolutionism.
Whether or not it's got popular acceptance has little to do with its favourability among the scientific community. To say that "it's not good science unless laypeople believe it" would be, I believe, like saying that the legal process isn't a valid method of dispute resolution if people don't understand or agree with it. As a scientific theory explaining observed phenomena, it's got validity and support.Quote:
Widely accepted: Somewhat. Most Americans believe that some form of Higher Power had something to do with our creation, and highly doubt Evolutionism.
*snip*
Edit by D: No need for that.
this thread is over now.