NationStates Jolt Archive

There's no "proof" of gravity, either. Just strong, observational evidence empirically gained through experimentation and incorporated into a theoretical framework for explaining related phenomena. We call these things "theories" and we teach them in science classes because that's as good as it gets. Nothing in science is ever "proven," one can only provide evidence for and against a theory, and the strength and weight of this evidence results in a theory being kept, discarded, or altered to incorporate the new evidence.

I seriously don't see why this is so hard for people to understand.

DM you pwn yet another thread. Flawless argument.

Yes. However to be scientific fact it has to be repeatable through experimentation.

I can demonstrate that gravity exists by dropping a hammer. In fact, I can hand the hammer to a non believer and tell them to let go and it will show gravity. It is provable and not very disputable.

However when a religious person says they talk to their 'god', I cannot talk to their 'god' so it is obviously not provable or repeatable.

So why would anyone want to teach folklore and myth in the classroom?
Does Santa exist? How about the tooth fairy?

I frequently agree with you and your posts were wonderful. Kat, however made the material simplistic enough for even the slightly literate to understand. Good show Sir, but Kat wins only for simplicity. Interestingly enough we are all from the NY/NJ area. Must be something in the water that promotes brilliance. :p

I know how Deus feels though... you completely ignored my post a page or two earlier (at most) that made the same points, just as simply, and with links to pictures of ligers and zonkys.

I just didn't gripe about it. :D

Yes. However to be scientific fact it has to be repeatable through experimentation.

I can demonstrate that gravity exists by dropping a hammer. In fact, I can hand the hammer to a non believer and tell them to let go and it will show gravity. It is provable and not very disputable.

However when a religious person says they talk to their 'god', I cannot talk to their 'god' so it is obviously not provable or repeatable.

So why would anyone want to teach folklore and myth in the classroom?
Does Santa exist? How about the tooth fairy?Tooth fairy is that dude form the Hannibal Lecter movie, right?

But who studies theology? Believers. I have never met theology students who weren't active members of their respective churches and only ones who started their study exactly because they assumed the biblical god to be real. And universities (in collaboration with the churches) subsequently only offer such theology courses that are tailored for believers. As someone interested in more objective fields of study one would have to study history and archeology.

I have studied theology quite a bit. And I don't think you are going to class me as a believer. I actually lived on the Reformed Church Theological Seminary campus for a while. My father was a minister. No, I wasn't a "theology student" but there can be quite a difference between a person studying theology and a person studying for an M.Div.

I agree. I wish I had time to study all of that.
Doing a lot of humanities subjects, including specific religious studies courses, helps. Studies of the religions I mentioned above were (apart from religious studies) part of my politics, philosophy and classics courses.

What about Mesopotamia and Egypt? What about religions that are gone now but were big influences for beliefs of today?
The Hellenic, Roman and Norse pantheons, as well as many animisms and early forms of Hinduism and Judaism are pretty much gone now, and you can still learn a great deal about them.

As to Egyptian religion, you could file that under the religions that I’ve read up on in my spare time, but haven’t study in depth; along with the North and South American religions. Interesting stuff. Mesopotamian stuff, I covered a bit when I studied the Hellenic religions, but I couldn’t say I know much about them. AS far as I’m aware, they’re very interesting, and, much like the Mayan, Incan et al religions, quite obsessed with maths and astronomy.

Overall, I’d say religious studies gives you a marvellous background for study of nations and regions of the world. It’s surprising how even quite secular countries are so influenced by the religions that were popular hundreds, even thousands, of years ago.

And, perhaps most interestingly of all, it’s amazing — yet when we think about it, hardly surprising — how similar different religions are to one another. I always remember a poster hanging up in the religious studies department at my uni, listing about 100 or so religions.

Every single one had some variation of the Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity), from global-spanning religions to tiny shamanistic tribal faiths.

I have a question, and I hope someone can answer it for me. I have never gotten an answer to this before, which mean that there isn't one.

Who created the matter we supposedly evolved from, and what caused that matter to evolve?

Just because you have never gotten an answer does not mean there isn't one. Humanity may not even currently KNOW what the answer is, but there is one somewhere. Perhaps one day we will know what that answer is.

"Who created..." may be the wrong question, you might just as well say "what created the matter...". However, there is no proof one way or the other as to what the origin of the galaxy was. God is one suggestion. The Big Bang (or a an eternal cycle of bangs and collapses) is another. Science does not yet know. Read about the Big Bang, it is very interesting stuff, with a lot of proof behind it, although where the Big Bang itself came from is currently just speculation. What caused that matter to evolve? Well, that would be natural causes like heat, cold, electric shock, humidity and so on.

1. Yes. However to be scientific fact it has to be repeatable through experimentation.

2. I can demonstrate that gravity exists by dropping a hammer. In fact, I can hand the hammer to a non believer and tell them to let go and it will show gravity. It is provable and not very disputable.

However when a religious person says they talk to their 'god', I cannot talk to their 'god' so it is obviously not provable or repeatable.

So why would anyone want to teach folklore and myth in the classroom?
Does Santa exist? How about the tooth fairy?

1. Right, like experiments with Drosophilae fruit flies, to name just one example.

2. Except that you're not demonstrating gravity, you're demonstrating falling. We can then take experiments of falling objects and (and this is what Newton and his contemporaries did) construct a theoretical framework to explain this act of falling, and to make consequential predictions based on that observational data. This is how we take a fact and apply it to a theory, to refine and improve upon the theory.
Similarly, one can easily (and obviously) observe genetic mutation in organisms. For one easy example, take staph bacteria, which have over time developed a genetic resistance to the antibiotics we use to treat them. They have managed to do so so "quickly" because their reproductive cycle is a few orders of magnitude greater than ours, and can therefore breed (and consequently pass on beneficial mutations) at a much faster rate than we can.
We can take this, then, the fact of inherited resistance to antibiotics, and fit it into a theoretical framework (in this case the existence theoretical framework of evolution) and apply it, realizing instantly that the process of development of drug resistance can be explained easily and simply through natural selection.

I just arrived at the end of your post and realized that you seem to be arguing against Creationism, rather than for it, as I'd presumed from the first part of your post. Do you mind clarifying, please?

*...*
What caused that matter to evolve? Well, that would be natural causes like heat, cold, electric shock, humidity and so on.

abiogenesis, the very fuzzy line between random chemicals and the commencement of life.

That doesn't explain why evolution happens. I guess that's why some people are dissatisfied with the theory of evolution, they find it hard to imagine a process without an intention. We're always looking for what we have ourselves, a vested interest in life and a sense that it serves some purpose.

Doing a lot of humanities subjects, including specific religious studies courses, helps. Studies of the religions I mentioned above were (apart from religious studies) part of my politics, philosophy and classics courses.


The Hellenic, Roman and Norse pantheons, as well as many animisms and early forms of Hinduism and Judaism are pretty much gone now, and you can still learn a great deal about them.

As to Egyptian religion, you could file that under the religions that I’ve read up on in my spare time, but haven’t study in depth; along with the North and South American religions. Interesting stuff. Mesopotamian stuff, I covered a bit when I studied the Hellenic religions, but I couldn’t say I know much about them. AS far as I’m aware, they’re very interesting, and, much like the Mayan, Incan et al religions, quite obsessed with maths and astronomy.

Overall, I’d say religious studies gives you a marvellous background for study of nations and regions of the world. It’s surprising how even quite secular countries are so influenced by the religions that were popular hundreds, even thousands, of years ago.

And, perhaps most interestingly of all, it’s amazing — yet when we think about it, hardly surprising — how similar different religions are to one another. I always remember a poster hanging up in the religious studies department at my uni, listing about 100 or so religions.

Every single one had some variation of the Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity), from global-spanning religions to tiny shamanistic tribal faiths.

Well, I am rather interested in the history behind the faiths and religions. I want to know what happened. I focus on Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Levant. E.g. I find it interesting to see that the relationships between the religions in the area seem so be consistent with the relationships of writing systems in the region.

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/4311/sumeriandm7.gif

abiogenesis, the very fuzzy line between random chemicals and the commencement of life.

That doesn't explain why evolution happens. I guess that's why some people are dissatisfied with the theory of evolution, they find it hard to imagine a process without an intention. We're always looking for what we have ourselves, a vested interest in life and a sense that it serves some purpose.

Science is not looking for a purpose, merely an explanation of the mechanisms. Why are we here, what is the meaning of life... these are questions for philosophy, not science.

Personally, I don't need any externally imposed purpose, I am happy to try and find my own reason for existing. Perhaps in this case God is just a tool to ease the fears of people who are not able to find their own purpose in life and need that outside guidance. Currently, my purpose is to be joyful and share that joy. It works for me, and I am satisfied with it.

Of course, teaching realistic criticism on the theory of evolution would be fine.
Now all we need is for realistic criticism to exist.

Now all we need is for realistic criticism to exist.OK, maybe not criticism, but a question. Everyone dwells on the importance of DNA, as it stores the information that determines how organisms are formed. Well, amino acids are not particularly exotic and they even occur in interstellar space. But how the heck did the reader evolve? The thing that decodes the DNA and regulates the building of proteins for cells and tissues? Where do the ribosomes come from??

I find it interesting to see that the relationships between the religions in the area seem so be consistent with the relationships of writing systems in the region.
That’s pretty cool!

I think we ‘moderns’ tend to vastly underestimate the capacities of the civilisations and individuals of the ancient world. Always amuses me when people are flabbergasted that ideas or people could travel across seas or continents before the invention of the combustion engine. You get all these scientists scratching their heads about how the Pacific Islands were settled, or how plants and artefacts found only in the Americas turn up in Europe and Africa 3000-odd years ago, and vice versa.

One thing in particular that struck me was the close similarity between the concept of Dharma found in Hinduism, Buddhism, et al, and the concept of a thing’s nature in Aristotle’s works.

You get all these scientists scratching their heads about how the Pacific Islands were settled, or how plants and artefacts found only in the Americas turn up in Europe and Africa 3000-odd years ago, and vice versa.Like the Solutreén-like artifacts (esp. arrow heads) found in north-american Clovis?

One thing in particular that struck me was the close similarity between the concept of Dharma found in Hinduism, Buddhism, et al, and the concept of a thing’s nature in Aristotle’s works.Well, all these Indo-European civilizations originated in the Caucasus/Zagros region and spread over the world. And with them they took their faiths, concepts, ideas.

There really is no reader. It's all chemical reactions. As for ribosomes, I have no idea. Never could really remember the inner workings of cells.Well, the complexity of chemical reactions in the ribosomes is amazing. Decoding the DNA is not a trivial task. So how would a decoder evolve in the first place? When even the geometry of the involved molecules is relevant?

OK, maybe not criticism, but a question. Everyone dwells on the importance of DNA, as it stores the information that determines how organisms are formed. Well, amino acids are not particularly exotic and they even occur in interstellar space. But how the heck did the reader evolve? The thing that decodes the DNA and regulates the building of proteins for cells and tissues? Where do the ribosomes come from??

There really is no reader. It's all chemical reactions. As for ribosomes, I have no idea. Never could really remember the inner workings of cells.

Out of pure boredom, and the fact that I've never gotten an actual definition of a "kind", I'd like to ask any remaining creationists a question.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/4783/sabreteethhq2.jpg

How many kinds of animals are pictured in this image?

This may be a bad time to ask, but what exactly is the "Theory of Evolution?" I understand the basics of evolution, that traits that succeed continue, and so over time the traits of an organism change enough we can consider the new thing to be a separate species. Is that all the theory is? Does it include genetics? Is it continuous or "punctuated equilibrium?" The phrase gets tossed around a lot, but I'm never exactly sure what people are talking about.

Out of pure boredom, and the fact that I've never gotten an actual definition of a "kind", I'd like to ask any remaining creationists a question.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/4783/sabreteethhq2.jpg

How many kinds of animals are pictured in this image?

There appear to be four species of sabretooth tiger.
So.. four different animals.

*...*
over time the traits of an organism change enough we can consider the new thing to be a separate species.
*...*

Just to this point: a species is distinct from another if they can't produce fertile offspring together. It's a structural division (not being able to interbreed) rather than just a classification from our perspective.

Someone else can answer your whole question better than I. Like, uh, wikipedia ?

Out of pure boredom, and the fact that I've never gotten an actual definition of a "kind", I'd like to ask any remaining creationists a question.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/4783/sabreteethhq2.jpg

How many kinds of animals are pictured in this image?

Five?

(Sorry, I failed 1st grade math so this may be wrong)

Click Stand;13232310']Five?


You're counting the B as a different kind of animal from the skulls?

How awesome would it be if those skulls were drawn to scale and the critters were still alive.
I would want one as a pet so long as I had neck-puncture insurance.

I agree. I wish I had time to study all of that. What about Mesopotamia and Egypt? What about religions that are gone now but were big influences for beliefs of today?

I've long held that religions are a product of their environment. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the respective religions of Mesopotamia and Egypt (speaking of which)- in Egypt, the gods are viewed as giving and caring, "parental" figures who have the best interests of the Egyptians at heart. In Mesopotamia, the gods are viewed as indifferent and uncaring, authoritarian figures who'd much quicker smite you rather than lend you a helping hand. Conversely- look at the situations in both regions: Egypt survived over 2,000 years without an invasion (due to the presence of the surrounding desert), and the regularity of the Nile's flow made life very comfortable. Mesopotamia, on the other hand, was always at risk of invasion, and the irregularities of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers made life very unpredictable and nerve-wracking. Given those two outlooks, it's no wonder why their respective religions developed in that way.

You're counting the B as a different kind of animal from the skulls?

No it was that curved thing at the lower left.

(Sorry, I failed 2nd grade English so this may be wrong)

Provide the missing link thats the only way to prove evolution

Provide God. That's the only way to prove Creationism.

Just to this point: a species is distinct from another if they can't produce fertile offspring together. It's a structural division (not being able to interbreed) rather than just a classification from our perspective.

Not entirely correct. Female tigons and ligers (lion/tiger hybrids) are fertile. Additionally wolves and domesticated dogs are also different species, but produce fertile offspring.

Its the truth I experienced it .... the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong. You made an assertion. The burden of proof is on you.

I am currently floating about fifteen feet above my roof without assistance from anything but the power of my mind. It's the truth I experienced it.

God answers my prayers, does he answer yours?

Yes. And sometimes, as in this case, the answer is NO.

I know how Deus feels though... you completely ignored my post a page or two earlier (at most) that made the same points, just as simply, and with links to pictures of ligers and zonkys.

I just didn't gripe about it. :D

Anytime you can say Liger it's fun for all :D

No it isn't, this thread attacks creationism which is taught in the bible. Therefore this thread is a place to talk about it.

Really? Well then, that proves that since the Bible is not a Science textbook, and is in fact a religious text, that it has no place in a science classroom and every reason to be in a philosophical or religious class instead.

By the way, where DOES it talk about genetics in the Bible? or medicine? or engineering? or chemistry? biology?

Very curious to know.

Really? Well then, that proves that since the Bible is not a Science textbook, and is in fact a religious text, that it has no place in a science classroom and every reason to be in a philosophical or religious class instead.

By the way, where DOES it talk about genetics in the Bible? or medicine? or engineering? or chemistry? biology?

Very curious to know.

It talks about genetics... you can make animals stripey by putting stripey stuff in their water troughs, I seem to recall.

And there's something about how bats are birds... and about how snails melt...

Chemistry... Second Kings describes treating water by the addition of a coagulant, I think.

Medicine... doesn't Timothy say you should drink wine to settle your tummy?

God has said that all will be given their chance to choose him or not before Jesus returns. Everyone who has read my posts in this thread has now had one chance, choose well.

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. And the purpose here seems to be to provide such a picture of arrogance and ignorance as to close people's ears to the Word.

Get thee behind me!

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. And the purpose here seems to be to provide such a picture of arrogance and ignorance as to close people's ears to the Word.

Get thee behind me!

*grabs bible and dives for cover behind Kat*

“My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me. (Psalms 144:2)”

Everyone join in!
We all know biblical quotes drive away demons!

Yes. And sometimes, as in this case, the answer is NO.

You do realize the futility of this, don't you? I mean it's one thing to critique, analyze, and examine the flaws in an opponents reasoning, to try and educate them with logical arguments and spurts of fact. And it's entirely fine being venomous in your firm rebuttals without resorting to flames.

However, merely answering like with like, responding to thoughtless, throw-away professions of faith and Jesusiness with equally open comments...what is the point of it? When it's clear that the person on the other side is either doing it for kicks, or is so fervent in their belief as to make it impossible for your comments to penetrate very far into the insulating wall of blind faith.

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. And the purpose here seems to be to provide such a picture of arrogance and ignorance as to close people's ears to the Word.

Get thee behind me!

If only NS's bot filtering system could filter out the televangelists...

I mean, they're on repeat, say only one thing, and spread their canned messages as far as they can reach.

If only NS's bot filtering system could filter out the televangelists...

I mean, they're on repeat, say only one thing, and spread their canned messages as far as they can reach.

It's the issue of limited selection. There's a finite number of passages that support such ludicrous conclusions, and as it's unlikely anyone will be adding a new book to the bible any time soon, they're automatically stuck quoting the same stuff over and over, as if it meant something.

I have two, giant rebuttals in this thread that took me a half hour each to write.

Fucking brown-noser :p

;) I just cut to the chase, having neither the patience nor the time to write two such rebuttals.

;) I just cut to the chase, having neither the patience nor the time to write two such rebuttals.

You should try it. It is periodically quite cathartic. Not to mention giving me the opportunity to sharpen my debate-sabre down to a hair's breadth.

It's the issue of limited selection. There's a finite number of passages that support such ludicrous conclusions, and as it's unlikely anyone will be adding a new book to the bible any time soon, they're automatically stuck quoting the same stuff over and over, as if it meant something.

Well, bots do the same thing. I mean, they either advertise porn or sex related materials. Occasionally they'll sell you a pyramid scheme. But it's all the same thing. Hardly any different from the usual televangelist really.

We just need to figure out a filtration system that makes them suffer from head asplodey syndrome the moment they attempt to register.

cathartic,breadth.

Someones been playing freerice.com

We just need to figure out a filtration system that makes them suffer from head asplodey syndrome the moment they attempt to register.

If you make their heads explode using logic/reason they grow two more in its place. You need to cut them off at the base of the neck using their own scripture against them.

Click Stand;13232530']Someones been playing freerice.com

Breadth, specially the phrase Hair's breadth, is a phrase I've heard and have used frequently (though not necessarily here). Cathartic is also a standard part of my vocabulary.

Though now I'm hooked on this thing. Do they really give away the rice, or is it just for fun?

Though now I'm hooked on this thing. Do they really give away the rice, or is it just for fun?

The hordes of shriveled wretches poring through thesaurus after thesaurus in search of that ever-elusive word have to be fed somehow.

The hordes of shriveled wretches poring through thesaurus after thesaurus in search of that ever-elusive word have to be fed somehow.

I've been at it less than ten minutes and am already up to 460 grains. No thesaurus involved. :D

I've been at it less than ten minutes and am already up to 460 grains. No thesaurus involved. :D

Not yooooouuu.
The people who find the words and put them there to begin with.

If you make their heads explode using logic/reason they grow two more in its place. You need to cut them off at the base of the neck using their own scripture against them.

Eh, as long as they're kept outside, I don't care how many heads they grow.

Besides, after a while, they'll have too many heads for their bodies to support and the bloodflow will become too thin for them to retain consciousness, leaving them in a permanently comatose situation.

I think that's a win win situation.

Eh, as long as they're kept outside, I don't care how many heads they grow.

Besides, after a while, they'll have too many heads for their bodies to support and the bloodflow will become too thin for them to retain consciousness, leaving them in a permanently comatose situation.

I think that's a win win situation.

Quite an interesting theory you have there.
*prods creationist in cage*
I will test it on this specimen I have held in captivity.

Not yooooouuu.
The people who find the words and put them there to begin with.

Heh, good point.

Apparently, now reading up on this site, not only is it legitimate, this guy makes about 20-40k a day just from advertising.

I need to start my own wheat donation site :D

Eh, as long as they're kept outside, I don't care how many heads they grow.

Besides, after a while, they'll have too many heads for their bodies to support and the bloodflow will become too thin for them to retain consciousness, leaving them in a permanently comatose situation.

I think that's a win win situation.

...do you read OOTS?

Heh, good point.

Apparently, now reading up on this site, not only is it legitimate, this guy makes about 20-40k a day just from advertising.

I need to start my own wheat donation site :D

Start a whole free chain. Maybe with the designation ____.free

www.rye.free
www.wheat.free
www.corn.free
www.money.free
www.life.free
www.tax.free

Edit: it automatically turned those into urls...*clicks*

Start a whole free chain. Maybe with the designation ____.free

www.rye.free
www.wheat.free
www.corn.free
www.money.free
www.life.free
www.tax.free

Edit: it automatically turned those into urls...*clicks*

I worry the market for it may have dried up. One good idea breeds a hundred more, and all that.

I worry the market for it may have dried up. One good idea breeds a hundred more, and all that.

Ah...true. Or a hundred bad ideas bred one that wasn't quite so deformed and actually broke through cyberspace to make a name for itself. I think my ideas work on the latter.

Ah...true. Or a hundred bad ideas bred one that wasn't quite so deformed and actually broke through cyberspace to make a name for itself. I think my ideas work on the latter.

Are you my Mommy?

...do you read OOTS?

.... maybe

Some folks in this thread have elsewhere informed me that being a Christian is a mental illness, and that if you actually are a Christian, you must be arrogant, ignore reality, and try to ram your belief down people's throats. Seeing what I've seen thus far, I wonder if in some cases they're actually right. By virtue of their intolerant and ridiculous viewpoint, some Christians end up getting all of us tarred with the same brush.

I'm perfectly happy and reconciled with my belief and with recognizing that the creation story is not literal truth but a simple explanation for where we all came from at a time when we did not have the capacity to understand any better; I have no problem with accepting that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, and that environmental pressures as well as those placed by the populations of the organisms themselves are what shaped every species on the planet.

To think that there are those who would prefer not only to refute the overwhelming evidence for themselves, but to insist on dragging us all back to the 1st century rather than to utilize the brain power, the logic, the capacity for learning and the ability to retain and build on knowledge we've been given, annoys me. It annoys me as much as the constant push for indoctrination into the Christian faith in our public schools. Yes, I can be Christian and recognize the utter futility and wrongness of that. We can look at theocracies elsewhere on this globe and in history and see what that kind of state-sponsored morality breeds.

We can look at theocracies elsewhere on this globe and in history and see what that kind of state-sponsored morality breeds.

I imagine that a goodly portion of the reason why they're pushing for that kind of backwards mentality is because they're dissatisfied with their current situation and by creating a theocratic hell, they envision themselves as sitting slightly on top of the heap as some new Inquisitor.

.... maybe

I approve. :)

Are you my Mommy?:p

No.
Probably for more reasons than I am not female.

Like the Solutreén-like artifacts (esp. arrow heads) found in north-american Clovis?
Perhaps. They’re certainly interesting finds that suggest it’s possible that there was pre-Columbus migration and trade with the Americas that didn’t involve the Bering Strait.

There’s other examples. Kennewick Man, for example.

:p

No.
Probably for more reasons than I am not female.

The quest continues...

The quest continues...

Godspeed my child.
I mean...not-my-child..
Damn.. was that some sort of Freudian Slip?

Godspeed my child.
I mean...not-my-child..
Damn.. was that some sort of Freudian Slip?

Too late! You are now a woman! :p

Too late! You are now a woman! :p

Estrogen.....raging....
breasts.....growing..
can't...hold...back.....urge to leave this internets!
My gender does not exist in these lands.
*vanishes in a poof of perfumed smoke*

Too late! You are now a woman! :p

He said "my child"- that means he's a parent, not necessarily a mother...unless kids don't need dads all of a sudden.

He said "my child"- that means he's a parent....

Or a priest....


OMG! :eek:

Some folks in this thread have elsewhere informed me that being a Christian is a mental illness, and that if you actually are a Christian, you must be arrogant, ignore reality, and try to ram your belief down people's throats. Seeing what I've seen thus far, I wonder if in some cases they're actually right. By virtue of their intolerant and ridiculous viewpoint, some Christians end up getting all of us tarred with the same brush.
QFT. All I can add is http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp10192006.shtml

Not entirely correct. Female tigons and ligers (lion/tiger hybrids) are fertile. Additionally wolves and domesticated dogs are also different species, but produce fertile offspring.

and its even worse than that really. introgression is downright common in pretty much everything actually.

who is as much as scientist as I am a space cowboy:confused:
I suppose you're gonna tell us your name ain't Maurice next.
*sobs*

I mean, even Kormanthor *snip* can recognise what testicles are and count how many of them an animal has.Field trip, w00t!

Interestingly enough we are all from the NY/NJ area. Must be something in the water that promotes brilliance. :p

I think it's the mutations, given the extreme conditions you folks choose to exist in. :)

Hell, why not? We could teach the youngins the Flat Earth "theory" while we're at it.

Now all we need is for realistic criticism to exist.

A-well ya gotta have faith-a faith-a faith-a!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/images/artists/gmichael/gm_gallery4.jpg

I would want one as a pet so long as I had neck-puncture insurance.

That oft-played video of the animal shelter fella attempting to bring the cat in ... and it swings around his leg and sinks his fangs and/or claws deep in the dude's crotch comes strongly to mind.

It's the issue of limited selection. There's a finite number of passages that support such ludicrous conclusions, and as it's unlikely anyone will be adding a new book to the bible any time soon, they're automatically stuck quoting the same stuff over and over, as if it meant something.I suspect it'll mean something different after you repeat said passages while incessantly stroking a strand of rosary beads, rocking back and forth and thinking of people you don't want to "lose".

The hordes of shriveled wretches poring through thesaurus after thesaurus in search of that ever-elusive word have to be fed somehow.

Yeah, that reminds me ... is Fass banned again or something?

Eh, as long as they're kept outside, I don't care how many heads they grow.

Besides, after a while, they'll have too many heads for their bodies to support and the bloodflow will become too thin for them to retain consciousness, leaving them in a permanently comatose situation.

I think that's a win win situation.
Sounds a LOT like the republican party. LOT. No coincidence of course how swayed they are by evangelism, at that.
And that certainly isn't "win win". :(

Estrogen.....raging....
breasts.....growing..
can't...hold...back.....urge to leave this internets!
My gender does not exist in these lands.
*vanishes in a poof of perfumed smoke*

I'm truly surprised that doesn't happen more often 'round here.

Provide God. That's the only way to prove Creationism.In Creationism God is the missing link.

In Creationism God is the missing link.

Ouchouchowieouchouchoochouch
*sigworthy*

Sounds a LOT like the republican party. LOT. No coincidence of course how swayed they are by evangelism, at that.
And that certainly isn't "win win". :(

That's because Congress doesn't have a filter to keep them out.

Ouchouchowieouchouchoochouch
*sigworthy*i should've bolded missing...

That's because Congress doesn't have a filter to keep them out.

Yup, and thus, the works gets-a-gummed up.
http://griffinfog.com/Images/grease%20found%20in%20piping.JPG

i should've bolded missing...

I was okay with the unadulterated version. :)

Some folks in this thread have elsewhere informed me that being a Christian is a mental illness, and that if you actually are a Christian, you must be arrogant, ignore reality, and try to ram your belief down people's throats. Seeing what I've seen thus far, I wonder if in some cases they're actually right. By virtue of their intolerant and ridiculous viewpoint, some Christians end up getting all of us tarred with the same brush.No one really notices people that leave you alone. That Christianity has a strong missionary culture and that it's usually those most opposed to the way things are who try to spread their Truth (C) the hardest doesn't help much.

Some folks in this thread have elsewhere informed me that being a Christian is a mental illness, and that if you actually are a Christian, you must be arrogant, ignore reality, and try to ram your belief down people's throats. Seeing what I've seen thus far, I wonder if in some cases they're actually right. By virtue of their intolerant and ridiculous viewpoint, some Christians end up getting all of us tarred with the same brush.

I'm perfectly happy and reconciled with my belief and with recognizing that the creation story is not literal truth but a simple explanation for where we all came from at a time when we did not have the capacity to understand any better; I have no problem with accepting that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, and that environmental pressures as well as those placed by the populations of the organisms themselves are what shaped every species on the planet.

To think that there are those who would prefer not only to refute the overwhelming evidence for themselves, but to insist on dragging us all back to the 1st century rather than to utilize the brain power, the logic, the capacity for learning and the ability to retain and build on knowledge we've been given, annoys me. It annoys me as much as the constant push for indoctrination into the Christian faith in our public schools. Yes, I can be Christian and recognize the utter futility and wrongness of that. We can look at theocracies elsewhere on this globe and in history and see what that kind of state-sponsored morality breeds.

Well...I'm not sure about you - but my previous (and very scientific, I might add :) ) essay regarding the fallacy of carbon dating certainly made my head work overtime:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13230594&postcount=666

And perhaps if you took the time to read it and understand it, you might conclude that these sorts of scientific statements were certainly not made in the 1st century, and are completely applicable to today's 'evidences' regarding your theories.

Don't begin accusing 'Christians' of lacking the brain power and logic needed to work these things out easily...we might suggest vice versa. After all, it wasn't humanists that sparked the Scientific Revolution beginning with Nicolaus Copernicus (a Christian himself). I believe I listed a whole host of very prominent scientists (founding fathers of their fields) and many current living scientists that believed in Creation, and studied to uphold biblical principles (for example - Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Galileo etc.) - in Essay One.

In the world of science (which evolutionists cling so frantically to) it is practicing Christians that have laid many, many of the foundations of our modern methods.

It seems rather arrogant to accuse Christians, as a whole, of scientific ignorance, don't you think?

It seems rather arrogant to accuse Christians, as a whole, of scientific ignorance, don't you think?

I don't think he is. How could he? Katganistan knows me; a christian physics grad who recognizes young earth creationism as unscientific.

Well...I'm not sure about you - but my previous (and very scientific, I might add :) ) essay regarding the fallacy of carbon dating certainly made my head work overtime:

Your essay is not scientific, because it makes baseless assumptions. Specifically:
1. The supernatural being known as God exists.
2. God is as described in the Bible(i.e. omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent)
3. God directly inspired the writer/s of the Bible
3a. Given 2, God did not lie or err in this inspiration, intentionally or otherwise. Thus the Bible was the literal and infallible word of God
3b. The Bible has never been mistranslated or corrupted from its oringinal status as the literal and infallible word of God at any point in the thousands of years since it was written

There is no evidence in support of these assumptions. There is evidence against them(contradictions and errors in the Bible, different versions of the Bible saying different things).

Based on these assumptions you prematurely concluded that carbon dating must be a flawed method of establish something's age.

And a quick pop to google has just turned up something else. It's not your essay at all. It's direct copy and paste from this (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible) Answers In Genisis article. Plagiarism and using a totally biased source. Yeah, great work. Very scientific. :rolleyes:

I don't think he is. How could he? Katganistan knows me; a christian physics grad who recognizes young earth creationism as unscientific.

Tut tut tut LG, I would have expected you to know that our Kat is a laydee.

Well...I'm not sure about you - but my previous (and very scientific, I might add :) ) essay regarding the fallacy of carbon dating certainly made my head work overtime:

What, cut-and-paste plagiarism makes your head work overtime?

Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, PRESTO! Instant idiocy!

I don't think he is. How could he? Katganistan knows me; a christian physics grad who recognizes young earth creationism as unscientific.

Not to mention that Kat herself is a Catholic, and therefore Christian. I really doubt she means all Christians. Just the sort of people who cut and paste from AiG and then claim its their work.

Blatant plagiarism AND intellectual dishonest? How Christian of them. :rolleyes:

Out of pure boredom, and the fact that I've never gotten an actual definition of a "kind", I'd like to ask any remaining creationists a question.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/4783/sabreteethhq2.jpg

How many kinds of animals are pictured in this image?

Now that we've got a creationist here again, care to tell me how many kinds of animals are in this picture?

Well...I'm not sure about you - but my previous (and very scientific, I might add :) ) essay regarding the fallacy of carbon dating certainly made my head work overtime:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13230594&postcount=666

And perhaps if you took the time to read it and understand it, you might conclude that these sorts of scientific statements were certainly not made in the 1st century, and are completely applicable to today's 'evidences' regarding your theories.



Your attack on Carbon-14 dating has already been shown to be inaccurate. You also claimed to have evidence of "biblical creationism" that you would produce. So far, nothing.

It seems rather arrogant to accuse Christians, as a whole, of scientific ignorance, don't you think?It seems rather ignorant to accuse a fellow Christian of calling Christians, as a whole, scientifically ignorant, don't you think? ;)

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-scorpion21nov21,0,4339357.story?coll=la-home-center

Further proof of evolution and refuting young earth theory.

Well...I'm not sure about you - but my previous (and very scientific, I might add :) ) essay regarding the fallacy of carbon dating certainly made my head work overtime:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13230594&postcount=666

And perhaps if you took the time to read it and understand it, you might conclude that these sorts of scientific statements were certainly not made in the 1st century, and are completely applicable to today's 'evidences' regarding your theories.

Don't begin accusing 'Christians' of lacking the brain power and logic needed to work these things out easily...we might suggest vice versa. After all, it wasn't humanists that sparked the Scientific Revolution beginning with Nicolaus Copernicus (a Christian himself). I believe I listed a whole host of very prominent scientists (founding fathers of their fields) and many current living scientists that believed in Creation, and studied to uphold biblical principles (for example - Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Galileo etc.) - in Essay One.

In the world of science (which evolutionists cling so frantically to) it is practicing Christians that have laid many, many of the foundations of our modern methods.

It seems rather arrogant to accuse Christians, as a whole, of scientific ignorance, don't you think?

So tell me this... Do most scientists subscribe to your version of carbon dating or the one the commonly use to date fossils and other geological elements? It's great to have dissenting views but we must recognize that they are exactly that. The overwhelming consensus is what guides us and what operation we must follow. Until that modus operandi changes you're out of luck. We don't change scientifically accepted methods without large amounts of peer reviewed documented evidence to the contrary. This negates your argument fully because it's basic tenet (scientifically) is now null. Science doesn't change to fit your argument. Your argument must change to fit science.

On a side note, I believe in a God and creator of life here but not in the literal translation of Genesis. An all powerful creator is likely but that's not what we are debating here. Religion and Philosophy do not belong in Science classes

Well...I'm not sure about you - but my previous (and very scientific, I might add :) ) essay regarding the fallacy of carbon dating certainly made my head work overtime:

You do know we do not use carbon dating to determine the age of the earth, right ?
And that phycicists actually understand carbon dating and therefor can say with certainty it is correct ?

Or did you not realise that an article from a devilworshippers[1] site would contain some lies ?


[1] AiG is filled with lies. According to the Bible lying is equivalent to worshipping the prince of lies, aka Satan. Hence AiG is run by devilworshippers. QED ;)

And a quick pop to google has just turned up something else. It's not your essay at all. It's direct copy and paste from this (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible) Answers In Genisis article. Plagiarism and using a totally biased source. Yeah, great work. Very scientific. :rolleyes:

so, anyone care to hazard a guess as to why creationists are almost uniformly a bunch of liars? it makes sense for their leaders to be - why mess up a gig as good as they've got by not lying? but why do the rank and file try to pass off cut 'n paste jobs as their own work all the fucking time? and not even by just forgetting to tell us they are quoting, but by actually saying that they wrote it. makes no sense to me. do they think we are as stupid as they are?

so, anyone care to hazard a guess as to why creationists are almost uniformly a bunch of liars? it makes sense for their leaders to be - why mess up a gig as good as they've got by not lying? but why do the rank and file try to pass off cut 'n paste jobs as their own work all the fucking time? and not even by just forgetting to tell us they are quoting, but by actually saying that they wrote it. makes no sense to me. do they think we are as stupid as they are?

Well perhaps they think that if they pass off the work as they're own they'll look smarter, and thus they'll be listened to more by the 'ebil intellectual libruhls'.

so, anyone care to hazard a guess as to why creationists are almost uniformly a bunch of liars? it makes sense for their leaders to be - why mess up a gig as good as they've got by not lying? but why do the rank and file try to pass off cut 'n paste jobs as their own work all the fucking time? and not even by just forgetting to tell us they are quoting, but by actually saying that they wrote it. makes no sense to me. do they think we are as stupid as they are?
Facts have a well-known anti-Creationist bias. Hence with all the lies.

so, anyone care to hazard a guess as to why creationists are almost uniformly a bunch of liars? it makes sense for their leaders to be - why mess up a gig as good as they've got by not lying? but why do the rank and file try to pass off cut 'n paste jobs as their own work all the fucking time? and not even by just forgetting to tell us they are quoting, but by actually saying that they wrote it. makes no sense to me. do they think we are as stupid as they are?

I don't think they're necessarily liars. But they approach the subject differently. You and I might appeal to reason, argument, falsifiable, testable concepts, because to you and I that's how something is shown to be true. Truthified, that is.

But if they thought like that they wouldn't be creationists to begin with! They approach things from a more spiritual, emotional, gut-reaction basis. As such they're not quite so concerned with presenting rational arguments and falsifiable hypotheses, more with expressing their opinion on a subject they feel strongly about.

In Creationism God is the missing link.

You mean this link?

http://www.tvparty.com/bgifs8/lancebanner.jpg

Well...I'm not sure about you - but my previous (and very scientific, I might add :) ) essay regarding the fallacy of carbon dating certainly made my head work overtime:



It's not a very scientific work overall. The implied argument of not all scientists accept is so it's invalid for example. Ok not everybody accepts the Bible so it's invalid right?

Dating methods are not exact measurements. Anybody will tell you that. Even with the margins of error it's still dates things older then 6000 years.

Science is not a Bible strong point. Unless of course you believe the sun rotate around the earth?

So have you ever run a dating sequence?

I don't want Creationism taught to my kid in school. School is the last place I'd want him to learn about it. I'll teach them what I believe.

I don't want Creationism taught to my kid in school. School is the last place I'd want him to learn about it. I'll teach them what I believe.And what is that?

It's called whogivesashitism. :)

It's called whogivesashitism. :):eek: but, but aren't your kids going to hell then??

I don't think Hell exists. :p

I don't think Hell exists. :pAre you going to teach your kids history instead then?

Science is not a Bible strong point. Unless of course you believe the sun rotate around the earth?

Show me where the Bible says that? Hmmm? Hmmm?

*crickets chirping*

I don't think Hell exists. :p

Well, I guess we'll find out whenever we die, eh?

Show me where the Bible says that? Hmmm? Hmmm?

*crickets chirping*Wow that was fast. Did you even consider giving Forrest some time to reply?

Anyway... (http://www.fixedearth.com/sixty-seven%20references.htm)

Wow that was fast. Did you even consider giving Forrest some time to reply?

Anyway... (http://www.fixedearth.com/sixty-seven%20references.htm)

Wow... is that the best y'all can come up with?

Those are terms for 'sunrise' and 'sunset'. Ever YOU might say "the Sun isn't up"; does that mean you believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

It's written with earth as a reference point!!! (some of those verses don't even fit with your argument...)

I've got to head out for now. Will see if I need to answer anything later...

Show me a verse that says the Sun revolves around the Earth (not anything like sunrise or sunset).

Show me where the Bible says that? Hmmm? Hmmm?

*crickets chirping*

Quotes from the bible stating that the earth is in a stationary, unmoving, fixed position:

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

Psalms 96:10
Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved"

Then again there is this:

Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

The miracle performed is that the sun did not move, except, relative to the earth, the sun never moves at all. Clearly indicating the belief that it is the sun that is moving and the earth stationary, the only way such a miracle would be a miracle, and not a simple truism of "the sun does not move"

another:

Psalms 19:6
Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them


guess we'll find out whenever we die, eh?

Pascal's wager is a flawed and weak argument, and vague allusions to it get you nowhere. "find out whenever we die" presumes that after death there will be some conciousness to find out things.

We'll find out nothing after death, as, by definition, after death leaves no ability to learn anything. You're dead.

Just the person I was looking for. Do you happen to have a link to, or a copy of, the burning fertility clinic thought experiment? The long version, the one that eats up like a half of a page.

Just the person I was looking for. Do you happen to have a link to, or a copy of, the burning fertility clinic thought experiment? The long version, the one that eats up like a half of a page.

You mean the one with Bob, the janitor? I can dig one up, but that's more for abortion than creationism..

Wow... is that the best y'all can come up with?"Y'all"? Since when do I constitute "You all"? :confused:

A proper response from more of the forum requires a bit more than 13 minutes.

Show me a verse that says the Sun revolves around the Earth (not anything like sunrise or sunset).There might not be. However, refuting that point is largely irrelevant to TBF's main point: The bible is rather weak when it comes to science. Which is probably because it's not a science book.

Other examples include that bats are, in fact, mammals, while the bible claims they are birds, or that pi is 3.141.... and not 3, as a literal interpretation of the bible would state.

You mean the one with Bob, the janitor? I can dig one up, but that's more for abortion than creationism..

Aye, that's the one. I know it's for abortion. I had it bookmarked but after my old computer crashed I lost the bookmark, and it's just too good to lose track of. Especially since there happens to be an Abortion thread up right about now.

Wow that was fast. Did you even consider giving Forrest some time to reply?

Anyway... (http://www.fixedearth.com/sixty-seven%20references.htm)

Wow, I just skimmed through a whole load of pages on that site and I'm almost speechless. After this page (http://www.fixedearth.com/Size_and_Structure%20Part%20IV.htm) I was tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt, and interpret it all as satire, but something - perhaps it's the nursery school crayon scribblings style of their choice of colours - forces me to accept that they're actually serious. :(

"Y'all"? Since when do I constitute "You all"? :confused:

A proper response from more of the forum requires a bit more than 13 minutes.

There might not be. However, refuting that point is largely irrelevant to TBF's main point: The bible is rather weak when it comes to science. Which is probably because it's not a science book.

Other examples include that bats are, in fact, mammals, while the bible claims they are birds, or that pi is 3.141.... and not 3, as a literal interpretation of the bible would state.

or insects having 8 legs.

Aye, that's the one. I know it's for abortion. I had it bookmarked but after my old computer crashed I lost the bookmark, and it's just too good to lose track of. Especially since there happens to be an Abortion thread up right about now.

ok I can't find the ORIGINAL time I posted it, but here is where I copy/pasted it once. I'll try to dig up the original posting, but this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12368541&postcount=139) shall do.

or insects having 8 legs.

Yeah. Georges Lemaître puts it best:

The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less -- some more than others -- on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or as ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors of historic or scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if errors relate to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them.
The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all.

ok I can't find the ORIGINAL time I posted it, but here is where I copy/pasted it once. I'll try to dig up the original posting, but this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12368541&postcount=139) shall do.

More than adequate. Thanks a bunch.

Wow, I just skimmed through a whole load of pages on that site and I'm almost speechless. After this page (http://www.fixedearth.com/Size_and_Structure%20Part%20IV.htm) I was tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt, and interpret it all as satire, but something - perhaps it's the nursery school crayon scribblings style of their choice of colours - forces me to accept that they're actually serious. :(

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

http://www.timecube.com/

Forgive me for probably repeating what has likely already been said, but here I go:

1. Creationism/Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory in that they do not specify requirements to prove them wrong, whereas evolutionary theory does. I have no issues with Creationism/Intelligent Design being taught in schools, my problem is with teaching them as scientific theories when really they are subsets of religion (or the belief in aliens, take that as you will).

2. The Bible is a bad source of science because it doesn't provide a mechanism for predictions, simply a historical background. It is easy to say what happened in the past and explain it, but much harder to say what will happen in the future. A key feature of scientific theories is that they all explain how something happens, what happened in the past, what will most likely happen in the future, and what can not under any conditions happen.

3. A key feature of a scientific theory is that they are not 'proven', simply verified. The difference lies in that once something is proven, it can not be wrong (or it wasn't proven properly). An example of this is that 2+2=4. Science is more changing, each theory seeks to explain the reason behind an observation. Evolution can not be proven, but then again, neither can the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun. This is because there could be unknown variables that have not been accounted for. Also, a better theory could come along, and to say that a theory has been 'proven' is to say that the knew theory would be inherently false. Creationism/Intelligent Design is not the better theory necessary to bring scientists away from evolution (just for the record, lest my words be misused).

4. The "teach the controversy" approach is a very poor argument. The Creationism/ID vs evolution controversy is only controversial outside of the scientific community. 99% of scientists actually support evolution, from all fields of science. A real scientific controversy can be found in global warming, where estimates very that any number between 60% to 40% of scientists do not believe global warming is caused by mankind. I digress however, the point is this: there is no controversy to teach. The scientific community embraced evolution long ago as the most accurate explanation for species variation currently devised.

5. Intelligent Design could be taught in a science class provided it was used in observing how humans manipulate species. For example, the evolution of wolves into dogs could be explained through the mechanism of Intelligent Design, since humans intentionally bred the species so that dogs would be as they are today. This is also clear in genetically engineered crops, a prime example of humans participating in Intelligent Design. The problem with this is that Intelligent Design is a behavioral description, and not a scientific theory.

6. The complexity argument is one that although sounds good, does lead to one great logical fault. If someone designed the many complex systems we see, then why do we have unnecessary anatomical traits? The human appendix for example, why do we have it when it serves no purpose? Who/whatever the 'intelligent designer/creator' was, why did they put so much time into creating all these complex systems without removing the unnecessary ones? This is a fault with Creationism/Intelligent Design, but something evolution readily explains and can even predict. The human appendix does not have any bearing upon the ability to survive, therefore it hasn't disappeared since those with it are not less likely to survive. If ever human beings no longer need kidneys (for some reason I don't care to speculate), but the kidneys do not decrease the chance for survival, they too will become like the appendix, unnecessary organs that have no purpose but exist nonetheless.

Creation/Intelligent Design should not be taught in school science classes. I don't care what you believe or why, but they are not scientific. I fully encourage them to be taught in history classes, philosophy classes, theology classes, etcetera. They have their place in schools, but that place is not in a science classroom.

For more detailed explanations of the above and even more explanations. (http://www.creationtheory.org)

I stepped away so I didn't get a chance to respond.

Thanks Laerod and Neo for the great responses. :)

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

http://www.timecube.com/

Ahh, the good old Flat Earth Society... you have to hand it to them- they are, at the very least, consistent.

The timecube one is a new one on me though. I see that I will have to revise all that I thought I knew :p

Show me where the Bible says that? Hmmm? Hmmm?

*crickets chirping*



Well, I guess we'll find out whenever we die, eh?

Psalm 93 states that "the world is firmly established; it cannot be moved", and this was much quoted by anti-science Christians

The authors of the Bible frequently asked for, and got, God's help in war against their numerous neighbours and enemies. They tell us how their God then struck down their enemies in various ways, and in Joshua 10:12-13 we see God making 'the sun stand still'. Confusion abounds: we now know that it is the Earth's movement that creates the cycle of day and night, not the sun's. The Christians, however, couldn't accept this because if the Earth orbited the sun, how could Jehovah have granted the request to make the sun stand still? Rather than look into a telescope or into Greek astronomy, some Christians decided that instead, the Bible had the real answers!

2 Kings 20:11 provides another example of scientific nonsense, when Isaiah called on the obedient Jehovah to move the sun backwards. This would have upset all the sundials and timekeepers of the world; yet no-one else notices apart from Hezekiah! The writer of Kings clearly didn't understand astronomy; and I rather suspect that if the story is at all true, it was Hezekiah who was tricked rather than that the whole world didn't notice such a miraculous event as the direction of the Earth's spin changing and the passage of the day reversing itself for a while! Isaiah 38:8 tells a strangely familiar tale with slightly different details.

Isaiah 30:26 tells us that one day the light of the moon shall 'be as' the light of the sun. But we now know that the moon reflects the sun's light, so it has always been the same!

Some modern Christian groups continue to argue that the Earth is the center of the Universe. The Skeptical Inquirer, 2007 Jul/Aug3, mentions three of them - there are doubtless many more just in the English-speaking world alone:

The Geocentric Bible Foundation of Hugoton, Texas who have taken to sending thousands of leaflets in Southern California.

The Tychonian Society, founded in 1971, who say that "we believe [...] the Bible teaches us of an earth that neither rotates daily nor revolves yearly about the sun; that it is at rest with respect to throne of him who called it into existence; and that hence it is absolutely at rest in the universe".

The Catholic Apologetics International who proclaim "Galileo was Wrong" on their website, "The earth revolves around the sun? Think again! ... Can You Handle the Truth?"

Source: http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_astronomy.html

Very nice. But where is the proof that it is science?

It's not, that was to show that creationism is christian

Knock it off.

I was joking and I figure that everybody else got that since no one else said anything

I probably should have included sarcasm tags, my bad

1. Creationism/Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory in that they do not specify requirements to prove them wrong, whereas evolutionary theory does.

actually, if we read them as actually trying to be scientific, then they clearly do offer the possibility of falsification. for example, the IDiots claim that it is impossible for certain specific features to evolve. if we hold them to that claim, then the fact that we have actually demonstrated utterly plausible, let alone possible, evolutionary accounts for those features falsifies the theory. likewise, the existence of light from stars and radioactive decay disprove young earth creationism. the fact that their adherents refuse to accept these falsifications and merely add ever more unevidenced complex epicycles to try to stay in the game just means that they don't actually want to do science. scientifically, they have been utterly demolished and disproven.

3. A key feature of a scientific theory is that they are not 'proven', simply verified. The difference lies in that once something is proven, it can not be wrong (or it wasn't proven properly). An example of this is that 2+2=4. Science is more changing, each theory seeks to explain the reason behind an observation. Evolution can not be proven, but then again, neither can the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun. This is because there could be unknown variables that have not been accounted for. Also, a better theory could come along, and to say that a theory has been 'proven' is to say that the knew theory would be inherently false.

though be careful here, because you don't want to say that there is no fact of the matter involved, merely that we do not have the proper epistemic access to the universe to have proof. there is a proof to be had, it would just require omniscience (or something very like it).

A real scientific controversy can be found in global warming, where estimates very that any number between 60% to 40% of scientists do not believe global warming is caused by mankind.

doubtful. certainly false among scientists in relevant fields.

5. Intelligent Design could be taught in a science class provided it was used in observing how humans manipulate species. For example, the evolution of wolves into dogs could be explained through the mechanism of Intelligent Design, since humans intentionally bred the species so that dogs would be as they are today. This is also clear in genetically engineered crops, a prime example of humans participating in Intelligent Design. The problem with this is that Intelligent Design is a behavioral description, and not a scientific theory.

this actually isn't what ID claims - ID has nothing to say on the topic that isn't better said (and with actual reason) by regular old evolution.

Why not? They teach science in creationism class these days. Why not reciprocate?

Huh?

I am currently floating about fifteen feet above my roof without assistance from anything but the power of my mind. It's the truth I experienced it.

Cool, can you teach me how to do it to?

Some folks in this thread have elsewhere informed me that being a Christian is a mental illness, and that if you actually are a Christian, you must be arrogant, ignore reality, and try to ram your belief down people's throats. Seeing what I've seen thus far, I wonder if in some cases they're actually right. By virtue of their intolerant and ridiculous viewpoint, some Christians end up getting all of us tarred with the same brush.

I'm perfectly happy and reconciled with my belief and with recognizing that the creation story is not literal truth but a simple explanation for where we all came from at a time when we did not have the capacity to understand any better; I have no problem with accepting that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, and that environmental pressures as well as those placed by the populations of the organisms themselves are what shaped every species on the planet.

To think that there are those who would prefer not only to refute the overwhelming evidence for themselves, but to insist on dragging us all back to the 1st century rather than to utilize the brain power, the logic, the capacity for learning and the ability to retain and build on knowledge we've been given, annoys me. It annoys me as much as the constant push for indoctrination into the Christian faith in our public schools. Yes, I can be Christian and recognize the utter futility and wrongness of that. We can look at theocracies elsewhere on this globe and in history and see what that kind of state-sponsored morality breeds.

Bravo

It seems rather arrogant to accuse Christians, as a whole, of scientific ignorance, don't you think?

OK, not all christians are scientifically ignorant...



just the ones who think creationism is science

BravoNo.
Either you know something or you don't. Believing is pointless and irrational.

No.
Either you know something or you don't. Believing is pointless and irrational.

How much does on truly ever know?

No.
Either you know something or you don't. Believing is pointless and irrational.

I however respect other people's right to be pointless and irrational occaisionally, as long as they're reasonable about it

I however respect other people's right to be pointless and irrational occaisionally, as long as they're reasonable about itWhat does reasonable mean in terms of belief?

What does reasonable mean in terms of belief?

That they don't let it interfere with real knowledge, (i.e. I believe in god but it doesn't mean that science is wrong) and that they don't try to force it on me :D

That they don't let it interfere with real knowledge, (i.e. I believe in god but it doesn't mean that science is wrong) and that they don't try to force it on me :DYou believe in what god and why? And how does believing not interfere with real knowledge?

You believe in what god and why? And how does believing not interfere with real knowledge?

Why are you assuming that I believe in a god?


I'm perfectly happy and reconciled with my belief and with recognizing that the creation story is not literal truth but a simple explanation for where we all came from at a time when we did not have the capacity to understand any better; I have no problem with accepting that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, and that environmental pressures as well as those placed by the populations of the organisms themselves are what shaped every species on the planet.
This would be how believing does not interfere

Why are you assuming that I believe in a god?Didn't you just write thus?

"i.e. I believe in god but it doesn't mean that science is wrong" ?

Didn't you just write thus?

"i.e. I believe in god but it doesn't mean that science is wrong" ?

Yes I did, it was an example

It's called whogivesashitism. :)

Reading that, somehow South Park comes to mind...

Yes I did, it was an exampleah

No.

If you want to learn about religion, you go to church, I don't know what's so difficult about that for some people.

No.

If you want to learn about religion, you go to church, I don't know what's so difficult about that for some people.

'Cause those same people think we're all "heathens" who need to be "corrected". The truth is, all the Fundamentalists (well, the loud ones anyway) are simply insecure, because if they were so secure in their faith, they wouldn't feel the need to strike down everyone who remotely opposes them.

No.
Either you know something or you don't. Believing is pointless and irrational.

there is no knowledge without belief. knowledge is just a type of belief. and since we probably can't know that we know a whole host of our knowledge, belief on its own is sometimes the best we've got. though, of course, religions are numbered among those things we know to be false.

there is no knowledge without belief. knowledge is just a type of belief. and since we probably can't know that we know a whole host of our knowledge, belief on its own is sometimes the best we've got. though, of course, religions are numbered among those things we know to be false.

See, this is why I hate epistemology.

It seems rather arrogant to accuse Christians, as a whole, of scientific ignorance, don't you think?

It seems rather arrogant to put words in my mouth when quite clearly you did not understand my post, don't you think? I refer you to the second sentence of my first paragraph, the entirety of the second paragraph, and the last sentence of the third paragraph.

See, this is why I hate epistemology.

Aw...the tripartite definition of knowledge should rock everyone's socks. Gettier did cause problems for it, though.

Cool, can you teach me how to do it to?

Just say it on an internet forum and is est sic.

And a quick pop to google has just turned up something else. It's not your essay at all. It's direct copy and paste from this (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible) Answers In Genisis article. Plagiarism and using a totally biased source. Yeah, great work. Very scientific. :rolleyes:

Did you 'somehow' manage overlook this statement in the introduction of the essay:


As I have said before, I lack the extensive scientific knowledge required to formulate an essay based upon my own skill, therefore, I have made references to this international institute of scientists:


Somehow...I don't think you searched 'via Google' at all, to 'reveal' what I used...perhaps, just maybe, you followed that link I provided in that very essay? Could be possible....

What, cut-and-paste plagiarism makes your head work overtime?

Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, PRESTO! Instant idiocy!

First - you were making the assumption that Ifreann was right in what he/she said. Which was, in fact, not correct. Assumptions...assumptions..assumptions - they only seem unacceptable when such as stance suits you. Secondly - I actually take the time to read what I 'cut+paste' in order that I might better understand the theory that I am supporting. If you do not normally do this (which you're recent words suggest) - and you perhaps normally borrow the works of others without making any attempt to understand them - then you're certainly not an ardent supporter of your theory at all.

Your attack on Carbon-14 dating has already been shown to be inaccurate. You also claimed to have evidence of "biblical creationism" that you would produce. So far, nothing.

It seems that, by claiming that essay as 'inaccurate', you have very little understand of the Carbon-14 dating. My question is - why have you bothered to believe these scientists that support the theory, and make the assumption that Carbon-14 dating is accurate? Why haven't you checked it out for yourself? A widely-accepted theory does not equal accuracy, you should know that.

If you are so knowledgeable in the ways of Carbon-14 dating...actually - I put this to every supporter of it...then explain to me in details - how my posted refutation is inaccurate. Also explain to me how the Carbon-14 dating procedure works. If you need to resort to the web, or other people's statements, then you have just defeated yourself. You really should have checked this whole theory out before blindly accepting what some sub-title documentary had to say...

AiG is filled with lies. According to the Bible lying is equivalent to worshipping the prince of lies, aka Satan. Hence AiG is run by devilworshippers.

Quite a fanatical statement. First, please provide the Bible verse that says 'lying is equivalent to worshipping the prince of lies'. Or did you just make that one up off the top of your head?

To know a lie, you must also know the truth. Then I will ask you this: What is truth? In saying 'AiG is filled with lies' you are assuming that you support a global truth, and therefore concrete lies. Some simple quotes to explain a little better:

As Calvin Freiburger said:

"Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meaning “wrong” could have (pertaining to conduct) would be “in opposition to X,” or “falling short of X’s standards,” which are only persuasive to those who have already accepted X."

Science can tell us how to do many things, but it can not tell us what ought to be done.

C.S. Lewis:

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

C.S. Lewis:

I was at this time of living, like so many Atheists or Anti-theists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.

G.K. Chesterton:

Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening a mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.

It seems that, by claiming that essay as 'inaccurate', you have very little understand of the Carbon-14 dating. My question is - why have you bothered to believe these scientists that support the theory, and make the assumption that Carbon-14 dating is accurate? Why haven't you checked it out for yourself? A widely-accepted theory does not equal accuracy, you should know that.

If you are so knowledgeable in the ways of Carbon-14 dating...actually - I put this to every supporter of it...then explain to me in details - how my posted refutation is inaccurate. Also explain to me how the Carbon-14 dating procedure works. If you need to resort to the web, or other people's statements, then you have just defeated yourself. You really should have checked this whole theory out before blindly accepting what some sub-title documentary had to say...





Links were already provided disputing, w/ referenced and peer reviewed information, on your cutnpaste from a source that is internationally recognized as a joke and that do NO scientific work.

Yes I "refer to the web" .It's called using resources. The fact that you have to play the "in your own words" bit shows that you don't really want supportable evidence but are merely trying to play the "gotcha" game. The same thing as you wanting to "talk through messages". I've been around to long to fall for that pathetic ploy. Especially due to the fact that you used a source and now state that I shouldn't as "defeating myself".

You promised evidence of "biblical creationism". All you provided was a pseudo-scientific clip of already debunked points on one small element used as evidence for the TOE. No theory involved.

You fail.

Scientists use a technique called radiometric dating to estimate the ages of rocks, fossils, and the earth. Many people have been led to believe that radiometric dating methods have proved the earth to be billions of years old. This has caused many in the church to reevaluate the biblical creation account, specifically the meaning of the word “day” in Genesis 1. With our focus on one particular form of radiometric dating—carbon dating—we will see that carbon dating strongly supports a young earth.

Don't you just love it when those with whom you disagree are practically self refuting in their first paragraph?

Another way to phrase the above quote would be "There are several forms of radiometric dating, some of which show that the Earth is billions of years old. We're only going to look at the one that's only good for 50,000 years and show how it fails to show that the world is that old. Then we're going to turn off all the lights at the Sistine Chapel and show that Michaelangelo really did paint it in gloomy colors."

Somehow...I don't think you searched 'via Google' at all, to 'reveal' what I used...perhaps, just maybe, you followed that link I provided in that very essay? Could be possible..

You want to be careful about that sort of thing... Ifreann often posts things from the internet here that are quite relevant to the topic at hand and obviously has a good grasp of Google. It is not unlikely that he read your claim which stated "I have made references to..." as meaning YOU were doing the writing and had footnoted the works of others, which, once one read further, was obviously not true, then Googled to find out how much was a direct cut and paste.


First - you were making the assumption that Ifreann was right in what he/she said. Which was, in fact, not correct. Assumptions...assumptions..assumptions - they only seem unacceptable when such as stance suits you. Secondly - I actually take the time to read what I 'cut+paste' in order that I might better understand the theory that I am supporting. If you do not normally do this (which you're recent words suggest) - and you perhaps normally borrow the works of others without making any attempt to understand them - then you're certainly not an ardent supporter of your theory at all.

Reading what you cut and paste is a fine thing. Those of us who do it a lot, however, try to be very clear that we ARE cutting and pasting. You keep referencing "My essay..." which neither of the two you have posted so far actually were. They were your posts, certainly, but not your essays (as this implies that you wrote them).

It seems that, by claiming that essay as 'inaccurate', you have very little understand of the Carbon-14 dating. My question is - why have you bothered to believe these scientists that support the theory, and make the assumption that Carbon-14 dating is accurate? Why haven't you checked it out for yourself? A widely-accepted theory does not equal accuracy, you should know that.

If you are so knowledgeable in the ways of Carbon-14 dating...actually - I put this to every supporter of it...then explain to me in details - how my posted refutation is inaccurate. Also explain to me how the Carbon-14 dating procedure works. If you need to resort to the web, or other people's statements, then you have just defeated yourself. You really should have checked this whole theory out before blindly accepting what some sub-title documentary had to say...

If you are not writing your own essays, do not demand that others do. I posted several pieces which refute the piece you posted (with a note that made it clear that I understood that you had posted someone else's material.) I also wrote a bit after that to sum up what I had read.

As to explaining it in detail, if you are going to insist that anyone else be able to explain it to you in their own words (and many of us can, it is just more expedient to allow a previously written piece to do the explaining), you should be prepared to write your own essay, not merely quote others, even though you did (as you say) read it. We all read it. We also all read the links I put up. And a number of others here probably know a good deal more about it than you do.

Quite a fanatical statement. First, please provide the Bible verse that says 'lying is equivalent to worshipping the prince of lies'. Or did you just make that one up off the top of your head?

To know a lie, you must also know the truth. Then I will ask you this: What is truth? In saying 'AiG is filled with lies' you are assuming that you support a global truth, and therefore concrete lies.

Saying AiG is full of lies springs from the fact that AiG is full of lies. It distorts the science it purports to explain, it picks very limited data and claims such data is universal, it twists definitions around to say things they absolutely do not say. And every time you have posted from there, I refuted it, with my own words, and with links to reference material.

Global truth and concrete lies? What does that even mean?

And I am letting the Pilate quote go right by, since it really doesn't help your case, but I am not interested in getting into a Bible quote exchange.


Some simple quotes to explain a little better:

OK, these are quotes you have clearly noted as quotes, which is fine. None of them help with the matter at hand.

As Calvin Freiburger said:

"Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meaning “wrong” could have (pertaining to conduct) would be “in opposition to X,” or “falling short of X’s standards,” which are only persuasive to those who have already accepted X."

Science can tell us how to do many things, but it can not tell us what ought to be done.

So what? Who is asking about anything that ought to be done, other than not teaching material in science that is not science class?

C.S. Lewis:

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

C.S. Lewis:

I was at this time of living, like so many Atheists or Anti-theists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.

So you want us to know that C.S. Lewis did not believe in evolution because it would mean that its byproducts have no meaning? Once again, so what? All that shows is that C.S. Lewis did not believe in evolution for a particularly odd reason. That he thinks evolution is the work of atheists? All that shows is that C.S. Lewis was wrong. And what bearing does this have anyway? Quotes like this would be helped if you could explain why you posted them, and how you think they relate to the discussion.

G.K. Chesterton:

Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening a mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.

And so you end with a quote that is obviously designed as an insult. Why? What does that prove?

You have offered to show proof of creationism, and that this is proof of God. I would like to hear your theory. If you can put it into your own words, so much the better, but go ahead and link if you need to... just be clear that the linked material is not your own essay.

[EDIT] Upper Botswavia - please understand that this post is not directed to you. It was written before I saw your reply.

You have still not yet answered my question.

...recognized as a joke and that do NO scientific work.

A pathetically blind and arrogant thing to say. If I'm going to be debating with someone that cannot even recognize the blatant achievements of a world-class organization (no matter what their worldview) - someone who can shockingly confidently state that this international institute 'do NO scientific work' - no matter how many laboratories, city-centre buildings, popular magazines, political support and countless qualified scientists, doctors, phds and professors can be brought before their eyes....no matter what the evidence for physical organizations (let alone opposing theories!!)...and yet they still choose to remain blind....

Then there is no wonder you have not found God yet.

Why don't you deny the works of NASA or CSIRO while you're at it?

You can't possibly be that prejudiced. Its simply not how scientists work.

You fail.

Did I appoint you judge? By whose standards did I 'fail'? Yours? Then specify. Whose absolute moral laws are you lining me up with?

The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'. CS Lewis

Perhaps if you restrained yourself from this sort of language, our discussion would be alot more fruitful.

Don't you just love it when those with whom you disagree are practically self refuting in their first paragraph?

Another way to phrase the above quote would be "There are several forms of radiometric dating, some of which show that the Earth is billions of years old. We're only going to look at the one that's only good for 50,000 years and show how it fails to show that the world is that old. Then we're going to turn off all the lights at the Sistine Chapel and show that Michaelangelo really did paint it in gloomy colors."

I remember in another thread on Creationism someone brought up Walt Brown's "hydroplate theory" and I decided to check up on it. In Brown's book, there is the predictable assault on radiometric dating (including Carbon-14), except in the one instance where the date agrees with a 6,000 year-old Earth. Seems like the guys at AiG are doing exactly the same thing- "we don't like the tests, but if they produce a number we agree with, we'll take it". That's not good science- either come up with your own tests or take the numbers already provided. You can't just "cherry-pick" the numbers you like.

Well...I'm not sure about you - but my previous (and very scientific, I might add :) ) essay regarding the fallacy of carbon dating certainly made my head work overtime:

http:/forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1323... and so on...

I thought we had talked about this whole quoting yourself thing. I am almost entirely certain that Kat, who has been following this thread, DID read your previous post...

And perhaps if you took the time to read it and understand it, you might conclude that these sorts of scientific statements were certainly not made in the 1st century, and are completely applicable to today's 'evidences' regarding your theories.


... and my reply, which addressed the validity of your post. Did YOU read my reply?

Don't begin accusing 'Christians' of lacking the brain power and logic needed to work these things out easily...we might suggest vice versa. After all, it wasn't humanists that sparked the Scientific Revolution beginning with Nicolaus Copernicus (a Christian himself). I believe I listed a whole host of very prominent scientists (founding fathers of their fields) and many current living scientists that believed in Creation, and studied to uphold biblical principles (for example - Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Galileo etc.) - in Essay One.

1) Kat, who I believe IS Christian, and said so in the post, was explaining that SOME Christians say things that indicate a lack of brain power and so on. So you might want to go back and read that again.

2) Stop referencing yourself. And after this, I am going to stop mentioning it. I have said it looks pretentious, and you acknowledged that you realized this. Having done, from now on, it will just BE pretentious to do so. And before you say anything about me referencing my replies, note that I only do so when you have yet again mentioned your posts.

In the world of science (which evolutionists cling so frantically to) it is practicing Christians that have laid many, many of the foundations of our modern methods.

Frantically clinging? Who is frantic? Who is clinging? What does that even mean? Yes, evolutionists rely on scientific data for information. How does that become frantic anything?

Frankly, it could be said that creationists cling frantically to flawed science and fairy tales. But if I did say that, how would THAT help this conversation? Not much, so I won't say it.

It seems rather arrogant to accuse Christians, as a whole, of scientific ignorance, don't you think?

Kat rather specifically did NOT say that Christians as a whole are scientifically ignorant.

Go back and re-read Kat's post.

It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today

that would be stupid. good thing that isn't done at all. but hey, don't let little things like being so wrong that a cursory look on wiki could totally fuck up your story get in the way of lying for jeebus, that's what i always say.

[EDIT] Upper Botswavia - please understand that this post is not directed to you. It was written before I saw your reply...

I understand that this post is not directed to me, but I am here, and that is how it works around here... we all sort of pick up where someone else left off and carry the ball for a while.

To clarify things a bit for you... Answersingenesis has long been looked down on as a source of any sort of scientific information, and widely refuted by many, many other sources because of their methods and yes, in part, because of their world view. Not that others are against their world view, but that Answersingenesis starts from that world view and abuses scientific theory and twists and misquotes available data to support it, unlike a reputable scientific organization, which uses science and the actual data produced to shape their scientific views accordingly.

Because it is so often quoted and refuted here, Answersingenesis as a source has become a bit of a laughing matter, and you will not get much respect for quoting them at length, no matter what your beliefs are. You might try looking for other sources to back you up, you might also try reading opposing theory and see what that sparks.

Frantically clinging? Who is frantic? Who is clinging? What does that even mean? Yes, evolutionists rely on scientific data for information. How does that become frantic anything?

Frankly, it could be said that creationists cling frantically to flawed science and fairy tales. But if I did say that, how would THAT help this conversation? Not much, so I won't say it.

Just to add, I don't think I've read a Creationist paper where at least one sentence does not end in an exclamation mark. It's extremely unprofessional, as the mark simply appears like you're shouting in a room where everyone's already paying attention. I have no doubt there are Creationists who are heavily emotional (being so deeply invested in their cause), but I think they'd get more play from the non-fundamentalist crowd (the only crowd that seems to believe them) if they didn't sound like they were all raving like madmen. Otherwise, we have no choice but to look at them (or at least their views) in that light! (yes I stuck that one in for effect)

achievements of a world-class organization

hahaha

someone who can shockingly confidently state that this international institute 'do NO scientific work'

peer-reviewed studies, do they publish them?

Frankly, it could be said that creationists cling frantically to flawed science and fairy tales. But if I did say that, how would THAT help this conversation? Not much, so I won't say it.

Actually, you just said it.

1) Kat, who I believe IS Christian, and said so in the post, was explaining that SOME Christians say things that indicate a lack of brain power and so on. So you might want to go back and read that again.

Then I'll ask Kat: Do you think I lack the brain power etc? If so, then I've already rightfully responded to this issue. If not, then why bring it into this discussion - and if you seriously think that I don't lack the brain power etc. please be more careful next time and don't lump me in with that group of Christians who supposedly do.

hahaha

peer-reviewed studies, do they publish them?

Ah, yes, they do - quarterly issues. Millions of copies internationally to be precise.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

In public schools - no. If people want their children to learn Creationism, it should be taught in religious schools under the subject of "Religious Education".

I really can't work out why people want Creationism in the public system - if they don't like it, send your kids along to the local school run by the church; heck, in NZ alone you can choose between Catholic, Protestant and various other religious flavours; all of them integrated in the public school system and receiving funds from the government (making them relatively cheap).

Ah, yes, they do - quarterly issues. Millions of copies internationally to be precise.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/

yeah, you may have noticed that i asked for peer-reviewed research. publish bullshit in your in-house hacktacular magazine doesn't count.

maybe you don't know the term?

A pathetically blind and arrogant thing to say. If I'm going to be debating with someone that cannot even recognize the blatant achievements of a world-class organization (no matter what their worldview)


What achievement is that? A world class orginization? Ken Ham world class? Clifford Wilson World Class? It's funny you use that phrase to people like that.

Clifford Wilson an archaeologist published an article about primate communications. This article is not science. It is a piece for written of the uneducated choir. He references other peoples work and does not give them credit. For example, the Premacks experiement of raising the chimp Sarah with their children. They found the two were equal until they reached 2 years of age and then they started going in different directions.....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v5/i2/monkeys.asp

Lets look at his conclusions(I don't want to go through the whole article unless you want it).

Chimpanzees do have intelligence. They do have general learning abilities, limited though they are (by comparison to those of human infants). They can ‘learn’ words, but the don’t ‘acquire’ language naturally.

One major thing this "world class" scientist failed to mention is the difference between the structure of the vocal system of a human and a chimp. A chimp can not speak our language because they are not built for it.

To suggest they can't acquire language is rather ludicrous as its been shown that certain calls mean certain things. How about a monkey example? A vervet spotted a snake and gave a warning call. The troop jumped to the trees and came down when then snake left. A youngster mimicked the same call and the troop jumped to the trees again. When they saw nothing they ignored the youngster when he made the same call again.

Now it's interesting that they can learn words but it's not language????? If you can take those limited words and express wants from human is that not communicating?

Humans on the other hand are uniquely endowed with a specific language ability which means that even the below average child will ‘acquire’ language progressively until about the onset of puberty. After that time, humans must ‘learn’ language the same way as any other human skill is learned—by diligent application, and not by the relatively easy process of exposure and interaction, which is the way children acquire language.

"Monkeys never acquire language, they can learn a limited amount of one, and that’s all. "

Wait what? They never acquire language and yet the can learn a limited amount of one?

Giving the fact the article predates this but Washo has been seen teaching her son ASL. Even to the point of molding his hand for proper signs.

There is an alternative, unacceptable to most academics, largely because they will not open their minds to the possibility, —“man was directly created by Almighty God, created to be the friend of God, able to commune with Him by speech/language.

And this is science how? How do we test this so called hypothesis?

Would a "world class" scientist make such a claim?


The various experiments which have produced language learning in chimpanzees have been achieved by methods that are not those used by all normal babies around the world, who spontaneously and sequentially acquire speech/language.


They were taught a language but it's not really a language since they don't speak english?

Other creatures communicate in various ways, using various senses and body organs, but only man LS able to communicate by means of true speech/language. This type of speech is “species-specific”.

:rolleyes:

It is confined to man who is made in the image of God. Because of this uniqueness, man is able to communicate with his fellow man and also worship God.

*sighs* World class science there.

Actually, you just said it.



Then I'll ask Kat: Do you think I lack the brain power etc? If so, then I've already rightfully responded to this issue. If not, then why bring it into this discussion - and if you seriously think that I don't lack the brain power etc. please be more careful next time and don't lump me in with that group of Christians who supposedly do.

Please don't lump yourself in with them. I had in mind a certain other poster who did not bother to even attempt to answer anything except to obfuscate the issue by answering questions with increasingly more hostile questions and, "You're wrong, you're going to hell."

I believe that the sources you have chosen are not scientifically valid, for the reasons others have posted here ad nauseum: they begin from the assumption that the Bible is factually scientific rather than the best layman's explanation for man, at the time of its writing, with his limited capacity to understand how the universe came into being; they assume that environmental pressures are not sufficient to cause adaptation but only that an intelligent designer, which cannot be proven scientifically, is responsible for complex structures such as eyes, and they ignore any commonly-established, long held, and not-successfully-refuted basic scientific theories that do not agree with the Bible as being a factual textbook.

Actually, you just said it.


:rolleyes:

Then I'll ask Kat: Do you think I lack the brain power etc? If so, then I've already rightfully responded to this issue. If not, then why bring it into this discussion - and if you seriously think that I don't lack the brain power etc. please be more careful next time and don't lump me in with that group of Christians who supposedly do.

Why do you assume Kat was speaking about you? I, when I first read it, assumed Kat was NOT speaking about you, as your prior posts, while they did contain points of view that are not Kat's, were certainly not along the "God created everything and you are all going to hell for not believing, you evil sinners!" type. Now, here are two quotes you might want to check out... "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" William Shakespeare and "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours" Richard Bach

If you keep insisting that you are being placed in the brainless Christian group without cause, some of us may start to believe you might be there for a reason.

Please don't lump yourself in with them...

Here we were, both answering the same question... and again, as usual, you got there first with a better answer.
:D

there is no knowledge without belief. knowledge is just a type of belief. and since we probably can't know that we know a whole host of our knowledge, belief on its own is sometimes the best we've got. though, of course, religions are numbered among those things we know to be false.Blarb. Knowledge is the result of research. Belief is the result of imagination. Cut the crap.

As far as "chimps not being able to learn languages..."

Thats crap.

Not only can chimpanzees learn American sign language, to the extent of a couple hundred words, its usually not necessary to teach thier offspring, because they parent chimps teach it to the kids themselves.

Yah, language skills?

They got em.

Ah, yes, they do - quarterly issues. Millions of copies internationally to be precise.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/

An in-house publication is not (necessarily) the same as peer-review.

In this particular case, it defintely is NOT the same as peer review, since the only editorial process content has to undergo before being considered valid, is in-house editorial choice.

Perhaps you didn't understand the question?

Did you 'somehow' manage overlook this statement in the introduction of the essay:


Unless I'm much mistaken, you have been claiming that you are presenting your own work... indeed, you made some comment about how 'your' essay had tired your brain, or some such?

If, then - what you have actually done is taken someone else's work, and presented it in that light - you have both plagiarised AND been dishonest about it.

Cite a source by all means. But, if you want to take part in the discussion, posting someone else's already-published work is no alternative to presenting your own argument. Even less so, if you present it AS your own argument.

Make your argument, show your supporting evidence, cite your sources.

Secondly - I actually take the time to read what I 'cut+paste' in order that I might better understand the theory that I am supporting.Hypothesis, not theory.

Blarb. Knowledge is the result of research. Belief is the result of imagination. Cut the crap.

yeah, no. knowledge = justified true belief (gettier not withstanding). what the fuck would it even mean to not believe an idea you held to be true?

What, cut-and-paste plagiarism makes your head work overtime?

Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, PRESTO! Instant idiocy!

maybe he's implying that he actually tried to read it? if you'll recall back to elementary school, trying to sound out that many words was something of a chore.

A pathetically blind and arrogant thing to say. If I'm going to be debating with someone that cannot even recognize the blatant achievements of a world-class organization (no matter what their worldview) - someone who can shockingly confidently state that this international institute 'do NO scientific work' - no matter how many laboratories, city-centre buildings, popular magazines, political support and countless qualified scientists, doctors, phds and professors can be brought before their eyes....no matter what the evidence for physical organizations (let alone opposing theories!!)...and yet they still choose to remain blind....Hate to burst your bubble, but AIG isn't exactly "world"-class. Not even "America"-class, for that matter. They're virtually unknown outside of the US. I only know about them because I have a strong passion for refuting pseudoscience.

Then there is no wonder you have not found God yet.What's God got to do with it? Why bring the unmeasureable into a topic that deals exclusively with the measureable?[/QUOTE]

yeah, no. knowledge = justified true belief (gettier not withstanding). what the fuck would it even mean to not believe and idea you held to be true?

Not really that unreasonable model. Based on scientific study, it seems likely that the sun will rise tomorrow, wander across the sky for a while, then plop down on the other side. It seems to be a pattern. I suspect this pattern is consistent.

I don't, however, think it necessarily equates to a 'belief' to suspect that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. Personally, I don't even like the implication of absolute certainty implied in "I know it".

I don't, however, think it necessarily equates to a 'belief' to suspect that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. Personally, I don't even like the implication of absolute certainty implied in "I know it".

what word do you suggest for "idea/proposition/cognitive content assented to or held to be true"? cause that's pretty much the definition of belief.

and claiming to know has never implied absolute certainty. this is why people will say that they know something with absolute certainty to show that they feel particularly secure in this knowledge claim.

what word do you suggest for "idea/proposition/cognitive content assented to or held to be true"? cause that's pretty much the definition of belief.

and claiming to know has never implied absolute certainty. this is why people will say that they know something with absolute certainty to show that they feel particularly secure in this knowledge claim.

"Idea" is a good word.

I'm a skeptic. Kind of a universal skeptic, maybe. I'll be a little surprised if the sun doesn't rise tomorrow... but it won't radically alter my world view. Unless I die of the cold or something... which, at least, would verify my thought that my existence is linked to the effects of the Sun...

"Idea" is a good word.

no, because that covers things you don't hold to be true.

there are all sorts of ideas you recognize, but only some you believe. those ones would be beliefs. and if you had good reason to believe them and they actually are true, then those beliefs would count as knowledge. this is just the standard breakdown of epistemic terms, and is really about as clear as we get in such matters.

Hate to burst your bubble, but AIG isn't exactly "world"-class. Not even "America"-class, for that matter. They're virtually unknown outside of the US.

Ah...you must be assuming that I'm American...I'm actually from North-East Australia, in a city where AiG frequently organizes educational groups...though I'm not part of it myself.

As for the Chimpanzee refutation...


One major thing this "world class" scientist failed to mention is the difference between the structure of the vocal system of a human and a chimp. A chimp can not speak our language because they are not built for it.

Do you seriously think that, if given a human vocal system, the chimp will have the intelligence to begin learning our language and start talking to me?

Based upon precedence - we can draw some conclusions. A chimp has fingers. Yet it cannot log onto the NS forum and begin refuting my statements. Nor can it draw a masterpiece, or play Bach on the piano. The problem isn't the fact that it lacks a vocal system - the problem is that it doesn't have the intelligence.

Now it's interesting that they can learn words but it's not language????? If you can take those limited words and express wants from human is that not communicating?

Yes, that is communicating. No one is disputing that. But communication does not necessarily equal language. Its quite simple - Monkeys and chimps do not speak a language - they make signals.

Wait what? They never acquire language and yet the can learn a limited amount of one?

For example - I have Italian heritage - but I cannot speak the language. I know about 50 Italian words. However, I have not come anywhere close to 'acquiring' the Italian language. With monkeys - the situation is even more remote - they have only learnt a limited form of communication at its basics.

The whole God and science thing depends upon your point of view. Just as some hotly contest God (or religion) being involved in politics, many do the same for science. Many accept that knowing God is a fundamental part of getting to understand science better (not necessarily to 'prove' God). It depends upon your point of view, which gives introduction to a whole new discussion. AiG, and I, accept that to understand Creation better, it is beneficial to also understand the Creator - and this stems from your beliefs.

Please don't lump yourself in with them. I had in mind a certain other poster who did not bother to even attempt to answer anything except to obfuscate the issue by answering questions with increasingly more hostile questions and, "You're wrong, you're going to hell."

Please, don't try to dodge the issue. I have the presence of mind not to call agnostics/humanists (or whatever you are) 'brainless' etc....because I understand that my readers are agnostics - and whether or not it was my intention to convey them in this light or not - I did so without specifying, and thus lumped you, an agnostic (or whatever) in that mould. It'd be nice if you had the decency to refrain from such unnecessary words too.

Ah...you must be assuming that I'm American...I'm actually from North-East Australia, in a city where AiG frequently organizes educational groups...though I'm not part of it myself.ANZUS is still not very representative of the world. Most of the staunch proponents of the creator hypothesis here are American, so that's why I assumed you were too. I stand corrected.

Do you seriously think that, if given a human vocal system, the chimp will have the intelligence to begin learning our language and start talking to me?

Based upon precedence - we can draw some conclusions. A chimp has fingers. Yet it cannot log onto the NS forum and begin refuting my statements. Nor can it draw a masterpiece, or play Bach on the piano. The problem isn't the fact that it lacks a vocal system - the problem is that it doesn't have the intelligence. Not sure if chimps can, but I know for sure gorillas can learn sign language.

As for the Chimpanzee refutation...



Do you seriously think that, if given a human vocal system, the chimp will have the intelligence to begin learning our language and start talking to me?

Based upon precedence - we can draw some conclusions. A chimp has fingers. Yet it cannot log onto the NS forum and begin refuting my statements. Nor can it draw a masterpiece, or play Bach on the piano. The problem isn't the fact that it lacks a vocal system - the problem is that it doesn't have the intelligence.



You probably didnt notice my post, so I'll reiterate.

Chimps not only have the intelligence to learn, they possess the ability to teach American sign language to thier children.
They can, and often do, learn vocabularies of over 200 words, and can respond intelligently to human emotions, even sympathy over the loss of loved ones.

Its quite simple - Monkeys and chimps do not speak a language - they make signals.

The entirety of the mute society will thump you for lumping them in with chimps and monkeys.

:confused:
I suppose you're gonna tell us your name ain't Maurice next.
*sobs*
I'm afraid it's not. Nor am I a midnight toker.
Did you 'somehow' manage overlook this statement in the introduction of the essay:
No. I read it and deduced from it that what followed would be your own work, with references to AiG.



Somehow...I don't think you searched 'via Google' at all, to 'reveal' what I used...perhaps, just maybe, you followed that link I provided in that very essay? Could be possible....
Actually. And your link was to the AiG home page, not to the article in question.



First - you were making the assumption that Ifreann was right in what he/she said. Which was, in fact, not correct.
I was not correct when I said that you copied and pasted an AiG article? So it's just a coincidence that they wrote the same thing you did, word for word?
Assumptions...assumptions..assumptions - they only seem unacceptable when such as stance suits you.
Depends on the basis for them. Based on the sun having set every day in my life, I assume it will set today. Based on believing that it's true, AiG and your good self seem to assume that the Bible is the literal and infallible word of God.
Secondly - I actually take the time to read what I 'cut+paste'
Reading the works that you plagiarise is still plagiarism.



It seems that, by claiming that essay as 'inaccurate', you have very little understand of the Carbon-14 dating. My question is - why have you bothered to believe these scientists that support the theory, and make the assumption that Carbon-14 dating is accurate?
I don't have the spare time to get a Ph. D in the relevant field of physics. But I understand the basics, and I understand how peer review works. If carbon-14 dating was inaccurate then it would not be widely accepted, because for it to become widely accepted it must be demonstrated to be accurate many many MANY times.

If you are so knowledgeable in the ways of Carbon-14 dating...actually - I put this to every supporter of it...then explain to me in details - how my posted refutation is inaccurate. Also explain to me how the Carbon-14 dating procedure works. If you need to resort to the web, or other people's statements, then you have just defeated yourself. You really should have checked this whole theory out before blindly accepting what some sub-title documentary had to say...
Ice core (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core). You were trying to suggest that scientists assume that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has remained static. They can use ice core samples to establish whether they are or not and adjust their inferences regarding the results of C-14 dating accordingly.



Quite a fanatical statement. First, please provide the Bible verse that says 'lying is equivalent to worshipping the prince of lies'. Or did you just make that one up off the top of your head?
Perhaps not equivilant to worshipping the devil, but certainly a sin (http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/lying.html)

To know a lie, you must also know the truth.
Bullshit.
Then I will ask you this: What is truth? In saying 'AiG is filled with lies' you are assuming that you support a global truth, and therefore concrete lies. Some simple quotes to explain a little better:
More bullshit. 'YOU are assuming that YOU support a global truth'. Who makes assumptions about their own beliefs, things that they and only they have direct knowledge about?

As Calvin Freiburger said:

"Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meaning “wrong” could have (pertaining to conduct) would be “in opposition to X,” or “falling short of X’s standards,” which are only persuasive to those who have already accepted X."
A witty saying proves nothing.

Science can tell us how to do many things, but it can not tell us what ought to be done.
Nor does it. Nor does it claim it can. Nor is 'what ought to be done' relevant at all to science. Science is a tool for better understanding the universe we find ourselves in. Nothing more, nothing less.

C.S. Lewis:

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
Scientific discoveries are not based on thoughts, they are based on evidence.

C.S. Lewis:

I was at this time of living, like so many Atheists or Anti-theists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.
That C. S. Lewis held contradictory beliefs is not relevant to this discussion.
G.K. Chesterton:

Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening a mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.
The purpose of an open mind is to take in as many things is possible, for the purposes of establishing which is most favourable.
A pathetically blind and arrogant thing to say. If I'm going to be debating with someone that cannot even recognize the blatant achievements of a world-class organization (no matter what their worldview) - someone who can shockingly confidently state that this international institute 'do NO scientific work' - no matter how many laboratories, city-centre buildings, popular magazines, political support and countless qualified scientists, doctors, phds and professors can be brought before their eyes....no matter what the evidence for physical organizations (let alone opposing theories!!)...and yet they still choose to remain blind....
They operate under the assumption that the Bible, specifically Genisis, is the infallible and literal word of God. This is a ridiculous asumption, which has no substantive evidence to support it. The may do a lot of work in labs, but that work is not scientific. They've taken a conclusion that they want to be true and they're looking for evidence to support it. That's not science. I don't know what it is, aside from a waste of time, but it is NOT science.

Then there is no wonder you have not found God yet.
I, for one, am not looking for God.

Why don't you deny the works of NASA or CSIRO while you're at it?

You can't possibly be that prejudiced. Its simply not how scientists work.
What would you know about how scientists work?



Did I appoint you judge?
If you don't want us to judge your posts then stop clicking the 'Submit Reply' button.
By whose standards did I 'fail'? Yours? Then specify. Whose absolute moral laws are you lining me up with?
Moral laws have nothing to do with the quality of your posts.

The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'. CS Lewis
Evidently Mr. Lewis has as little understanding of science as you. Scientific theories are never 'true' or 'false'. Those words have no more as descriptors of a scientific theory than 'red' or 'blue'.

Perhaps if you restrained yourself from this sort of language, our discussion would be alot more fruitful.
The discussion seems to be going along as expected.
Ah, yes, they do - quarterly issues. Millions of copies internationally to be precise.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/

So does Playboy. Again you demonstrate your ignorance of science.

Creationism is not science. It was decided in the supreme court (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). Then, later, it was further disproved by Ritzmiller vs. Dover Area School district. It has been concluded countless times that Creationism is not a science and that Evolution is a solid theory. Of the points that were brought up by the court were: the flagellum and it's seemingly mechanical form (this was disproved by the fact that a flagellum is simply an evolved syringe that appeared on bacteria such as the plague bacteria.) Then the point was brought up that there was no fossil connection between fish and land animals- it was found during the trial. The fact of the matter is, even if evolution is only a theory, so is say- gravity. But If I dropped a pebble and it flew up, you wouldn't say some intelligent designer did it, would you? No. Creationism was exactly that-created on a whim. It can be taught in a humanities class, but it is not a science in any sense.

Blarb. Knowledge is the result of research. Belief is the result of imagination. Cut the crap.
Sadly though, research rests on two beliefs. Yup. Science believes that reality exists and that everything is the same everywhere. Of course we cannot prove number one and since we can't go everywhere, we can't prove number two either, but all knowledge gleamed from science rests on two assumptions about the universe that, well, are beliefs.

Creationism is not science. It was decided in the supreme court (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). Then, later, it was further disproved by Ritzmiller vs. Dover Area School district. It has been concluded countless times that Creationism is not a science and that Evolution is a solid theory. Of the points that were brought up by the court were: the flagellum and it's seemingly mechanical form (this was disproved by the fact that a flagellum is simply an evolved syringe that appeared on bacteria such as the plague bacteria.) Then the point was brought up that there was no fossil connection between fish and land animals- it was found during the trial. The fact of the matter is, even if evolution is only a theory, so is say- gravity. But If I dropped a pebble and it flew up, you wouldn't say some intelligent designer did it, would you? No. Creationism was exactly that-created on a whim. It can be taught in a humanities class, but it is not a science in any sense.

Not to give ammo to the creationists, but what is and isn't science isn't a matter for the courts to decide.

no, because that covers things you don't hold to be true.

there are all sorts of ideas you recognize, but only some you believe. those ones would be beliefs. and if you had good reason to believe them and they actually are true, then those beliefs would count as knowledge. this is just the standard breakdown of epistemic terms, and is really about as clear as we get in such matters.

I think you're missing my point. I'm not really 'holding' anything 'to be true'.

I follow certain patterns. I might even be willing to place a wager on their consistency... that doesn't mean I hold them to be true. I don't claim to 'believe' anything. I'm not sure I can really claim to actually 'know' much.

gosh darn flying spaghetti monster!!

Not to give ammo to the creationists, but what is and isn't science isn't a matter for the courts to decide.

It is if it's being taught in a state-run high school science class

Do you seriously think that, if given a human vocal system, the chimp will have the intelligence to begin learning our language and start talking to me?


Why not?


Based upon precedence - we can draw some conclusions. A chimp has fingers. Yet it cannot log onto the NS forum and begin refuting my statements. Nor can it draw a masterpiece, or play Bach on the piano. The problem isn't the fact that it lacks a vocal system - the problem is that it doesn't have the intelligence.


Playing Bach would be a matter of dexterity - not necessarily a link to intelligence.

Regarding art: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17606986-13762,00.html

Regarding NS... being able to log on to NS is no measure of language, but of handling input/output devices. Add to that - our written language is an artifact entirely separate from our spoken/expressed language.

Example - if I teach you 200 words in Chinese, you may be able to have a very basic conversation with me, in Chinese. You may be able to fully understand what we are saying to one another... but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't grant you the ability to write or read it...

Indeed, if I placed a Chinese keyboard in front of you, I wouldn't assume that your inability to take part in a Chinese debate forum was any kind of indication of your 'intelligence'. Right?

Sadly though, research rests on two beliefs. Yup. Science believes that reality exists and that everything is the same everywhere..

No. 'It' assumes that reality exists.

'It' certainly doesn't assume that "everything is the same everywhere".

No. 'It' assumes that reality exists.

'It' certainly doesn't assume that "everything is the same everywhere".Both science and Abrahamite scripture assumes the existence of an objective, consistent reality.

Abrahamite scripture goes a bit further, in that it insists on particulars of this objective, consistent reality. Science, on the other hand, is a tool for discovering and working out what the particulars are.

Unfortunately for all involves, homo sapiens isn't grown up enough to handle that science sometimes (well.. Fuckin all the time, really) finds the particulars of Abrahamite scripture aren't even close to being true.

Both science and Abrahamite scripture assumes the existence of an objective, consistent reality.

Abrahamite scripture goes a bit further, in that it insists on particulars of this objective, consistent reality. Science, on the other hand, is a tool for discovering and working out what the particulars are.

Unfortunately for all involves, homo sapiens isn't grown up enough to handle that science sometimes (well.. Fuckin all the time, really) finds the particulars of Abrahamite scripture aren't even close to being true.

I don't think science comes close to assuming an objective, consistent reality. Objective, maybe... if by 'consistent' we mean what was said earlier "everything is the same everywhere" then it's clearly not the case (gravity, for example, the force of which depreciates as we head away froma body).

On the other hand, if we mean that the same principles apply.... maybe. But even then, the assumption is limited. We assume, for example, that the speed of light is a constant... but we assume that within the confines of a closed system. When we deal with concepts that allow for standing outside of that system, we allow that even those 'constant' rules might not strictly apply.

No. 'It' assumes that reality exists.

'It' certainly doesn't assume that "everything is the same everywhere".
It most certainly does. Science holds that the laws of physics works the same on the other side of the universe as it does here.

I don't think science comes close to assuming an objective, consistent reality.No offence, but your opinion is neither accurate nor matters, in this particular case. And your example of gravity would only seem to support your opinion, because you employ such a vague and misleading description of it. Gravitic force is observed to behave in certain ways. It is assumed that these observations are universally true. A different, and perhaps better, since it's simpler, example would be that science assumes that undiscovered planets are made of atoms. If this is not the case, the scientific approach to investigating reality, is based on at least one wrong assumption; that of reality being consistent.

It most certainly does. Science holds that the laws of physics works the same on the other side of the universe as it does here.

Which is supposed to be what... the only logical interpretation of a phrase as (obviously inadequate and) inaccurate as "everything is the same everywhere".

And - well, I've already addressed the 'closed system'.

But, regardless... 'assume' and 'believe' are very different concepts.

But, regardless... 'assume' and 'believe' are very different concepts.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Believe
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Assume

Yup, very different indeed. /sarcasm

The only real difference is that you don't want to use the b word with science, but when you come down to it, science does indeed assume those two principles without actual proof thereof.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Believe
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Assume

Yup, very different indeed. /sarcasm

The only real difference is that you don't want to use the b word with science, but when you come down to it, science does indeed assume those two principles without actual proof thereof.

Yes, the term is an axiom (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Axiom). Given the axioms that the universe as we know it exists and it behaves according to certain rules, science attempts to discover and understand those rules.

The only real difference is that you don't want to use the b word with science, but when you come down to it, science does indeed assume those two principles without actual proof thereof.Such things wouldn't be an issue if people weren't so fond of sophistry and asshattery.

One thing's certain: if ET ever pops by Earth, I'll claim to be a long lost relative and get the fuck away from Homo Sapiens. Doesn't matter how many assholes they have, they can't possibly be as full of shit as homo sapiens.

No offence, but your opinion is neither accurate nor matters, in this particular case. And your example of gravity would only seem to support your opinion, because you employ such a vague and misleading description of it. Gravitic force is observed to behave in certain ways. It is assumed that these observations are universally true. A different, and perhaps better, since it's simpler, example would be that science assumes that undiscovered planets are made of atoms. If this is not the case, the scientific approach to investigating reality, is based on at least one wrong assumption; that of reality being consistent.

What do you want, the 'one-line-out-of-context' award?

You could have addressed the whole thing maybe... nah, much easier to ignore the two paragraphs of expansion, and pretend I didn't actually already make the very argument you go on to use as your 'rebuttal'.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Believe
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Assume

Yup, very different indeed. /sarcasm


You honestly don't see the difference?

All of the beliefs which you hold most dear are nonsense

:sniper: <---- me shooting your non-existant god

You honestly don't see the difference?
I'd love to hear your POV.

Yes, the term is an axiom (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Axiom). Given the axioms that the universe as we know it exists and it behaves according to certain rules, science attempts to discover and understand those rules.
Sophistry; as the familiar refrain goes (And Kamisama knows we've been saying it over and over and over again to the creationists) saying something without proof means nothing.

Sophistry; as the familiar refrain goes (And Kamisama knows we've been saying it over and over and over again to the creationists) saying something without proof means nothing.

How do you suggest we account for the possibility that the universe might not follow certain unbreakable laws? Should we redesign the cars with different engines that work only under a different set of laws of thermodynamics? Should we make new computers with plastic conductive parts instead of metal, just in case metal stops being conductive and plastic starts to be?

Given the level of scientific ignorance displayed by all creationists who have ever been on these forums, I would suggest there is a crying need for compulsory science classes in churches.

Ah...you must be assuming that I'm American...I'm actually from North-East Australia, in a city where AiG frequently organizes educational groups...though I'm not part of it myself.



So you are NOT Norman Geisler, whose work you plagiarized in the other thread... and who is American.

As for the Chimpanzee refutation...

Do you seriously think that, if given a human vocal system, the chimp will have the intelligence to begin learning our language and start talking to me?


If a chimp had a human vocal system and the level of intelligence it currently displays, it would learn the words that chimps who use sign language currently know, which are about the same as a two year old child.

Based upon precedence - we can draw some conclusions. A chimp has fingers. Yet it cannot log onto the NS forum and begin refuting my statements. Nor can it draw a masterpiece, or play Bach on the piano. The problem isn't the fact that it lacks a vocal system - the problem is that it doesn't have the intelligence.

Nor can a two year old do those things.

Yes, that is communicating. No one is disputing that. But communication does not necessarily equal language. Its quite simple - Monkeys and chimps do not speak a language - they make signals.


There are a large number of people who are deaf and use sign language. It is a language.

For example - I have Italian heritage - but I cannot speak the language. I know about 50 Italian words. However, I have not come anywhere close to 'acquiring' the Italian language. With monkeys - the situation is even more remote - they have only learnt a limited form of communication at its basics.

Again, those deaf people might be annoyed that your think their form of communication is limited.

The whole God and science thing depends upon your point of view. Just as some hotly contest God (or religion) being involved in politics, many do the same for science. Many accept that knowing God is a fundamental part of getting to understand science better (not necessarily to 'prove' God). It depends upon your point of view, which gives introduction to a whole new discussion. AiG, and I, accept that to understand Creation better, it is beneficial to also understand the Creator - and this stems from your beliefs.

God, being untestable, has nothing to do with science. So God should not be used in a scientific equation, because God is, as far as science is concerned, a null concept. Knowing God (which is entirely a personal experience that cannot be translated into anything concrete) is not fundamental to understanding science. Understanding science is predicated on using data that is transferrable to everyone.

You and AiG can accept anything you like about creationism, which is, as has been plainly explained, not science. But when the two of you want to deal with science (which AiG rarely actually does seem to want) then you need to deal with fact, not conjecture. Until there is proof of God, God is a conjecture. As such, basing your hypotheses on the existence of God makes them philosophy, not science.

Please, don't try to dodge the issue. I have the presence of mind not to call agnostics/humanists (or whatever you are) 'brainless' etc....because I understand that my readers are agnostics - and whether or not it was my intention to convey them in this light or not - I did so without specifying, and thus lumped you, an agnostic (or whatever) in that mould. It'd be nice if you had the decency to refrain from such unnecessary words too.

Kat is Christian. She has said so to you. Others have said so to you. So "whatever she is" is Christian. Not agnostic or humanist, Christian.

Now that this point is cleared up...


There is nothing wrong with Kat considering a small subset of Christians to be brainless. They are. There are small subsets of agnostics who are brainless too. I, however, am not a member of that subset. Neither is Kat a member of the subset of brainless Christians.

Kat has also said she did not lump you in that group, YOU did. I said the same. But if you want to be a part of the small subset of Christians to which Kat was referring, at this point it is all yours.

What do you want, the 'one-line-out-of-context' award?Dunno. What's it like? If it smells nice, sure. If it feels like a kick in the bollox, no thanks.

You could have addressed the whole thing maybe... nah, much easier to ignore the two paragraphs of expansion, and pretend I didn't actually already make the very argument you go on to use as your 'rebuttal'.I take it you're referring to this:On the other hand, if we mean that the same principles apply.... maybe. But even then, the assumption is limited. We assume, for example, that the speed of light is a constant... but we assume that within the confines of a closed system. When we deal with concepts that allow for standing outside of that system, we allow that even those 'constant' rules might not strictly apply.Alright then. Consistency and perpetuity are different things. Consistency simply means the world can be understood through the application of logic. Your bit about open and closed systems, apart from not making sense, has nothing much to do with what you're presumably talking about; the assumption of science that reality is consistent.

And for the record, no laws of science claims the universe, the speed of light, or closed systems, are immutable. In fact, since the universe is a closed system, the constants within it are subject to change due to entropy, or loss of information, if you prefer.

The trouble with trying to address all you wrote, is that you're talking about spades in terms of matchsticks. Again, no offence, though you obviously took it all the same. I'd suggest you check the wiki on this, if you think I'm too obnoxious to pay attention to. Because while it isn't important to understand all scientific findings (it's not even remotely possible anyway), understanding what science is, and thus why it's worth paying attention to scientific consensus, is pretty much a basic requirement for participation in modern life.

I think you're missing my point. I'm not really 'holding' anything 'to be true'.

I follow certain patterns. I might even be willing to place a wager on their consistency... that doesn't mean I hold them to be true. I don't claim to 'believe' anything. I'm not sure I can really claim to actually 'know' much.

you most certainly do believe those patterns will go on. it is impossible to live without beliefs. utterly and totally. it would be literally inconceivable to do anything if you did not accept all sorts of cognitive content as true.

fuck, "i might be wrong about x" is an idea which you hold to be true - a belief, in other words.

Out of pure boredom, and the fact that I've never gotten an actual definition of a "kind", I'd like to ask any remaining creationists a question.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/4783/sabreteethhq2.jpg

How many kinds of animals are pictured in this image?

I'm still waiting.

Just say it on an internet forum and is est sic.

Right now I'm flying over my house

Cool, it works, thanks KAT

Yup, very different indeed. /sarcasmWell, belief is when you are unwilling or unable to doubt your assumptions.

I think that, when is explained how the Universe was born, teachers should add a brief introduction, in which they quickly explain past theories (and creationism, too), and then begin with the nowadays scientifically accepted theory.

Ah, yes, they do - quarterly issues. Millions of copies internationally to be precise.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/

Didn't read all of the stuff there, but did read one of the articles on evolution, and all it did was attack the flawed nature of Charles Darwin's original Theory of Evolution, which any modern-day "evolutionist" (to use your term) will tell you is silly, because anyone with any knowledge of the Theory of Evolution will tell you that Darwin made mistakes in the original theory, that does nothing to disprove the modern Theory of Evolution.

I think that, when is explained how the Universe was born, teachers should add a brief introduction, in which they quickly explain past theories (and creationism, too), and then begin with the nowadays scientifically accepted theory.Creationism is no theory. A theory is based on observation and deduction. Creationism is based on ideology.

Ah...you must be assuming that I'm American...I'm actually from North-East Australia, in a city where AiG frequently organizes educational groups...though I'm not part of it myself.

As for the Chimpanzee refutation...



Do you seriously think that, if given a human vocal system, the chimp will have the intelligence to begin learning our language and start talking to me?

The fact they don't have our vocal structure makes it impossible for them to speak english.

The fact they can learn American Sign Language suggests they could.

]Based upon precedence - we can draw some conclusions. A chimp has fingers. Yet it cannot log onto the NS forum and begin refuting my statements.

You don't need all fingers to type and guess what? There are chimps and a Bonobo that use a keyboard.

Nor can it draw a masterpiece, or play Bach on the piano.
Chimps can paint and chimps can play on a piano.

The problem isn't the fact that it lacks a vocal system - the problem is that it doesn't have the intelligence.

Now you are showing your ignorance. Intelligence as defined by what? Think like a human? Of course they will fail by those standards since they are not human.

Your examples hardly define intelligence. Many people can't paint or play. Some no matter who hard they try will never make a masterpiece.

Never mind the fact you are being anthropomorphic. Their scribbles and noise may be masterpieces to them.


Yes, that is communicating. No one is disputing that. But communication does not necessarily equal language. Its quite simple - Monkeys and chimps do not speak a language - they make signals.

So the deaf have no language?

The Kund have no language? They have clicks and clack sounds for communication.

It's a simplistic and rather simpleminded attempt to dismiss.

For example - I have Italian heritage - but I cannot speak the language. I know about 50 Italian words. However, I have not come anywhere close to 'acquiring' the Italian language.

Pssst. It's still language acquisition. Though limited.

With monkeys - the situation is even more remote - they have only learnt a limited form of communication at its basics.

*sighs* Language is only a communication system. What is involved with our system? Making sounds!


The whole God and science thing depends upon your point of view. Just as some hotly contest God (or religion) being involved in politics, many do the same for science. Many accept that knowing God is a fundamental part of getting to understand science better (not necessarily to 'prove' God). It depends upon your point of view, which gives introduction to a whole new discussion. AiG, and I, accept that to understand Creation better, it is beneficial to also understand the Creator - and this stems from your beliefs.


AiG is simply desperate in trying to prove Science doesn't disprove the existence of God. Science doesn't even approach the question as it can't prove or disprove it.

I think that, when is explained how the Universe was born, teachers should add a brief introduction, in which they quickly explain past theories (and creationism, too), and then begin with the nowadays scientifically accepted theory.

Religion is not science. Therefore, it has no place in science classes.

I don't care if they try to have kids learn creationism in a different class, but for science, carrying generally universally accepted rules and guidelines, it shouldn't interfere.

Creationism is no theory. A theory is based on observation and deduction. Creationism is based on ideology.

Behind Creationism, a huge mass of observations and deductions hides. There are logical reasons to believe in Creationism, although I don't. And, logically, the cause-effect relation on which modern science is based cannot go back endlessly; Aristotles was of this opinion.

I think that, when is explained how the Universe was born, teachers should add a brief introduction, in which they quickly explain past theories (and creationism, too), and then begin with the nowadays scientifically accepted theory.Creationism is an hypothesis, not a theory.

Religion is not science. Therefore, it has no place in science classes.

I don't care if they try to have kids learn creationism in a different class, but for science, carrying generally universally accepted rules and guidelines, it shouldn't interfere.

I don't know if there are separate classes for science and history of science. My idea was to add some history of science in science classes.

Behind Creationism, a huge mass of observations and deductions hides. There are logical reasons to believe in Creationism, although I don't. And, logically, the cause-effect relation on which modern science is based cannot go back endlessly; Aristotles was of this opinion.Name some.

Creationism is an hypothesis, not a theory.

Is there some theory which is not a hypothesis? You don't need something to be proved, to call it a theory.

Is there some theory which is not a hypothesis? You don't need something to be proved, to call it a theory.Hypotheses need to be verified by testing in order to become theories. Creationism has never been scientifically verified.

How do you suggest we account for the possibility that the universe might not follow certain unbreakable laws? Should we redesign the cars with different engines that work only under a different set of laws of thermodynamics? Should we make new computers with plastic conductive parts instead of metal, just in case metal stops being conductive and plastic starts to be?

I don't think that was the point. The discussion on epistemology and science got started because UB wanted to make a clear distinction between knowledge and belief.

FS was trying to show that knowledge is just a type of belief, and then Grave and Sim and NERVUN got into the pile.

The impression I get is that Sim and NERVUN just want an acknowledgment of the fact that science is based on belief, not for science to start changing itself all willy-nilly.

Name some.

Ok. But it was Aristotle who said this first. Shoot him if he's wrong, not me.:D

The basis of modern science: each fact has a consequence. Each fact can be also seen as a consequence of a previous fact.
Until you apply this to a lifetime, all's well and it works great. But let's apply this to the whole of time. What can we see? An endless serie of facts and consequences. It is not logical: indeed, such a serie would mean the current facts to be impossible to happen, because there would be an endless serie before them to happen.
Aristotle then supposed the necessity of a prime, motionless mover.

Ok. But it was Aristotle who said this first. Shoot him if he's wrong, not me.:D

The basis of modern science: each fact has a consequence. Each fact can be also seen as a consequence of a previous fact.
Until you apply this to a lifetime, all's well and it works great. But let's apply this to the whole of time. What can we see? An endless serie of facts and consequences. It is not logical: indeed, such a serie would mean the current facts to be impossible to happen, because there would be an endless serie before them to happen.
Aristotle then supposed the necessity of a prime, motionless mover.Aristotle has greatly influenced modern science and philosophy, however that doesn't mean that he's always right. For instance, he believed in there only being five elements, which has been debunked.

So is Aristotle's conclusion logical? No. He doesn't take into account that there could be an endless series; in fact he rejects it. That there is an endless series of events is just as, if not more, plausible than the prime, motionless mover.

I was a little worried when I found out the inaugural Christmas Lecture for my uni was titled "Why Evolutionism is wrong and Creationism is right - Dundee Christmas Lecture"

Fortunately the e-mail attached clarifies things:

" The lecture entitled, "Why evolution is right and creationism is wrong", will explore why all biologists support the theory of evolution, why "intelligent design" is wrong, and what evolution can, and cannot, tell us about what it means to be human."

I don't think that was the point. The discussion on epistemology and science got started because UB wanted to make a clear distinction between knowledge and belief.

FS was trying to show that knowledge is just a type of belief, and then Grave and Sim and NERVUN got into the pile.

The impression I get is that Sim and NERVUN just want an acknowledgment of the fact that science is based on belief, not for science to start changing itself all willy-nilly.

what i love is that when the creationists refuse to engage at all, we quickly turn our guns on each other. like for the sport of it, almost.

what i love is that when the creationists refuse to engage at all, we quickly turn our guns on each other. like for the sport of it, almost.

Well, we've got to attack somebody :sniper:

:p

what i love is that when the creationists refuse to engage at all, we quickly turn our guns on each other. like for the sport of it, almost.I've never been fatally injured by someone debating me when the common foe wasn't around... At least not yet...

what i love is that when the creationists refuse to engage at all, we quickly turn our guns on each other. like for the sport of it, almost.

But of course. Science is after all all about exploring controversy ;)

Which, as I said, is something most creationists simply cannot grasp. Criticising evolution at schools is fine - in a class on evolution.
If you want to teach creationism as science you therefor need to provide reasons other than "I can badmouth a competitor"... which they of course cannot.

Ok. But it was Aristotle who said this first. Shoot him if he's wrong, not me.:D

The basis of modern science: each fact has a consequence. Each fact can be also seen as a consequence of a previous fact.
Until you apply this to a lifetime, all's well and it works great. But let's apply this to the whole of time. What can we see? An endless serie of facts and consequences. It is not logical: indeed, such a serie would mean the current facts to be impossible to happen, because there would be an endless serie before them to happen.
Aristotle then supposed the necessity of a prime, motionless mover.
And what would the mover have been a consequence of?

what i love is that when the creationists refuse to engage at all, we quickly turn our guns on each other. like for the sport of it, almost.

Well debate should be for the sport of it, I think. If we start taking it too seriously it isn't fun and we probably aren't learning anything from it.

What I found odd is that I was in general agreement with you. That's very uncommon. :)

Behind Creationism, a huge mass of observations and deductions hides. There are logical reasons to believe in Creationism, although I don't. And, logically, the cause-effect relation on which modern science is based cannot go back endlessly; Aristotles was of this opinion.There is no observation behind Goddidit.

Well debate should be for the sport of it, I think. If we start taking it too seriously it isn't fun and we probably aren't learning anything from it.Yups. And no, I wasn't suggesting science be redefined. It's just that the CreatID camp are so keen on distancing themselves from any hint of honesty that I really think we ought not do the same :p What I found odd is that I was in general agreement with you. That's very uncommon. :)This must be one of your better days ;)

Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.

We should therefore teach about the awesomeness of the pink unicorns in Science class!

Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.

We should therefore teach about the awesomeness of the pink unicorns in Science class!

LOL

Ok. But it was Aristotle who said this first. Shoot him if he's wrong, not me.:D

The basis of modern science: each fact has a consequence. Each fact can be also seen as a consequence of a previous fact.
Until you apply this to a lifetime, all's well and it works great. But let's apply this to the whole of time. What can we see? An endless serie of facts and consequences. It is not logical: indeed, such a serie would mean the current facts to be impossible to happen, because there would be an endless serie before them to happen.
Aristotle then supposed the necessity of a prime, motionless mover.Why did he suppose that? Reality is a strange place. Weird shit happens all the time. Imagine, for example, reality once existed as a perfect singularity.

If that was the case, the physics of the really big (relativity; something the dead Greek never imagined) states such a thing won't change. It is, for all intents and purposes, static. Frozen. Beyond time. But then apply the physics of the really tiny (quantum mechanics; another thing the dead guy never imagined), and suddenly shit happens. On the quantum level, the universe is probabilistic. That means that as time approaches the infinite, the probability of a significant perturbance of the singularity, approaches 1. As soon as that happens, the physics of the really big states shit will happen to the singularity.

That's one explanation that doesn't involve weird magical creatures from beyond reality, or anything else we don't know of. It's not necessarily the right one, it's just one possibility. But the point is that it isn't necessary to invent fantasy monsters. There's tons of ways in which reality could come to be what it is, which doesn't defy what we know of it. 100 years from now, there'll probably bee a ton more, simply because people then will know a lot more about what reality is. Right now, we're groping in darkness. Your dead Greek, alas, didn't even have the tools to grope with. And the same is, of course, true for the authors of various ancient holy scripture.

Don't get me wrong. Religion is unquestionably important for some people, and some aspects of religion can teach valuable insights into human beings, our thoughts and our social constructs. But fuck mate, the dead old Abrahamites couldn't even imagine the existence of parasites. Sure, they could figure out there was some sort of causal relationship between eating pigs and dying, but they were so fucking ignorant their imaginations couldn't even conceive of the real explanation. And even today, there's people so fucking ignorant they can't either - though of course those would probably have been the scripture-author killing loons back then.

That's obviously an abomination to god, we must only teach Christianity...as fact!!!;)

And when did Christianity become fact? At it's very best Christian teachings are nothing more than plundered elements of older religions and celebrations.

Schools should offer a balanced religious curriculum not just one faith and evolution should be delivered through science. Creationism has no place at all.

What I found odd is that I was in general agreement with you. That's very uncommon. :)

heh, gotta happen sometime

Please, don't try to dodge the issue. I have the presence of mind not to call agnostics/humanists (or whatever you are) 'brainless' etc....because I understand that my readers are agnostics - and whether or not it was my intention to convey them in this light or not - I did so without specifying, and thus lumped you, an agnostic (or whatever) in that mould. It'd be nice if you had the decency to refrain from such unnecessary words too.

Please actually read what I've written. I have stated, and others have also told you NUMEROUS times what precisely I am; either you have utterly failed to comprehend my words which are quite direct, you have simply not bothered to read what I wrote, or you are deliberately flamebaiting to get a response at this point.

I have stated, and others have also told you NUMEROUS times what precisely I am; either you have utterly failed to comprehend my words which are quite direct, you have simply not bothered to read what I wrote, or you are deliberately flamebaiting to get a response at this point.Ah, but you're not a true Scotsman :p

If people weren't actually serious about it, orthodoxy would be fucking hilarious. But they are, so it's just nasty.

Ah, but you're not a true Scotsman :p

If people weren't actually serious about it, orthodoxy would be fucking hilarious. But they are, so it's just nasty.

Well, the choices are that either there is intentional rudeness or unintentional failure to understand, given that my argument seems unimportant but that the poster appears to be trying to force me into a mold that he has repeatedly been told is incorrect by myself and others.

Well, the choices are that either there is intentional rudeness or unintentional failure to understand, given that my argument seems unimportant but that the poster appears to be trying to force me into a mold that he has repeatedly been told is incorrect by myself and others.

But if he can't fit you into that mold, how can he cry oppression by the ignorant masses?

Maybe he wants to feel persecuted.

But if he can't fit you into that mold, how can he cry oppression by the ignorant masses?

Maybe he wants to feel persecuted.

It is much easier for some to argue religion from the "I am being oppressed" end, yes.

Takes 1, 000th post, adds nothing to debate - w00t!