Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8

 

2006-04-17 16:47:38
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS

JaMDuDe wrote:

Who else would u want to write the book? I doubt you would believe the bible if it was supposed to be written by God. It wasnt just normal people who wrote the bible for fun, it was written by people who devouted their entire life to God. They were lead by God on what to write.
Erm.

Read parts of the old testament.

It reads like some historian looking on.

Not a devout worshipper of god.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-17 16:48:36
sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|6858|InGerLand
I highly dout that the whole world filled with water or that a huge boat was made that held 2 of every animal, but all stories start somewhere, i agree with some of the other posts on here, the ones about the whole local floods but it being someones whole world and that, and i'm going to expand upon them.
Noah lives and he's the only survivor of his village and everything becuase he had his boat, well obviously noah now has no home just a few animals and not really anywhere to start up again, after all its now all water logged, so Noah moves on eventually he finds another village and he tells someone his story. If you were hearing this story you would think it quite a story and would probably spread it around, and the people you told would do the same, but it would be like chinese whispers the story would change bits would get elaborated, most likely because someones parents were imaginative (said something like "how big a boat was it mum?" "oh it was a huge great big boat" it happens all the time if you ever tell stories to small children you will find youreself elaborating on them as well) the kids grow up have kids of their own and tell them the same story but with yet more elaboration, and so on and so forth.
God gets added into it when a kid goes "so how come all water came?" and you don't have the science to explain flooding, then religion is the logical answer.
This is my opinion mind you, i might not be right but then again come up with a better reason for the story of Noah.

As a small note if the bible story is true, then doesn't that mean that we are all decended from Noah, it would go, nobody, Adam and Eve, then a lot of people, then nobody again except Noah, and then a lot of people again.
2006-04-17 16:49:40
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS

sfarrar33 wrote:

I highly dout that the whole world filled with water or that a huge boat was made that held 2 of every animal, but all stories start somewhere, i agree with some of the other posts on here, the ones about the whole local floods but it being someones whole world and that, and i'm going to expand upon them.
Noah lives and he's the only survivor of his village and everything becuase he had his boat, well obviously noah now has no home just a few animals and not really anywhere to start up again, after all its now all water logged, so Noah moves on eventually he finds another village and he tells someone his story. If you were hearing this story you would think it quite a story and would probably spread it around, and the people you told would do the same, but it would be like chinese whispers the story would change bits would get elaborated, most likely because someones parents were imaginative (said something like "how big a boat was it mum?" "oh it was a huge great big boat" it happens all the time if you ever tell stories to small children you will find youreself elaborating on them as well) the kids grow up have kids of their own and tell them the same story but with yet more elaboration, and so on and so forth.
God gets added into it when a kid goes "so how come all water came?" and you don't have the science to explain flooding, then religion is the logical answer.
This is my opinion mind you, i might not be right but then again come up with a better reason for the story of Noah.

As a small note if the bible story is true, then doesn't that mean that we are all decended from Noah, it would go, nobody, Adam and Eve, then a lot of people, then nobody again except Noah, and then a lot of people again.
Never thought of that.

Great insights there.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-17 17:12:00
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7014|Noizyland

MaddOps wrote:

Ladies and Gents,

I think we can all safely ssay that this argument sunk a long time ago.

Time to quit fishing.
Dude, you can't have a debate and then quit when it starts becoming heated! You take all the fun out of it. We don't hate each other, we just disagree.

I'd like to first ask a question to the christian community:
Could God microwave a Burrito so hot that He himself could not eat it?

Secondly, some quickfire responses to wannabe_tank_whore.
- Wood.
- Read the Bible. He did crack. He questioned God's judgement and God told him not to. He got everything back kind of because of course, God had murdered his family. They didn't come back from the dead, Job just got himelf a new one.
- Just because a Devil entity is mentioned in the Bible does not mean it wasn't created by some sly christian folk to defend their interests. Your argument is lacking.
- Yes, that's much like ol' Job isn't it? Bad things happen don't question it. People are inquisitive and christianity is there to offer answers, but people arn't dumb. Christian answers are like "It's like that because God made it so." That's not enough I'm afraid.
- I'm sorry what's this? If I truely sought the truth you suggest that I read? Read what huh? Christian books that slowly bend your mind, ("The Dream Giver,") or perhaps The Bible again? I am well read I assure you, and with 200 hours in eight months is a lot less than most people here with Battlefield 2.
- Christianity and Catholism are different things you're right, but on the point I made they are the same.
- Sly isn't an insult. Christianity teaches lies as facts in my opinion too by the way.
- The faith I talk about is very much a Christian faith. There are so many branches of Christianity that there is no sure-fire correct one. Anglicans and Catholics for example are both Christian groups, but they are different.

Okay thirdly I'd just like to defend Charlie Darwin.
He was brought up in a time when the Bible was not questioned by anyone. He came up with the theory of Evoloution from nothing. He got a few things wrong OBVIOUSLY, that's why not all evoloutionary theory is based on his work. He broke through the wall, he got things started and yes, he got things wrong. Unlike Christianity, evoloutionary theorists work on what they have. They add things to it and change it, it evolves. Christian credibility comes from remaining the same, so insted of evolving, they put up walls of disbelief.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2006-04-17 17:50:44
tF-afrojap
Member
+124|7086|SF
I don't have time to read through all posts, but regardless I think the author of the thread missed a big point.

There are some great ideas to be learned from Christianity or any other religion for that matter. However it becomes problematic when people can’t get over the metaphors / analogies and start trying to make scientific sense out of it (www.christiananswers.net), because it often doesn’t, and we all know this. The folks who insist that all these evens were real, pull your heads out of the sand and wake up to the facts. Some of those stories were made up, SO WHAT? I see people defending these trivial aspects of the religion as if you would be forced to abandon all faith the second something in the bible was disproved. Nothing needs to physically exist, or actually occur for us to believe or have faith in something. If that was the case, our ideas would be severely limited, and we wouldn’t progress at all. Some of those stories in the bible were made up to enforce the message, perhaps in order to convince and awe more people at the time. Today we are smart enough to see past that and cut right through to the message that they were trying to convey, which should be the center of interest in the first place. Christians, I admire certain aspects or your religion, and I am not shooting you down simply because I know some aspects are bogus, it’s cause I have the flexibility to do so. I hope you can do the same.
2006-04-17 18:23:57
sfg-Ice__
Member
+4|6892
The thing with the bible is that it was written down by men from god.  Therefore, man has left a imprint apon a perfect word.  Now we followed the bible and then came jesus who refined things abit more and explained alot of things that people had wrong or did wrong.  Now after 2000 years, we follow that word as it is given to us.  Now the question I have for you is this.  If the bible is the true and one word of god, why is it then that the Vatican took under its custody the dead sea scrolls and then released them to the public in bits and not in their entirety?

My view on this is that Jesus may of said some things that conflict with what modern organized religion takes for granted.  Would an established power such as the Vatican release information that would tell the world somethings we were always taught were wrong?  To those who would say that what I'm saying her is completely wrong, even foul or what not I ask you this.  Was everything jesus said written down?
2006-04-17 18:25:47
TngoWsky
Member
+5|6824|MS
Hey guys. This is getting deep. You all have to remember that Christianity and its relatives are Faith based religions. They are all devoted to One God. They are all different because you have so many different cultures in the world today. When it began so many years ago, there was one religion. As time went on, people moved, religions changed. But, they all (most of them) believe in one TRUE God. They may call him different names but it is one God and he is the same.

Back then the world was so much smaller to them than it is to us. Yeah, God could have flooded what they knew as the world. We don't know. But there is a boat on the side of a mountain, this we know. How it got there we don't know. Time will tell. Maybe Noah didn't have 2 of every single species of animal on his boat. Maybe he did. All we know is that is what is written in the Bible. Yes it was written by man and we are unsure if they meant every animal or not. We can only believe what we are told or see. And that goes with every thing.

You are all putting each other down about whether there is a god or not. God is about choices and Faith. Whether you believe in him or not, it is your choice. He gives you that choice to make. We don't know if God truely exists, but we belive in Him any way. It is our choice and our Faith that makes him real. If you want to believe in God, great. If not, then oh well, it's your choice. I nor any one else can make you believe something that you don't want to believe. We can share our Faith with you, tell you what we know and believe, then it is up to you to decide if that is the path you want to take.

I'll stop with this question, with so many things in the world today, that are "bad" (ie  terrorist, disease, floods....I could keep going but you get the point) what is wrong with someone wanting something good to believe in like Heaven and God and so on?
2006-04-17 18:38:15
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS

TngoWsky wrote:

Hey guys. This is getting deep. You all have to remember that Christianity and its relatives are Faith based religions. They are all devoted to One God. They are all different because you have so many different cultures in the world today. When it began so many years ago, there was one religion. As time went on, people moved, religions changed. But, they all (most of them) believe in one TRUE God. They may call him different names but it is one God and he is the same.

Back then the world was so much smaller to them than it is to us. Yeah, God could have flooded what they knew as the world. We don't know. But there is a boat on the side of a mountain, this we know. How it got there we don't know. Time will tell. Maybe Noah didn't have 2 of every single species of animal on his boat. Maybe he did. All we know is that is what is written in the Bible. Yes it was written by man and we are unsure if they meant every animal or not. We can only believe what we are told or see. And that goes with every thing.

You are all putting each other down about whether there is a god or not. God is about choices and Faith. Whether you believe in him or not, it is your choice. He gives you that choice to make. We don't know if God truely exists, but we belive in Him any way. It is our choice and our Faith that makes him real. If you want to believe in God, great. If not, then oh well, it's your choice. I nor any one else can make you believe something that you don't want to believe. We can share our Faith with you, tell you what we know and believe, then it is up to you to decide if that is the path you want to take.

I'll stop with this question, with so many things in the world today, that are "bad" (ie  terrorist, disease, floods....I could keep going but you get the point) what is wrong with someone wanting something good to believe in like Heaven and God and so on?
Well for my part my main 'attacks' have been on extremely flawed creationist arguments.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-17 18:40:09
Daysniper
Member
+42|6874

Tyferra wrote:

I'd like to first ask a question to the christian community:
Could God microwave a Burrito so hot that He himself could not eat it?

Okay thirdly I'd just like to defend Charlie Darwin.
He was brought up in a time when the Bible was not questioned by anyone. He came up with the theory of Evoloution from nothing. He got a few things wrong OBVIOUSLY, that's why not all evoloutionary theory is based on his work. He broke through the wall, he got things started and yes, he got things wrong. Unlike Christianity, evoloutionary theorists work on what they have. They add things to it and change it, it evolves. Christian credibility comes from remaining the same, so insted of evolving, they put up walls of disbelief.
I second it:
Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it!?

I AGREE!   

Christianity is based on faith. The only reason they are coming up with Intelligent Design is so they can seem credible, and get it into schools. ID is just a rephrasing of Creationism. Creationism should not be taught in schools (I'm starting a new argument, forgive me. ). If you want to know why, ask me. Please.
2006-04-17 18:48:30
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7017
Why cant it be taught in schools?

Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-04-17 19:05:12)

2006-04-17 18:58:00
Daysniper
Member
+42|6874
Why?

1st amendment, that's why! (disregarding private schools.)

The 1st amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

key phrase: no law respecting an establishment of religion

DUH!

But ID isn't preaching relgion I hear you cry!

According to MSNBC:

Many scientists…contend creationists repackaged old ideas in a new scientific-sounding language to get around a …Supreme Court decision…against teaching…Creation in public schools.

However, this “science” is not science.  According to Michael Ruse, a professor of Philosophy at Florida State University, who in 1981 testified against the Arkansas law requiring a balanced-treatment of creation science, “Creation science…looks to the supernatural acts of a Creator. According to creation-science theory, the Creator has intervened in supernatural ways.” (Ruse 261)

according to Judge John Jones, who presided over the recent Dover School District case, a “religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”

And last, but not least,

can you honestly look me in the eye, and tell me ID isn't a play on creationism!? Can you?????

Intelligent design states that human beings are so complex, they must have been created by an “intelligent designer” and did not evolve from a lower order of animals.

key words: created by, Intelligent Designer, did not evolve

It is a ploy to keep true science (evolution) out of schools or being taught side by side with Creation.
2006-04-17 19:42:10
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Daysniper wrote:

Why?

1st amendment, that's why! (disregarding private schools.)

The 1st amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

key phrase: no law respecting an establishment of religion

DUH!

But ID isn't preaching relgion I hear you cry!

According to MSNBC:

Many scientists…contend creationists repackaged old ideas in a new scientific-sounding language to get around a …Supreme Court decision…against teaching…Creation in public schools.

However, this “science” is not science.  According to Michael Ruse, a professor of Philosophy at Florida State University, who in 1981 testified against the Arkansas law requiring a balanced-treatment of creation science, “Creation science…looks to the supernatural acts of a Creator. According to creation-science theory, the Creator has intervened in supernatural ways.” (Ruse 261)

according to Judge John Jones, who presided over the recent Dover School District case, a “religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”

And last, but not least,

can you honestly look me in the eye, and tell me ID isn't a play on creationism!? Can you?????

Intelligent design states that human beings are so complex, they must have been created by an “intelligent designer” and did not evolve from a lower order of animals.

key words: created by, Intelligent Designer, did not evolve

It is a ploy to keep true science (evolution) out of schools or being taught side by side with Creation.
He is correct.

ID is not 'science'. It may be a religious topic. While good to debate, not good to teach to young kids who CAN'T.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-18 03:37:56
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7014|Noizyland

... which brings me back the the question I asked earlier, (well, not really, but I wanted to bring it up again.)

Could God microwave a burrito SO HOT that he himself could not eat it?

Yes I know I stole that from The Simpsons, that marijuana episode was bloody hilarious, but I would be so thankful if some nice christian fellah could answer this for me.

Maybe I should start a new topic, could be a good debate.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2006-04-18 04:04:37
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Tyferra wrote:

... which brings me back the the question I asked earlier, (well, not really, but I wanted to bring it up again.)

Could God microwave a burrito SO HOT that he himself could not eat it?

Yes I know I stole that from The Simpsons, that marijuana episode was bloody hilarious, but I would be so thankful if some nice christian fellah could answer this for me.

Maybe I should start a new topic, could be a good debate.
Right ahead of you
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-18 05:49:33
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

Tyferra wrote:

Secondly, some quickfire responses to wannabe_tank_whore.
-Wood.
So now you would agree that a rock cannot be carbon dated?

Tyferra wrote:

- Read the Bible. He did crack. He questioned God's judgement and God told him not to. He got everything back kind of because of course, God had murdered his family. They didn't come back from the dead, Job just got himelf a new one.
Show me where he cracked and cursed God. 

Tyferra wrote:

- Just because a Devil entity is mentioned in the Bible does not mean it wasn't created by some sly christian folk to defend their interests. Your argument is lacking.
Hitler never existed.  He was a made up piece of propaganda to rally Germans to the nazi party.

When you start to question like this it becomes the snowball affect downward where you have to question everything.  You cannot pick and choose what to question and what not to question.

Tyferra wrote:

- Yes, that's much like ol' Job isn't it? Bad things happen don't question it. People are inquisitive and christianity is there to offer answers, but people arn't dumb. Christian answers are like "It's like that because God made it so." That's not enough I'm afraid.
Why did you change your argument?  First it was ' they try to blame the devil' and now it is because 'they say it was God who made it so'.

Tyferra wrote:

- I'm sorry what's this? If I truely sought the truth you suggest that I read? Read what huh? Christian books that slowly bend your mind, ("The Dream Giver,") or perhaps The Bible again? I am well read I assure you, and with 200 hours in eight months is a lot less than most people here with Battlefield 2.
- Christianity and Catholism are different things you're right, but on the point I made they are the same.
- Sly isn't an insult. Christianity teaches lies as facts in my opinion too by the way.
- The faith I talk about is very much a Christian faith. There are so many branches of Christianity that there is no sure-fire correct one. Anglicans and Catholics for example are both Christian groups, but they are different.
In your eyes there is no correct one.  The Bible is clear, however.

You said it best on this one in that Christianity "remains the same".
2006-04-18 06:10:36
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

Spark wrote:

Well for my part my main 'attacks' have been on extremely flawed creationist arguments.
Will you admit evolution is flawed?  I'll cease my posts if you do so.

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Is the match made of wood or rock?

"Carbon-14 is not appropriate for rocks because it must involve organic carbon. Rocks are made of minerals that are by definition inorganic.
"With 14C, we can only calculate the age of something that was once living (contains organic carbon). Since (most) rocks were never alive, we can't use this to date a rock.
"The half life of 14C is geologically short -- 5730 years -- and is therefore not useful for materials older than about 35,000 years. That's well over 4 billion years of geologic history that we can't touch."
From:
http://serc.carleton.edu/quantskills/me … Decay.html
Carbon dating may not be accurate when looking geologic time, but other radiometric dating techniques are not constrained by the relatively short life of carbon-14. This was taken from the wikipedia page on radiometric dating

Uranium-lead dating is usually performed on the mineral "zircon" (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials. Zircon incorporates uranium atoms into its crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly rejects lead. It has a very high blocking temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. These can be dated by a SHRIMP ion microprobe.

One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost.
I read some pages denouncing radiometric dating as unreliable, but suprise suprise they were all written by creationists. Besides which, even if the dating techniques are unreliable, they would have to be unreliable by a factor of a few thousand to account for a Creationist timeline. After all, any date older than 6 or 7 thousand years directly contradicts Creationist doctrine, unless of course God has just arranged for things to look older than they really are, which cannot be discounted.

I'm glad to see you're using reliable sources though.
Skruples, why do you not correct those who agree with you?  Tyferra stated that a match would contain carbon and therefore carbon dating cannot be used to date rocks is false.  A match is made of wood and therefore contains organic carbon.  It is intellectual dishonesty to side with those who speak for your argument without pointing out their errors.

How much zircon is in rocks?

It is also intellectual dishonesty to call the other side of the argument unreliable.  Those sites pick up the scientist that speak their side of the argument as you too have done.  Remember, there would not be two sides in the scientific community on the topic if everything were known.
2006-04-18 06:23:52
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

Spark wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Read this.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB … 20MainPage

Summary:  Darwin talked out of his butt. 

"Darwinian evolution is plainly unavailing in this exercise or that era, since Darwinian evolution begins with self-replication, and self-replication is precisely what needs to be explained."

"If chemistry is unavailing and Darwin indisposed, what is left as a mechanism? The evolutionary biologist’s finest friend: sheer dumb luck."

"Was nature lucky? It depends on the payoff and the odds. The payoff is clear: an ancestral form of RNA capable of replication. Without that payoff, there is no life, and obviously, at some point, the payoff paid off. The question is the odds."
What, pray, do you understand by evolution?

Do you understand the concept f natural selection?

Do you understand that most organisms are not identical? (except bacteria, which are ALMOST always identical)
But we came from common ancestors, right?  Shouldn't everything be almost identical in genetic structure?  Let me ask you, what do you know about evolution?  And where is Skruples to point out his incognizant of evolution?

Spark wrote:

Do you understand how one of those mutations could give an organism an advantage?
Name, I pray, one example of a beneficial mutation. 

Spark wrote:

If evolution is not correct, why do we have so many different NEW strains of bacteria, viruses coming up?
Is that last comment a joke?


Daysniper wrote:

Why?

1st amendment, that's why! (disregarding private schools.)

The 1st amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

key phrase: no law respecting an establishment of religion
Do you celebrate Christmas?  Does the government observe Christmas holidays?

http://www.opm.gov/Fedhol/2006.asp

Using the 4th definition of religion, evolution fits: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Why then must evolution be taught if congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?

Last edited by wannabe_tank_whore (2006-04-18 06:35:54)

2006-04-18 10:37:30
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|6940

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Skruples, why do you not correct those who agree with you?  Tyferra stated that a match would contain carbon and therefore carbon dating cannot be used to date rocks is false.  A match is made of wood and therefore contains organic carbon.  It is intellectual dishonesty to side with those who speak for your argument without pointing out their errors.

How much zircon is in rocks?
Because A. you already mentioned it, B. I was pointing out that carbon dating was not even related to the methods I was talking about, and C. I dont know how much zircon is in rocks, but I would assume its enough to run tests on.

I would also point out that it is 'intellectual dishonesty' to accuse your opponent of flat out lying, as you have done to me at least once (and I suspect twice, when you said 'Hmmm... did you know that 73.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot.')

Get your own ducks in a row before you criticize mine.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

It is also intellectual dishonesty to call the other side of the argument unreliable.  Those sites pick up the scientist that speak their side of the argument as you too have done.  Remember, there would not be two sides in the scientific community on the topic if everything were known
I believe I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Those sites are not based on science, theyre based on religion. They begin with the firm belief that life began 6000 years ago when god created the universe and humans, and they believe in the global flood. They believe these things as absolute truth before they even begin research. THAT is why they cannot be trusted as a primary source. If their research was independantly corroborated by neutral sources, then I would be more inclined to believe them, but as it stands all I see are a bunch of self indulgent christians who happen to hold degrees.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Using the 4th definition of religion, evolution fits: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Why then must evolution be taught if congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?
please tell me you're joking. Perhaps we should stop teaching math too.

Last edited by Skruples (2006-04-18 11:06:26)

2006-04-18 11:14:18
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Skruples, why do you not correct those who agree with you?  Tyferra stated that a match would contain carbon and therefore carbon dating cannot be used to date rocks is false.  A match is made of wood and therefore contains organic carbon.  It is intellectual dishonesty to side with those who speak for your argument without pointing out their errors.

How much zircon is in rocks?
Because A. you already mentioned it, B. I was pointing out that carbon dating was not even related to the methods I was talking about, and C. I dont know how much zircon is in rocks, but I would assume its enough to run tests on.

I would also point out that it is 'intellectual dishonesty' to accuse your opponent of flat out lying, as you have done to me at least once (and I suspect twice, when you said 'Hmmm... did you know that 73.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot.')

Get your own ducks in a row before you criticize mine.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

It is also intellectual dishonesty to call the other side of the argument unreliable.  Those sites pick up the scientist that speak their side of the argument as you too have done.  Remember, there would not be two sides in the scientific community on the topic if everything were known
I believe I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Those sites are not based on science, theyre based on religion. They begin with the firm belief that life began 6000 years ago when god created the universe and humans, and they believe in the global flood. They believe these things as absolute truth before they even begin research. THAT is why they cannot be trusted as a primary source. If their research was independantly corroborated by neutral sources, then I would be more inclined to believe them, but as it stands all I see are a bunch of self indulgent christians who happen to hold degrees.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Using the 4th definition of religion, evolution fits: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Why then must evolution be taught if congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?
please tell me you're joking. Perhaps we should stop teaching math too.
If one gives false information, half truths, or misrepresents (on purpose) data what is that called?

So now you see my point on evolution.  Or do you not?
2006-04-18 11:23:30
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|6940

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

If one gives false information, half truths, or misrepresents (on purpose) data what is that called?
You still havent shown me where I gave "false information, half truths, or misrepresent[ations]" on purpose. Heres the original quote where you accused me of lying, in case you've forgotten.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

But you again misrepresent what I said... most are liberals that don't believe in the Christian God.  But then again, the truth is not what you're after...
Did I misread you? Was I in error? Lets check what you wrote here

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Actually, universities are quite liberal and most liberals don't believe in God
"Most liberals don't believe in God." Perhaps you should have been more specific.
Do you purposely lie or is it a gene?
"Show me a bleeding heart that believes in the Christian God."

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

So now you see my point on evolution.  Or do you not?
I understand the point you're trying to make, except that you forget evolution is not predicated on supernatural beliefs. That is the difference. That is why intelligent design should not be taught in schools. If you don't agree with that, send your kids to private schools, where they can be taught whatever you feel like.
2006-04-18 12:18:14
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

If one gives false information, half truths, or misrepresents (on purpose) data what is that called?
You still havent shown me where I gave "false information, half truths, or misrepresent[ations]" on purpose. Heres the original quote where you accused me of lying, in case you've forgotten.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Skruples wrote:

Did I misread you? Was I in error? Lets check what you wrote here

"Most liberals don't believe in God." Perhaps you should have been more specific.
Do you purposely lie or is it a gene?
"Show me a bleeding heart that believes in the Christian God."

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

So now you see my point on evolution.  Or do you not?
I understand the point you're trying to make, except that you forget evolution is not predicated on supernatural beliefs. That is the difference. That is why intelligent design should not be taught in schools. If you don't agree with that, send your kids to private schools, where they can be taught whatever you feel like.
Did I not clarify it after you asked me and yet you still went on saying I said I should be more specific?  http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=259889#p259889
I'll quote again, 'Read it again, "universities are quite liberal and most liberals don't believe in God."  Show me a bleeding heart that believes in the Christian God.'


Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

It is also intellectual dishonesty to call the other side of the argument unreliable.  Those sites pick up the scientist that speak their side of the argument as you too have done.  Remember, there would not be two sides in the scientific community on the topic if everything were known
I believe I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Those sites are not based on science, theyre based on religion. They begin with the firm belief that life began 6000 years ago when god created the universe and humans, and they believe in the global flood. They believe these things as absolute truth before they even begin research. THAT is why they cannot be trusted as a primary source. If their research was independantly corroborated by neutral sources, then I would be more inclined to believe them, but as it stands all I see are a bunch of self indulgent christians who happen to hold degrees.
The sites are based on religion, yes. But the content on the sites is scientific.  The scientist that came up with the arguments could or could not be Christians (or any religion for that matter) but it doesn't change the fact that the arguments are there and oppose evolution's "evidence". 

Those "neutral" sources who try to disprove Creationism, are they self indulgent non-Christians?  Like for instance, Darwin?

Did you edit my post to include what you edited in the previous one that I quoted before it was there?

Last edited by wannabe_tank_whore (2006-04-18 12:32:54)

2006-04-18 13:40:07
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

topal63 wrote:

You are joking right? You must be - why are you doing it?

Evolution is a FACT! The theory of evolution is misnomer (now) - because it contains both FACT and theory. Fact  simple organisms have been documented to have changed. Crap(!) virus's, bacterium & insects breed so quickly that a thousand generations can happen in very short period of time; and thus their genetic code becomes different making them resistent to drugs, pesticides, etc.

Also the dynamic nature of genes and gentic expression is self-evident - just look at dogs (bred by monks), plant variants, etc.

Evolution HAPPENS, genetic forms are NOT STATIC, they are DYNAMIC, and they do change. The genetic heritage is not a TABLET written in STONE by GOD. The forms are not created then that is it and that is the way they shall always be. Honestly even creationist have delegated the GOD creator theory to a micro-tuner of physical properties. Creationist have acknowledged evolution happens, but when the really important changes happen it is due to magic, micro-tuner God steps in makes it happen by divine intervention. Have you read or looked and the evidence presented by creationist - guess what it is non-existent. There is no proof of micro-tuner God intervention, because God keeps doing that space-time transcendent trick. The theory amounts to a wedge and belief. The wedge is an idea, if we can get this wedge of God back into the public school system we can defeat the evil (this is the belief part); the evil caused by secular humanism and scientific thinking.
You hopped in a debate Skruples and have been having across multiple threads on the 'same' subject.  I accept microevolution but not macroevolution.  Example, name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.

Last edited by wannabe_tank_whore (2006-04-18 13:40:19)

2006-04-18 14:13:02
sfg-Ice__
Member
+4|6892
WTW..I will ask you this about evolution...Why do we have tail bones?  Why do we have a appendix?  (Just to fill you in thats the organ that helps process raw meat that are bodies don't need anymore).  Also, why do you suppose that mans brain has gotten bigger over time?  Why do people in differant cultures look differantly.  Ie those in europe from those in africa.  IF there is a change thats a mutation.

While I think its noble of you to stick to your guns, how can you sit there and just discount all of science.  Is it some osrt of superiority thing where people cannot admit they are decended from apes?  Hell we're all decended from bacteria....everything on earth that is living. 

In my opinion its the mind set of being superior to everything on earth that is bringing about our downfall as a society.  Face it or not, but we are all connected in this world.  We are all made up of the same things.
2006-04-18 14:17:30
sfg-Ice__
Member
+4|6892
Ohh WTW about macroevolution...do you know anything about cross breeding plants?  Its the ground work for evolution in general.  Using domanant and recessive genes you can control what traits are passed on to the next generation.   In some cases mutation developed that where breed true through the species creating enough differance from the orignal species to a entirely new one.  Also check out dog breeding, horse breeding ..all those things.
2006-04-18 14:59:17
Daysniper
Member
+42|6874

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Daysniper wrote:

Why?

1st amendment, that's why! (disregarding private schools.)

The 1st amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

key phrase: no law respecting an establishment of religion
Do you celebrate Christmas?  Does the government observe Christmas holidays?

http://www.opm.gov/Fedhol/2006.asp

Using the 4th definition of religion, evolution fits: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Why then must evolution be taught if congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?
good, I was waiting for someone to ask me that!

Evolution is secular. End of story. (Religion is defined as something that advances religion)
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/eclause2.htm

"The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of establishing religion. The test has served as the foundation for many of the Court's post-1971 establishment clause rulings. As articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three parts:


First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose (in order for ID to be taught in public schools, It must be put into law); second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion (No, evolution does neither of these); finally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion.'"

(the establishment clause is the one I just told you about, AKA first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion")

And evolution does not have to be taught. It is "strongly advised". (If you don't, nobody's gonna kill you).

Oh, and about the Christmas things. The Feds take that Holiday off because so many people would take it off anyway. It really is about getting work done.

Last edited by Daysniper (2006-04-18 15:01:29)

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard