Creationism

Alright everyone lets please refrain from the name calling. And Christians please refrain from comparing evolution to a religion when it is clearly a science.

Evolution is a science, and in science we use the scientific method find out fact from fiction, or to compare.
The steps of the Scientific Method are to Observe, make a Hypothesis, Experiment, Collect Data, compare hypothesis to results, and make a conclusion based off the results.
Here is a chart of it if you want:

Spoiler

.

So February, if you really think there is a God thats fine, but have you ever conducted an experiment of his existence? Praying is an okay experiment if done properly.
For example let's say I prayed to the God of Abraham (AKA) to make my Orange to float to my desk. To conduct a experiment like this I would need a camera and eyewittnesses. Now in the Scientific world we like to repeat the experiment as many times as possible in order to clear out any errors in the experiment. So over a course of 7 days I would pray at
1pm&5pm (EST) to God to make my Orange levitate onto my desk in the next 30 minutes. After 1:30/5:30 each day I would save my camera recording, and write down what I saw. If the Orange levitated at the selected times when the camera was on then I could conclude that there was force/being that picked up my orange. Now I have a scientific theory now, but a question still remains: "What force was it that wrote and picked up the Orange?". At that point I could look for finger prints on the Orange, or borrow a infared camera to redo the experiment with. I could even set up a pen and paper for the force to right with to figure out who he/she/he-she/it is.

However let's say the Orange did not levitate. If that was the case I could conclude that no force/being picked up my Orange. I could try the experiment some other way like telling God "If you, the God of Abraham, truley do exist then make a Rat-Bird stand in front of me, so that I may photograph/record it's prescence. Then please if Jesus Christ was your son then make the Rat-Bird swoop over my head and drop a bottle of wine next to my feet without the bottle breaking.".
If after a week of praying at 1pm&5pm, and I encounter no hybrid Rat-Bird then I could conclude that the God of Abraham does not exist.
So my Scientific Theory would be that G.O.A does not exist. This is how Science work.

Since Evolution is a science it is based on evidence. I have shown you this evidence throughout the thread. Thanks to the theory of Evolution we have found cures to diseases. For example we are closley related to rats, and share many charecteristics with them. That is why we use them to test hair products, a medicines. While I may not agree with making perfectly healthy rats sick against there will; I cannot dis-charge the evidence that using these rodents as a Guinea Pig has proven quite effective to improving medical products to save lives.

 

I actually never thought of it like that. Then again if the exhibit happens to pertain to the culture's customs, architecture, etc. the lore just happens to come with the things that are being exhibited. To understand why people made things or acted the way they did you do have to learn about what motivated them in their daily lives. And if it happened to be the belief in a certain religion, it is certainly acceptable to provide information on it as insight. There is however a difference to saying that "This ancient temple was designed as a shrine to Amaterasu, the Shinto goddess of the sun" and "This an exhibit that demonstrate the Christian god creating the universe and earth in 7 days".

 

*looks at your post*

While you cannot be charged for name calling you can, however, be charged for saying "who does not deserve the brain they were born with.".
That phrase borders very close to fighting words/ a threat.
As I recall from my class of Political and Economic Discussion fighting words are not covered by the first Amendment. I am sure you did not mean for this phrase to be taken as a threat, so an apology/explanation might be in order.

 

It's an opinion. We're all entitled to them. Any real construal of it as a threat is just being over reactive. That being said opinions are little like *******s; **** 'em. More specifically, while we're all entitled to our own opinions it doesn't mean we all agree. Given how ignorant some people can be about what they believe Patsy has some sense. But it's a generalized sense, and that doesn't make it right.

 

So do you agree with what Pasty Stone was saying ? That humans who believe in creationism are stupid, dumb and completely brainless ? Because that was what he was saying in general. I just believe that humans have the right to believe in whatever they desire, and they shouldn't be thrashed or insulted for doing so. How would you feel if you a group of people commented that people who believe in Evolution are idiotic and stupid, you would feel hurt right ?.

Quote Pasty Stone.

That is such an insult to knowledge and truth that it makes me feel ill.

What Pasty Stone mentioned about museums had nothing to do with teaching biology, or the difference between history or science museums. What he said was another insult thrown towards humans that believe in something differently. Which is closed minded, and I believe isn't right.
Sure, we can't all hold hands under the rainbow, but insulting what somebody else believes in isn't really that cool. People could get offended.

" Stupid Christians" was what basically mentioned at the beginning posting.

Have you even read the bible ? The authors in the bible are mentioned each chapter name. Joshua, Paul etc. They are the ones who have written the stories and the occurring throughout the bible chapters.
Proof that the bible is real, well sciencest have found something that they believe that is Jesus's grave for starters. Not to mention the torture cross that they used to tortue Jesus was used commonly during that period of time.
And more. http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch.php

@JedininjaJZ.Your using the example of prayer as a scientific example, but you said not to call Evolution as a science because it works differently but creationism doesn't work like a science like evolution. Praying has done just as much healing and protecting, science has helped but it's not like praying has done nothing at all to protect this earth and it's people. Though do agree that Pasty Stone should apologize for calling Creationists retarted and dumb.

 

Hmm...

I don't normally like to get involved in this type of argument... but...

The Bible is real. I believe this that because I can find copies of it in my library. (This might seem blunt, and a little sarcastic, but my perception of reality has always been that simple.) The events described in the Bible after the story of creationism are based on real people and places. I believe this because places and items mentioned in the Bible have indeed been found that point to the existence of people mentioned in the Bible.

This does not mean the events described in the Bible from the story of creation onward aren't an embellishment. Certain events happened, yes, but I do not believe they happened in the way described in the Bible. For example, I can believe Jesus of Nazareth was crucified (because that was a common form of execution around the time that Jesus lived), but I don't believe he rose from the dead.

This is because the authors were humans, and it's well-known that all humans have different perceptions of things. Admittedly, however, this also means what they talk about still could have happened the way they describe it. It's entirely possible that the disciples saw a phantom of Jesus. It's entirely possible that it was an act of God.

As for the story of creation - which is meant to be our main focus here - since no documents were actually made at the time of creation, nobody knows what happened. And without decisive evidence, we cannot know for sure. The story of creationism might be true, or the theory of evolution, or something else entirely that humans haven't thought of.

As for the subject of the effectiveness of prayer, I don't believe clasping your hands together and thinking about something brings it to you, because if that were true it wouldn't be selective and based on the morals of a single religious order. I believe you actually have to do something to bring about change.

Of course, 'what I believe' doesn't mean 'what is the truth', because I am a human with my own perception of the universe, and nothing can change that.

 

There is a difference between stupid and wrong. I don't judge humans, I'd rather judge individual opinions and methods. Your counter retort of "You haven't even given any arguments yet!" for example was quite wrong, since he didn't have to give any new arguments in order to stand strong in this debate. He could have just used the ones stated already, since they haven't been properly refuted yet anyway.

I can give them a lot of arguments in favor of evolution. If they have even the least bit of understanding and interest for science I can convince them. And if not then they are hypocrites, since the bridges they cross, the medicine they take and the refreshments they drink have all been produced by scientific means.
So no, I wouldn't feel insulted. As a matter of fact I would feel really, really smart. XD

Fair enough.

And I explicitly refered to it as hating as I explained the difference between hating and impairing freedom. So what's the complaint?

Suppose the authors mentioned there are the true authors (even though most of them are strongly disputed), that would just hurt the credibility of the bible even more. Do you really entrust your entire faith to a handful of authors of ancient times who, let's face it, didn't know what the fuck the world is about (i.e. had little knowledge on how natural phenomena occured)? Because that is a stupid thing to do.

Another classic mistake to make it that, by discovering that one part of the bible is true, you automatically assume that everything in it has to be true, even when it sounds as amazing as "giant space man makes an entire multiverse in six days".

As for the grave... The person buried there is real, and he might have been someone named Jesus. He may have been a dude with charisma aplenty, someone who could gather followers, but that doesn't mean he has automatically done the "magical" things he did.
Buddhism went something like this.
Some versions of the path of Siddharta Gautama (Buddha)'s path actually sound quite credible: he was a spoiled prince who had a change of heart and went into seclusion, had a lot of introspective moments and eventually formed an entire dharma which he then went to preach throughout different regions. I believe a person like that may have existed in real life. It wasn't until later, after he died, that people started assigning him magical and supernatural powers. They changed "being indecisive" to "being tempted by the demon Mara" for starters. Anything to make it more outrageous.

Jesus may have underwent the same kind of transformation. Especially the fact that the bible was written by such a limited number of people (as you yourself have implied) makes me wary of its accuracy. People lie, exaggerate, tell stories and pull things out of context all the time. Why should the authors of the bible be any different?

"Crucifixion was common in that period so that has to mean that Jesus being crucified was true!" No. Just no.
Making a story believable is a little more difficult when you claim that Jesus died due to a UFO crashing on him than by using a common method of execution in those times.

"Terminator took place in Los Angeles, a real-life city! That means Terminator has to have been true! And ohmigosh, the Louvres is a real museum. That means The DaVinci code is a 100% accurate retelling of events that really happened!" No. Just no.


See the crucifixion example above. If you want to tell stories, you may as well include true/believable elements in order to make it easier to swallow. No one will dispute the existence of the tomb of Augustus but real-life elements are so often interwoven with fiction that they tell us little to nothing about the validity of the stories that include them. It doesn't prove, or even support, the more controversial fairytales in the bible: turning water into wine, splitting the sea in two, darkness over Egypt, the deluge, and of course the creation of the universe.

What I am saying is that you're taking something for granted that really isn't as trustworthy as you make it out to be. You really have nothing to support your belief that the bible is non-fiction, and yet you firmly cling on to it. And yes, that is foolish, dumb and stupid. But it doesn't mean you are, as a person.

 

See the problem with prayer and any effects it might have is that nothing else other than prayer is being looked at as a variable. If A sick person is given antibiotics for a serious illness and his/her family is sitting around their bedside praying, and he makes a recovery the next day. What was responsible for his recovery? I fail to see how it's done just as much as human effort and ingenuity. Moreover, what happens when prayer doesn't work? In the case of the antibiotic, the doctor will admit that he/she did all they could and that maybe they might try to improve or change the administered dosage. As for prayer all I've ever heard was "It wasn't meant to be". And I fail to see how that's acceptable.

 

That's the problem with counting on religion or more specifically, prayer to solve problems and give answers: it's not reliable.

Which is not to say that scientific answers are always the best answers or that they work 100% of the time, but with patience, testing, and research, we can perfect them and we have some guarantee that they will work. And when they don't, we try to find out why it didn't so we can try and make a better solution.

With prayer you're literally left in the dark as to whether it's going to do anything or not. If it works, yay, God is great and merciful. If it doesn't, it wasn't meant to be, his ways are higher than ours, etc. And it's impossible to prove this wrong because it's outside of empiric jurisdiction. We don't have any way of investigating how and why it works, who heard the prayer, why it worked, how it worked, etc. By its very nature it prohibits us from learning anything about it at all and using it to make our lives better.

That's why science rejects these explanations: they're worse than false, they're useless.

 

That's what i was getting at. With science I'm guaranteed a 95-99 percent success rate. With prayer I'm not better off than the flip a coin.

As for calling it meaningless, that would imply that there's nothing to be had in. As different and chance-ridden as it is, people do manage to find meaning in it. I like to think of it as more of a superstitious probability.

 

I don't know if that was a typo but again evolution is a science. I was saying for creationism to get on the same level as science you need proof. For example the theory of gravity is based of observation of objects falling, and the rotation of planets around the sun. So what I was saying was religion is faith without, or even against, the evidence; while science is following where the evidence leads us.

Are you nuts??! *coughs. Then retains a serious yet gentle voice*
Science has provided us with electricity to speed up production and exchange information. Modren medicine has allowed us to save millions of human's( as well as other animals) lives.
Zoo's are based off research on an animals enivorment, and mathmatical construction methods; zoo's are used to keep these animals from going extinct.
How do you think the roof over your head was made? It was made over your head using science. Who saved the jews during WWII? The allies who had military experiance and advanced weaponry. Weaponry comes from science. From research.

-_-' Yeah, Patsy didn't help start us out on the right foot.

Styx is right. The bible is not verifiable; just like all other religous texts.
All he is trying to say is that we all do stupid things no matter what are level of intellect is.

 

He does need to post proof of this debate, because he hasn't posted his own reason why he believes in creationism not being real. If he has his own opinion, then he it's good to back up the reasons why he believes in his opinion. Posting other people's proof of the agurements is not posting his own opinion, it's copy and pasting somebody elses. It would be like saying. "I believe in evolution, because somebody else said that it was real. " Which is no proof of any backup.

You do realize that not all sciencest are evolutionist believers right ??. That bridge could of build by a creationist quite easily. Saying that all science and all sciencest are based on evolution is a bit naive and closed minded. Yes, even some of those science magazines that you read could be written from a creationist. Your science, or biology teacher could even be a creationist. So how naive.

The complaint is that Pasty Stone called Creationists retarted, stupid and brainless. It has been mentioned several times. Even by other Evolutions believers.

Well the same goes for evolution. Do you really trust your whole believe on a whole bunch of random science, that hasn't been fully proved yet. Do you rely your whole faith on evolution on some random person who went to a beach and spent hours looking at animals move ? He could of been insane. Seriously, he looked at animals and he GUESSED that animals can evolve. Darwin's theory of evolution, is a theory. The bible has more than one author, that probably weren't bored or crazy. You say that the bible authors were pulling out crap out of their buttocks but the person really doing that was Darwin. I can say return trusting a man who was completely doing guesswork is more of a stupid thing to do. At least the bible can give other people hope in life. Evolution. " Wow, we were all monkeys " ! Wow, amazing.

Lol fail. This is solid proof that you haven't read the bible probably, and you are just "assuming" that the bible is a lie. You go ahead and a "assume. "

It says and mentions in the bible that many people have witnessed Jesus's events and the magical and amazing things that he did while he was alive.
With so many witnesses, I doubt that Jesus was just a normal human.

During the ages of the bible, lie or make up random stories and you would be dead within a few days. People who broke the law of Moses [ which are the ten commandments ] you would of been punished and then quickly stoned. Even if you don't believe in Moses or the commandments, the laws back in the old days were still quite heavy and you still would of been stoned. Making or creating a "Fairy Tale " book [ in your opinion, the bible ] wouldn't go down well in those decades of times. I want to stay that Nostradamus was almost punished for trying to create his book on prophecy which is many years before the bible or the beginning.

So you can say that humans changing into apes was common back in cavemen times/ age ages ?. The Ice age/ cavemen area was millions of years ago. Tell me what human you have seen changed into a ape lately ?
At least there is solid proof that crucifixion was common back in older periods.

So you look at any kind of proof that is not based on evolution and you believe that it's some sort of a fairy tale. Jesus could come from the sky, tell you in person that he's real and you still wouldn't believe in anything. -__-

That's strange. Because you seem to enjoy Darwin's storytelling !!.

Alrighty. You hang on to your theory of evolution and I'll hang on to my bible and when we both die we'll see who really was not so smart for hanging on to what we believe in. As far as I see it. You have a bunch of papers and I have hope and faith. If holding on to some kind of ray of hope is stupid then thinking positively must be too. If you don't have hope then what is the point in believing in really anything ?!?.

Also since you seem to believe that people who are scientists, all believe firmly in evolution. Here is a list of famous scientists who believe in creationism.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

Again. Sciencest can be creationists too. I don't mean to say that science isn't helping the world, because it is helping the world. :)

 

The thing is that the reasons to forsake a creationist view are rational rather than personal and emotional. And rational arguments don't have be different for everyone: people can follow the same logic. But you don't seem to be very fond of logic in general, as we'll see below, so I'm not surprised that you didn't know this.

I'll make another one of those "A vs B" comparisons for you.

What you're saying
A: Evolution is true because of reason X.
B: If you say so, it has to be true.

What I meant
A: Evolution is true because of reason X.
B: Yes. Reason X makes sense.

You reprimand me for "assuming" too much, yet you call me naive without even knowing what I really think. Pot kettle black. :)

Of course I know that many scientists are creationists. But they are unlikely to flat-out call my belief in evolution "stupid", which was your point to begin with. I haven't seen many scientific papers headlining "THIS IS WHY ... IS STUPID", have you? Scientists tend to use argumentation to prove their point. See the difference with bashing? I've never seen a creationist scientist actually bash evolution, only having doubts about it.
On a side note, you seem to forget the original point of my reply (and yours for that matter) rather easily, instead focusing on accusing me of being this and that. Are you feeling ill?

And finally... Your link fails miserably. It even headlines "Scientists who believe in God" and not "Scientists who believe in Creationism". It doesn't help that half of the list died before Darwin's theory was published.

This post actually had me lie down on my bed for a few minutes, lest I fall off my chair laughing. The funniest part is that you're doing the same things you're accusing me from: not knowing what the hell you're talking about.
Darwin isn't the only one who proposed the theory of evolution. Evolution has more than one "author" too if you will. Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins, just to name some examples off the top of my head, are authorities on the field of evolution.
Not to mention Darwin's theories fit well in the field of genetics, which has made undeniable progress in the last decades and continues to progress even now: we can make "maps" of chromosomes, we can manipulate genes to a certain extent, we can induce mutation in crops to make them resistant to several types of stress etc.
Hence why evolutionists believe it is the mechanism behind evolution. We're not just guessing: we have seen what it can do. One mutation can give a fly an extra pair of legs instead of eyes, or give a human more fingers. Not too unlikely that new species gradually evolved from that actually.

So even if his initial hypothesis was more conjecture than anything else, I have seen it supported countless times so far. The fact that you haven't is a blatant sign of ignorance on the subject. Or to say it in your words...

And with this, you assume that those witnesses really existed, and weren't just made up in the first place. Are you trying to turn assumption into a form of art or something? Because you sure do it a lot. Try skeptical thinking for a change: you'd be amazed by what it can do.

And yet people, Romans for one, did not believe Jesus to be The Messiah (which says so in the bible), even though there were people close to him who had access to that kind of information, and yet they do believe that the world was created in six days, even though there was no one around to know this (because they'd stoned the author if they didn't believe it).

Point being, they swallow(ed) something without anyone being able to know whether it is true. The fact that this doesn't spark the least bit of suspicion in you forces me to conclude that you have once again made a very dumb mistake. My my how they do add up...

Also, Nostradamus was a Frenchman who lived in the 16th century, and his relations to the Church have mostly been excellent. Just sayin'.

This is my favourite part...
REVERSAL TIME!!! DING DING DING!!!
How many humans have you seen being nailed to the cross back in the days of the Bible? Because you were obviously around at that time: you have solid proof.

Also, we have proof that bipedal primeapes existed in the past. It doesn't prove that evolution is true per se, as the common use of crucifixion doesn't automatically prove that Jesus was subjected to it, but we connect the dots, using the logic of evolution.
So there goes another one of your pseudo-retorts. I lost count of many I have torn apart so far...

Way to not just completely miss the point, but to miss the point entirely and then get smacked in the face by it when you go pick up your ammo...
My point was that I don't deny that those buildings are real, I merely doubt that they played any role whatsoever in those stories which I suspect are fiction. Not only that, but I gave valid examples of works of fiction to back my point up in such a way that any high schooler should be able to understand it.

Yes, because there are valid scientific indications to believe it. Because it is supported by experiments and deduction. Because it is woven into many other fields of research, such as genetics, paleontology, animal behaviour and others. Because I haven't heard even one good argument from you that can shake my logic for even an inch. :)

It was fun while it lasted kid, but I've had more challenging religious debates.
I have seen Christians make more intelligent statements than you have, but nice try anyway.

 

Evolution has already been proven as an empirical fact. You are confusing evolution with common descent. Next.

Um, you do know that evolution takes millions of years to produce significant changes right?

I should also point out that the theory of evolution doesn't say we evolved from monkeys. Not the monkeys we see today. Rather, we and those monkeys have a common ancestor which branched off into different species at some point.

That's a very ignorant assessment of what he did. He studied animal physiology and behavior for YEARS and noticed that there were patterns that pointed to a logical conclusion. Being a scientist and researcher takes a lot of hard work and the fact that you brush off his studies with such irreverence is just insulting.

Why the hell would he have been insane? What in fucking hell are you basing that on?

Incidentally the idea that animals changed over time was already around before Darwin. Ever heard of Lamarckian evolution? So he wasn't just pulling crap out of his ass.

Speaking of which, it is true that not all of Darwin's assessments were correct. However we know this because evolution as it is today isn't based solely on what he said, there has been a lot of research put into studying evolution and genetics and we've found out a lot more about how it works. Like Styx said today there are lots of different authorities on the subject of evolution that aren't Darwin.

Finally, you also obviously don't know what a theory even is in this context. Gravity and electromagnetism are theories too. See what I did there?

What you are basically saying is "because this makes you happier, you should believe in it, even if it's ridiculous".

That's like saying a man who knows his wife is cheating on him should just pretend she isn't.

ahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahah

Evolution is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. Teaching biology without mentioning evolution is like teaching physics without gravity or teaching chemistry without the periodic table of the elements.

There are of course scientists who don't believe in evolution, but most of them aren't even in fields that require much knowledge about biology in the first place. And even then they're an extremely small minority. In fields relevant to biological studies, you'd be very hard pressed to find a scientist who thinks evolution is a flat out lie.

There is simply little to no debate within the scientific community that evolution is true. What they do debate about are finer points regarding specific factors and mechanisms of evolution.

I could go ahead and reply to the rest of your asinine statements but Styx has mostly done that already.

Frankly I suggest you go open a scientific textbook about evolution and READ, because you're very ignorant about the subject.

 

So you don't know what to do, to say in return about Pasty Stone's comment. So you make a immature comment about how I don't understand logic. Do you read what the other person is saying above ? I said that Pasty Stone needs to post his own opinion, why he thinks that creationists are stupid because it his own opinion and not somebody elses.

You assumed that the bible is a fraud. What has this got to do with you thinking about creationism or evolution ? You made a classic mistake about the bible, which proved that you assume that you think that the bible is a fantasy, not real. Do you understand ? " You clearly haven't read the bible, so you are clearly guessing ".So no, it's not the pot calling the kettle black at all, because your off in a whole entire different subject. I wrote it in clear letters this time, but since you love going into different categories so you can manage to squeeze in a insult, I doubt you'll see it.

Lol. You thought that it was only humans who believed in evolution before could become a sciencest. Seriously, you need to make your mind up.

Even more lols. Just because you haven't seen a creationist bash evolution doesn't mean that it has actually happened. It's a wide world out there.

This is what I said before.

You made a classic mistake about the bible, which proved that you assume that you think that the bible is a fantasy, not real. Do you understand ? " You clearly haven't read the bible, so you are clearly guessing ".So no, it's not the pot calling the kettle black at all, because your off in a whole entire different subject. I wrote it in clear letters this time, but since you love going into different categories so you can manage to squeeze in a insult, I doubt you'll see it.


Pot calling the kettle black ? :/gasp:

Yes, but it's half the list and not the full entire list, was it not ?

It's true. You don't know what your speaking about. You don't even know that the world was created in seven days, not six. Come on, even school children know that God created the world in seven days. You think that something is fake and you haven't even read through a proper chapter.

Lol. You're doing the exact same thing. Try and think of a decent insult, that you are not performing yourself. It comes out as being hypercritical.

If you have actually read the bible, you would know that the Romans tried to kill baby Jesus and want him dead, not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. They didn't want Jesus to be the Messiah. That it's a clear solid difference.
Not wanting isn't the same as not believing.

Sigh. Again, I can say the same for you. You have said that the world was created in the world in six days twice..

Again, you can't think of what to say in return so you twists things around so you can make a insult to the other debater. Sigh.

Lol. I understood your point, you commented on your last post that you believed in the buildings being real but you don't believe that those certain places ever actually had a certain place within the actual bible. You gave vaild examples of works of fiction to back your point up ?!. HA, HA, HA.
Rofl. So the Terminator and UFOs now count as solid examples. Yes, and I'm sure that any other highschooler could come up with a better "solid example".

That's because.

A) You haven't really even read the bible, yet you stubbornly seem to believe that it's false 'just because' you assume that it's not reality because of science.

B) Your logic is never going to be shaken because it's too arrogant.

C) Your replies to the agurements are just basically immature insults.

D) You seem to AGAIN, assume. You assume that I'm a hardcore creationist when I've mentioned countless times before that I only came into the topic because was offended by Pasty Stone's comment about creationists being retarted and I've mentioned several times that my side to the debate [ was originally ] that people have free right to believe in what they believe in, and nobody is 'brainless' for believing in something different from evolution. Yes I've insulted Darwin and the theory of evolution but only because I was being insulted in return.

Lol. hilarious coming from somebody who used UFOs and a 90's fantasy robot movie as a 'solid example.'

Okay then. Prove it.

Yes and the world is how old ? You would think if the planet earth was that ancient another evolution transfer would of occurred by now, at least. Even if the first group of apes where from a different category, there is many different types of apes that exist in this world today, if evolution was real I'm sure another group of apes would begin to branch off into the beginning stages of human evolution, therefore more humans from apes would be created. Yet, the earth is millions years old and another transformation has not occurred. Odd, much ?

A creationist might feel the exact same way when you brush off the bible as being a fantasy and their lord and savior not being real. Now you know how most of them feel when you call Jesus a lie to them. To them Jesus is the whole entire world, a second father. Do you understand, how people who believe in creationism could be hurt by this, just like your hurt by me calling Darwin a understudy sciencest ?.

Well he made up a theory of how life works from his own imagination and his mind.

Clearly, Darwin liked the theory that was created from Lamarckian and he doubled up upon it. Just because Lamarckian had ideas about human evolution and Darwin liked and followed his ideas, doesn't mean that either any of them are both correct.

This is just something that you highly believe in. You believe that evolution is important and necessary. It doesn't mean that everybody else does, and I'm sure you can teach biology without evolution, I'm no biology teacher but biology isn't just based upon the theory of evolution you know.[/QUOTE]

I've highlighted what is just really a huge assumption. Are you are a sciencest ? No, you are just a student so how would you know everything about scientists ? Like Styx above you, don't assume things which you seem to think is knowledge when in reality anything could be happening.

Furious much ?. It's just a debate with somebody else having a different opinions or standpoint from your own. If you think that somebody elses opinions are asinine, then you are no different from Pasty Stone. Who most people, want a apology from.

 

I'm very confused. If the Bible isn't the source behind the thinking of creationism than I sure as hell don't know what is.

Like hell Styx would ever think that. Who says that you need to believe in evolution to know physics or chemistry? Biology ,on the the other hand, would require you to know things about it.

Of course that has probably happened. But he's saying a creationist scientist would never say that because he would need a lot of proof that goes against evolution which would be hard since there isn't much.

Have you read the first chapter of the Bible? I seriously want to know because it's common knowledge that God created the world in SIX days. He rested on the seventh day.

I think you should find out the difference between insulting and being brutally honest.

Read the Bible more.

I don't think you're understanding the post. He's saying just because there are real places in the Bible that doesn't mean we can say that the events that occurred there are real because we have no proof of them actually happening or not. We just have a book that says that they happened.

HEY HEY HEY! Fantasy robots and UFOs are very solid examples. You're not understanding them correctly.

Try to prove that evolution is false.

Oh god! I can't believe that I laughed so hard at this. He used his observations to make that theory which is how EVERY theory works.

 

Actually I have. I spent over 7 years in bible school thank you very much, and I have a trophy for beign able to name all the books of the bible. I also read the bible every week too. I can name the ten commandments, and I can name the 7 days of creation at the top of my head. I even know more about the bible then most of my christian faimly, which is quite sad actually.

Well techniqly *I did not have to look this up once while typing*
The world was created in three days. The rest of the universe was created on the fourth day, and all the creatures of the sea and sky was created on the fifth day. And on the 6th day all the animals of the land (including man) where created. So in 6 days god created the universe, and on the 7th day God rested.

So techniqly the universe was created in 6 days, and the base of earth was created in 3 days. The animals did not appear till the 5th and 6th day.

We determine the age of things using accurate radiometric dating techniqes which is used to date things such as trees, fossils, mummies, and even
the earth. The earth is about 4.6 billion years old.

Yeah just like you can teach children about God without the book of Genisis.
Or you can play chess without pawns.

:/gasp:
How dare you beat me to the punch?

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/100pcnts.htm

http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/light.htm

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://ncse.com/evolution/education/theory-fact

http://www.springerlink.com/content/21p11486w0582205/fulltext.pdf

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b2

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13717-evolution-myths-yet-more-misconceptions.html

...and so on and so forth. I could go on all day. Of course, you're not even going to read any of it, but since you asked so nicely...

I don't know enough about evolution to answer your question about the evolution of apes specifically, but different species arising in general HAVE been observed. Ever heard of peppered moths?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML

Of course I understand why it's a sensitive subject to them, but it doesn't mean we can't talk about it. And the funny thing is I never even said the Bible was a fantasy or a lie anyway. You do realize there are many ways of interpreting it, right?

Every scientist who ever made a hypothesis about anything must be insane then. And you rely on constructs based on their findings all the time in your everyday life. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Uh, first of all, his name is Lamarck, not Lamarckian. Secondly, you would have a point if they were the only people who ever spoke about evolution. Like I already said, hundreds of scientists have done research and it's been confirmed as an empirical fact.

Actually, no, you're wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA042.html

http://ncse.com/evolution/why-teach-evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA110.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

http://ncse.com/news/2009/07/views-evolution-among-public-scientists-004904

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b2

Wrong again. I'm not "assuming" anything.

Here's the thing: not all opinions are valid. You can believe in anything you want, but that doesn't mean what you believe in is true. If an opinion contradicts facts, it's wrong. If you say the sky is green and say it's your opinion, you're still wrong.

I don't care that people believe in creationism and in fact I have creationist friends and relatives that I like; the problem is when they spread misconceptions and lies about science and how it works proving that they don't know anything about it and that their rejection of it is ill-founded.

Saying "I believe in God and creation" is different than saying "evolution is a lie, there's no evidence, it's just a theory, Darwin was insane, lots of scientists don't believe in it, etc". The first one is fine, the second one is just being dishonest, it's an insult to both science and religion.

In your case, you're accusing me of making assumptions over and over again, even when I post (multiple) valid scientific sources for just about everything I say, which you just conveniently ignore, whereas you just seem to say whatever the hell you want about evolution even though you clearly don't know anything about it.

 

For the umpteenth time, it wouldn't be someone else's opinion. It would be his own opinion, backed by arguments that have been uised before.
But since the point of the previous person still stands, re-iterating it would be an exercise in futility. How are you not understanding this?

Because if the Bible would be false, the creation story in it loses its validity completely. Stating the obvious here of course, but anything other than the obvious just doesn't seem to do.

I imagine my "classic mistake" was claiming that God created the world/universe/whatever in six days, right?
Well, I just followed what I learned years ago:

And on the 7th day he rested, but resting means not creating anything at all, so that day was excluded. Thus, he made the world in six days.

No I said I could convince those with interests in science (by which I meant Biology specifically) that evolution is true. Different thing entirely. That's an F for Comprehensive Reading, young lady.

Again, F for Comprehensive Reading. I didn't say that creationists never bash evolution. I said that I've never seen a creationist scientist bash evolution. Nor did I ever say it was impossible, I said it was unlikely (= improbable). Seriously, do they teach you to read in your school?

Point still stands. They were theists; not necessarily creationists.
That being said, I never argued that there are creationist scientists out there. But Cyanide has given an in-depth reply about this.

And by resting on the 7th day he created what exactly?

That would be about everything I've thrown at you so far.
Disregarding the fact that I never even insulted you.
I "assume" that the bible is false, not because of mere guessing, but because I have learned of an alternative that was more coherent, better observable and based on the same principles that have been successfully used to make our lives more convenient. Science has won its rounds so far; creationism hasn't. These are valid reasons to prefer evolution over a hollow creation myth.

Not the Romans then? My mistake. (Note that this also completely kills the idea that I'd never admit my errors.)
That being said, I do recall that not everyone believed Jesus to be the Messiah from the start. And that some were wary even after his many deeds that point at the direction of him being the Messiah.

I'm not the one who is twisting things around. See above for examples. But if you still cling to the belief that I'm twisting things around, do be as kind as to tell me where I twisted your precious little words so I can refute what you said in ways you can't weasel yourself out of.

Yes, they do. If you had any idea at all what I was trying to prove with them.
Time to make another of of the already notorious two-by-two comparisons:

The Bible's stories feature real-life environments, structures and practices. The fact that these things exist does not mean that the biblical events they appear in have actually occured.

Terminator's story features real-life environments, structures and practices. The fact that these things exist does not mean that the story of Terminator really took place.

Do you finally see now? I only had to change a few details in the comparison. Otherwire it tells the exact same thing, which even you can't deny to be true without making a complete fool out of yourself (although I wouldn't be surprised if you tried...).

This is an assumption in itself. Pot kettle black: the sequel.

I am arrogant, but I'm open for counterarguments. Ask some other members around here and they'll tell you that I'm a vicious opponent when debating (due to being arrogant), but one who can be reasoned with.

And yet they make so much sense that you haven't been able to reply decently to even one of them, especially the ones regarding evolution. Peculiar...

It takes two people to discuss something. You may not be a hardcore creationist (which I never suspected you to be, the hell do I know where you even got that from) but you felt the need to question evolution regardless. I refuted those doubts, since they were based on very shaky logic, and that was that. That's how debates go.

And yet it's true. In fact, one of those intelligent Christians has replied to your very post. He's called Guardian_Soul, and he makes some very good points.

 

This is all too ad hominem to the point of trolling.