Home
::
Search
::
Memberlist
::
Privacy Policy
::
Donate!
Register
::
Log in
::
Profile
::
Mail
Liberals Versus Conservatives Forum Index
->
Evolution Versus Creationism
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
View more Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="fellfire"][quote="TrespassersW"] At the end of the day--for me--it's about having a philosophy, or religion, or moral code, or whatever you want to call it that makes you happy and inclined to try to treat those around you well. If you have that, I don't care what you call it or where you found it. If you don't, well, that's also your choice, but I probably don't want to know you. (And here I'm using the general "you," not you personally!)[/quote] I appreciate this position and, truthfully, I'm not surprised that it is your position. IMO, it is not the enlightened religious population that are attacking evolution as either "a faith as much as ours" or as "the doom of mankind and civilization as we know it", it is the uninformed and zealots. I suspect that most religious people answer with "I do not believe in evolution" only because they don't know anything about evolution. A few, I suspect, are mislead by creationist and ID information, but I think the majority simply don't see it as impacting their lives sufficiently to spend many neural firings thinking about it.[/quote]
Options
HTML is
OFF
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
If you are visually impaired or cannot otherwise read this code please contact the
Administrator
for help.
Confirmation code: *
Enter the code exactly as you see it. The code is case sensitive and zero has a diagonal line through it.
All times are GMT
Jump to:
Select a forum
Political Issues
----------------
Liberals Versus Conservatives
Conservative Corner
Liberal Corner
Israel Corner
Other Parties
The Truth
----------------
Conspiracies and Theories
Government Watch
God Talk
----------------
Evolution Versus Creationism
Atheism Versus Religion
The Neutral Zone
----------------
General Chatter
Laugh It Up
Topic review
Author
Message
sbgirly
Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:53 pm
Post subject: dumb down America
This forum is a good example of the dumbing down of America. Sarah Palin is the Dumb-Down movement's anointed one. The rest of the sophisticated world is laughing at us all . They have good reason. It is a testament to Evolution that we are De-volving in America. The more religious we get, the dumber we get as a whole. We are now the most religious country in the world. Why? What happened? Why are we going backwards? Religious equals violence. Religious equals ignorance. Religious equals oppression. It equals everything that is bad, evil, and ruinous and always has. Go See "Religulous" now. Bill Maher is right. There is a huge percentage of mostly silent non-religious intellect here in this country. We could make a difference. Maybe we could get these people out of our faces if we spoke up. We are rational. We are evolved. We are smart, peaceful and reasonable and we make SENSE. What we don't do is stand up, Stand out, Speak out. And we should. We need to Stop the nuts from trying to run our country and run our world. We need to put a stop to it now. Enough is enough. We need to stop being afraid of insulting someone if we say we don't want "your" god in "our" face anymore. Put God back where "he" belongs. In YOUR church, YOUR house, over YOUR bed, and out of OUR faces, OUR schools, OUR television awards shows and talk shows, OUR rear-view mirrors. Remember when God was an intimate thing in this country? Something to be shared with family, privately, not publicly? God is so overexposed that we are ready to vomit already at the sight of him/her/it. What happened to this country? We are de-volving alright. And this time, there's no where else to go to start over.
imnotbncre8ive
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:15 am
Post subject:
As to whether a global flood occurred, you may find this illuminating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFeVwuJB7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o
Why bother with just Flood? We might as well regress to several centuries ago and claim that the world is flat.
imnotbncre8ive
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:10 am
Post subject:
Quote:
Did you know that the Bible says that until just before the flood it did not rain? There was a mist that rose from the ground. Some Christians believe that the globe was created with a layer of ice between the atmosphere and space that created a green house effect and made the whole world a temperate climate.
Did you know that Ron Hubbard told Scientologists that Xenu, dictator of the Galactic Confederacy 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft eerily similar to DC-8 airliners. He then stacked them around volcanoes and detonated thermonuclear bombs. Why? Because his mother had butterfingers and dropped him a lot. He often complained of being harassed in online games like Counterstrike, and nobody wanted him on their chess teams.
There is even more scientific evidence to support this. We at least know exactly who wrote about this stuff: L. Ron Hubbard. I hope you see the light and undertake the journey to become an Operating Thetan.[/quote]
exton
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:26 am
Post subject: Re: you must have know I would say ......
Vinces wrote:
If your a evolutionist carbon dating supports your theory of the earths age.
No, it doesn't. Carbon dating is only accurate to about 60,000 years.
Other kinds of radiometric dating are used to determine the age of the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....techniques
Quote:
If your a creationist it actually supports the Bible because the flood of Genesis and the climate and atmosphere before and after as described in the Bible would definately skew the results.
If you're going to throw around the flood, then there's no point in discussing evidence at all; a global flood, of the sort described in the bible, is purely a miraculous event. It has no basis in sensible, physical reality.
Quote:
Did you know that the Bible says that until just before the flood it did not rain? There was a mist that rose from the ground. Some Christians believe that the globe was created with a layer of ice between the atmosphere and space that created a green house effect and made the whole world a temperate climate.
Same deal again. You can make up anything you want, but when you start doing that, the idea of basing your beliefs on "evidence" becomes irrelevent.
Quote:
There is alot of scientific evidence to support this.
There isn't a single iota of physical evidence that supports that.
If you disagree, i'd like you to describe this evidence.
Quote:
Even the frozen water at the poles is evidence of the global flood of genesis. The spinning of the Earth gradually caused the flood to move towards the poles where it began to freeze.
No, that doesn't make any sense at all. The distribution of water on the planet's surface has to do with the geography of the surface, not the planet's spin. The force due to spinning is very small relative to the force due to gravity.
And even then, the force due to spinning would cause things to move towards the equator, not the poles. But, like i said, that doesn't matter; that force is very small relative to the force due to gravity.
Toxic
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:18 pm
Post subject: Re: you must have know I would say ......
Quote:
If your a creationist it actually supports the Bible because the flood of Genesis and the climate and atmosphere before and after as described in the Bible would definately skew the results.
How so?
Quote:
Did you know that the Bible says that until just before the flood it did not rain?
I'm sure that's absolutely true. /sarcasm
Quote:
There is alot of scientific evidence to support this.
I'd like to see just a sliver of it.
Quote:
The spinning of the Earth gradually caused the flood to move towards the poles where it began to freeze.
It doesn't work that way due to gravity. Boats that float in the ocean for a very long time don't drift towards the poles, and neither do continents that have been around for quite a very long time.
Quote:
But I am assuming you do not believe the Genesis flood story?
I don't believe it like I don't believe any other religion's Great Flood story, of which there are lots of them. I especially don't believe the Christian one because they load it up with the bogus idea of putting two of each on an ark.
Vinces
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:27 pm
Post subject: you must have know I would say ......
If your a evolutionist carbon dating supports your theory of the earths age.
If your a creationist it actually supports the Bible because the flood of Genesis and the climate and atmosphere before and after as described in the Bible would definately skew the results. Did you know that the Bible says that until just before the flood it did not rain? There was a mist that rose from the ground. Some Christians believe that the globe was created with a layer of ice between the atmosphere and space that created a green house effect and made the whole world a temperate climate. There is alot of scientific evidence to support this. Even the frozen water at the poles is evidence of the global flood of genesis. The spinning of the Earth gradually caused the flood to move towards the poles where it began to freeze.
But I am assuming you do not believe the Genesis flood story?
TrespassersW
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Or......
Anonymous wrote:
It's answering the question posed to creationists in the title of the thread. Maybe not bluntly enough.
How bout this, because the easiest ones to find were found before there was a record kept of what layer they were found in. I know the Chinese revered dino bones and used them through the millenia believing they had special qualities. They could have been found above ground for all we know.
I mean Evolutionists are the ones saying dino bones have been around for millions and millions of years. Are they also going to base a conclusion on a sample of discoveries made during .0000001 % of that amount of time? Not to mention the fact that if there were bones closer to the surface or on the surface they would be more likely to have been dug up or found long ago??? C'mon guys, bring a real challenge.
Okay, here's one...
Can you cite for me any "dino bone" known to exist where carbon dating (or other scientific method of estimating its age) showed the bone to be much less old than evolutionists/conventional theories suggest such bones should/must be?
Thanks in advance.
Guest
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:19 pm
Post subject: Or......
It's answering the question posed to creationists in the title of the thread. Maybe not bluntly enough.
How bout this, because the easiest ones to find were found before there was a record kept of what layer they were found in. I know the Chinese revered dino bones and used them through the millenia believing they had special qualities. They could have been found above ground for all we know.
I mean Evolutionists are the ones saying dino bones have been around for millions and millions of years. Are they also going to base a conclusion on a sample of discoveries made during .0000001 % of that amount of time? Not to mention the fact that if there were bones closer to the surface or on the surface they would be more likely to have been dug up or found long ago??? C'mon guys, bring a real challenge.
Toxic
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:31 pm
Post subject:
This seems to be implying that it's required that we know what layer every single bone has ever come from in order to make an argument against creationism, which simply is not true.
Vinces
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:12 pm
Post subject: Your good
I'm not an expert but I would ask how could you possibly know what layer every single dinosaur bone ever unearthed came from? I would agree that in the last 200 years yes there is probably a good record of what layer of earth a dinosaur bone was found in (and there have been plenty of surprises dismissed by science as bones reburried) but I would wager that there have been at least as many unrecorded discoveries in all the years before that. It's amazing that you somehow know as a matter of fact what layer they did or did not come from. Your good.
Shoot you'd probably even say that Job must have dug pretty deep to find his brontosaurus tail bones when he lied and described a living creature with a tail like a cedar tree some 4000 years ago.
joeyjock
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:11 pm
Post subject:
Religion has based itself on lack of knowledge and misinformation for all of eternity
What was the name of the tree that Eve took the apple from?
That wasn't a mistake...the powers that be in the Church (and I'm talking about the Christian Church right now...but it's true in every religion)
weaved a tale of quasi-believability taking bits and pieces of different religions so that people would feel comfortable converting
This was done on meetings of the Church heirarchy in the 3rd century
look at the myth of St Nicholas
the Myth of Easter
the Birth of Christ
The resurrection
ALL OF THEM .... were taken directly from the pagan religions of the time
Why do you think the Church burned people in the Middle Ages for stating that the earth wasn't the center of the universe?
Why was Galileo imprisoned for the last years of his life?
The Church is a propaganda machine....and blind faith is its weaponry
fellfire
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:16 pm
Post subject:
TrespassersW wrote:
At the end of the day--for me--it's about having a philosophy, or religion, or moral code, or whatever you want to call it that makes you happy and inclined to try to treat those around you well. If you have that, I don't care what you call it or where you found it. If you don't, well, that's also your choice, but I probably don't want to know you. (And here I'm using the general "you," not you personally!)
I appreciate this position and, truthfully, I'm not surprised that it is your position. IMO, it is not the enlightened religious population that are attacking evolution as either "a faith as much as ours" or as "the doom of mankind and civilization as we know it", it is the uninformed and zealots.
I suspect that most religious people answer with "I do not believe in evolution" only because they don't know anything about evolution. A few, I suspect, are mislead by creationist and ID information, but I think the majority simply don't see it as impacting their lives sufficiently to spend many neural firings thinking about it.
TrespassersW
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:49 pm
Post subject:
exton wrote:
TrespassersW wrote:
Theoretically a handful of stones could roll down a hill and land in a perfectly straight line, but if I see a row of stones in a perfectly straight line I assume someone arranged them that way.
And that assumption, given the information you've stated, is unreasonable. There is no evidence with which to conclude that. It is exactly an
assumption
, and nothing more.
Then I guess it's good that I used the word "assume."
exton wrote:
Quote:
In much the same way, some perfectly reasonable, highly intelligent people look at the complexity of the world around us and assume that some hand was at play in its creation.
That's worse than a misrecognition of evidence - it's a logical fallacy. It's begging the question.
Yes, it most certainly is.
You make a perfectly valid point. My point was an effort to describe their thinking, not an effort to claim it constituted a logical argument.
My personal belief that there is a God is only that; my personal belief. I do not claim to "know" that there is a God; I only know that I have an innate inclination to believe it is so, and that my life is enriched by that belief. I do not expect others to believe what I believe. (In fact, I'm quite sure there isn't a single person in the church I attend who would agree with me if I tried to describe my personal view of the world.)
At the end of the day--for me--it's about having a philosophy, or religion, or moral code, or whatever you want to call it that makes you happy and inclined to try to treat those around you well. If you have that, I don't care what you call it or where you found it. If you don't, well, that's also your choice, but I probably don't want to know you. (And here I'm using the general "you," not you personally!)
exton
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:20 am
Post subject:
TrespassersW wrote:
Theoretically a handful of stones could roll down a hill and land in a perfectly straight line, but if I see a row of stones in a perfectly straight line I assume someone arranged them that way.
And that assumption, given the information you've stated, is unreasonable. There is no evidence with which to conclude that. It is exactly an
assumption
, and nothing more.
Quote:
In much the same way, some perfectly reasonable, highly intelligent people look at the complexity of the world around us and assume that some hand was at play in its creation.
That's worse than a misrecognition of evidence - it's a logical fallacy. It's begging the question.
They say, "look, it's so complex - it must be a product of a mind. So, someone must have made the universe."
The implicit assumption is that a mind is necessary to create order or complexity. But that jut begs the question: is it?
The belief you describe is not a conclusion based on evidence - it's an unsubstantiated assumption based on a very limited understanding of their world and their failure to understand their own biases.
It's an extremely simplistic line of thought that stretches back to the stone age: "Hmm. That stuff has order. What else causes order? Oh - people do! I don't know of anything else that does. So, someone must have made that."
Quote:
Their evidence for the existence of God is the incredible world they believe He created.
Like i said: that isn't evidence of any such thing. It's a failure in thinking.
TrespassersW
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:02 am
Post subject:
fellfire - Always nice to find a point of agreement, and even more enjoyable to discuss the rest with courtesy.
fellfire wrote:
...the existence of the field is not evidence for either believe - it is merely a data point at best...
Maybe I didn't state it well enough; it isn't the simple
existence
of the field, but the
nature
of it... again, this is a hypothetical, but I think you know what I mean.
Theoretically a handful of stones could roll down a hill and land in a perfectly straight line, but if I see a row of stones in a perfectly straight line I assume someone arranged them that way. In much the same way, some perfectly reasonable, highly intelligent people look at the complexity of the world around us and assume that some hand was at play in its creation. Their evidence for the existence of God is the incredible world they believe He created.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group