NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh it was a long while back I came across "Peanut Butter the Athiests Nightmare" well today I finally ask this... watch all, some, or even just one evolution vs. creation video and answer the poll. Coment please.
____________________________
The links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cpNjyVvqK0 (Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izjJr0CIQQk&mode=related&search= (Part 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x91eYg_yG5Q&mode=related&search= (Part 3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gF4tNmcBLc&mode=related&search= (Part 4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-U2uI1f8mU&mode=related&search= (Part 5-especially interesting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQb6e1w1I9E&mode=related&search= (Part 6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3JND0gND-U&mode=related&search= (Part 7-especially interesting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qjHtyKq3yc&mode=related&search= (Part 8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKV2sWMEwuk&mode=related&search= (Part 9)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gVzt7qH2UA&mode=related&search= (Part 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0QYPnvU5qE&mode=related&search= (Part 11)

______________________
Some bonuses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk (especially interesting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504 (especially interesting)
_____________________
Explanaintion due to complaints: (especially interesting) = especially retarded
_____________________

All in all about an hour and 15 minutes.
_________________________________________
Jist of it due to complaints: This lady says--- evolution is false, The big Bang Theory is false, chemicals forming organisms is false , the bible is a science test book, all animals including dinosaurs lived with humans, the Earth is only 6,000 years old. ONly god can create anything. Nothing can form out of something else EVER.

Are all the videos around 10 mins long? Cos this could take a while.


Also creation and evolution aren't mutually exclusive.


I got about 2 minutes in to the first video. I don't think I'll waste my time watching any more. If she thinks she's proven the bible to be fact she's not worth listening to.

My preference for science over gibberish leads me to favour evolutionary biology over creation myths.

The term "evolutionist" is ridiculous, however, as it implies that "evolution" is some kind of ideology, whereas in reality it is a process by which organisms adapt over generations.

Who the hell can be bothered!?

Can't you just give us the gist of it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo

My preference for science over gibberish leads me to favour evolutionary biology over creation myths.

The term "evolutionist" is ridiculous, however, as it implies that "evolution" is some kind of ideology, whereas in reality it is a process by which organisms adapt over generations.

/thread, tho' I'm sure it will draaaaaaag oooooooout much loooooooooonger ;)

If you also think peanut butter disproves evolution, i'm not going to bother with the links.

Also, your poll sucks. You can have 10 options and you choose to have only 2???

Oh it was a long while back I came across "Peanut Butter the Athiests Nightmare" well today I finally ask this... watch all, some, or even just one evolution vs. creation video and answer the poll. Coment please.

My span of patience if nowhere near an hour and fifteen minutes, but I did watch the peanut butter video for laughs.

The fallacy it uses: making a strawman atheist, as these sort of productions invariably do, by assuming that abiogenesis has anything to do with evolution.

On the creation of new life itself: the analogy to a jar of peanut butter couldn't be any more ridiculous. It took billions of years for the simplest organisms to form on Earth (or on comets that arrived on Earth, according to some) in the primordial soup. Peanut butter jars are made and sit on the shelf for days or weeks on average, and all they have in them is PEANUT BUTTER. Doesn't matter how many peanut butter jars you make, just heating them up isn't going to make peanut butter chemically react.

But don't let this deter the creationist from his/her basic, comforting beliefs about biology. Ignorance is bliss, after all.

I'll pick evolution over creation, the germ theory of disease over witchcraft, and mental illness over demonic possession. Hope that answers your questions.

Congratulations - you've just proven that evolution is wrong. Here, have a cookie :fluffle:


...no, it wasn't the insane people in the links, it is the fact that if evolution did exist, NSG would have evolved past these threads ;)

GOD WILLS IT!

Can we please just let this thing die before someone like Bottle comes in and levels the place with implacable logic?

...actually, that could be entertaining.

Can we please just let this thing die before someone like Bottle comes in and levels the place with implacable logic?

Page one would be rather young for a thread to die. we need to wait longer.

Congratulations - you've just proven that evolution is wrong. Here, have a cookie :fluffle:


...no, it wasn't the insane people in the links, it is the fact that if evolution did exist, NSG would have evolved past these threads ;)

GOD WILLS IT!

Puh-lease!? Where's the enviromental pressure? Where is the need to adapt and move one? You seem to think NSG doesn't thrive on repetition...

PLEASE not another of these threads!

Trilby63;12737719']Puh-lease!? Where's the enviromental pressure? Where is the need to adapt and move one? You seem to think NSG doesn't thrive on repetition...

Nonono! According to the videos, the bible has been scientifically proven to be 100% accurate, and since it does not say that God created Nationstates we must thereby deduce that NSG does not, in fact, exist. And as such, it cannot evolve either. Follow my logic? :p

I love how they expose the conspiracy that the evolutionists are a part of though. They've even gotten to the geologists - forcing them to create bad science just to expand the time-frame the evolutionists were using :)

Fnord, I say! Fnord!

and these two ideas are mutually exclusive how?

I think I will skip the whole process and enjoy a nice peanut butter sandwich (out of spite not because peanut butter is exciting or anything)

Where's the "So, what?" option. How about the "Both, and yet neither, all at the exact same time!?!?!?"

I don't think there's any more to be said on the subject, other than:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-U2uI1f8mU&mode=related&search= (Part 5-especially interesting)

This one has nothing at all to do with evolution. What is so "especially interesting" about it?

Both "especially interesting" links have nothing to do with evolution. Seriously. The crackpots get worse and worse...

If your problem is with geology, cosmology, or astronomy, why not say that?

Both "especially interesting" links have nothing to do with evolution. Seriously. The crackpots get worse and worse...

If your problem is with geology, cosmology, or astronomy, why not say that?

Those words are too big.

I don't think there's any more to be said on the subject, other than:

In related news, approximately 50% of Americans believe that humans were created by God in their current form in the last 10,000 years. A significant (albeit undefined) portion of these Americans are young-Earth creationists, the kind that reject evolution entirely.

Now, think of this statistic and how it relates to the Family Guy graphic. :)

Those words are too big.

No bigger than 'evolution' though. Either deliberately misrepresenting scientific fields helps their argument, or the videos are targeted to those ignorant of science. Or both.

why does anyone produce such films?

why does anyone produce such films?

Either they really believe the bullshit or they are willing to lie to push their ideology. Personally I think it's a little of both.

i only watched the first film. the lady said that she'd go on to present facts, but she didn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HW06Wz_R74&mode=related&search=

I was kind of lost at the whole "We proved the Bible is 100% scientifically true."
Anyone else see the irony in the fact that they used some science to "prove" the Bible and then turned around and said that, except for the science they used, all science (practically) is bunk?
I found it funny
What channel is this from anyways?

But she has a point. After all, why should we listen to someone who spent their entire life studying one specific topic? It's not like they're better informed or more knowledgeable than us or anything.

Quite obvious logic:

If we assume that creationists are correct, then NO random genetic mutations exist, as this immediately means evolution, which means there is only room for the slightest difference between any two people in the world.

Yet we still have the Creationists and 'Evolutionists'.

Quite different.

Thus, Creationism is paradoxical.

why does anyone produce such films?

To get people who dont know any better to agree with them...and tell them they are right. To be praised and known.

Facts rarely impede ego.

No bigger than 'evolution' though. Either deliberately misrepresenting scientific fields helps their argument, or the videos are targeted to those ignorant of science. Or both.

And even smaller than "evolutionist." =)

To get people who dont know any better to agree with them...and tell them they are right. To be praised and known.

Facts rarely impede ego.these films are frightening.

and these two ideas are mutually exclusive how?

Depends if you mean a vague, butchered version of evolution, or the actual scientific theory that requires no intervention by "God".

I am an evangelical Christian(Baptist) I have no desire to watch those films.
I have no desire to becme some kind of apologist for those people...if I watch them I will. It gets frightening, imagine how I feel trying to suggest that Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive to people who believe their immortal soul is hinged on that fact...which it isnt any way...but you get the idea.

what is this peanut butter thing?

Two words:

Kirk Cameron.



Enough said.

Depends if you mean a vague, butchered version of evolution, or the actual scientific theory that requires no intervention by "God".

No it doesnt.

Not requiring Divine intervention doesnt exclude it.

Science doesnt exclude God ever. It is merely what it is, nothing more and nothing less.

what is this peanut butter thing?

Some stupid creationist (not that there's any smart ones), decided that since no new life is found when opening a jar of peanut butter, the theory of evolution is false. If you want to see this stupidity for youself, here is the link. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504)

Not requiring Divine intervention doesnt exclude it.

Science doesnt exclude God ever. It is merely what it is, nothing more and nothing less.

Exactly. Science neither includes nor excludes God. The idea itself is irrelevant to the scientific method and the investigations in which it is useful.

what is this peanut butter thing?

Peanut butter is poison to atheists, see. One taste of it and they drop dead. With Jesus' help, we can defeat the godless ones by smuggling liquid peanut butter sprinklers into areas heavily populated with atheists, and infecting them en masse. However, we must take care NOT to use Adam's chunky peanut butter, for if it gets stuck in the hoses, all is lost.

Ah, remember my post a page or two ago? That logic somehow fails to impress my science teacher.

Who is a Catholic.:upyours:

And loves to teach biology.:confused:

Did I mention we're talking about the second-highest-performing secondary school in New York State?:confused:

:headbang::headbang::headbang:

Both "especially interesting" links have nothing to do with evolution. Seriously. The crackpots get worse and worse...

If your problem is with geology, cosmology, or astronomy, why not say that?

Because they don't f---ing understand the difference between the different branches of science.

Ah, remember my post a page or two ago? That logic somehow fails to impress my science teacher.

Who is a Catholic.:upyours:

And loves to teach biology.:confused:

Did I mention we're talking about the second-highest-performing secondary school in New York State?:confused:

:headbang::headbang::headbang:

I have no idea what you are talking about, so all I can really say to you is to use less smilies. Okay?

No it doesnt.

Not requiring Divine intervention doesnt exclude it.

Science doesnt exclude God ever. It is merely what it is, nothing more and nothing less.

You're missing the point. Either animals were created or they evolved is the subject of the "debate". A weaker version of the creationist argument says that animals evolved, but God was involved. But the real theory works without said intervention - thus even the weak creationism is excluded.

Although, in my original reply, you succeeded in distracting me by talking about God in general rather than specifically creationism, I believe my above statement explains what I meant by the scientific theory and creationism being mutually exclusive.

ok folks this is what i beleave
I beleave in the theory of Evolutionary Creation. To put it simply it states that the creator in his all powerfull wisdom created the universe and then created all things in it. when he created life he allowed it to evolve so that it could grow and advance. when he informed man of the fact that he created everything he did not go into details about how he did it and because mankind was so simple gave them a timeframe that they could understand ie 6 days when he really meant something along the lines of 60 billion years. mankind with his simple mind took him at his word and never bothered to try to find out the details. The few bright deviants who actually bothered to try were simply burned at the stake,stoned, or made a laughingstock. as time went on the bright deviants got smarter and quickly learned to keep their ideas to themselves. they taught their offspring their ideas theirby passing along the ideas. as time went on the bright deveants became dominant simply due to the fact that long ago they had learned not to grab up poisoness snakes, a fond tradition of the not so bright which also explaines why though the not so bright have more kids they never seem to surpass their brighter counterparts.
throughout all of this the creator set watching, feet up on a cushion, drinking a cold one. after all he had just finished a very long week and just wanted to relax and watch his favorite tv show "Humanities Stupidest Moments".

this of course proves several things
1.1 god is really smart
2. man is really dumb
3. evolution really does exist, and so does the creator.
4. and that the creator has a really good sense of humor. just to prove it reread this perticular forum and ask yourself this. if he didn't have a sense of humor, why isn't there a few small piles of ash sitting in front of few computers right now.

QED

Some stupid creationist (not that there's any smart ones), decided that since no new life is found when opening a jar of peanut butter, the theory of evolution is false. If you want to see this stupidity for youself, here is the link. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504)i do not understand this

Some stupid creationist (not that there's any smart ones), decided that since no new life is found when opening a jar of peanut butter, the theory of evolution is false. If you want to see this stupidity for youself, here is the link. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504)

I'd list all the things wrong with this "argument" of theirs, but there isn't enough time left before the sun goes red giant and engulfs the earth.

Exactly. Science neither includes nor excludes God. The idea itself is irrelevant to the scientific method and the investigations in which it is useful.

Right, so one can believe in God, and still completely accept science.
Science is no threat to Divinty, science doesnt concern itself with divinty...at least not until it developes a test for it.

So one can not say that Creationism and Evolutionism are mutually exclusive, science doesnt not exclude God. So I am free to attach God to science and do science no harm. You say evolution, I say yes, started by God.

You say Big Bang, I say yes, started by God.

Now you can laugh at me, you cna think I am wrong...but it really doesnt matter to you...as long as we can agree that biology is a science and not a concocted lie. That evolution is indeed theory...but not in the way "Creationists" suggest it is. I am saying science doesnt exclude God, so no one who believes in God as any reason to be threatened by science.

Ah, remember my post a page or two ago? That logic somehow fails to impress my science teacher.

Who is a Catholic.:upyours:

And loves to teach biology.:confused:

Did I mention we're talking about the second-highest-performing secondary school in New York State?:confused:

:headbang::headbang::headbang:

Maybe because it's very difficult to prove that personal beliefs are influenced by genetics?

I'd list all the things wrong with this "argument" of theirs, but there isn't enough time left before the sun goes red giant and engulfs the earth.

Why do you think i didn't try to put reasons why this is wrong in my post?

Schwullunde;12737948']ok folks this is what i beleave
I beleave in the theory of Evolutionary Creation. To put it simply it states that the creator in his all powerfull wisdom created the universe and then created all things in it. when he created life he allowed it to evolve so that it could grow and advance. when he informed man of the fact that he created everything he did not go into details about how he did it and because mankind was so simple gave them a timeframe that they could understand ie 6 days when he really meant something along the lines of 60 billion years. mankind with his simple mind took him at his word and never bothered to try to find out the details. The few bright deviants who actually bothered to try were simply burned at the stake,stoned, or made a laughingstock. as time went on the bright deviants got smarter and quickly learned to keep their ideas to themselves. they taught their offspring their ideas theirby passing along the ideas. as time went on the bright deveants became dominant simply due to the fact that long ago they had learned not to grab up poisoness snakes, a fond tradition of the not so bright which also explaines why though the not so bright have more kids they never seem to surpass their brighter counterparts.
throughout all of this the creator set watching, feet up on a cushion, drinking a cold one. after all he had just finished a very long week and just wanted to relax and watch his favorite tv show "Humanities Stupidest Moments".

this of course proves several things
1.1 god is really smart
2. man is really dumb
3. evolution really does exist, and so does the creator.
4. and that the creator has a really good sense of humor. just to prove it reread this perticular forum and ask yourself this. if he didn't have a sense of humor, why isn't there a few small piles of ash sitting in front of few computers right now.

QED

Eh, your beliefs don't actually prove anything.

My span of patience if nowhere near an hour and fifteen minutes, but I did watch the peanut butter video for laughs.

The fallacy it uses: making a strawman atheist, as these sort of productions invariably do, by assuming that abiogenesis has anything to do with evolution.

On the creation of new life itself: the analogy to a jar of peanut butter couldn't be any more ridiculous. It took billions of years for the simplest organisms to form on Earth (or on comets that arrived on Earth, according to some) in the primordial soup. Peanut butter jars are made and sit on the shelf for days or weeks on average, and all they have in them is PEANUT BUTTER. Doesn't matter how many peanut butter jars you make, just heating them up isn't going to make peanut butter chemically react.

But don't let this deter the creationist from his/her basic, comforting beliefs about biology. Ignorance is bliss, after all.I'm reading the thread, listening to, you guessed it, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy5_22Gi5Kc) :p

Right, so one can believe in God, and still completely accept science.

And, indeed, many do

Science is no threat to Divinty, science doesnt concern itself with divinty...at least not until it developes a test for it.

Indeed, which is not possible. The divine is, if it exists in the form of a Creator, outside of the natural universe, and thus outside the realm in which the scientific method can be used.

So one can not say that Creationism and Evolutionism are mutually exclusive, science doesnt not exclude God.

At this point, it depends on what exactly is meant by the word "Creationism." In many cases, the word is being used not to denote any idea of a divine Creator, but to specifically refer to the idea that one or both of the Genesis accounts is literally true and then to try and fit whatever evidence we have into that preset model. That type of Creationism is mutually exclusive with science.

So I am free to attach God to science and do science no harm. You say evolution, I say yes, started by God.

You say Big Bang, I say yes, started by God.

And, as long as you don't try to claim that the "started by God" part is, in and of itself, scientific, you will be no different than many scientists.

I am saying science doesnt exclude God, so no one who believes in God as any reason to be threatened by science.

=) Precisely

You're missing the point. Either animals were created or they evolved is the subject of the "debate". A weaker version of the creationist argument says that animals evolved, but God was involved. But the real theory works without said intervention - thus even the weak creationism is excluded.

Although, in my original reply, you succeeded in distracting me by talking about God in general rather than specifically creationism, I believe my above statement explains what I meant by the scientific theory and creationism being mutually exclusive.

The real theory is incomplete, there is a first move. A push.

I wasnt trying to distract you by the way.

Explain evolution from the begining. What was the first animal, where did the first bit of matter come from, the first joule of energy.

The theory explains how the system works...undeniably. I merely submit that the guy who turned on the key to the engine was and is God.

Science doesnt exclude God.

Because they don't f---ing understand the difference between the different branches of science.but aren't the different branches of science only different views on the same things, really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8&mode=related&search=

This is the most interesting video on the subject yet...

why does anyone produce such films?

There'$ got to be $ome $imple an$wer to your que$tion. What do you $uppo$e it could be?

I'd list all the things wrong with this "argument" of theirs, but there isn't enough time left before the sun goes red giant and engulfs the earth.

Really? I can explain it in in less than a single sentence:

That's not how evolution works.

Infact, if new life popped out of a jar of peanut butter, it'd be extremely strong evidence against evolution, and actually would be great for creationism.

That was easy.

I am saying science doesnt exclude God, so no one who believes in God as any reason to be threatened by science.then science verifies what the bible says?

but aren't the different branches of science only different views on the same things, really?

Not entirely.

A lot of science branches are related closely to physics, but they can to my understanding be conflicting at times.

A resolution is found, usually in the math. Its always numbers...

But scientific branches can be at odds with each other. But this is only in their march towards fact. Once fact is established the debate tends to end...until the first fact is proven wrong or to have an exception and then a new fact is established.

Science is neat, if done purely and proper without ego, it should be the most trust worthy thing in the world.

There'$ got to be $ome $imple an$wer to your que$tion. What do you $uppo$e it could be?i don't know. i sure wouldn't buy it.
i still don't get the peanut butter thing,

then science verifies what the bible says?
I think you're missing the point. Science can only answer how questions, never why. Religion/philosophy answers the why questions but get very shaky on how. The problem comes when silly people attempt to confuse the two.

Explain evolution from the begining. What was the first animal, where did the first bit of matter come from, the first joule of energy.
Evolution refers to the biological process. Where matter and energy "came from" is not relevant.

The theory explains how the system works...undeniably. I merely submit that the guy who turned on the key to the engine was and is God.
This is more physics than biology and thus irrelevant to the topic, but here goes anyway. The matter/energy didn't really "come from" anywhere. It's existed since the beginning of time.

The car ignition metaphor isn't really apt - that implies the need for an initial input of energy to begin a reaction, whereas the pressure of the matter/energy being together in such a small space was all that was needed to cause the expansion.

Science doesnt exclude God.
True on a technicality - it is a method, not a collection of knowledge and thus is incapable of including or excluding anything.

Not entirely.

A lot of science branches are related closely to physics, but they can to my understanding be conflicting at times.

A resolution is found, usually in the math. Its always numbers...

But scientific branches can be at odds with each other. But this is only in their march towards fact. Once fact is established the debate tends to end...until the first fact is proven wrong or to have an exception and then a new fact is established.

Science is neat, if done purely and proper without ego, it should be the most trust worthy thing in the world.mind to point out some of these conflicts?

then science verifies what the bible says?

Allegory.

Does science verify a 6 day creation, no. But that isnt because science is trying to disprove God. It is because a 6 day creation 6,000 years ago didnt happen according to science...nothing more nothing less.

Now Biblically, a six day creation six thousand years ago can not be agreed upon. Certain people want to take the Genesis creation as literal, while people like myself take it as allegory.

Science is my friend, a gift from God.

mind to point out some of these conflicts?
Here's the best known one. Quantum and Realativity don't agree with each other. They both say different things and we can't make them meet (yet).

then science verifies what the bible says?

No, but it doesn't, and cannot, disprove what the bible says about God itself, really(It can disprove a wealth of things in the Bible, however, as it has), but it cannot disprove the existence of a God, nor can it provide evidence. Due to the fact that "God" would lie outside the realm of the natural and falsifiable.

But that's neither here no there.

Science cannot disprove nor provide evidence for the existence of God.

mind to point out some of these conflicts?

You give me too much credit.

However, logic dictates that at some point there have existed conflicting theories of equal merit. I am playing the odds, and I would venture that doing a google of the phrase "scientific debate" will yield something.

I believe old Albert's Relativity has under gone several changes form fact to falsity to fact again...correct me if I am wrong.

Allegory.

Does science verify a 6 day creation, no. But that isnt because science is trying to disprove God. It is because a 6 day creation 6,000 years ago didnt happen according to science...nothing more nothing less.

Now Biblically, a six day creation six thousand years ago can not be agreed upon. Certain people want to take the Genesis creation as literal, while people like myself take it as allegory.

Science is my friend, a gift from God.allegory for what?

Exactly. Science neither includes nor excludes God. The idea itself is irrelevant to the scientific method and the investigations in which it is useful.

To Napoleon on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God:
Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis.QFFT :D

Allegory.

Does science verify a 6 day creation, no. But that isnt because science is trying to disprove God. It is because a 6 day creation 6,000 years ago didnt happen according to science...nothing more nothing less.

Now Biblically, a six day creation six thousand years ago can not be agreed upon. Certain people want to take the Genesis creation as literal, while people like myself take it as allegory.

Science is my friend, a gift from God.

Actually, the Bible provides two very different accounts of Creation and Genesis. So really, not even the Bible agrees on that.

But that's neither here nor there.

You give me too much credit.

However, logic dictates that at some point there have existed conflicting theories of equal merit. I am playing the odds, and I would venture that doing a google of the phrase "scientific debate" will yield something.the basis of all is physics. on physics is based chemistry. on chemistry is based biology. and that's about it. biology is only rather complicated physics. but it all works by the same mechanisms, doesn't it? now where are the conflicts?

Oh it was a long while back...

All in all about an hour and 15 minutes.

Don't waste my time.

ahhh well i guess if i cannot get more then one person to comment on my post eather it must not be any good, most people at least in part agree, or all of the afforementioned not so bright took one look at it and proceaded to pick up a poisoness snake to prove me wrong thereby proving my point and not providing me with more then a single chuckle.


of course its always possible that all of them simply up and turned into a pile of ash just to spite me.:rolleyes:

Actually, the Bible provides two very different accounts of Creation and Genesis. So really, not even the Bible agrees on that.

But that's neither here nor there.what are these different accounts?

I believe in both. Science and religion aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Evolution refers to the biological process. Where matter and energy "came from" is not relevant.


Yes it is.
Evolution doesnt work with out something to evolve into something form something else. You are suggesting evolution exists in a bubble, it does not.


This is more physics than biology and thus irrelevant to the topic, but here goes anyway. The matter/energy didn't really "come from" anywhere. It's existed since the beginning of time.

And before the beinging of time?
even in your own words you suggest a "Begining", I might add that your response has little in the way of scientific merit.


The car ignition metaphor isn't really apt - that implies the need for an initial input of energy to begin a reaction, whereas the pressure of the matter/energy being together in such a small space was all that was needed to cause the expansion.
How did it get there? Because you are conflicting with the pure science i have heard on the subject of the birth of our universe.


True on a technicality - it is a method, not a collection of knowledge and thus is incapable of including or excluding anything.

True in all branches and theories.
Nothing based purely on science ever excludes the divine.
It doesnt exclude magical flying green invisible monkeys.
it doesnt exclude Shiva. Or Ahura Mazda, or Tiamat, or Osiris, or Odin.

Science doesnt exclude the divine.

Evolution refers to the biological process. Where matter and energy "came from" is not relevant.


This is more physics than biology and thus irrelevant to the topic, but here goes anyway. The matter/energy didn't really "come from" anywhere. It's existed since the beginning of time.
The car ignition metaphor isn't really apt - that implies the need for an initial input of energy to begin a reaction, whereas the pressure of the matter/energy being together in such a small space was all that was needed to cause the expansion.


True on a technicality - it is a method, not a collection of knowledge and thus is incapable of including or excluding anything.
Man, I hate to be picky, but where did the time come from? Sorry, nothing to do with the thread, *goes off to make a 'shopped pic of a troll, made of Spam, on fire*

I believe in both. Science and religion aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
including the miracles?

Science doesnt exclude the divine.but it sometimes debunks it as not so divine :)

allegory for what?

No, no, not allegory . . . what's that thing where it's spelled the same, forwards and backwards?

what are these different accounts?

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:

Genesis 1:1-2:3

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Genesis 2:18-19

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

In Genesis 1, animals were created before man. In Genesis 2, animals were created after man.

Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:18-22

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

In Genesis 1, Man and Woman were created simultaneously. In Genesis 2, Man was created, then animals, then Woman.

but it sometimes debunks it as not so divine :)

I never seen that happen.
But then I consider science to be a function of the divine, our science and ability to untilize such a process is perhas the greatest miracle ever.

I never seen that happen.
But then I consider science to be a function of the divine, our science and ability to unitlize such a process is perhpas the greatest miracle ever.well, flash and thunder was divine once, and now?

the basis of all is physics. on physics is based chemistry. on chemistry is based biology. and that's about it. biology is only rather complicated physics. but it all works by the same mechanisms, doesn't it? now where are the conflicts?Actually, the maths come before the physics. Even then, though, the step-by-steps have yet to be fully enumerated.

well, flash and thunder was divine once, and now?

Still is to me.

Just because I know it is electricity in the atmosphere doesnt make it any less divine...to be honest it makes it more so.

Actually, the maths come before the physics. Even then, though, the step-by-steps have yet to be fully enumerated.

Yup.

and quantum physics often defies traditional physics.

well, flash and thunder was divine once, and now?
Just as soon as you manage to disprove the divine and get science to answer why, I'll grant you that.

But since science can't do so...

No, no, not allegory . . . what's that thing where it's spelled the same, forwards and backwards?

palindrome

Actually, the maths come before the physics. Even then, though, the step-by-steps have yet to be fully enumerated.math is only a tool for science, isn't it? it does not describe nature, it is rather a set of terms with which to make the description, right?

Yes it is.
Evolution doesnt work with out something to evolve into something form something else. You are suggesting evolution exists in a bubble, it does not.


And before the beinging of time?
even in your own words you suggest a "Begining", I might add that your response has little in the way of scientific merit.


How did it get there? Because you are conflicting with the pure science i have heard on the subject of the birth of our universe.



True in all branches and theories.
Nothing based purely on science ever excludes the divine.
It doesnt exclude magical flying green invisible monkeys.
it doesnt exclude Shiva. Or Ahura Mazda, or Tiamat, or Osiris, or Odin.

Science doesnt exclude the divine.Oh, I'm pretty sure most scientists have opinions on those, especially the ones flying out of your butt :p

Yes it is.
Evolution doesnt work with out something to evolve into something form something else. You are suggesting evolution exists in a bubble, it does not.


What he is saying is that HOW everything began doesn't matter. Only that it began. Disproving one method(The Big Bang, for example) does not disprove Evolution, as Evolution cares not how things began, only how and why life changes.

That is it.



True in all branches and theories.
Nothing based purely on science ever excludes the divine.
It doesnt exclude magical flying green invisible monkeys.
it doesnt exclude Shiva. Or Ahura Mazda, or Tiamat, or Osiris, or Odin.

Science doesnt exclude the divine.

That is true. As well, it can neither provide evidence for the "divine".

The divine rests outside the realms of science, in a sense.

Yes it is.
Evolution doesnt work with out something to evolve into something form something else. You are suggesting evolution exists in a bubble, it does not.
You can't just vague it up like that. Evolution is a biological theory - I'm not just trying to be contrary - it really is.

And before the beinging of time?
even in your own words you suggest a "Begining", I might add that your response has little in the way of scientific merit.
Actually, I suggest a "Beginning", not a "Begining". And if you prefer, you can go with the infinite collapsing/expanding universes argument (which also doesn't require God), but that seems unlikely given current observations that suggest an increasing rate of expansion that will not lead to a collapse.

How did it get there? Because you are conflicting with the pure science i have heard on the subject of the birth of our universe.
And how did "God" get there? I find the idea that it somehow "got there" to be less feasible that a constant amount of mass-energy in the universe, what with the whole "conservation of mass-energy" principle...

palindrome

Yeah, that's what the Bible is, a big palindrome!

it(math) does not describe nature,


it is rather a set of terms with which to make the description, right?


NOTE (math) was inserted by me to demonstrate what "it" was refering to.


Which is it?
Does it describe nature or doesnt it?

If it is a set of terms which describes nature then it describes nature...which it does.

Or it doesnt describe nature there fore it does not describe nature.

Just as soon as you manage to disprove the divine and get science to answer why, I'll grant you that.

But since science can't do so...it certainly has disproven many things that were in earlier times *thought* to be divine.

NOTE (math) was inserted by me to demonstrate what "it" was refering to.


Which is it?
Does it describe nature or doesnt it?

If it is a set of terms which describes nature then it describes nature...which it does.

Or it doesnt describe nature there fore it does not describe nature.you seem to not distinguish between the issue of a description and the language that is used for the description. math does not describe nature, it is only used to describe nature. that is not at all the same.

it certainly has disproven many things that were in earlier times *thought* to be divine.
And?

1. Science can never disprove the divine as the divine is outside the realm of science.

2. Science can't prove a negative.

3. Science can't prove anything anyway.

We've gotten around to showing the mechanics behind many things that, yes, were once thought to be effects of gods or the FSM, or what have you, but that doesn't disprove divinity.

Yeah, that's what the Bible is, a big palindrome!Elbib?

math is only a tool for science, isn't it? it does not describe nature, it is rather a set of terms with which to make the description, right?
You want to know the truth of it? Mathematics is a special part of language, that we have invented to describe the important quality we call "quantity." No one can explain why what we've invented seems to describe the "real world" so well, that we can discover things about it, just by doing the maths. Go figure.

Oh it was a long while back I came across "Peanut Butter the Athiests Nightmare" well today I finally ask this... watch all, some, or even just one evolution vs. creation video and answer the poll. Coment please.
____________________________
The links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cpNjyVvqK0 (Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izjJr0CIQQk&mode=related&search= (Part 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x91eYg_yG5Q&mode=related&search= (Part 3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gF4tNmcBLc&mode=related&search= (Part 4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-U2uI1f8mU&mode=related&search= (Part 5-especially interesting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQb6e1w1I9E&mode=related&search= (Part 6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3JND0gND-U&mode=related&search= (Part 7-especially interesting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qjHtyKq3yc&mode=related&search= (Part 8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKV2sWMEwuk&mode=related&search= (Part 9)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gVzt7qH2UA&mode=related&search= (Part 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0QYPnvU5qE&mode=related&search= (Part 11)

______________________
Some bonuses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk (especially interesting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504 (especially interesting)
_____________________

All in all about an hour and 15 minutes.
______________________

Basically the lady says evolution is completely and utterly false. She says chemicals can't form organisms, the Big Bang theory is false, and all the missing links were false, also she says that there are no transitional fossil records. Worst of all she says the earth is only 6,000 years old. She says all animals including dinosaurs coexisted with humans. She also says that the bible is basically a science text book and proves lots of differnet science facts.

What he is saying is that HOW everything began doesn't matter. Only that it began. Disproving one method(The Big Bang, for example) does not disprove Evolution, as Evolution cares not how things began, only how and why life changes.

That is it.



That is true. As well, it can neither provide evidence for the "divine".

The divine rests outside the realms of science, in a sense.but if someone changes water to wine it is impossible to check what the molecules are doing in the fluid then? how does the divine make things happen that would be outside the scope of scientific research?

NOTE (math) was inserted by me to demonstrate what "it" was refering to.


Which is it?
Does it describe nature or doesnt it?

If it is a set of terms which describes nature then it describes nature...which it does.

Or it doesnt describe nature there fore it does not describe nature.

OR it's something that sometimes describes nature and sometimes doesn't, and sometimes both at the same time! Depends on how you, you know, look at it ;)

Elbib?

Nah, you gottsa write the whole thing out, in, what, Hebrew? Wasn't that the original? THAT's the palindrome, yesh.

Thus far, no creationist has provided any PROOF whatsoever.

You may believe it.

A majority of the rest of the world may believe it.

Most may claim to know it.

Alright, it's a possibility I'll give you that much slack. However, not even 1 in 7, which is what the New Atheists say.

Very simple. If this isn't logical, dunno what is.

In the beginning, there was nothing, because there hadn't ever been anything.

Including time, so 'ever' really makes no sense; the beginning when nothing existed did not occupy even the smallest unit of time.

But there was potentiality.

No mathematics, even, but potentiality, simply because.

And out of potentiality came a pinnacle of space, because something was bound to happen.

And it expanded, again because of potentiality.

And to suit it, mathematics and dimensions had to come into existence.

And the rest is just a bunch of gas clouds condensing.

Right. Now. That didn't make much sense, did it? I know. I don't believe that. It was to prove a point.

It makes as much sense as a God, or a pantheon, or whatever. Simply people trying to explain the unexplainable.

The only reason the God(s) theory got picked was because early extelligent humans didn't understand much of anything and had no idea what potentiality was.

1. Science can never disprove the divine as the divine is outside the realm of science.is it? what evidence do you have for that?

So which story of "creation" are we referring to here? After all, the Judeo-Christian story of creation, Genesis, is one of many so... what makes it more true than other stories of creation if we are to believe that evolution is indeed false? There are too many for one to be any more true or false than the others because it takes a certain set of convictions and faith to believe in a story as either literal or allegory.

Story of Creation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=528489) - refer to this if you want more information. I had made a thread much earlier on this topic questioning why when we're told about creation, why the other key stories are ignore in favour of Genesis.

Creationists will be one of the larger embarassments of our age.

but if someone changes water to wine it is impossible to check what the molecules are doing in the fluid then? how does the divine make things happen that would be outside the scope of scientific research?
Because the divine can change the rules. The divine also exists outside of the universe where we cannot go.

Using the Big Bang as an example (since that's usually where we head off to), we can get fairly sure about conditions miliseconds after the boom (or whatever it was), but before that? Nope. We can't ever get there because nothing we have in our tool kit works.

is it? what evidence do you have for that?

The divine is supernatural. Science deals with the natural.

As well, no falsifiable hypothesis can be constructed dealing with the divine. As such, science cannot disprove it.

is it? what evidence do you have for that?
Simple, what is science but the study of nature? What is the divine but the supernatural? The divine bend or break the rules that science takes as its bedrock. Science makes one assumption, that the rules are the same everwhere (and everywhen, but there's some disagreement on that).

If God can raise folks from the dead, that breaks a whole lot of laws, how do we actually study that if the rules are not working?

Creationists will be one of the larger embarassments of our age.

But fun as hell to mock.

Worst of all she says the earth is only 6,000 years old. -snip- She also says that the bible is basically a science text book and proves lots of differnet science facts.

Really? Is there anything in the bible about the decay of radioactive isotopes?

you seem to not distinguish between the issue of a description and the language that is used for the description. math does not describe nature, it is only used to describe nature. that is not at all the same.

http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/467/pancakebunnyhe7.png (http://imageshack.us)

You can't just vague it up like that. Evolution is a biological theory - I'm not just trying to be contrary - it really is.

You are the one vaguing it up. It is only partly theory, thank you very much.

Actually, I suggest a "Beginning", not a "Begining".

Oh a spelling correction. How impotent.


And if you prefer, you can go with the infinite collapsing/expanding universes argument (which also doesn't require God), but that seems unlikely given current observations that suggest an increasing rate of expansion that will not lead to a collapse.

First that arguement is...amazing you are the one defending science...please call for a stand in. That arguement has been butchered by the scientific community...and it too does not exclude divinity. Again, not requiring something doesnt exclude it.

Now let me hlep you out here sonny before you hurt yourself there are a handful of scientific theories on the universe of note...stop embarrassing yourself and pay attention;

Theory 1. Quiescent Vacuum theory based around quantum physics principles, Edward Tyron.<---I like this one, a lot. However it does ignore that the empty space for the vacuum had to come from somewhere...since you are up on your general relativity(space time, so a vacuum has substance relative to space time theory) you know that empty exists, and in existing according to general relativity not religion it has to come from somehwere, this is where the scientific community attacks the Tyron theory...where did the empty space come from...I dont beleive you even considered such a question. But I know you considered it since you know your general relativty, and ...your spelling.

I really do appreicate this...


Theory 2.(another favorite of mine) Hawking and Hartle
Amounts to the UNiverse, no it hasnt always been and wont always will be but the ambiguous nature of the quantum theory Hawking uses means that space time breaks down...or is broken down, was broken down, is breaking down...you get the idea ...or maybe you dont.



Theory 3. Tyrons extended.
There was nothing, nothing, no empty space, no nothing and through the quantum tunneling o nteh subatomic level the universe was birthed and began expanding. could you correct any spelling errors please I appreaicte it.

Of course we get into the break down of time and space and physics in general lookingback befoer the big bang because we reach the singularity...at least according to Hawking.







And how did "God" get there? I find the idea that it somehow "got there" to be less feasible that a constant amount of mass-energy in the universe, what with the whole "conservation of mass-energy" principle...

ooh, 9th grade physics my heart be still you mention real science...too bad you mention something that isnt an absolute...wow. Ignoring quantum physics principles entirely.

I appreciate the opportunity ou have given to dfend science from your butchering...stop now before you turn everyone into a YEC.

But fun as hell to mock.

Most times. Sometimes I get the same feeling as I'd get telling a little child licking a lollipop about the dangers of sugar.

If you also think peanut butter disproves evolution, i'm not going to bother with the links.

Also, your poll sucks. You can have 10 options and you choose to have only 2???

I can't edit!!! Everyone like myrth?!?! WTF!!!!! What is Myrth!!!!!! Why do people love useless options?!?!?!?!

:confused:/:upyours:

Because the divine can change the rules. The divine also exists outside of the universe where we cannot go.

Using the Big Bang as an example (since that's usually where we head off to), we can get fairly sure about conditions miliseconds after the boom (or whatever it was), but before that? Nope. We can't ever get there because nothing we have in our tool kit works.
Never say "never," son. Someday, if we don't go "blooey" first, we'll build us a God-detector or two. When we don't have tools, we invent 'em. Now, you may ask if I have an idea for such a tool, and, honestly, I do not. But I do have faith, in the scientific method. Divining divinity is our ultimate goal, after all ;)

I can't edit!!! Everyone like myrth?!?! WTF!!!!! What is Myrth!!!!!! Why do people love useless options?!?!?!?!

:confused:/:upyours:

Because we don't like being serious when it's the zillionth thread and poll of its kind. Also, you don't need those smileys. They're quite useless.

Really? Is there anything in the bible about the decay of radioactive isotopes?
Or how about something simpler? What value does the Bible assign to pi?

I can't edit!!! Everyone like myrth?!?! WTF!!!!! What is Myrth!!!!!! Why do people love useless options?!?!?!?!

:confused:/:upyours:

You only provided one useful option. :confused:

Most times. Sometimes I get the same feeling as I'd get telling a little child licking a lollipop about the dangers of sugar.

I like to think of it more like trying to nail jello to a tree.

I like to think of it more like trying to nail jello to a tree.

And somewhere, Bill Cosby sheds a tear.

Yeah, that's what the Bible is, a big palindrome!

But only if you line up the greek and hebrew usingthe fifth leter set as the starting key, greek first in a ceasarian code.

This can be ammunition for both sides:

Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen say the laws of the universe have evolved. Can't quite remember the details, but it made a shitload of sense at the time.

Course, they didnt make it up, but I can't find the original source.

Never say "never," son. Someday, if we don't go "blooey" first, we'll build us a God-detector or two. When we don't have tools, we invent 'em. Now, you may ask if I have an idea for such a tool, and, honestly, I do not. But I do have faith, in the scientific method. Divining divinity is our ultimate goal, after all ;)
If someone can figure out a way to actually go and look before spacetime and the laws of physics actually existed, I'll be very impressed.

The problem is though, when you have something that can do whatever He/She/It/Noodles wants, how are you sure that He/She/It/Noodles didn't decide to mess with your dectector just to be funny?

After all, the state of the world proves that He/She/It/Noodles has a very wicked sense of humor. ;)

On a lighter more political side.... http://www.durangobill.com/CreationismBushID.gif
and
http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/oese/CreationistPeriodicTable_use.jpg

Both "especially interesting" links have nothing to do with evolution. Seriously. The crackpots get worse and worse...

If your problem is with geology, cosmology, or astronomy, why not say that?

GET OVER IT!!!!! I EDITED TO EXPLAIN!!!!!!! Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ!!!!

There is a serious problem with the argument that it is impossible to prove or disprove the divine, and it is that we can look at the things that this divine being has supposedly done.

If God parted the Red Sea, we should be able to find evidence for this, because, despite God being supernatural, his actions made a change in the natural world.
We cannot, to my knowledge, find any evidence for this claim.

If God slaughtered every first-born child in Egypt, except for those who had the blood of a lamb on their door, we would find archeological evidence for this.
We cannot, to my knowledge, find any evidence for this claim.

If God flooded the whole Earth 4,400 years ago, we would certainly find massive amounts of evidence for that. Yet we find none.

If God answered prayers, we would find that people who were prayed for would heal at a faster rate, after adjusting for the Placebo affect.
We don't find this to be true, people who are prayed for are no more likely to recover than those who are not prayed for. Indeed, they tend to do worse if they know about it, according to an infamous study-- probably because they think "Wow, If I need prayers, then it must be bad."

God may be supernatural, but for Him to matter, his acts must do something to the natural, and we can test this. All evidence indicates that if there is a God, he is a Deist, non interventionist God, one vastly dissimilar to the God of the Bible and Christianity, who interferes in just about everything.

God created the evolution process :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zs7dDMdepg

There is a serious problem with the argument that it is impossible to prove or disprove the divine, and it is that we can look at the things that this divine being has supposedly done.

Ah, but I can destory that argument with the divinity clause, namely if He/She/It/Noodles can do whatever He/She/It/Noodles wants, who is to say that He/She/It/Noodles didn't bother to remove your evidence just to see if you would take it on faith?

I got 3 minutes into the first video and realised it was complete Bullsh*t..........

Evolution is a theory but it's much more plausible than..."a magic man did it" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV9yDhu5rBA)

This can be ammunition for both sides:

Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen say the laws of the universe have evolved. Can't quite remember the details, but it made a shitload of sense at the time.

Course, they didnt make it up, but I can't find the original source.

If its one of their Discworld collaborations or Evolving the Alien, I don't remember it?

I think those videos made me dumber.

8-52 thus far...

Own up people who where the eight that voted creationists.

Don't make us have the proverebial witchhunt.:p

8-52 thus far...

Own up people who where the eight that voted creationists.

Don't make us have the proverebial witchhunt.:p

Haha, I voted Creationist, just for shits and giggles.

Don't make us have the proverebial witchhunt.:p

Oh... you said proverbial witchhunt...

*puts away torch and pitchfork*

Damnable.

Wow, shit, no middle ground? What about those of us that accommodate aspects of both?

I guess I'll have to say "evolutionist", even though I'm not particularly in the field of advancing the ideology of evolution, whatever that might happen to be. I'm no more "evolutionist" than I am gravitist, heliocentrist or physicist...

I'll pick evolution over creation, the germ theory of disease over witchcraft, and mental illness over demonic possession. Hope that answers your questions.

Germ theory was proven wrong...

"If you're sick, germs are causing it"

Not all sicknesses are caused by germs :P

Germ theory was proven wrong...

"If you're sick, germs are causing it"

Not all sicknesses are caused by germs :P

:confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory

Not all sicknesses are caused by germs :P

No, they're obviously caused by imbalance of The Four Humours.

Easily remedied by fantastic dance, leeches, devotion and some colourful chanting.

but if someone changes water to wine it is impossible to check what the molecules are doing in the fluid then? how does the divine make things happen that would be outside the scope of scientific research?

If a miracle (like changing water to wine) were to happen, a scientist could certainly test the water/wine before and after and maybe even during. However, science could only be used to find a natural explanation for that occurrence. Yes, the divine might have caused it, but science can neither be used to demonstrate it nor to disprove it, as science only deals with the natural universe.

8-52 thus far...

Own up people who where the eight that voted creationists.

Don't make us have the proverebial witchhunt.:p

I am one of the 11 that voted creationist.

And interesting that you should mention witchhunts, considering that they occurred during the time of "enlightenment" and "the Age of Reason." ;)

No, they're obviously caused by imbalance of The Four Humours.

Easily remedied by fantastic dance, leeches, devotion and some colourful chanting.

*shrugs*

Worked for me...

Louis Agassiz (1807-1873; glacial geology)
Charles Babbage (1792-1871; computer science)
Francis Bacon (1561-1626; scientific method)
Robert Boyle (1627-1691; gas dynamics)
David Brewster (1781-1868; optical mineralogy)
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832; comparative anatomy)
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519; hydraulics)
Humphrey Davy (1778-1829; thermokinetics)
Henri Fabre (1823-1915; entomology of living insects)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867; electromagnetics)
John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945; electronics)
Joseph Henry (1797-1878; inventor)
William Herschel (1738-1822; galactic astronomy)
James Joule (1818-1889; reversible thermodynamics)
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907; energetics)
Johann Kepler (1571-1630; celestial mechanics)
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778; systematic biology)
Joseph Lister (1827-1912; antiseptic surgery)
Matthew Maury (1806-1873; oceanography)
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879; electrodynamics)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884; genetics)
Samuel F. B. Morse (1791-1872; telegraph inventor)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727; calculus)
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662; hydrostatics)
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895; bacteriology)
William Ramsay (1852-1916; isotopic chemistry)
John Ray (1627-1705; natural history)
Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919; dimensional analysis)
Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866; non-Euclidean geometry)
James Simpson (1811-1870; gynecology)
Nicholas Steno (1631-1686; stratigraphy)
George Stokes (1819-1903; fluid mechanics)
Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902; pathology)
John Woodward (1665-1728; paleontology)

To assume that one must be stupid to believe in Creationism is ignorance.

The theory of evolution extends not merely to the biological, but to the geological and astrophysical as well. There are examples of many species adapting to their environment, from birds to moths to viruses, but this is due NOT to evolution as we are taught in school, but rather to genetic variation.

However, I've found that neither side of the debate can possibly be convinced by the other with mere science.

I believe that our observations of nature are like three detectives examining a crime scene, looking over a dead body. The Creationist detective says, "it's murder! Somebody did this on purpose!" The Evolutionist detective says, "it was an accident." The mystical detective says (to paraphrase Douglas Adams), "It was suicide, but done to make it look clever."

I think an important question to ask is what do these ideas about the nature of the universe mean? If the Evolutionists are right, then we are the accidental products of blind chance, and what we perceive as our souls are only bio-chemically induced illusions. If the Creationists are right, then we are created in the image of God, with an eternal purpose and meaning, out of His love.

After this question, we should ask--what does our gut tell us? Are we meaningless accidents, or do our lives have a purpose? Is life about... whatever you can extricate from the theory of evolution, or is life about love?

And by the way, could someone explain to me, other than the obvious difference in complexity, what the difference is between the ancient Greek theory of humours and modern psychiatry? Don't both address chemical imbalances?
;)

The theory of evolution extends not merely to the biological, but to the geological and astrophysical as well. There are examples of many species adapting to their environment, from birds to moths to viruses, but this is due NOT to evolution as we are taught in school, but rather to genetic variation.

Incorrect, and this belies a lack of understanding of evolution. The evolutionary theories attacked by Creationists extend exclusively to biological evolution. Evolution as applied to Geological and Astrophysical objects merely points out the steady advancement from an original state to the present state by physical processes. It is not the same as biological evolution, it is merely a descriptive term.

Rebranding microevolution as "genetic variation" doesn't alter the reality of microevolution. Especially when one considers that simply genetic variation alone isn't enough to explain the presentation of favorable adaptations over time without also taking into account natural selection.

I think an important question to ask is what do these ideas about the nature of the universe mean? If the Evolutionists are right, then we are the accidental products of blind chance, and what we perceive as our souls are only bio-chemically induced illusions. If the Creationists are right, then we are created in the image of God, with an eternal purpose and meaning, out of His love.

After this question, we should ask--what does our gut tell us? Are we meaningless accidents, or do our lives have a purpose? Is life about... whatever you can extricate from the theory of evolution, or is life about love?

It's not an important question. In fact, it's a completely unnecessary question. Why do we need a purpose to our existence? Is human life on earth so dull and boring that we need some magically predefined reason to be here? Or is simply living not enough? If we are merely biological constructs, does this diminish in any way the advancements me have managed to acheive since the dawn of human civilization?

I think not. And what your gut tells you is completely and 100% irrelevant. If it's any consolation, my gut agrees with my brain on this one.

God created the evolution process :)

I tend to think so. Why create an organism when you can create it to adapt to its enviroment?

Anyone ever find any transitioning fossil records?

Never say "never," son. Someday, if we don't go "blooey" first, we'll build us a God-detector or two. When we don't have tools, we invent 'em. Now, you may ask if I have an idea for such a tool, and, honestly, I do not. But I do have faith, in the scientific method. Divining divinity is our ultimate goal, after all ;)

You have so much faith in the scientific method that you think it is all-powerful? How interesting.

The scientific method, like any philosophical construct, is limited by its own axioms and that which it was designed for. Trying to use the scientific method in the realm of the truly supernatural would do no favors for anyone.

Wow, that woman is really stupid.

"Of course spontaneous life is a fairy tale... except if it's the bible!" shows how stupid she is.

GET OVER IT!!!!! I EDITED TO EXPLAIN!!!!!!! Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ!!!!

Not before my comment, my dear. Perhaps it is you who should "get over it."

Louis Agassiz (1807-1873; glacial geology)
Charles Babbage (1792-1871; computer science)
Francis Bacon (1561-1626; scientific method)
Robert Boyle (1627-1691; gas dynamics)
David Brewster (1781-1868; optical mineralogy)
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832; comparative anatomy)
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519; hydraulics)
Humphrey Davy (1778-1829; thermokinetics)
Henri Fabre (1823-1915; entomology of living insects)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867; electromagnetics)
John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945; electronics)
Joseph Henry (1797-1878; inventor)
William Herschel (1738-1822; galactic astronomy)
James Joule (1818-1889; reversible thermodynamics)
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907; energetics)
Johann Kepler (1571-1630; celestial mechanics)
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778; systematic biology)
Joseph Lister (1827-1912; antiseptic surgery)
Matthew Maury (1806-1873; oceanography)
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879; electrodynamics)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884; genetics)
Samuel F. B. Morse (1791-1872; telegraph inventor)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727; calculus)
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662; hydrostatics)
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895; bacteriology)
William Ramsay (1852-1916; isotopic chemistry)
John Ray (1627-1705; natural history)
Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919; dimensional analysis)
Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866; non-Euclidean geometry)
James Simpson (1811-1870; gynecology)
Nicholas Steno (1631-1686; stratigraphy)
George Stokes (1819-1903; fluid mechanics)
Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902; pathology)
John Woodward (1665-1728; paleontology)

To assume that one must be stupid to believe in Creationism is ignorance.

Note that almost all of those were around before the ToE was created(At least the modern thoery). Also note that at this time, to make a claim of anything other than Creationism would make you a heathen or blasphemer, which could lead to some nasty results. As well, Science at this point in time was... limited. So yeah, using examples of people from over a hundred years ago isn't going to prove anything. Much has changed in our understanding of science since then.


The theory of evolution extends not merely to the biological, but to the geological and astrophysical as well. There are examples of many species adapting to their environment, from birds to moths to viruses, but this is due NOT to evolution as we are taught in school, but rather to genetic variation.

Or in other words...

Evolution? Because, you know, that's what evolution is.


I believe that our observations of nature are like three detectives examining a crime scene, looking over a dead body. The Creationist detective says, "it's murder! Somebody did this on purpose!" The Evolutionist detective says, "it was an accident." The mystical detective says (to paraphrase Douglas Adams), "It was suicide, but done to make it look clever."
[quote]

Eh... no. It's more like this: There is a body on the floor with a bullet hole in the back, and seventy-two knife wounds across the body. The Scientists(As evolution is not an ideaology-if you don't know what a Theory constitutes, you can stop here) say "It is murder!". The Creationists claim "It is suicide!"

Now, obvious the evidence supports Murder. Yet the creationists believe since it is possible(though highly unlikely) that the person committed suicide, that it must be presented on equal grounds as the murder theory. Regardless of the evidence.

[quote]
I think an important question to ask is what do these ideas about the nature of the universe mean? If the Evolutionists are right, then we are the accidental products of blind chance, and what we perceive as our souls are only bio-chemically induced illusions. If the Creationists are right, then we are created in the image of God, with an eternal purpose and meaning, out of His love.

Eh, not quite. We are the not the result of blind chance. To quote Dawkins, Evolution is the non-random selection of random mutations.


After this question, we should ask--what does our gut tell us? Are we meaningless accidents, or do our lives have a purpose? Is life about... whatever you can extricate from the theory of evolution, or is life about love?

Yeah, that's what we should do! Follow our gut. Of course, chances are we are wrong, but hey we should do it anyway. We don't need "facts" or "evidence". Our gut will guide the way!

Why is there no other option ? That some people like to spread the false dichotomy that these two are the only two options does not mean we wise people of NS should be that silly as well...

As I said before: the great Egyptian God Atum willed himself into being. Then created a mountain to stand on. Gave himself a penis. Sucked it. Then spit stuff out.
And that stuff was the beginning of life.

(yes, actual Egyptian creation myth).

I believe that our observations of nature are like three detectives examining a crime scene, looking over a dead body. The Creationist detective says, "it's murder! Somebody did this on purpose!" The Evolutionist detective says, "it was an accident." The mystical detective says (to paraphrase Douglas Adams), "It was suicide, but done to make it look clever."

It's more like this:

Evolutionary biologist: From the evidence here, it would appear that the following process led to this death. Further evidence may alter that, however.

Creationist: I have a book that says this is murder, so it is. No matter what evidence I find, I will interpret in such a way that my pre-set conclusion is backed up.

I think an important question to ask is what do these ideas about the nature of the universe mean? If the Evolutionists are right, then we are the accidental products of blind chance, and what we perceive as our souls are only bio-chemically induced illusions.

Nothing in evolutionary theory specifies this. There are those who come to this conclusion philosophically, but no scientific theory requires it.

If the Creationists are right, then we are created in the image of God, with an eternal purpose and meaning, out of His love.

One need not reject the theory of evolution to come to this conclusion.

It's more like this:

Evolutionary biologist: From the evidence here, it would appear that the following process led to this death. Further evidence may alter that, however.

Creationist: I have a book that says this is murder, so it is. No matter what evidence I find, I will interpret in such a way that my pre-set conclusion is backed up.



Nothing in evolutionary theory specifies this. There are those who come to this conclusion philosophically, but no scientific theory requires it.



One need not reject the theory of evolution to come to this conclusion.

Demp is the man. *high five*

evolution IS NOT A BELEIF

and besides...

EVOLUTION:

WE have the fossils. WE WIN.

Demp is the man. *high five*

Or the woman, as it were. =)

evolution IS NOT A BELEIF

and besides...

EVOLUTION:

WE have the fossils. WE WIN.

But the creationist will say, "but the devil planted those there to make us stop believing in God."

But the creationist will say, "but the devil planted those there to make us stop believing in God."

And the correect response to that is of course: "what a fascinating statement. Now what makes your theory on the origin of humanity better than that of other religions ?"

Though most creationists of course do not know that 70% of the worlds population is not Christian, and that 50% is not Abrahamic.

But the creationist will say, "but the devil planted those there to make us stop believing in God."

Or that god put them there to test our faith, which only makes sense if you worship Loki.

And the correect response to that is of course: "what a fascinating statement. Now what makes your theory on the origin of humanity better than that of other religions ?"

Though most creationists of course do not know that 70% of the worlds population is not Christian, and that 50% is not Abrahamic.

I think they prefer to shelter themselves from that knowledge. Hence bliss is ignorance; ignorance is bliss.

I think they prefer to shelter themselves from that knowledge. Hence bliss is ignorance; ignorance is bliss.

If only someone would be willing to teach the controversy...

And the correect response to that is of course: "what a fascinating statement. Now what makes your theory on the origin of humanity better than that of other religions ?"

Though most creationists of course do not know that 70% of the worlds population is not Christian, and that 50% is not Abrahamic.

If 'the devil' planted fossils to make us stop believing in god.... is it not just as likely that 'the devil' planted the bible, to make us believe in the wrong god?

If 'the devil' planted fossils to make us stop believing in god.... is it not just as likely that 'the devil' planted the bible, to make us believe in the wrong god?

Of course not. The Bible says he didn't ;)

Approved by the Kansas State Board of Education.
This page meets all criteria and requirements for use as teaching material within the State of Kansas public school system. It consists of facts, not of theories and students are encouraged to believe it uncritically, and to approach alternatives critically.



Evolution is monkey business. Like those who believed the world is flat, evolutionist, with religious zeal, cling to an outdated idea and make monkeys of us all. They cling to weak evidence such as molecular data, an extensive fossil record, and observed microevolution. They spin this information to suit their own purposes and violently suppress all dissident opinions. The evolutionists have managed to push God's truth out of the classrooms despite warning from High Priest Richard Dawkins that disasters will come upon the United States for voting out God. Evolution is the most dangerous ideology of all time; it is the reason for racism, heterosexuality,metrosexuality, Nazism, fascism, communism, promiscuity, homosexuality, and pansexuality. Unless evolution ceases to be taught, our children will grow up to be immoral, promiscious saddamites.



Soure---- http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Evolution (warning rest sucks and is QUITE graphic)

Or the woman, as it were. =)

I should grumble about lack of recognition, but your post is better than mine, although we say mostly the same thing.

Jist of it due to complaints: This lady says--- evolution is false, The big Bang Theory is false, chemicals forming organisms is false , the bible is a science test book, all animals including dinosaurs lived with humans, the Earth is only 6,000 years old. ONly god can create anything. Nothing can form out of something else EVER.

Well, then, how did god form?

Approved by the Kansas State Board of Education.
This page meets all criteria and requirements for use as teaching material within the State of Kansas public school system. It consists of facts, not of theories and students are encouraged to believe it uncritically, and to approach alternatives critically.



Evolution is monkey business. Like those who believed the world is flat, evolutionist, with religious zeal, cling to an outdated idea and make monkeys of us all. They cling to weak evidence such as molecular data, an extensive fossil record, and observed microevolution. They spin this information to suit their own purposes and violently suppress all dissident opinions. The evolutionists have managed to push God's truth out of the classrooms despite warning from High Priest Richard Dawkins that disasters will come upon the United States for voting out God. Evolution is the most dangerous ideology of all time; it is the reason for racism, heterosexuality,metrosexuality, Nazism, fascism, communism, promiscuity, homosexuality, and pansexuality. Unless evolution ceases to be taught, our children will grow up to be immoral, promiscious saddamites.



Soure---- http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Evolution (warning rest sucks and is QUITE graphic)

...

Alright, that has made me stupider after just glancing at it.

I did not make a selection on the poll. I am not a creationist, nor am I an 'evolutionist'. I do not 'believe' in Evolution. I am not a follower of 'Evolutionism'. I am a supporter of Evolutionary Theory as the best explanation given the evidence thus far collected. If a better explanation using scientifically applicable evidence comes along, I'll support that. Thus far, no such thing has, therefore I have not had to alter my position.

It does strike as amusing how folks often try to call supporters of Evolution 'Evolutionists', as if the theory is some kind of cult.

It does strike as amusing how folks often try to call supporters of Evolution 'Evolutionists', as if the theory is some kind of cult.

I don't think the word itself is all together too bad. We have biologists, geologists, physicists, psychiatrists, psychologists, chemists, pharmacists and a whole slew of others.

Evolutionists can simply refer to those who study or work in the field of evolutionary biology.

Although it is perhaps improper to refer to someone who believes in evolutionary theory, but does not study/work in the field as a "evolutionist", but there's nothing particularly wrong with the word itself, it's as valid as "biologists"

Well, then, how did god form?

Okay this might finally end creationism once and for all.Listen up and pay attention,okay!!!... Evolution does not disprove God in anyway whatsoever.Do you understand? Evolution merely states that life devoloped. The Big Bang Theory which has somewhat but very little to do with evolution is as follows: it merely explains the groth of the universe. It does not explain how the universe came to be. Evolution is the idea that life became more intelligent and adapted based on mutations in structure. Evolution doesn't deny God in any way. The same applies with chemicals forming life. On PBS there was a special on this guy. Taking certain chemicals from certain things he made new life. Please read (courtesy http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi659.htm)


"He also synthesized hormones -- progesterone and testosterone -- from soybean oil. He patented an early liquid crystal.

Percy Julian is most famous for having synthesized cortisone. When he began, we had to make cortisone from the bile of oxen. It cost hundreds of dollars per drop. Julian located a wild sweet potato in Guatemala. He figured out how to synthesize cortisone from yams, for pennies a gram. "

See now does that disprove God?No.If anything it might as well prove God, due to such complex life.

We understand how life formed in the universe just not how the universe came to be.

Okay this might finally end creationism once and for all.Listen up and pay attention,okay!!!... Evolution does not disprove God in anyway whatsoever.Do you understand? Evolution merely states that life devoloped. The Big Bang Theory which has somewhat but very little to do with evolution is as follows: it merely explains the groth of the universe. It does not explain how the universe came to be. Evolution is the idea that life became more intelligent and adapted based on mutations in structure. Evolution doesn't deny God in any way. The same applies with chemicals forming life. On PBS there was a special on this guy. Taking certain chemicals from certain things he made new life. Please read (courtesy http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi659.htm)


"He also synthesized hormones -- progesterone and testosterone -- from soybean oil. He patented an early liquid crystal.

Percy Julian is most famous for having synthesized cortisone. When he began, we had to make cortisone from the bile of oxen. It cost hundreds of dollars per drop. Julian located a wild sweet potato in Guatemala. He figured out how to synthesize cortisone from yams, for pennies a gram. "

See now does that disprove God?No.If anything it might as well prove God, due to such complex life.

We understand how life formed in the universe just not how the universe came to be.

Well, Richard Dawkins argues that the evolution principle will inevitably have simple forms evolve into complex forms, and complex forms into yet more complex forms. If this applies to all life forms, and if we further assume that god is alive (in the widest possible sense), then it follows that he was either a very simple form when the universe began, or he evolved elsewhere.

How has this thread grown to 12 pages without any supporters of creationism?

How has this thread grown to 12 pages without any supporters of creationism?

It's been a while since I saw the last fundie troll here... where did they all go?

How has this thread grown to 12 pages without any supporters of creationism?

They've all been raptured up to heaven.

Anyone else notice how she advises you not to be sheep and follow the media's "unfounded evolutionary claims"?



I just watch seven and I am disturbed. I'm currently taking an earth science class.

The billion years old theory is based on the laws of superposition, not evolution, and she doesn't even mention them.

She mentions how carbon-14 can only date back thousands of years, so using radioactive dating is nothing more than a guess. Carbon-14 isn't the only element used with radioactive dating, Rubidium has a long enough half-life to date the universe or are you just going to ignore that?

It's been a while since I saw the last fundie troll here... where did they all go?

I think they saw two gays getting married so they went to stop that right in its tracks.

Anyone else notice how she advises you not to be sheep and follow the media's "unfounded evolutionary claims"?



I just watch seven and I am disturbed. I'm currently taking an earth science class.

The billion years old theory is based on the laws of superposition, not evolution, and she doesn't even mention them.

She mentions how carbon-14 can only date back thousands of years, so using radioactive dating is nothing more than a guess. Carbon-14 isn't the only element used with radioactive dating, Rubidium has a long enough half-life to date the universe or are you just going to ignore that?

It's the old "God of the Gaps". Try to find something science can't yet explain (or even better, something YOU think science can't explain), and proclaim in a loud voice that god did that. React obstinate in the face of evidence, and when presented with studies, statistics, books and explanations, refuse to read them and dismiss them straight away.
It works for some people.

watching five now.
How come they can not realize that the big bang explains the expansion not creation of the universe?
Why can't they realize that the big bang and evolution are unrelated?
Can't they realize the big bang doesn't disprove god?
Can't they realize no science can disprove god?
She also says that the big bang theory require blind faith. Well guess what, so do your views.
Why do they keep saying the big bang was the start of the universe?
How do unequal movements of celestial bodies disprove the big bang?


God sent the dinosaurs to protect Jesus
from the Jews
Sodomites, and black people too

Dinosaurs and people used to chill all day
When dinosaurs felt bad they'd call up people
And know everything was gonna be O.K.

But then a bunch of people were really really bad
And this made God really really mad

So he made a flood to kill all he could
And Noah couldn't help the dinosaurs
Because his boat was made of wood

And as the waters rose
The dinosaurs climbed Mr. T-Rex's nose

And everybody watched on deck
As the dinosaurs broke Mr. T-Rex's neck

And all the animals started to cry
As they watched all their
Dinosaurs friends die

God why'd you kill Mr. Dinosaur
I wanted him to live you wanted him to die more
And now Jesus is nailed to the cross
He can't get saved by Mr. Triceratops
And the Jews are gonna eat him
Because the Romans didn't feed them

And their claws are out and their teeth are bare and Mr. T-Rex would save him if he was there

God why'd you kill Mr. Dinosaur he was my best friend why couldn't you ignore

The fact he had big teeth
Or was it 'cos he was green?
Was it because he ate people?
Or because he was mean?
Was it because he had no soul?
Or that he lacked a heart?
Was it because it'd smell so bad everytime he'd fart?

Is that why you killed Mr. Dinosaur?
Is that why you killed Mr. Dinosaur?
Is that why you killed Mr. Dinosaur?
God why'd you kill Mr. Dinosaur?

repeat after me, woman:

the bible is not a textbook. the bible is not a textbook. the bible is not a textbook. the bible is not a textbook. the bible is not a textbook. :rolleyes:



there.
anybody can point out flaws and gaps in evolutionary theory. but i fail to see how even a supposedly flawed scientific theory is remotely less believable than some stuff some ill-educated, superstitious dude(s) wrote in some book called the bible some time. for fucks sake, that really IS retarded.


plus the first one bangs on mostly about abiogenesis, which isn't all that much to do with evolution anyhow




edit: and the basis of the 5th one is basically "i don't understand it, therefore it can't be true."
the bit about the rolex was priceless. i haven't laughed that hard since i was a little girl :p

Those videos made me projectile vomit. I wonder if I have a case against them.

I believe that our observations of nature are like three detectives examining a crime scene, looking over a dead body. The Creationist detective says, "it's murder! Somebody did this on purpose!" The Evolutionist detective says, "it was an accident." The mystical detective says (to paraphrase Douglas Adams), "It was suicide, but done to make it look clever."

If--heaven forbid--something were to happen to you or a loved one, who would you rather have investigating the situation:

1) An individual who has already decided, before they view the scene, who the perp MUST have been, and who intends to interpret any and all evidence in whatever way is necessary to support their pre-conceived notion.

or

2) An individual who begins by observing the existing evidence and compiling information, and then using these resources to form a theory of what transpired.

If, for instance, somebody you cared about was found dead (again, horrible situation, and I don't mean to be crude about it), would you really want the lead investigator to automatically and reflexively conclude it MUST HAVE BEEN MURDER? What if your loved one passed away from natural causes?

Personally, I think it's important to take serious matters very seriously. I think it's pretty disrespectful and careless to toss around forgone conclusions in serious situations.


I think an important question to ask is what do these ideas about the nature of the universe mean? If the Evolutionists are right, then we are the accidental products of blind chance, and what we perceive as our souls are only bio-chemically induced illusions. If the Creationists are right, then we are created in the image of God, with an eternal purpose and meaning, out of His love.

Why are so many people so desperate to be told that they are REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT?

Do you really need to believe that you were specifically created by the all-powerful ruler of the universe who loves you and has made you for an eternal purpose? Why?

I'm not remotely upset by the likelihood that my existence is chance. It doesn't strip away any value or meaning from my life. It doesn't make me love the world any less. Frankly, your description of the Creationist view just sounds cartoonish and silly to me.


After this question, we should ask--what does our gut tell us? Are we meaningless accidents, or do our lives have a purpose? Is life about... whatever you can extricate from the theory of evolution, or is life about love?

You are listing non-contradictions.

My life, as it is, is largely due to chance events falling out just as they did. This does not in any way, shape, or form make my life "meaningless."

I use science as a primary guiding force in my life. Yet I also love a great deal.

My gut is one of the tools I use as I move through life. But it's not the only one. Sometimes my gut has useful instincts to share. Sometimes it's misleading, or even wrong. Part of being an adult is learning how to integrate all the different feelings and thoughts and impulses and principles that you have, and making a honorable, effective whole consciousness out of them.


And by the way, could someone explain to me, other than the obvious difference in complexity, what the difference is between the ancient Greek theory of humours and modern psychiatry? Don't both address chemical imbalances?
;)
Read a book.

Seriously. You're just being childish and rude at this point, and you know it. It's not funny, it's not original, and it's supremely arrogant for you to presume to insult an entire scientific discipline and the life's work of countless individuals. Your insults are as petty as they are tired.

There should have been a 'both' or 'other' or similar choice on the poll because the poll infers that you must beileve in one or the other exclusively. *nod*

There should have been a 'both' or 'other' or similar choice on the poll because the poll infers that you must beileve in one or the other exclusively. *nod*

Thanks for clarifying that... it's only page 13... :p how did we ever live without your wisdom?! ;)

But you're right. The choices are terrible.

I think they should add the option: Monkeys like banannas :)

Thanks for clarifying that... it's only page 13... :p how did we ever live without your wisdom?! ;)

But you're right. The choices are terrible.

Well, I have to focus on the poll because I can't watch the videos. I tried. I got about a minute and a half into the first 'especially interesting' one and they got to the part about an explosion making a rolex watch and I had to quit before I shat myself.

There's great wisdom in silliness. :cool:

ok honestly has anyone ever thought that these 2 isims creationisim and evolutionisim are 2 in the same? i mean honestly no matter what how they evolved has to come back to some sort of creation story. so what its a little hard to believe that some major religious supernatural being created man in all its might... but is it that hard to believe thee is some miracouls miracle that cause your evolutionists "germs" persay. i mean honestly people are so ignorant in saying there answer is right. and honestly what is the harm in letting people believe they were made a certain way because this has been blown out of proportion because yes all humans and animals evolve and adapt but the question is if apes evolve into humans...why are there still apes and why dont they evolve anymore???????? so what im saying is ofcourse we evolve in some way or another but is it so hard to just say "maybe we were created by a supernatural being that wanted us to evolve and learn our way of life the proper way so we could survive" this is my call for a new form of religion <h1>creationional evolutionsim -The combination of a higher form creation and the evolution of its origional creation</h1> Thank you and goodnight ~Richard Monaghan~

PS.any debates on this that are directed at me please send me a private message so i am notified

because yes all humans and animals evolve and adapt but the question is if apes evolve into humans...why are there still apes and why dont they evolve anymore????????

Ah, the classic marker of someone completely ignorant of evolutionary theory.

Apes are still evolving. And evolutionary theory does not say we evolved from any current species - rather that evidence suggests we share a common ancestor with them. Chimps/gorillas/etc. are no less evolved than humans. Bacteria are no less evolved than humans. In fact, one could say that they are more evolved than humans by virtue of having been around much longer and changed much more.

ok honestly has anyone ever thought that these 2 isims creationisim and evolutionisim are 2 in the same? i mean honestly no matter what how they evolved has to come back to some sort of creation story. so what its a little hard to believe that some major religious supernatural being created man in all its might... but is it that hard to believe thee is some miracouls miracle that cause your evolutionists "germs" persay. i mean honestly people are so ignorant in saying there answer is right. and honestly what is the harm in letting people believe they were made a certain way because this has been blown out of proportion because yes all humans and animals evolve and adapt but the question is if apes evolve into humans...why are there still apes and why dont they evolve anymore???????? so what im saying is ofcourse we evolve in some way or another but is it so hard to just say "maybe we were created by a supernatural being that wanted us to evolve and learn our way of life the proper way so we could survive" this is my call for a new form of religion <h1>creationional evolutionsim -The combination of a higher form creation and the evolution of its origional creation</h1> Thank you and goodnight ~Richard Monaghan~

PS.any debates on this that are directed at me please send me a private message so i am notified

I admit it's possible that evolution and the bible's story are somehow interconnected, much like it's entirely possible that within five minutes I'll have a severe aneurism and keel over.

I simply resent the idea that a random book will have the answers while affording no proof, and rejecting all evidence to the contrary. Just... the GALL it takes to do so is just amazing to me.

In my mind, the bible will never be legitimate, in any way other than hypothetical or theoretical.

I admit it's possible that evolution and the bible's story are somehow interconnected, much like it's entirely possible that within five minutes I'll have a severe aneurism and keel over.

I simply resent the idea that a random book will have the answers while affording no proof, and rejecting all evidence to the contrary. Just... the GALL it takes to do so is just amazing to me.

In my mind, the bible will never be legitimate, in any way other than hypothetical or theoretical.

What about allegorical? =)

Ok,
this is one of my favorite things on debate.
:p
I have tried looking at every theory, and began to wonder about many things.
One,
though many scientists believe in he 'single cell', truthfully (I think) that's an over statement.
Though it is a 'single cell', it is still made up of multiple things.
now, look at the cell, it form, shape, what it consists of.
Now compare it to our earth.
Happen to notice a small, yet large resemblence?
A cell works in largly the SAME way as our earth.
Other particles much like people, each having their own place.
they have passages, much like roads, through them.
Now, in amost every bible, it speaks of the 'sun' being the great creator or great life, or the 'circle of life'. Once again, compare.
If every being is created of multiple cells, would one being, perhaps, compare to our universe? Our universe is made of killions, billions, zillions of planets and stars, the stars much relating to electrons.
Planets relating much to atoms and cells.
:)
In almost every bible, it says we are all' part of the great being', well, what if we literally are?
Ok, this must sound kinda wierd coming across, and is imply one of a million strange theories I have, but think about it?
It kinda makes sense, in a way, right, or is it just me?
:confused:

I started watching the first video...I just gave up all hope for her statements and theories that followed.
"I'm just going to give you an unbiased expose of all the facts about Evolution and Creation." Then about 30 seconds later, "Forget about all the bias coming from Evolution and the Media." Oh yeah, sounds real unbiased. A real expose of only the facts. She's a slippery one, trying to slip those biased opinions to us, she is. :D

i would want this woman to explain this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity) to me. then i might follow her in other explanations. :)

What about allegorical? =)allegorical for what?

Ok,
this is one of my favorite things on debate.
:p
I have tried looking at every theory, and began to wonder about many things.
One,
though many scientists believe in he 'single cell', truthfully (I think) that's an over statement.
Though it is a 'single cell', it is still made up of multiple things.
now, look at the cell, it form, shape, what it consists of.
Now compare it to our earth.
Happen to notice a small, yet large resemblence?
A cell works in largly the SAME way as our earth.
Other particles much like people, each having their own place.
they have passages, much like roads, through them.
Now, in amost every bible, it speaks of the 'sun' being the great creator or great life, or the 'circle of life'. Once again, compare.
If every being is created of multiple cells, would one being, perhaps, compare to our universe? Our universe is made of killions, billions, zillions of planets and stars, the stars much relating to electrons.
Planets relating much to atoms and cells.
:)
In almost every bible, it says we are all' part of the great being', well, what if we literally are?
Ok, this must sound kinda wierd coming across, and is imply one of a million strange theories I have, but think about it?
It kinda makes sense, in a way, right, or is it just me?
:confused:

It would make a good children's book.

1. Regarding my police detective analogy: I think you're assuming that my little story did NOT include at least two very thoughtful, serious detectives. Being a Christian does not mean the exclusion of the scientific method, hence my point in my first post about all those brilliant scientists. Although it is true that nobody would want an investigation by an idiot who assumed everything ahead of time, equally true is that nobody wants a man who comes in and rationalizes all the facts in such a way to explain that the victim died by accident.

2. Perhaps you are satisfied by being an accident, but most people want more than that out of life. I shudder to think what my mentality might be if I did not believe in God. Probably a proud, arrogant brainiac control freak playing mind-games to get laid by the girl of my choice. And probably feeling very very empty. My purpose was not to give a lengthy or complete description of the Creationist view, but rather a succinct one that directly addressed the heart of the matter: what is life about, objectively speaking?

3. First you claim that your life is largely due to chance events. Hence, it is accidental, but then you claim this doesn't make your life meaningless. Perhaps in the subjective sense, it would not be meaningless, but it would remain so objectively. Being an atheist and believing in evolution does not stop a person from loving a great deal, or doing good things, or integrating themselves. But this is not consistent with your beliefs. If there is no God, and our souls are illusions, and all our thoughts, desires and emotions are merely biochemical reactions by a brain the product of a million chances over a billion years of accidents, you can't reach the world-view that life is about love. You wind up with, to paraphrase a line in 'Sleepless in Seattle,' "love is just two sets of neuroses meeting and finding a match." I am not assuming this is your belief. I am assuming that you value your relationships as something more. But as a Christian, I can believe that my value and the value of my relationships is more than my subjective perception, but that there is an objective reality to be perceived.

4. You misunderstood my "humor" regarding psychiatry. I wasn't trying to insult it, but merely point out that although it is a much more complex form of biochemical science than what the ancient Greeks practiced, both are still biochemical sciences, so to speak. There is a great deal about psychiatry to be admired, as well as seriously questioned. I've had a number of manic-depressive friends, and have seen both the uses and abuses of psychiatric medicine. My joke did not reflect a disregard of psychiatry, but a regard for the humors, which preceded psychiatry by about 2200 years, in much the same way as a very primitive atomic theory preceded our own explorations in that area. Please forgive me for giving you that impression.

What is childish and rude is for people to insult Creationists as ignorant rejectors of the scientific method and modern medicine. The assumption is that in rejecting evolution, we are soliciting the return of leeching, the Greek theory of humors, exorcisms for the insane, and brewing noxious potions to banish disease-causing demons. Ironically, it is modern medicine that has introduced cumathin (which slices blood-cells), psychiatric medicine (which is helpful, but gives me the impression of being a bit out of control), shock therapy and lobotomies (now defunct), and of course, chemotherapy, which tries to kill cancer at great physical cost to the patient. My point is not to reject modern medicine here, but to say that the more things change... the more they stay same. Yes, there have been terrific advances (God bless Louis Pasteur and Jonas Salk!) but smart people still do stupid things.

As a Christian, I absolutely reject intellectualism and rationalism. But I do not reject being intellectual or rational in the least. There are Christians whose world-view is that life is about righteousness (I disagree) and then there are those who say life is about relationship. None of the Bible-believing Christians will say that life is about knowledge. But just because we believe life is about love doesn't mean we reject knowledge, anymore than someone who does believe life is about knowledge rejects love.

I should also say that you took my sense of humor very personally. There was a lot of emotion in your response. I'm not saying this is wrong, but I think if you feel this strongly about psychiatry, then perhaps you might visit me at...

s4.invisionfree.com/House_of_Mercy

Interesting story:

I was just climbing down a mountain with some guys I didn't know that well. A friend of a friend says to me 'do you want to hear a joke?'

'Sure' I said, because that's what you say.

'The platypus. Because the evolutionists don't know how to explain it!'

I gave him a confused look. Then I got a little bit scared that I had just climbed a mountain with this guy.

Absurd fact:

I know a real honest genius who was (perhaps still is?) a creationist.

Interesting story:

I was just climbing down a mountain with some guys I didn't know that well. A friend of a friend says to me 'do you want to hear a joke?'

'Sure' I said, because that's what you say.

'The platypus. Because the evolutionists don't know how to explain it!'

I gave him a confused look. Then I got a little bit scared that I had just climbed a mountain with this guy.

Absurd fact:

I know a real honest genius who was (perhaps still is?) a creationist.

how do evolutionists (i.e. ordinary scientifically educated people) fail to explain platypus? or any monotremata?

I find the term "evolutionist" to be quite funny. We don't call people gravitationalists do we? Or factualists, do we?

how do evolutionists (i.e. ordinary scientifically educated people) fail to explain platypus? or any monotremata?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus#In_mammalian_evolution

1. Regarding my police detective analogy: I think you're assuming that my little story did NOT include at least two very thoughtful, serious detectives. Being a Christian does not mean the exclusion of the scientific method, hence my point in my first post about all those brilliant scientists.

True, being a Christian does not remotely require that somebody abandon the scientific method.

Being a Creationist, however, does. Creationism is completely and totally 100% non-science. Postulating a non-natural source for anything is completely outside the realm of science. That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad, wrong, or otherwise lousy, it just means you're not doing science.


Although it is true that nobody would want an investigation by an idiot who assumed everything ahead of time, equally true is that nobody wants a man who comes in and rationalizes all the facts in such a way to explain that the victim died by accident.

Which is not what an evolutionary biologist does. At all. It is extremely insulting of you to even suggest that this is the case.


2. Perhaps you are satisfied by being an accident, but most people want more than that out of life.

Irrelevant.


I shudder to think what my mentality might be if I did not believe in God. Probably a proud, arrogant brainiac control freak playing mind-games to get laid by the girl of my choice.

If only your belief in God keeps you from being that kind of person, then I shudder to think of your current mentality.


And probably feeling very very empty. My purpose was not to give a lengthy or complete description of the Creationist view, but rather a succinct one that directly addressed the heart of the matter: what is life about, objectively speaking?

I can answer that for you right now, no problem:

Life isn't about anything, objectively speaking.

The meaning of life is purely subjective. We define the value of our own lives. You choose to tell yourself that your value is bestowed upon you by some God. Good for you. You're doing exactly the same as everybody else in the world: deciding on your own subjective values based on your subjective perspective and experience.


3. First you claim that your life is largely due to chance events. Hence, it is accidental, but then you claim this doesn't make your life meaningless. Perhaps in the subjective sense, it would not be meaningless, but it would remain so objectively.

That's simply untrue.

Plenty of things have various forms of "objective" value, despite being the result of an accident.

For instance, the glue that is on the back of Post-It notes was discovered by accident. Yet that glue has value in a variety of contexts.


Being an atheist and believing in evolution does not stop a person from loving a great deal, or doing good things, or integrating themselves. But this is not consistent with your beliefs.

Are you aware of how rude it is to presume that you know enough of my beliefs to make such a statement?


If there is no God, and our souls are illusions, and all our thoughts, desires and emotions are merely biochemical reactions by a brain the product of a million chances over a billion years of accidents, you can't reach the world-view that life is about love.

First of all, sure I could.

But I don't happen to believe that "life is about love." So you're way off base no matter what.


You wind up with, to paraphrase a line in 'Sleepless in Seattle,' "love is just two sets of neuroses meeting and finding a match." I am not assuming this is your belief. I am assuming that you value your relationships as something more.

You are creating a false dichotomy.


But as a Christian, I can believe that my value and the value of my relationships is more than my subjective perception, but that there is an objective reality to be perceived.

As an agnostic, I know that all relationships have a variety of "values," depending on how you look at it.

My relationships have value to me. They also have value to the other people involved in those relationships. They also sometimes have value to outside parties. For instance, my brother benefits from my closeness to my parents, because we are all able to be a more cohesive group. Another example would be how a child can benefit from her parents having a healthy relationship with one another.

My relationships are all the result of chance. I just happened to be born to the parents I have. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time to meet my partner. So what? I just happened to find a penny in the street yesterday. It's still a penny. It's still worth $.01. Its value does not magically decrease because I encountered it by chance.


What is childish and rude is for people to insult Creationists as ignorant rejectors of the scientific method and modern medicine.

Creationism is not science. If somebody claims it is, they are a liar.

Now, it's quite possible for people to believe in a variety of Creation myths while still appreciating the scientific method and modern medicine.



The assumption is that in rejecting evolution, we are soliciting the return of leeching, the Greek theory of humors, exorcisms for the insane, and brewing noxious potions to banish disease-causing demons. Ironically, it is modern medicine that has introduced cumathin (which slices blood-cells), psychiatric medicine (which is helpful, but gives me the impression of being a bit out of control), shock therapy and lobotomies (now defunct), and of course, chemotherapy, which tries to kill cancer at great physical cost to the patient.

You don't have much of a point, here.

Modern medicine is still a work in progress, yes. But it's PROGRESS. The reason for the progress is science. Superstition and mythology cure exactly zero diseases.

Don't believe me? Fine. Please list the cures and medical technologies that have been made possible exclusively by Creationism or superstitious myths. Keep in mind, it doesn't count if you list inventions by scientists who happened to also be religious. You have to show an invention that was made possible only because of superstition.

I'll wait.

My point is not to reject modern medicine here, but to say that the more things change... the more they stay same. Yes, there have been terrific advances (God bless Louis Pasteur and Jonas Salk!) but smart people still do stupid things.

Okay, whatever.


As a Christian, I absolutely reject intellectualism and rationalism. But I do not reject being intellectual or rational in the least.

Then you need a new dictionary.


There are Christians whose world-view is that life is about righteousness (I disagree) and then there are those who say life is about relationship. None of the Bible-believing Christians will say that life is about knowledge.

It's cute to me when a person presumes to dictate what "Bible-believing Christians" will and won't do. Cute because it's always, without exception, completely wrong.

I promise you, there are Bible-believing Christians who will say life is about knowledge. You may not AGREE with them, but that doesn't mean squat.


But just because we believe life is about love doesn't mean we reject knowledge, anymore than someone who does believe life is about knowledge rejects love.

Well...duh. Only the dimmest of dim bulbs would suggest that life is only about one thing.


I should also say that you took my sense of humor very personally. There was a lot of emotion in your response. I'm not saying this is wrong, but I think if you feel this strongly about psychiatry, then perhaps you might visit me at...

Pfft, you kidding? That reaction was nothing. Don't worry about it.

I just have very little patience with people who presume to insult the very medicine and scientific advance which makes their lives possible. When somebody posts ON AN INTERNET FORUM about how scientists are so misguided and wrong, I giggle. When somebody speaks condescendingly and ignorantly about science and reason, I get snarky. When somebody insults the lifetimes of work put in by researchers like myself, and when they imply that lazy, unimaginative, useless mythological fluff should be given equal weight to the painstaking work of real science...well, I don't bother being polite, at that point.

allegorical for what?

Depends on which story you're talking about.

1. Regarding my police detective analogy: I think you're assuming that my little story did NOT include at least two very thoughtful, serious detectives.

Not at all. It was simply not a good analogy for what actually goes on in Creationism vs. Evolutionary theory debates.

Being a Christian does not mean the exclusion of the scientific method, hence my point in my first post about all those brilliant scientists.

(a) No, being Christian does not mean the exclusion of the scientific method. I am, in fact, both a Christian and a scientist.

Trying to hold to a literal view of either Genesis Creation story, on the other hand, does. "Creation scientists" or whatever they call themselves these days do not use the scientific method. They begin with a foregone conclusion (the Bible is absolutely and literally true) and look for any and all evidence they think might support it. They generally reject out of hand any evidence that suggests otherwise. That isn't even close to the scientific method.

(b) Most of those scientists weren't involved in studies that would have put their views on creation in any kind of conflict with their studies. Not to mention that many of them were scientists before the scientific method was really refined.

(c) You need to make sure your definition of the word "creationist" is clear. Are we talking young-earth creationists? Biblical literalists? Or are we simply talking about people who believe in a Creator, but make few claims as to how the Creator went about creating? It is perfectly possible to believe in Creation and to still feel that evolutionary theory is the best scientific explanation we have for how life reached its current state. One need not even posit that the Creator interfered with the process once it was begun (although some do).

Although it is true that nobody would want an investigation by an idiot who assumed everything ahead of time, equally true is that nobody wants a man who comes in and rationalizes all the facts in such a way to explain that the victim died by accident.

If the facts point to such an explanation, why wouldn't someone come to that conclusion?

There are Christians whose world-view is that life is about righteousness (I disagree) and then there are those who say life is about relationship. None of the Bible-believing Christians will say that life is about knowledge.

Is there a particular reason that it must be restricted to being "about" one thing? My relationships (both with God and with other people) are the most important things in my life. But my pursuit of knowledge comes in close behind. This is especially true when you see that my pursuit of knowledge is tied up in my relationships with other human beings. I want to make life better for others, so I find myself pursuing knowledge of biology that will help myself and others to improve medical care.... And so on.

Edit: I didn't see the "for Bottle" part until just now, but I had expressed some objections that you addressed here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus#In_mammalian_evolutionand?

btw, does the bible explain platypus any better?

Depends on which story you're talking about.i dunno. which story were you referring to? and what is it then allegorical for?

and?

btw, does the bible explain platypus any better?

I don't think the Bible mentions platypi at all.

I don't think the Bible mentions platypi at all.

It's implied though. God waved its noodles and the platypus was created with everything else, including genies and unicorns.

Or something.

I don't think the Bible mentions platypi at all.

Lucky for them they can swim - kinda tricky to get from the Outback to 'Pier 14, Nineveh' before Noah leaves.

It's implied though. God waved its noodles and the platypus was created with everything else, including genies and unicorns.

Or something.

Platypi don't exist because the bible doesn't mention them. Duh.

I will believe in God and creationism when the words "YES, I EXIST" are carved with a solid beam of light from the sky-with at least 40,000 witnesses-Whose status as a witness is not prefaced by the word "Jehovah's"-in 5 mile high letters-in less then 5 seconds-And maybe not even then.

Such considerations did come to mind at the time. However, I was a little worried he'd shout out 'DEVIL!' and push me down a ravine if I laughed.

Or was I meant to laugh at the perplexed evolutionists?

Could he tell the difference?

Platypi don't exist because the bible doesn't mention them. Duh.So what we see is just an animal of the mind, a false creation, proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?

I will believe in God and creationism when the words "YES, I EXIST" are carved with a solid beam of light from the sky-with at least 40,000 witnesses-Whose status as a witness is not prefaced by the word "Jehovah's"-in 5 mile high letters-in less then 5 seconds-And maybe not even then.could you re-phrase that?

So what we see is just an animal of the mind, a false creation, proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?

It's an illusion to test our faith.

I will believe in God and creationism when the words "YES, I EXIST" are carved with a solid beam of light from the sky-with at least 40,000 witnesses-Whose status as a witness is not prefaced by the word "Jehovah's"-in 5 mile high letters-in less then 5 seconds-And maybe not even then.

This post gets the SZANTH! stamp of approval.

Don't worry guys. If I ever become Almighty(my resume is on file), you will all know it. :)

It's an illusion to test our faith.or our shakespeare

Don't worry guys. If I ever become Almighty(my resume is on file), you will all know it. :)

A manna will rain from the heavens, in the form of tacos.


Or maybe in the form of mud.


Maybe both.

A manna will rain from the heavens, in the form of tacos.


Or maybe in the form of mud.


Maybe both.

There will be a mud season and a taco season. :)

I admit it's possible that evolution and the bible's story are somehow interconnected, much like it's entirely possible that within five minutes I'll have a severe aneurism and keel over.

I simply resent the idea that a random book will have the answers while affording no proof, and rejecting all evidence to the contrary. Just... the GALL it takes to do so is just amazing to me.

In my mind, the bible will never be legitimate, in any way other than hypothetical or theoretical.

The Bible preceded evolutionary theory by a few years. It is more accurate to say that evolutionary theory rejects all evidence to the contrary as provided by the Bible and recorded history. The Bible certainly contradicts evolutionary theory, but evolutionary theory rejects the Bible's evidence, not the other way around.

I find the term "evolutionist" to be quite funny. We don't call people gravitationalists do we? Or factualists, do we?

We're all interpretalists. We interpret data...but facts are something else entirely.

Side note: In the kast 2 days creationism has gained about 15 votes Evolutionists over 100.

The Bible preceded evolutionary theory by a few years. It is more accurate to say that evolutionary theory rejects all evidence to the contrary as provided by the Bible and recorded history. The Bible certainly contradicts evolutionary theory, but evolutionary theory rejects the Bible's evidence, not the other way around.what is the bible's evidence?

Side note: In the kast 2 days creationism has gained about 15 votes Evolutionists over 100.
yep, we win :)

Side note: In the kast 2 days creationism has gained about 15 votes Evolutionists over 100.

This doesn't take into account a number of followers of the scientific method who refuse to vote 'Evolutionist' as it is really rather inaccurate.

what is the bible's evidence?

Umm...try reading it. Genesis at least. You'll find everything you need there.

Umm...try reading it. Genesis at least. You'll find everything you need there.ahem, a text is not evidence. it is not even describing any evidence. it just makes claims.
i would rather expect something to be found in nature to support the text. you know, some empirical stuff provided by those who believe in what the text says.

Umm...try reading it. Genesis at least. You'll find everything you need there.

See, that's a story. Which contradicts itself, I might add. Not really evidence in the same sense as that backing up evolution and the like.

Oh it was a long while back I came across "Peanut Butter the Athiests Nightmare" well today I finally ask this... watch all, some, or even just one evolution vs. creation video and answer the poll. Coment please.
____________________________
The links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cpNjyVvqK0 (Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izjJr0CIQQk&mode=related&search= (Part 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x91eYg_yG5Q&mode=related&search= (Part 3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gF4tNmcBLc&mode=related&search= (Part 4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-U2uI1f8mU&mode=related&search= (Part 5-especially interesting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQb6e1w1I9E&mode=related&search= (Part 6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3JND0gND-U&mode=related&search= (Part 7-especially interesting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qjHtyKq3yc&mode=related&search= (Part 8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKV2sWMEwuk&mode=related&search= (Part 9)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gVzt7qH2UA&mode=related&search= (Part 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0QYPnvU5qE&mode=related&search= (Part 11)

______________________
Some bonuses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk (especially interesting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504 (especially interesting)
_____________________
Explanaintion due to complaints: (especially interesting) = especially retarded
_____________________

All in all about an hour and 15 minutes.
_________________________________________
Jist of it due to complaints: This lady says--- evolution is false, The big Bang Theory is false, chemicals forming organisms is false , the bible is a science test book, all animals including dinosaurs lived with humans, the Earth is only 6,000 years old. ONly god can create anything. Nothing can form out of something else EVER.

Your missing the 'both' option. :eek:

ahem, a text is not evidence. it is not even describing any evidence. it just makes claims.
i would rather expect something to be found in nature to support the text. you know, some empirical stuff.

Evidence comes in many forms. The creation story is in fact evidence--not scientific evidence, though it is quite possible we are...misguided.

See, that's a story. Which contradicts itself, I might add. Not really evidence in the same sense as that backing up evolution and the like.

No, no it's not the same.

Evidence comes in many forms. The creation story is in fact evidence--not scientific evidence, though it is quite possible we are...misguided.excuse me, but a story about creation is not evidence about creation. as i said, give me some empirical data to support this creation story, then we'll talk more

No, no it's not the same.

Whats not the same? :confused:

Evidence comes in many forms. The creation story is in fact evidence--not scientific evidence, though it is quite possible we are...misguided.

Exactly. Not scientific evidence. Since there is no scientific evidence, there is nothing for science to ignore.

Exactly. Not scientific evidence. Since there is no scientific evidence, there is nothing for science to ignore.except the whole bible thing :)

I watched the first video, and it appears to me the program does what every other Creationist does- state that "Evolution is wrong, so therefore our theory is right". That is simply not true. Just because one theory is wrong doesn't automatically make another theory right- it just means that theory is wrong. To prove a theory is right, you've got to provide proof- and Creationists don't do that.

Now, I will say that it's not entirely wrong to question Evolution as a scientific theory, because that's how scientific theories grow in the first place- you adapt them based on new discoveries. Creationists seem to think that the Evolutionary theory is static and never changing when in fact it isn't- it, like the rest of scientific theory, evolves (no pun intended). Science works based on "the best possible answer", and until Creationists provide proof that their theory is better than the Evolutionary theory (beyond stating "the Bible", because the Bible is a) was not written to be a scientific text but a religious text and b) is only valid to Christians, and not members of other faiths), then Evolution still "the best possibile answer". It's got flaws, like every other theory, but that doesn't make Creation automatically better- the Creationists still have to provide empirical evidence, and I have yet to see that.

Your missing the 'both' option. :eek:

nope, you gotta choose, do you believe God created stuff or not.

nope, you gotta choose, do you believe God created stuff or not.

Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell...

nope, you gotta choose, do you believe God created stuff or not.

God set forth the rules of science (that includes evolution) then he set forth the laws for man.

Don't worry guys. If I ever become Almighty(my resume is on file), you will all know it. :)
Heck yeah! Screw the US presidental election, Vote LG for God in 2008!

God set forth the rules of science (that includes evolution) then he set forth the laws for man.

I dub thee a creationist.

I dub thee a creationist.
Do you get to tap his shoulders with a sword for that or a Bible? ;)

God set forth the rules of science (that includes evolution) then he set forth the laws for man.can you provide evidence for this? tangible testable evidence for divine intervention?

I watched the first video, and it appears to me the program does what every other Creationist does- state that "Evolution is wrong, so therefore our theory is right". That is simply not true. Just because one theory is wrong doesn't automatically make another theory right- it just means that theory is wrong. To prove a theory is right, you've got to provide proof- and Creationists don't do that.

Now, I will say that it's not entirely wrong to question Evolution as a scientific theory, because that's how scientific theories grow in the first place- you adapt them based on new discoveries. Creationists seem to think that the Evolutionary theory is static and never changing when in fact it isn't- it, like the rest of scientific theory, evolves (no pun intended). Science works based on "the best possible answer", and until Creationists provide proof that their theory is better than the Evolutionary theory (beyond stating "the Bible", because the Bible is a) was not written to be a scientific text but a religious text and b) is only valid to Christians, and not members of other faiths), then Evolution still "the best possibile answer". It's got flaws, like every other theory, but that doesn't make Creation automatically better- the Creationists still have to provide empirical evidence, and I have yet to see that.

That you for explaining it almost perfectly.

Do you get to tap his shoulders with a sword for that or a Bible? ;)

a holy sword.......with crosses and stuff.

Thanks for clarifying that... it's only page 13... :p how did we ever live without your wisdom?! ;)

But you're right. The choices are terrible.

OK, from here on nobody post anything like this again. It was my bad. I can't edit the poll. If I could I would.

a holy sword.......with crosses and stuff.

And you get to hold the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

And you get to hold the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

Just don't pull the pin if you can't count to 3.

OK, from here on nobody post anything like this again. It was my bad. I can't edit the poll. If I could I would.

Why not? We're allowed to. Who're you to say we can't? :rolleyes:

can you provide evidence for this? tangible testable evidence for divine intervention?

If God doesn't exist how come the Bible and the Quran have scriptures that are predicint the future. The Bible predicted global warming and the decline of civilization, the Quran predicted WTC and the "War on Terror" in verse 9:11 strangely enough.

If God doesn't exist how come the Bible and the Quran have scriptures that are predicint the future. The Bible predicted global warming and the decline of civilization, the Quran predicted WTC and the "War on Terror" in verse 9:11 strangely enough.
Which verse in the Bible predicts global warming?

And if (For the Quran) you mean that verse about the Eagle... well...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/quran911.asp

Sorry, Urban Legend.