NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry for starting this post (i know this topic is starting to get annoying), but i'd like to know why creationists ignore the real world so blatantly. I just don't get it, because evidence is self-explanatory. :headbang:

Your thoughts on this?

Sorry for starting this post (i know this topic is starting to get annoying), but i'd like to know why creationists ignore the real world so blatantly. I just don't get it, because evidence is self-explanatory. :headbang:

Your thoughts on this?

Because the evidence isn't quite so self-explanatory?

My thoughts are that you are going to get torn apart by the intelligent creationists here, and while I think they're totally wrong, it will be quite amusing to watch you flail helplessly as they dissemble your arguments.

Not only is the evidence not self-explanatory, there are massive gaps in the fossil record as well as periods of explosive growth, unexplained extinctions, etc.
Neither evolutionists nor creationists have enough evidence to tear the other side to shreds - although watching the epic battle provides a valuable diversion from my work. :)

I had a convo with one once and his arguement was so incredibly stupid. I pointed out the obvious time frame questions and carbon dating he attempted to discredit it by saying that they once used carbon dating on a castle in europe. The castle was built in 1500 (i dont remember the dates anymore) but the carbon dating said it was from 120,000 BC or something like that. First im not expert but im pretty sure carbon dating can only be used on living things and second even if they could carbon date stones and rocks on the castle its not like they were created from scratch the second they built the castle.

My thoughts are that you are going to get torn apart by the intelligent creationists here

He/she will have to wait a very long time for anyone fitting that description to show up.

This is flamebait, really.

While I'm an unabashed evolutionist, there is no need to flamebait. Don't call creationists dumb. They have their own beliefs. Would you like it if a creationist called you dumb for believing Darwinism? Or am I making too much sense?

EDIT: n00b!

Not only is the evidence not self-explanatory, there are massive gaps in the fossil record as well as periods of explosive growth, unexplained extinctions, etc.
Neither evolutionists nor creationists have enough evidence to tear the other side to shreds - although watching the epic battle provides a valuable diversion from my work. :)

Wrong. Creationism was torn to shreds a long time ago.

My thoughts are that you are going to get torn apart by the intelligent creationists here, and while I think they're totally wrong, it will be quite amusing to watch you flail helplessly as they dissemble your arguments.

Exactly. How can you hope to start an intelligent conversation by opening up with "esteemed members of the audience, my oponent is a moron." (No proof, all assumptions)

Although in this case it would sound more like "he is dum :confused: "

I think a better opening would be to address the creationists (not people who view them as idiots) if you actually want to find out why that party is 'dumb.' Otherwise, you are crying to die.

biblical creationists are dumb because they hold to a belief that is wrong.
you are dumb for not realising this.

Ok, Ill jump start the topic for the creationists...

The age old question: With evolution as an "unaccepted" form of humanity, how is it that so many different races exist in today's world, and why then wouldn't every religion in the world derive from the creationist "theory"?

Obviously, this too render Noah's Arc obsolete. It may have occured, but I do not think the human race grew once more from the members on the ship.

I had a convo with one once and his arguement was so incredibly stupid. I pointed out the obvious time frame questions and carbon dating he attempted to discredit it by saying that they once used carbon dating on a castle in europe. The castle was built in 1500 (i dont remember the dates anymore) but the carbon dating said it was from 120,000 BC or something like that. First im not expert but im pretty sure carbon dating can only be used on living things and second even if they could carbon date stones and rocks on the castle its not like they were created from scratch the second they built the castle.

That sounds like blatant nonsense, IMHO. First of all radiometric dating is used for a time frame of up to 50,000 years (too short for geological processes - like Uranium/Lead or Rubidium/Strontium), and secondly C-14 dating is used for dating the age of bones, not rocks. On C-14, I'm well aware that the C-14 method has some uncertainties (if you want, i can go into detail), but it is possible to calibrate it using Dendrochronology. :)

You're right, carbon-dating only works on organic matter. If you want to date rocks or a rock layer, you need a technique called "radiometric dating" that measures the decay of a radioactive isotope such as uranium-235 or potassium-40. However, this method will only give you a ballpark figure for the formation of the minerals in the rock - the time when it crystallised from volcanic material.
It can't be used to date a castle, for example, because the rocks would have been hewn from the hillside to build the castle. The castle should have been dated by architectural style, erosion and weathering patterns, and history recorded from the area.

Not only is the evidence not self-explanatory, there are massive gaps in the fossil record as well as periods of explosive growth, unexplained extinctions, etc.
Neither evolutionists nor creationists have enough evidence to tear the other side to shreds - although watching the epic battle provides a valuable diversion from my work. :)
This "epic battle" seems to happen in the US only. Shows the rest of the world what kinda people live there... a nation of fundamental christians, who take the bible much too literally.

While i don't believe that genesis (or any other creation story) is an accurate account, i will admit that many facets of Earth's history, especially the origins of life, are impossible to explain with only the theories science has given us thus far. We still know far too little about the processes by which an ecosystem develops and produces life to accurately describe how it may have happened on our own planet. To a people lacking the ability to explain such complex occurences as DNA, which is patently impossible to evolve, as evolution requires a preceding structure that serves an alternative purpose, the only viable explanation is design, as we are unfamilliar with other ways of originating complex systems (being designers ourselves). i cannot say that some form of intelligent design did not play a part in the history of our universe, but i will say that until we know more, nobody can say it did for sure either.

Courtesy.

Ein Deutscher']This "epic battle" seems to happen in the US only. Shows the rest of the world what kinda people live there... a nation of fundamental christians, who take the bible much too literally.

True. I heard some 50% of all Americans are Creationists. That must be painful. :headbang:

Ein Deutscher']This "epic battle" seems to happen in the US only. Shows the rest of the world what kinda people live there... a nation of fundamental christians, who take the bible much too literally.Evolution is actually illegal in some states, I hear ...

While i don't believe that genesis (or any other creation story) is an accurate account, i will admit that many facets of Earth's history, especially the origins of life, are impossible to explain with only the theories science has given us thus far. We still know far too little about the processes by which an ecosystem develops and produces life to accurately describe how it may have happened on our own planet. To a people lacking the ability to explain such complex occurences as DNA, which is patently impossible to evolve, as evolution requires a preceding structure that serves an alternative purpose, the only viable explanation is design, as we are unfamilliar with other ways of originating complex systems (being designers ourselves). i cannot say that some form of intelligent design did not play a part in the history of our universe, but i will say that until we know more, nobody can say it did for sure either.

Courtesy.


Which is why I'm hoping technology for such issues arrives quick, before Christianity takes over the world and installs Arch Bishops to rule specified regions, or ANY religion for that matter (who knows, they may be obsolete by then due to Christianity's domination) Note I am not fond of religion, but I repsect Jesus of Nazareth and any messiah. It is the BIBLE I disagree with much.

I present this to you with as little bias as possible.

In my experience of debates between Creationist/I.D. presenter and Anti-Creationist/Anti-I.D. (A-C for short) presenter, the A-C will personally attack the C/I.D. Sometimes the A-C presenter will bring up deep mysterious questions, that probably know one could answer, as faults for the C/I.D. belief. All the while, the C/I.D. presenter will bring up facts and proofs for his belief.

The next experience of debates between the two sides are a lot better off, but I see them less often. These debates have both sides bringing up important facts, ideas, and analogies for the audience to understand.


I take the Bible literally, but I am no doubt sure I will get torn to pieces and mocked for this, oh well. I do not think I am dumb, and I think it is very easy to take the Bible literally.


My main belief against any type of evolution is that evolution takes the omnipotence out of God. Well actually I believe in...microevolution...yeah I think microevolution is the right term. Where things change slightly but always stay in their original type.

Truth is, I have yet to hear of evolution going on today and, please people, society has reached a technological level where we can see minor changes. We humans have supposedly done evolution in the labs. But that just helps the C/I.D. cause.

Also true Creationists are not dumb. The true kind will present data, facts, ideas, and good analogies for you. Unfortunately, the "true" creationists I speak of most (if not all) antagonists would say are just lying or not making any sense just to disagree.
:gundge:

Evolution is actually illegal in some states, I hear ...

No its not.

That sounds like blatant nonsense, IMHO. First of all radiometric dating is used for a time frame of up to 50,000 years (too short for geological processes - like Uranium/Lead or Rubidium/Strontium), and secondly C-14 dating is used for dating the age of bones, not rocks. On C-14, I'm well aware that the C-14 method has some uncertainties (if you want, i can go into detail), but it is possible to calibrate it using Dendrochronology. :)

By the way, its wasnt my arguement it was the other guys. Thanks for pointing out the facts of the dating. Im not really a science guy, but I knew that was bull when I heard it.

Evolution is actually illegal in some states, I hear ...

Naw, as much as conservative Americans would love to see evolution criminalized, natural selection through random mutation over millions of years isn't quite in their jurisdictions.

:p
Courtesy.

Which is why I'm hoping technology for such issues arrives quick, before Christianity takes over the world and installs Arch Bishops to rule specified regions, or ANY religion for that matter (who knows, they may be obsolete by then due to Christianity's domination) Note I am not fond of religion, but I repsect Jesus of Nazareth and any messiah. It is the BIBLE I disagree with much.


Two items:
1) What if such technology proves the existence of intelligent design in the Earth's history?

2) That's an enormous run-on sentence.

Courtesy.

Two items:
1) What if such technology proves the existence of intelligent design in the Earth's history?

2) That's an enormous run-on sentence.

Courtesy.

Well it certianly depends how long ago it is. There are scientific ideas that smarter societies existed before us.

And if that's proven, it would be bad for the creationsits as it would omit their "theory".

Naw, as much as conservative Americans would love to see evolution criminalized, natural selection through random mutation over millions of years isn't quite in their jurisdictions.

:p
Courtesy.


I disagree, I think Americans would enjoy seeing Christianity heavily locked down on. I think I am the minority in America, not the majority.

Well it certianly depends how long ago it is. There are scientific ideas that smarter societies existed before us.

Wait, you would rather accept the idea that an earlier, more scientifically advanced society created ours than the idea that we originated by the will of a benevolent entity of immeasurable power, simply because it fits better with the preconceptions our own incomplete scientific paradigm presents? Your idea seems a lot more scary.

Courtesy.

True. I heard some 50% of all Americans are Creationists. That must be painful. :headbang:


In an unrelated story, 50 percent of americans have recieved treatment for mental diseases.

Why were you born without a sense of tact and someone hauling a fire-extinguisher perpetually following you?

Please listen to my opinon even thought I am new to this Topic. Here we go

First off I would be the first person to tell you that there is no god of any kind at all. I don't care what you say there is no god nor will there ever be one. I personally wish there was but there isn't.

Secondly creationists are not dumb or stupid. Maybe sometimes they go overboard and I mean way overboard but they are not dumb. They act like this because they were taught to act like this. Now I was raised a catholic and then something happened to me and I realize that there really isn't no god. If there was this world would be a lot better then it is. But as for creationists you must admit they got people that don't believe in god in a corner right now. They got us in a corner because we don't have a lot of evidence to prove that there is no god and that we were created natually.

We already got them to the point where most people believe in Evolution as fact. So we are slowly getting threre. Plus every new generation believes less and less in god. I bet by the end of the 21st century the athiests out number the believers in the United States. It is just a matter of time.

I disagree, I think Americans would enjoy seeing Christianity heavily locked down on. I think I am the minority in America, not the majority.


You are "almost" a minority, not too sure. There's just a lot of representation in today's media.

I disagree, I think Americans would enjoy seeing Christianity heavily locked down on. I think I am the minority in America, not the majority.

Statistically, we non-Judeo-Christians are in the vast minority in the united states. It's just the people who would like to see Christianity take a fall protest more loudly.

Courtesy.

Please listen to my opinon even thought I am new to this Topic. Here we go

First off I would be the first person to tell you that there is no god of any kind at all. I don't care what you say there is no god nor will there ever be one. I personally wish there was but there isn't.

Secondly creationists are not dumb or stupid. Maybe sometimes they go overboard and I mean way overboard but they are not dumb. They act like this because they were taught to act like this. Now I was raised a catholic and then something happened to me and I realize that there really isn't no god. If there was this world would be a lot better then it is. But as for creationists you must admit they got people that don't believe in god in a corner right now. They got us in a corner because we don't have a lot of evidence to prove that there is no god and that we were created natually.

We already got them to the point where most people believe in Evolution as fact. So we are slowly getting threre. Plus every new generation believes less and less in god. I bet by the end of the 21st century the athiests out number the believers in the United States. It is just a matter of time.

As a member of the United States Military, i will defend to the death your right to hold such an opinion, but to express it and try to tell others that it is actually a fact is not only bad manners and egotism, it doesn't even make logical sense.
Courtesy.

Heh, sorry, I thought you would figure from my first post in this thread that I was a Christian who takes the Bible literally ( for the most part ). Anyhow I still believe we ( true Christians) are the minority.

Statistically, we non-Judeo-Christians are in the vast minority in the united states. It's just the people who would like to see Christianity take a fall protest more loudly.

Courtesy.


The other side might do it loudly, but I think the right have far more power in protesting. Just look at whats going on with the FCC right now. Was anyone really scared by seeing a nanosecond of nipple, but now every station and show is really under pressure because a few thousand people mainly from family interest groups wrote emails.

Please listen to my opinon even thought I am new to this Topic. Here we go

First off I would be the first person to tell you that there is no god of any kind at all. I don't care what you say there is no god nor will there ever be one. I personally wish there was but there isn't.

Secondly creationists are not dumb or stupid. Maybe sometimes they go overboard and I mean way overboard but they are not dumb. They act like this because they were taught to act like this. Now I was raised a catholic and then something happened to me and I realize that there really isn't no god. If there was this world would be a lot better then it is. But as for creationists you must admit they got people that don't believe in god in a corner right now. They got us in a corner because we don't have a lot of evidence to prove that there is no god and that we were created natually.

We already got them to the point where most people believe in Evolution as fact. So we are slowly getting threre. Plus every new generation believes less and less in god. I bet by the end of the 21st century the athiests out number the believers in the United States. It is just a matter of time.


Well, in relation to my previous post, I think America is getting to the point that if you have enough air time in the media, you "become" the majority.

I am not an atheist, but I am not a Christian or Catholic either. I don't remove the existence of God. There May be one, who knows. I think it is an extreme point to either say you believe in him (or her) strongly enough to start a Crusade, or NOT believe in anything at all.

In response to Chaosmanglemaimdeathia: Somewhat yes. First off, like I said, I don't think a benevolent God created us in the way creaationism mentions it. I, however, have not removed the idea that God (or an entity rather) may have been involved in creating space, the universe, etc.

but why not believe in both?????????????


I mean, time is all relative, and during the first 7 'days' of earth, who knows if time traveled the same way it does now? I mean, a day, a man-created time span, could have honestly took place over thousands and millions of years.


Now if you examine the biblical story, and see the order of things, the order matches up. RIght from how there are animals in the sea before beasts on the land.


So whats wrong with both? They dont conflict as much as its thought that they do.

but why not believe in both?????????????


I mean, time is all relative, and during the first 7 'days' of earth, who knows if time traveled the same way it does now? I mean, a day, a man-created time span, could have honestly took place over thousands and millions of years.


Now if you examine the biblical story, and see the order of things, the order matches up. RIght from how there are animals in the sea before beasts on the land.


So whats wrong with both? They dont conflict as much as its thought that they do.

and I suppose it makes since in both theories that eve came out of adam's rib?

The other side might do it loudly, but I think the right have far more power in protesting. Just look at whats going on with the FCC right now. Was anyone really scared by seeing a nanosecond of nipple, but now every station and show is really under pressure because a few thousand people mainly from family interest groups wrote emails.

Those broadcasters are under pressure less by the FCC and more by their own boards. Certainly the FCC decides what is suitable for consumption, but the entertainment media still makes more profit by catering the the majority, and if the majority consists of people who don't want their children to see a woman's nipple until those people say they can, the media will gladly give them what they want as long as they keep paying the cable bills.

Courtesy.

Sure I believe Yahweh might have taken millions of years to personally create and form everything each day. Cause I mean he is all powerful for gods sake! But I do not believe YhWh would have used evolution.

but why not believe in both?????????????


I mean, time is all relative, and during the first 7 'days' of earth, who knows if time traveled the same way it does now? I mean, a day, a man-created time span, could have honestly took place over thousands and millions of years.


Now if you examine the biblical story, and see the order of things, the order matches up. RIght from how there are animals in the sea before beasts on the land.


So whats wrong with both? They dont conflict as much as its thought that they do.


Very true. But then you reach certain points in the Bible that contain specifiic historical points which conflict with some scientific ideas or, in some cases, "facts".

I am not an atheist, but I am not a Christian or Catholic either. I don't remove the existence of God. There May be one, who knows. I think it is an extreme point to either say you believe in him (or her) strongly enough to start a Crusade, or NOT believe in anything at all.


Ah the humor and glory of the agnostic. "i think, therefore i might be." :p

Courtesy.

Also, no one has really brought up the point that there are two seperate creation stories in the bible.

I got a few questions then. Have you ever seen god? Have you ever talked to god? Have you ever touched god or felt god's touch? If not I think it is fact that there is not a god. Everything that exists we can see and even feel. That is fact.

Ah the humor and glory of the agnostic. "i think, therefore i might be." :p

Courtesy.
I think I'm thinking, therefore I think I am.
But how is this agnostic? This is a modified version of Descartes' "cogito ergo sum", and is a philosophical statement ...

Evolution is actually illegal in some states, I hear ...
Not illegal, per se. But some state and local laws dictate that you have to teach evolution as a theory and not as fact [which is fair]. Some say you have to teach a number of other theories along with evolution.

Of course, more important than these laws are what people are actually doing. In the south, some teachers don't teach evolution because doing so can get them in trouble with their superiors, sued, fired or run out of town. Many schools in that area of the U.S. have an unspoken rule about it, and teachers who value their peace and their jobs generally don't violate it. Sad, huh?

I got a few questions then. Have you ever seen god? Have you ever talked to god? Have you ever touched god or felt god's touch? If not I think it is fact that there is not a god. Everything that exists we can see and even feel. That is fact.
*coughdarkenergycough*

Ah the humor and glory of the agnostic. "i think, therefore i might be." :p

Courtesy.


Exactly. I cannot have disbelief for any point. I've come to my senses and concluded that one lives better when both sides are accepted, rather than taking a specific one.

Not many followers in this profession, though.

I have seen proof of God, but that is relative to you guys. God has talked to me. God has spoken to me through others.(again that is relative to you all)


There are not two separate creation stories in the bible. The second one merely refreshes how important man was to God...

Also, no one has really brought up the point that there are two seperate creation stories in the bible.

An excellent point. Few people are familliar enough to know that there are.
Personally, i'm a Buddhist, but i know more about the Bible than a lot of fundamental Christians, in part because i believe a lot of it is good moral advise, and in part because a lot of it is a good way to learn history.

Courtesy.

I got a few questions then. Have you ever seen god? Have you ever talked to god? Have you ever touched god or felt god's touch? If not I think it is fact that there is not a god. Everything that exists we can see and even feel. That is fact.


I hope you've read my posts (or everyone's posts) but, I'll tell you this: Can you see your thoughts? You open your head, you see a brain! That must mean you're making it up, no? There's no such thing as "thoughts" I cannot see them!

I got a few questions then. Have you ever seen god? Have you ever talked to god? Have you ever touched god or felt god's touch? If not I think it is fact that there is not a god. Everything that exists we can see and even feel. That is fact.

Look out, your ignorance is showing.

Exactly. I cannot have disbelief for any point. I've come to my senses and concluded that one lives better when both sides are accepted, rather than taking a specific one.

Not many followers in this profession, though.


Both sides should be accepted, but one has to be right or leading on the right path.

Both sides should be accepted, but one has to be right or leading on the right path.

There are certain situations one must not do that, and this is one of them... at least until the far, far future shows us which is right. For all it may be, both can be wrong!

An excellent point. Few people are familliar enough to know that there are.
Personally, i'm a Buddhist, but i know more about the Bible than a lot of fundamental Christians, in part because i believe a lot of it is good moral advise, and in part because a lot of it is a good way to learn history.

Courtesy.

most of my understanding of it really comes from my european history classes with the whole protestant vs. catholic thing and what not.

There are certain situations one must not do that, and this is one of them.

That did not make sense (to me).

I got a few questions then. Have you ever seen god? Have you ever talked to god? Have you ever touched god or felt god's touch? If not I think it is fact that there is not a god. Everything that exists we can see and even feel. That is fact.


Hmmmm, touch zero for me will you?

Why wait for the future to find out. YOu could regret that. I am not going to reject God (or for you non christians "realize the truth and except it") just because I didn't see him walk by with mary. If you say "christianity has not been completely proven therefor I will not believe in it" what happens if you die and find out you have an eternal soul that is now stuck in hell (or eternal death)...

To add oil into the fire:

If the Chicxulub, Chesapeak Bay and Manicouagan asteroid impacts had all happened within the last 6000 years (as Creationists imply), i'm pretty sure that North America wouldn't be looking the way it does today. :)

That did not make sense (to me).


Why not. Yes, there is a right and wrong, Yes often an argument was a reasonable point and a weaker one (as one may win and the other lose) but that does not remove the idea that THIS particular argument MAY be incorrect on BOTH sides (creationism and evolution). In today's world, it is debatable which side is right, but like I said, it is in the far future we will really know which one is right, or if both happen to be wrong. I don't think both will ever be classified as right.

Why wait for the future to find out. YOu could regret that. I am not going to reject God (or for you non christians "realize the truth and except it") just because I didn't see him walk by with mary. If you say "christianity has not been completely proven therefor I will not believe in it" what happens if you die and find out you have an eternal soul that is now stuck in hell (or eternal death)...

What if you die and find i was right while you were wrong, and you have to spend your entire next lifetime unhappy and moved down in caste?

Courtesy.

You can see darkenergy but we can't becasue we aren't that technologically advanced. As for thoughts you actually can see thoughts. Neurons and the energy in there are thoughts.(I might be on the neuron thing though)

Why wait for the future to find out. YOu could regret that. I am not going to reject God (or for you non christians "realize the truth and except it") just because I didn't see him walk by with mary. If you say "christianity has not been completely proven therefor I will not believe in it" what happens if you die and find out you have an eternal soul that is now stuck in hell (or eternal death)...

Well that future is not in my lifetime. It won't be in any of the current speaker's lifetime. I guess that is something to find out, but what you are saying, however, is that all followers of Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shinto, Taoism, etc will go to hell.
Completely Christian of your side to say.

Why wait for the future to find out. YOu could regret that. I am not going to reject God (or for you non christians "realize the truth and except it") just because I didn't see him walk by with mary. If you say "christianity has not been completely proven therefor I will not believe in it" what happens if you die and find out you have an eternal soul that is now stuck in hell (or eternal death)...

I think hell has more to do than whether or not you reject god. I know ton of christians that dont follow the teachings at all and pretty much do the opposite of the church, and then I know atheists that participate in charity events and are the nicest people you would ever met. I would hope the people that do good on this earth would be spared and the people that dont are not. Not whether or not you believe in god or not.

I mean their are reasons that people born in rural Wisconsin arent Muslims and people born in rural Pakistan arent Christians. I would hope that god if there is one is not going to bannish half the population of earth to hell.

You can see darkenergy but we can't becasue we aren't that technologically advanced. As for thoughts you actually can see thoughts. Neurons and the energy in there are thoughts.(I might be on the neuron thing though)

My point still goes through. You cannot base the non-existence of anything simply becase you can't "see" or "feel" it. Obvisuly, often you can't see air, but it's there. And in many cases you can't feel thoughts, but they're there.

You can see darkenergy but we can't becasue we aren't that technologically advanced. As for thoughts you actually can see thoughts. Neurons and the energy in there are thoughts.(I might be on the neuron thing though)
Excuse me, sir, but you forgot to turn on your intelligence.

I would hope that god if there is one is not going to bannish half the population of earth to hell.

Oh, it's much more than that. Christians are by no means half the world's population.

Courtesy.

Sorry for starting this post (i know this topic is starting to get annoying), but i'd like to know why creationists ignore the real world so blatantly. I just don't get it, because evidence is self-explanatory. :headbang:

Your thoughts on this?
We play dumb so that you can feel smart? We also know that YOU have all the answers and we just make stuff up to be different, because we don't want to be like you. :eek:

We play dumb so that you can feel smart? We also know that YOU have all the answers and we just make stuff up to be different, because we don't want to be like you. :eek:

Well then... begin your argument.

Oh, it's much more than that. Christians are by no means half the world's population.

Courtesy.

Yea, once I wrote that I realize that was probably horribly wrong estimate oh well. But my point being that one's religion is in most cases decided by the people surrounding them.

Yea, once I wrote that I realize that was probably horribly wrong estimate oh well. But my point being that one's religion is in most cases decided by the people surrounding them.

It's not too far. 33% are Christians.

I find it rather uncomfortable to see where this discussion has moved. If you would have seen all the stuff i have seen, you'd probably understand me. We are living in a world that has evolved. If you are denying evolution, you are denying that Life on Earth has a history. I know that this history has not been fully understood by humans (and it's unlikely that it ever will be - after all fossil record is incomplete), but that is no way a reason to simply say it didn't happen. :mad:

Don't even start on the air thing. We can't see air with the naked eye but if we use microscopes we can see the molucules. Plus I can feel the air when there is a breeze.

I find it rather uncomfortable to see where this discussion has moved. If you would have seen all the stuff i have seen, you'd probably understand me. We are living in a world that has evolved. If you are denying evolution, you are denying that Life on Earth has a history. I know that this history has not been fully understood by humans (and it's unlikely that it ever will be - after all fossil record is incomplete), but that is no way a reason to simply say it didn't happen. :mad:

i will deny immediately that the structures that all living things contain now (DNA, electron transfer, multi-part organelles that require all parts to function, etc.) could not have come about by evolution as we know it alone. There is at least one factor in the origins of life that we cannot explain with modern science.

Courtesy.

Don't even start on the air thing. We can't see air with the naked eye but if we use microscopes we can see the molucules. Plus I can feel the air when there is a breeze.

Can you see Love?

Don't even start on the air thing. We can't see air with the naked eye but if we use microscopes we can see the molucules. Plus I can feel the air when there is a breeze.

Ok, you clearly did not see my BASIC point that because air is not seen by the naked eye you cannot remove the idea that it exists. You also did not see my defining division of "seeing" air and "feeling" thoughts.
I know you feel air!

No but love is a feeling and a thought and also a physical attraction that is all.

Well then... begin your argument.
Well back in the beginning, God created the earth, then man then woman....

Stop!!

There is nothing to argue about. You either believe or you don't and I am not going to get into a long winded argument on this. I just checked for a thread I started a long time ago entitled "Debunking Evolution 101", but alas it is no more.

So all I can say is that God is good and God is great and may God bless you. :)

No but love is a feeling and a thought and also a physical attraction that is all.

Ah. So love exists, no? A clear human emotion.

No but love is a feeling and a thought and also a physical attraction that is all.

What about honesty?

I got a few questions then. Have you ever seen god? Have you ever talked to god? Have you ever touched god or felt god's touch? If not I think it is fact that there is not a god. Everything that exists we can see and even feel. That is fact.

How about gravity, have you touched gravity lately? Felt it it maybe? Licked it possibly?

I took a 3 month class at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (One of the most advanced laboratories in the world) taught by some of the best scientists in the world, and would you like to know what they said? They said the highest acclaim that can be achieve in science, although I think they were speaking of physics, is a theory. There are no facts, in fact gravity itself is a theory, even physics itself. For all you know it could be a big coincidence, although unlikely, but some aspects of science can very well be coincidental. For this I see science, or physics w/e, as a religion of its own. Except scientists always want to prove everything, but they can't. They can get close, but that's about it. Christians are supposed to believe the religion, they are not supposed to go out and prove things... It's all just a test, to see if our minds can accept that something some consider to be unfeasible, actually is. No side has hard evidence to discredit the other, and I don't think either side ever will. The only way to find out is to die. But why is it so bad to believe in a God? If you die believing in God and Christianity is Darwin going to be at the light at the end of the tunnel waiting to beat you with a bat for eternity because you were a Christian? ...Probably not. I see a far greater downside to not believing in God, than believing in him.

A scientist, of super symmetry and an atheist (or so he made it seem), at Fermi Lab told me during one of the classes that a number of scientists that study super symmetry are ditching the theory of evolution and turning back to Christianity. These were some of the best scientists out there. He said they were becoming Christians once again because they couldn't understand how everything was so perfectly symmetrical at the smallest levels and how any of this could have been due to random chance at all.

Another instructor, a theorist this time, pointed out the gaping hole in evolution. Technically we shouldn't be here at all according to evolution, since there should have been just as much matter as anti-matter in the starting collision which should have annihlated eachother, leaving no room for life at all. Not one scientist, to date can explain this... For people being so factual, and have to always "prove" everything, evolutionists seem to be believing in a theory whose basis cannot be explained at all. That makes a lot of sense...

Also, again with the quote above. For those that are not willing to truly know and meet God, he will never meet you. You have to let him in and if you don't believe in him, that's kind of hard...

That's all I'm going to say for this thread.

Goodnight.

† Κύριε Ημόν Ιησόυ Χριστέ, Υιέ τόυ θεόυ, ελέησον με, τόν αμαρτωλό. †

What about honesty?

Accoding to America--'s theory, because you cannot feel or see honesty (or love in his case) it does not exist! Oh my. What a huge contradiction. I always find it humurours locking anyone who says this in a chat. It's been several times. I've done better, though.

How about gravity, have you touched gravity lately? Felt it it maybe? Licked it possibly?

I took a 3 month class at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory... (And so on...)

Goodnight.

You studied at Fermilab? i envy you. Further, supersymmetry and microbiological evolution are the sort of difficult things about evolution to explain that i have been trying to bring up throughout this thread, but most people seem more interested in bashing opinions.

Courtesy.

Well back in the beginning, God created the earth, then man then woman....

Stop!!

Indeed - stop! You are talking about a story that was written some 2,500 years ago. I am talking about a story that began millions (billions, actually) of years before the appearance of humans. So what? ;)

I make no doubts about it, that I do not believe in creationism, but I do believe in some higher power. Ive always kind of went with the slogan, which semi applies here, "I believe in the big bang, but someone had to make the big band" I apply that to evolution. I believe in it, but something or someone had to get it started.

Honesty is just a human thought. Nothing more.

I make no doubts about it, that I do not believe in creationism, but I do believe in some higher power. Ive always kind of went with the slogan, which semi applies here, "I believe in the big bang, but someone had to make the big band" I apply that to evolution. I believe in it, but something or someone had to get it started.

Agnostic like moi.

I make no doubts about it, that I do not believe in creationism, but I do believe in some higher power. Ive always kind of went with the slogan, which semi applies here, "I believe in the big bang, but someone had to make the big band" I apply that to evolution. I believe in it, but something or someone had to get it started.

Life just happened - can't you just live with that?

Honesty is just a human thought. Nothing more.

But... it doesn't exist, right? Cuz you can't see it, or feel it.

Honesty is just a human thought. Nothing more.


Oh, becoming ever more cynical and less clinical. What about morality then?

Life just happened - can't you just live with that?

Naw, most people are too scared of things like that. They like things to have a start and a finish, with all things happening as a result of things that happened before them. They get scared when the evidence starts pointing toward them having less control on how they experience the world around them. They don't like the idea that big, important changes just happen with no causality. It suggests that things like gravity and the like are arbitrary and diminishes the enormous human ego that so many hedonists rely on.

You studied at Fermilab? i envy you. Further, supersymmetry and microbiological evolution are the sort of difficult things about evolution to explain that i have been trying to bring up throughout this thread, but most people seem more interested in bashing opinions.

Courtesy.
Heh, ya, I'm only a half hour from it and since I could take the class through my AP Physics course, I was more than happy to jump on the opportunity :).

The title of this thread would have been better if it were "why are some people dumb?" Then, and maybe then, the thread creator may not have fallen into the "dumb" category. :rolleyes:

Forgive me if someone has already made this point, I read a few pages of postings and just started skimming after that.

For the record, I'm a Deist and I believe in a non-interventional "deity". I'm also quite a fan of science and I think the theory of evolution is the best and most accurate means we have currently at our disposal to describe the information we've gathered.

However, to describe someone as "dumb" for believing in something that you think is false I find to be an amusing hypocrisy (sometimes, not always).

Okay... who here believes that the planet Earth orbits around the Sun? Science proved it ages ago, right? Out of those of you who believe the Earth orbits around the Sun, how many of you have actually conducted the experiment to check the facts yourself?

I think the Earth orbits around the Sun but I have simply taken the word of someone else at face value. In fact, I've taken a lot of scientific concepts at face value. For instance, I accept that e=mc[squared] but have I taken any steps to prove this myself? No. I've accepted it on face value (or "faith" if you will).

This is where some of us that don't have the means (either thru lack of education, opportunity or whatever) to independently verify scientific discoveries can sometimes be lead astray. Think the world is warming up because of greenhouse gas emissions? Well, there are a number of scientists who'd like to tell you that it isn't. Who should I think is telling the truth? Both "factions" provide apparently supportive data to back up their claims while simultaneously rubbishing the other faction's methods of gathering or analysing data...

Basically, Creationists (in the Christian sense of the word) take their belief from someone/something they find as an acceptable source. If you advocate for science/evolution and haven't done the research yourself, you're really not doing anything differently.

Forgive me if someone has already made this point, I read a few pages of postings and just started skimming after that.

For the record, I'm a Deist and I believe in a non-interventional "deity". I'm also quite a fan of science and I think the theory of evolution is the best and most accurate means we have currently at our disposal to describe the information we've gathered.

However, to describe someone as "dumb" for believing in something that you think is false I find to be an amusing hypocrisy (sometimes, not always).

Okay... who here believes that the planet Earth orbits around the Sun? Science proved it ages ago, right? Out of those of you who believe the Earth orbits around the Sun, how many of you have actually conducted the experiment to check the facts yourself?

I think the Earth orbits around the Sun but I have simply taken the word of someone else at face value. In fact, I've taken a lot of scientific concepts at face value. For instance, I accept that e=mc[squared] but have I taken any steps to prove this myself? No. I've accepted it on face value (or "faith" if you will).

This is where some of us that don't have the means (either thru lack of education, opportunity or whatever) to independently verify scientific discoveries can sometimes be lead astray. Think the world is warming up because of greenhouse gas emissions? Well, there are a number of scientists who'd like to tell you that it isn't. Who should I think is telling the truth? Both "factions" provide apparently supportive data to back up their claims while simultaneously rubbishing the other faction's methods of gathering or analysing data...

Basically, Creationists (in the Christian sense of the word) take their belief from someone/something they find as an acceptable source. If you advocate for science/evolution and haven't done the research yourself, you're really not doing anything differently.

Smart man :)

Forgive me if someone has already made this point, I read a few pages of postings and just started skimming after that.

For the record ...(pseudo intellectualism)... If you advocate for science/evolution and haven't done the research yourself, you're really not doing anything differently.

On a completely unrelated topic, i just remembered the latin roots of the word "sophomore." Hmm.

Courtesy.

Forgive me if someone has already made this point, I read a few pages of postings and just started skimming after that.

...

Basically, Creationists (in the Christian sense of the word) take their belief from someone/something they find as an acceptable source. If you advocate for science/evolution and haven't done the research yourself, you're really not doing anything differently.


Extremely well said. Very respectable of you. An acceptance that both sides are at stake of being rendered obsolete or concluded as "correct". Something that doesn't not aim to "convert" the other. I like that.

Ok, whoever claimed it earlier, you were right. I regret i started this post. Ah well... that doesn't change the fact that i am right. I have seen evolution. :cool:

Now if you examine the biblical story, and see the order of things, the order matches up. RIght from how there are animals in the sea before beasts on the land.

no. just no.

the bible isn't even internally consistent on the order of creation. compare the p account (gen 1:1 - 2:3) to the j account (gen 2:4-25). and neither account bears much resemblance to the current scientific theories and our observations.

Ok, whoever claimed it earlier, you were right. I regret i started this post. Ah well... that doesn't change the fact that i am right. I have seen evolution. :cool:

i'd love to know where you think you have seen evolution occur. If you mean your fingers and toes getting wrinkly in the bath, i assure you, there is an alternative, more viable explanation.

Courtesy.

i'd love to know where you think you have seen evolution occur. If you mean your fingers and toes getting wrinkly in the bath, i assure you, there is an alternative, more viable explanation.

Courtesy.

Sarcasm notes were not typed.

On a completely unrelated topic, i just remembered the latin roots of the word "sophomore." Hmm.

Courtesy.
That'd be nice if it were latin but it's Greek, Soph --> Sophia = Wisdom. The more part I have no clue about, more wisdom maybe? Although most sophomores I've met are all that wise ;). I guess it could have been adopted into latin from Greek later on, as a bunch of words have been.

That'd be nice if it were latin but it's Greek, Soph --> Sophia = Wisdom. The more part I have no clue about, more wisdom maybe? Although most sophomores I've met are all that wise ;). I guess it could have been adopted into latin from Greek later on, as a bunch of words have been.

Oh wow, please excuse me, i should know better than that. i'm a linguist. Yes, you're correct. It is in fact greek. It was coined at the academe, as a term for students (now it's used for second year students, which is usually not far off) that had acquired just enough knowledge to think themselves formidable contestants in most arguments, but not enough to actually susbstantiate. Sopho-more: "Wise Fool"

On a completely unrelated topic, i just remembered the latin roots of the word "sophomore." Hmm.

Courtesy.

Thanks for the insult (the "pseudo intellectualism" comment).

Thanks for the insult (the "pseudo intellectualism" comment).

somehow, i doubt you're actually grateful.
All i'm saying is, for a post that doesn't actually say much of anything, there are an awful lot of words in it, and furthermore, more than enough contentions.

Courtesy.

okay, this thread no longer about its subject.
Bedtime.
Peace to every one of you.

Courtesy.

somehow, i doubt you're actually grateful.
All i'm saying is, for a post that doesn't actually say much of anything, there are an awful lot of words in it, and furthermore, more than enough contentions.

Courtesy.

I could easily shorten my statement to "Creationists believe what they are told, just like a bunch of people believe whatever they are told if there is scientific jargon involved".

However, in a forum these short statements usually lead to all sorts of criticism and people getting upset over nothing. I wanted to expand my reasoning for the comment I was making so that people could see why I held that opinion.

My apologies for wanting to explain myself.

EDIT:
However, I should take the time to sincerely thank those that did like what I had to say, even if I apparently had little to say that Chaosmanglemaimdeathia found relevant.

Two items:
1) What if such technology proves the existence of intelligent design in the Earth's history?

that would be cool.it would explain the gaps in the fossil record.ie god decided to do some pushing then.
my belief is god guided evolution.we are mortal we can only study the tools used.

I got a few questions then. Have you ever seen god? Have you ever talked to god? Have you ever touched god or felt god's touch? If not I think it is fact that there is not a god. Everything that exists we can see and even feel. That is fact.


Have you ever seen the wind? "I cannot see the wind, therfore it doesn't exist." Can you see gravity? Hmm, must not exist then... For that matter, have you ever seen a million dollars? Must not exist then. You said yourself that it's a fact that everything that exists we can see and feel. :headbang:

You can see darkenergy but we can't becasue we aren't that technologically advanced. As for thoughts you actually can see thoughts. Neurons and the energy in there are thoughts.(I might be on the neuron thing though)

It may be that we have not yet developed the means to see God.

Perhaps we are looking in the wrong place, or looking for a God of our own preconception whom we may never find.

:rolleyes: Why is it that whenever the words "proof" or "evidence" are brought up we get back to the Platonic "I cant prove anything but my own thoughts exist" debate. It is a horrifically unscientific way of talking about a scientific theory.

If Creationists want to believe in Evolution because of faith, that is fine. I never want to be the kind of person who puts people down for faith. But if you people start trying to argue Evolution down scientifically your gonna get beaten, and perhaps this is why we get back to the above mentioned debate? Because Creationists know that they cannot proove their side of the equasion.

Have you ever seen the wind? "I cannot see the wind, therfore it doesn't exist." Can you see gravity? Hmm, must not exist then... For that matter, have you ever seen a million dollars? Must not exist then. You said yourself that it's a fact that everything that exists we can see and feel. :headbang:

You can feel the wind, silly. And yes, you can feel gravity, it's that slight sensation of downward pressure. You just shot yourself in the foot.

As for Creationism (I didn't read the whole thread, sorry if I'm repeating), it could be that God created everything 5000 years ago, or whatever, and the world went on from there. But, perhaps he created things that were already several million years old, so dinosaur skeletons that are thousands/millions of years old were created AT THAT POINT. and so the argument of things being too old for Creationism wouldn't work. I don't believe that myself, but I dare you to disprove it. And you can't! People get too hung up about how science can disprove all the religious theories, when it is fairly easy to argue points on God that you can't actually disprove.

:rolleyes: Why is it that whenever the words "proof" or "evidence" are brought up we get back to the Platonic "I cant prove anything but my own thoughts exist" debate. It is a horrifically unscientific way of talking about a scientific theory.

If Creationists want to believe in Evolution because of faith, that is fine. I never want to be the kind of person who puts people down for faith. But if you people start trying to argue Evolution down scientifically your gonna get beaten, and perhaps this is why we get back to the above mentioned debate? Because Creationists know that they cannot proove their side of the equasion.And neither can evolutionists.
The problem is that while evolutionists can say "look, the radiometric evidence says the Earth is millions of years old, and we know animals and plants adapt to their environment so why not change tremendously over millions of years, etc. ad nauseam, the creationists can sit there and go "maybe that's how God wanted it." Neither side can PROVE their argument. One is secular and the other is religious, and we all know how well those fields get on.
It's a losing battle for both sides, really.

You can feel the wind, silly. And yes, you can feel gravity, it's that slight sensation of downward pressure. You just shot yourself in the foot.

As for Creationism (I didn't read the whole thread, sorry if I'm repeating), it could be that God created everything 5000 years ago, or whatever, and the world went on from there. But, perhaps he created things that were already several million years old, so dinosaur skeletons that are thousands/millions of years old were created AT THAT POINT. and so the argument of things being too old for Creationism wouldn't work. I don't believe that myself, but I dare you to disprove it. And you can't! People get too hung up about how science can disprove all the religious theories, when it is fairly easy to argue points on God that you can't actually disprove.

Burden of proof rests with those seeking to state something exists, not that something does not exist. I can easily state "Aliens control all the governments of the world and it must be true because you can't prove me wrong!" but the onus is on me to prove that it is true, not for others to prove me wrong.

As for the concept you raised, I could just as easily state "God created us all 30 seconds ago and implanted us with a memory of our lives and a pretend history leading up to right now and you can't prove me wrong!".

And neither can evolutionists.
The problem is that while evolutionists can say "look, the radiometric evidence says the Earth is millions of years old, and we know animals and plants adapt to their environment so why not change tremendously over millions of years, etc. ad nauseam, the creationists can sit there and go "maybe that's how God wanted it." Neither side can PROVE their argument. One is secular and the other is religious, and we all know how well those fields get on.
It's a losing battle for both sides, really.

Yes, but the thing that gets me is that Creationists are fighting against a threory that supports, or at least implies, a universe with a creator anyway. I am Catholic, yet I have no problem with Scientific Creation Threories because:
1) Evolution requires a horrifically unlikely co-incedence to start the process off. A mono-celular organism must have been created spontaneously as far as I can gather for evolution to work. This smacks of divine intervention.

2) Big Bang theory shows that the universe had a begginning, and therefore implies a creator. Also, the fact that the Big Bang was at one point a singularity prevents Physics from predicting what came before the universe. You cannot see beyond a singularity, assuming of course that General Relitivity is correct.

P.S. I can actually argue down the first point using the anthropic principle, but because I assume everyone else cannot, I will just let it stand and sit here feeling intelligent.

Yes, but the thing that gets me is that Creationists are fighting against a threory that supports, or at least implies, a universe with a creator anyway. I am Catholic, yet I have no problem with Scientific Creation Threories because:
1) Evolution requires a horrifically unlikely co-incedence to start the process off. A mono-celular organism must have been created spontaneously as far as I can gather for evolution to work. This smacks of divine intervention.

2) Big Bang theory shows that the universe had a begginning, and therefore implies a creator. Also, the fact that the Big Bang was at one point a singularity prevents Physics from predicting what came before the universe. You cannot see beyond a Big Bang, assuming of course that General Relitivity is correct.

P.S. I can actually argue down the first point using the anthropic principle, but because I assume everyone else cannot, I will just let it stand and sit here feeling intelligent.

Which anthropic principle? Weak anthropic principle or strong anthropic principle? "Unlikely coincidence" does not equate to "utterly impossible".

It is a big universe out there... even chances that are several billion to 1 could, in theory anyway, occur with a reasonable frequency.

I'm not entirely sure how weak or strong anthropic principle dictates that there must have been a "divine" creator. I don't know that anyone could actually argue against weak anthropic principle simply because if it was wrong then we wouldn't be here.

It is a big universe out there... even chances that are several billion to 1 could, in theory anyway, occur with a reasonable frequency.

Did you know that most of our lives are governed by telephone numbers?
Sorry, couldn't help it. The HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy is being released this year in cinemas and I saw a trailer yesterday ...

On a more serious note, if you read Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead by Tom Stoppard, it has a long scene involving (I think) G flipping a coin for hours on end, and it always ends up heads. Extremely improbable, but not impossible.

Then again, there's always the "multiple universes" theory - we could simply be living in one of the relatively scarce, yet existing branches in which life DID arise spontaneously.

Which anthropic principle? Weak anthropic principle or strong anthropic principle? "Unlikely coincidence" does not equate to "utterly impossible".

It is a big universe out there... even chances that are several billion to 1 could, in theory anyway, occur with a reasonable frequency.

I'm not entirely sure how weak or strong anthropic principle dictates that there must have been a "divine" creator. I don't know that anyone could actually argue against weak anthropic principle simply because if it was wrong then we wouldn't be here.

:D Gotme. My argument is that how small the chances are is irrelevant because it happened, hence our existance.

As for the rest, My point is that modern scientific theory means that God may or may not exist, It cannot disproove the existance of God, and yet many people act as though it does.

As for the rest, My point is that modern scientific theory means that God may or may not exist, It cannot disproove the existance of God, and yet many people act as though it does.Simply explained - you can't prove a negative. For an example, I can't prove that the aether doesn't exist, only that we can't detect it.

Simply explained - you can't prove a negative. For an example, I can't prove that the aether doesn't exist, only that we can't detect it.

Stop talking about Proof!!! GAAHH!!

I had a convo with one once and his arguement was so incredibly stupid. I pointed out the obvious time frame questions and carbon dating he attempted to discredit it by saying that they once used carbon dating on a castle in europe. The castle was built in 1500 (i dont remember the dates anymore) but the carbon dating said it was from 120,000 BC or something like that. First im not expert but im pretty sure carbon dating can only be used on living things and second even if they could carbon date stones and rocks on the castle its not like they were created from scratch the second they built the castle.


the carbon dating would be examining the stone...not the actuall castle...you can not carbon date man made things in that manner...so yeah your pretty right

I got a few questions then. Have you ever seen god? Have you ever talked to god? Have you ever touched god or felt god's touch? If not I think it is fact that there is not a god. Everything that exists we can see and even feel. That is fact.

As other have said, there is such a thing as an abstract, intangible concept like love or fear or honour. You yourself have said "Love is...etc" and all it needs is that "is" to exist. I don't know whether there's a God or not but there are many things in the world that exist only in theory, in the abstract or in potentia, and/or can only be physically observed through their effects (love, gravity, duty, etc.) Actually, the concept of postulating the existence and properties of things based on their effects rather than any available physical evidence has been part of the scientific process for a long time.

I have always be told that life started 6000 years ago, this is true as there is no recorded history prior to this. You can not say for a fact that life started before when civilizations didn't start recording their history prior to 4000 BC. The rest of this spill is evidence that man hasn't changed much and never will.

On how we got here, I believe that aliens orchastrated the whole thing and we are just pawns in an never ending science project.

Truth is, I have yet to hear of evolution going on today and, please people, society has reached a technological level where we can see minor changes.

So you don't consider the fact that we're getting taller to be down to evolution? Did god make us too short in the first place and is now slowly correcting his mistake over the last few years? :D

I have always be told that life started 6000 years ago, this is true as there is no recorded history prior to this. You can not say for a fact that life started before when civilizations didn't start recording their history prior to 4000 BC. The rest of this spill is evidence that man hasn't changed much and never will.

On how we got here, I believe that aliens orchastrated the whole thing and we are just pawns in an never ending science project.

Ummm... been to Australia recently?

We've got cave drawings that are older than that I'm sure. Even if we don't there are cave drawing in Lascaux that have been dated to be around 30,000 years old.

Among friends, I'm somewhat well known for 'weird, random theories'...

So... The Augustinian Theodicy removes God of all responsibility for Evil. He gave man the choice to do what he wants, because the only relationship that is special is one chosen, not one forced. It is well known by all pseudo-anti-christians that God gave man free will. And that thus, man is responsible for all evil in the world.

So, since God will not intervene in the World because he did not create evil... and evil is a 'lack of goodness'... perhaps Evolution is evil? Evolution may be God's way of allowing man to cope with the other evils of the World. It may also be mans way of straying from God (ever noticed how ugly and feeble devout Christians are... the Pope looks like Yoda... may God put him out of his misery soon) turning into something more 'evil'. South Park - the hub of some amazing philosophy, shows God looking close to a donkey. Considering Irenaean Theodicy also - Evil builds the soul (Forget for a moment that it also makes God partly responsible for evil since it has some good for man). So... we need evil. But evil would kill man off. If we didn't adapt, we would be wiped out. Both say that man isn't perfect, so there is room for improvement to make us more God-like. Improvement would be man turning into a donkey... After all, who else would let fat children sit on their back and take them on a journey around the sea-side? The only person I could think of, is God. Evolution - straying from God - would make us look more like Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston (EVIL PEOPLE! THEY SPLIT UP!!!!1!!!11!!!!)

And if all of that went over your head, you can't spell Evolution, without 'Evil'. :D

Wrong. Creationism was torn to shreds a long time ago.

Its arrogent statemements like this that make people angry.

Ummm... been to Australia recently?

We've got cave drawings that are older than that I'm sure. Even if we don't there are cave drawing in Lascaux that have been dated to be around 30,000 years old.

Ive gone over the evidence of those. Frankly its extremely debateable.

Ive gone over the evidence of those. Frankly its extremely debateable.

Recently, Carbon 14 samples were taken from the paintings which pointed to them being approximately 30,000 years old.

Several of the paintings have been made with pigments based on metal oxides, iron & manganese (complete sidetrack, whenever I see "manganese" I get a mental image of it being a "manga" atom which amuses me - small things, as they say).

So what is it that you find extremely debatable about the drawings in Lascaux? The method of carbon-dating?

Ah. So love exists, no? A clear human emotion.

Love does not exist. Love happens. Love isn't the particle, it's the exploson.

Regarding how extremely improbable it is for life to exist with no intelligent intervention: it would only be on one of those planets that beat the odds and have intelligent life where there would be philosophers wondering how they beat the odds. In other words, for you to wonder why you exist, you must exist first.

Recently, Carbon 14 samples were taken from the paintings which pointed to them being approximately 30,000 years old.

Several of the paintings have been made with pigments based on metal oxides, iron & manganese (complete sidetrack, whenever I see "manganese" I get a mental image of it being a "manga" atom which amuses me - small things, as they say).

So what is it that you find extremely debatable about the drawings in Lascaux? The method of carbon-dating?

Its the Carbon dating process. It has various flaws.

- It assumes the rate of decay is constant. Modern research shows it to speed up rapidly and slow down later
- It assumes the inital quantity of the original element is known
- It assumes the breakdown occurs in an isolated enviroment

When these factors and one or two others were applied to a sample of Cambrian rock dated originaly at over 600 Million years, it came down to a matter of thousands of years.

Its the Carbon dating process. It has various flaws.

- It assumes the rate of decay is constant. Modern research shows it to speed up rapidly and slow down later
- It assumes the inital quantity of the original element is known
- It assumes the breakdown occurs in an isolated enviroment

When these factors and one or two others were applied to a sample of Cambrian rock dated originaly at over 600 Million years, it came down to a matter of thousands of years.
Why was carbon dating being applied to rock? And why was it being used to justify time-scales of the order of millions of years? IIRC, it's only applicable to dating biological material (which addresses your second point) laid down within a range of about 50k years.

Are you sure you don't have it confused with some other dating technique?

Why was carbon dating being applied to rock? And why was it being used to justify time-scales of the order of millions of years? IIRC, it's only applicable to dating biological material (which addresses your second point) laid down within a range of about 50k years.

Are you sure you don't have it confused with some other dating technique?

Im talking about Radiometric dating, is that not what you are discussing? Ceritanly it is what you would have to use to mesure cave paintings, being painted on rock after all.

I have always be told that life started 6000 years ago, this is true as there is no recorded history prior to this. You can not say for a fact that life started before when civilizations didn't start recording their history prior to 4000 BC. The rest of this spill is evidence that man hasn't changed much and never will.

On how we got here, I believe that aliens orchastrated the whole thing and we are just pawns in an never ending science project.

Hahahahaha hoho hahahahahahahahahaha, It was a joke, right?

Recently, Carbon 14 samples were taken from the paintings which pointed to them being approximately 30,000 years old.

Several of the paintings have been made with pigments based on metal oxides, iron & manganese (complete sidetrack, whenever I see "manganese" I get a mental image of it being a "manga" atom which amuses me - small things, as they say).

So what is it that you find extremely debatable about the drawings in Lascaux? The method of carbon-dating?
Source? (Hint- You can't date non-living objects using carbon dating)

Im talking about Radiometric dating, is that not what you are discussing? Ceritanly it is what you would have to use to mesure cave paintings, being painted on rock after all.
I wasn't discussing anything. I was simply feeling confused by this:
Its the Carbon dating process. It has various flaws.

- It assumes the rate of decay is constant. Modern research shows it to speed up rapidly and slow down later
- It assumes the inital quantity of the original element is known
- It assumes the breakdown occurs in an isolated enviroment

When these factors and one or two others were applied to a sample of Cambrian rock dated originaly at over 600 Million years, it came down to a matter of thousands of years.

Im talking about Radiometric dating, is that not what you are discussing? Ceritanly it is what you would have to use to mesure cave paintings, being painted on rock after all.

Indeed however early artists mixed their pigments with animal blood or extracts from plants and this can be carbon dated. Dating the rocks won't tell you when it was painted since they've been there for years before they were painted.

Indeed however early artists mixed their pigments with animal blood or extracts from plants and this can be carbon dated.
Which would tell you why you got a bad result. They made an assumption that it had something in it that it didn't.

My thoughts are that you are going to get torn apart by the intelligent creationists here, and while I think they're totally wrong, it will be quite amusing to watch you flail helplessly as they dissemble your arguments.
:fluffle:

I'm glad someone put it eloquently so that I can just agree, rather than struggle to say it nicely myself

I wasn't discussing anything. I was simply feeling confused by this:

Apologies for the confusion. I was indeed not refering to carbon 14 dating. However the point still stands. Cambrian samples produce results only in the thousands of years when corrected.

Neither evolutionists nor creationists have enough evidence to tear the other side to shreds - although watching the epic battle provides a valuable diversion from my work. :)

Old earth creationists maybe. Not YECs or FECs. We're pretty conclusive about the earth being billions of years old and round, in spite of what the Bible might say.

How about gravity, have you touched gravity lately? Felt it it maybe? Licked it possibly?

I took a 3 month class at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory ...


Dude, I just finished reading this and you better flipping be telling the truth. I am sick of Christians lying just to try and debunk Evolution


Next..well I have to jet to church, but someone said something like "terribly christian of you to say that all other religions except Christians will go to hell". All I have to say is, do you think I am happy saying that? Do you think I want them to go to hell? Do you think God wants them to? Would you want them to?

Also, if I die, and find myself in a "lower caste" than oh well, but for some reason I have followed a path and it has consistently revealed to me that I am on the right path. SO I am either really good at lying to myself, or I am on the right path.

"Creationists believe what they are told, just like a bunch of people believe whatever they are told if there is scientific jargon involved".

Lastly, the Salamander guy is a tad wrong. We creationists don't blindly follow the theory of creation just because of the Bible, or because our preacher tells us to, or because some scientist tells us to. Plenty of Christians have "book smarts" (if not all christians), plenty of christians know their stuff. If you are saying the whole structure, concluding data, ideas, and facts of creationism are wrong, don't you think that would be proclaimed on all the roof tops? I know I would let other Christians know if Creationism is wrong, and I know other Christians who would do the same thing. But thanks for making me fool like a foolish follower who believes anything that has scientific jargon. You should read Ancient Byzantium's post

Of course, since I didn't get to read the last two pages I might regret alll that I said.

Please listen to my opinon even thought I am new to this Topic. Here we go

First off I would be the first person to tell you that there is no god of any kind at all. I don't care what you say there is no god nor will there ever be one. I personally wish there was but there isn't.

Secondly creationists are not dumb or stupid. Maybe sometimes they go overboard and I mean way overboard but they are not dumb. They act like this because they were taught to act like this. Now I was raised a catholic and then something happened to me and I realize that there really isn't no god. If there was this world would be a lot better then it is. But as for creationists you must admit they got people that don't believe in god in a corner right now. They got us in a corner because we don't have a lot of evidence to prove that there is no god and that we were created natually.

We already got them to the point where most people believe in Evolution as fact. So we are slowly getting threre. Plus every new generation believes less and less in god. I bet by the end of the 21st century the athiests out number the believers in the United States. It is just a matter of time.


what made you think therre was no god?

The way the world works is that everything is incorrect until it is proved to be correct. It other words, you need proof to justify anything. The same is true in Justice. You cannot accuse Professor Plum of killing Dr Black in the Study with the candlestick unless you have proof.

Anyone find fault with that?

The evolution theory has mainly been built on the discovery of bones that are from ancient species of animals, that are no longer in being, because that species has either evolved into something that survived, or it did not and became extinct.

The creation theory is mainly based on statements proported as fact from religous scripture or from religious persons. There is no proof other than statement for the "Creationist" cause.

Thus is it not the "Darwinists" who must proof their cause, but the "Creationists." Until creationists are able to produce evidence other than statement, their theory is presumed false.

In my opinion, Creationism's "moral-authority" is mainly claimed from scripture that some people view as unquestionable. For it to be respected and even to be considered, the must produce CREDIBLE evidence to support their cause. Quoting from literature that many (I include myself here) percieve to be nothing but lies will never convince anyone.

If I may quote:
""Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?" [Stephen Jay Gould, "The Skeptical Inquirer"]"

I would also like to point out that most people who say they are christians are not. that is the sad part of the religeon. they say they are to fit in with someone, or because it may sound good.

Just because someone says they are a christian doesn;t eman they are. People in america say they are christians, but their actions prove otherwise. I don;t know how someone can call themself a christian, then go out clubbin sunday night and be wasted for classes on monday. that completely baffles me.

Just because you wear a teams jersy doesn;t mean you are on the team.

and why do athiests and evolutionists care what we think. why do you care? i don;t particularly care if you are an athiest, doesn;t change my beleifs at all. why would you care what i think if you jsut think i will die and become dust again. it desont; matter really.

and why do athiests and evolutionists care what we think. why do you care? i don;t particularly care if you are an athiest, doesn;t change my beleifs at all. why would you care what i think if you jsut think i will die and become dust again. it desont; matter really.
I don't know if you read the news, but Creationists in America are trying to put the Creation Theory into schools. I don't particulary care if you yourself believe in a theory that has no proof. It's when you try and force other people to believe it that I care.

Sorry for starting this post (i know this topic is starting to get annoying), but i'd like to know why creationists ignore the real world so blatantly. I just don't get it, because evidence is self-explanatory. :headbang:

Your thoughts on this?
Who's dumb now?

Wrong. Creationism was torn to shreds a long time ago.
Wrong, full stop.


Many people believe that evolution, as opposed to creationism or intelligent design, is a proven, indisputable theory, on the level of Newton's Laws. It is not. Evolution is not a fact or a law, it is nothing more than a flawed theory. Indeed, there is not even consensus among the scientific community on evolution -- and even if there were, it would be worthless. Consensus is not evidence; I could provide half-a-dozen examples off the top of my head where near-unanimous consensus was proven to be absolutely, 100% wrong.

Evolution is not a proven fact; it's not even close. Creationism (or 'intelligent design', if you prefer) is at least as valid a theory as evolution.

Apologies for the confusion. I was indeed not refering to carbon 14 dating. However the point still stands. Cambrian samples produce results only in the thousands of years when corrected.
Source?

I don't know if you read the news, but Creationists in America are trying to put the Creation Theory into schools. I don't particulary care if you yourself believe in a theory that has no proof. It's when you try and force other people to believe it that I care.
1. Creationism DOES have valid evidence.
2. It is no less valid a theory than evolution.
3. I could make the same cliched argument about "forcing beliefs on other people" vis a vis the teaching of evolution theory.

Who's dumb now?


Wrong, full stop.


Many people believe that evolution, as opposed to creationism or intelligent design, is a proven, indisputable theory, on the level of Newton's Laws. It is not. Evolution is not a fact or a law, it is nothing more than a flawed theory. Indeed, there is not even consensus among the scientific community on evolution -- and even if there were, it would be worthless. Consensus is not evidence; I could provide half-a-dozen examples off the top of my head where near-unanimous consensus was proven to be absolutely, 100% wrong.

Evolution is not a proven fact; it's not even close. Creationism (or 'intelligent design', if you prefer) is at least as valid a theory as evolution.
What testable hypothesis does creationism put forward so it can be tested as a theory like evolution has (and stood up rather well)?