BF2S Forums Faith requires ignorance

CameronPoe wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

One argument on that would be that at least there is some evidence supporting the theory of evolutoin whereas there is none supporting the biblical version of creation.

Did you ever stop and think that maybe Adam and Eve didn't look exactly like Adam and Eve in the books.  They may have looked more like Chiimps than humans?  Something to think about.

You neglect to mention that the bible is written by man. Are you now suggesting that perhaps apes wrote the bible? Or that they had been handed down knowledge along the generations by their ape ancestors? Also - in reality they wouldn't have been apes they would more probably have been single-cell asexual lifeforms.

Their accounts would have had to have been given to them.

To your point, show me evidence of the first human in the evolution chain. Thus my reasoning for not having actual proof of either theory.

I didn't mean to get off topic but this is fascinating to me.

GATOR591957 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

Did you ever stop and think that maybe Adam and Eve didn't look exactly like Adam and Eve in the books.  They may have looked more like Chiimps than humans?  Something to think about.

You neglect to mention that the bible is written by man. Are you now suggesting that perhaps apes wrote the bible? Or that they had been handed down knowledge along the generations by their ape ancestors? Also - in reality they wouldn't have been apes they would more probably have been single-cell asexual lifeforms.

Their accounts would have had to have been given to them.

To your point, show me evidence of the first human in the evolution chain. Thus my reasoning for not having actual proof of either theory.

I didn't mean to get off topic but this is fascinating to me.

You don't need to have evidence of the first human and no 'first human' ever existed - the first human was some sort of ameoba. One can draw evidence to support the evolution theory from fossils and archaeological finds, there have also even been recorded instances of insect species learning to change and adapt to vastly different environments within the space of 20 generations. You don't need the complete history of man to lend credence to evolution - all you have to do is take long enough samples of history. The fact that is just a theory (although with strong evidence) means that it can be bettered as our knowledge and understanding improves with time unlike religious faith which remains rigidly fixed and has become largely obsolete (earth centre of the universe, etc.).

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-07-26 13:32:18)

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Ok bottom line (my last post on this thread, I hope, Or at least my last point)

Evolution = Theory with strong evidence
Creatonism = Theory with strong evidence

Believe what you want, and give those with other beliefs the same respect you expect.

WHat do you mean? Creationism has no evidence. Where's the evidence? I don't disrespect anyones right to believe in creationism if they so choose but I'm not conceding that there is evidence to suggest creationism is a valid theory.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-07-26 13:38:23)

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Ok bottom line (my last post on this thread, I hope, Or at least my last point)

Evolution = Theory with strong evidence
Creatonism = Theory with strong evidence

Believe what you want, and give those with other beliefs the same respect you expect.

Could you please be a little more specific on the "strong evidence" of Creationism, other than a 2000 year old book?

Obey_m0rph3us wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Ok bottom line (my last post on this thread, I hope, Or at least my last point)

Evolution = Theory with strong evidence
Creatonism = Theory with strong evidence

Believe what you want, and give those with other beliefs the same respect you expect.

Could you please be a little more specific on the "strong evidence" of Creationism, other than a 2000 year old book?

Read above post.  It has to do with your values.

You need FAITH to believe in creationism right?
You need FAITH to believe in evolution right?

I am simply stating that they should be viewed as equal theories and should not be slandered by either side by saying "where's the evidence other than a 2000 year old book" or from the other side "Evolution is just a theory, not proved, wheres the evidence, wheres the missing link, blah, etc"

CameronPoe wrote:

1) You seem to forget that the bible was written by men.

2)absolute faith is not required for evoluotion.

3) That model is a dynamic thing that develops and improves with the knowledge accrued with the inexorable passing of time.

1) No, I did not forget.

2) I disagree.

3) Couldn't creationism also have accrued information with the passing of time as well.  I just don't see why people must differentiate between the two and make it sound like Creationism is just some crap and by believing it your ignorant.  Seems a little aggressive.  My approach is a bit less....offensive.

I just think they should be equally weighted because no matter what amount of faith either requires, it is still what you believe.  And I respect everyone's belief.  I don't think that either are indisputable.

CameronPoe wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

1) You seem to forget that the bible was written by men.

2)absolute faith is not required for evoluotion.

3) That model is a dynamic thing that develops and improves with the knowledge accrued with the inexorable passing of time.

1) No, I did not forget.

2) I disagree.

3) Couldn't creationism also have accrued information with the passing of time as well.  I just don't see why people must differentiate between the two and make it sound like Creationism is just some crap and by believing it your ignorant.  Seems a little aggressive.  My approach is a bit less....offensive.

I just think they should be equally weighted because no matter what amount of faith either requires, it is still what you believe.  And I respect everyone's belief.  I don't think that either are indisputable.

You're correct in saying that neither are indisputable. I don't force my views on anyone btw. Just posting my thoughts.

Oh I know, I didn't mean to imply the aggressiveness on you, just other people I have talked to have said things like that.  I just look at them and sigh and walk away, because there is no point in arguing with retards.

jonsimon wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

1) You seem to forget that the bible was written by men.

2)absolute faith is not required for evoluotion.

3) That model is a dynamic thing that develops and improves with the knowledge accrued with the inexorable passing of time.

1) No, I did not forget.

2) I disagree.

3) Couldn't creationism also have accrued information with the passing of time as well.  I just don't see why people must differentiate between the two and make it sound like Creationism is just some crap and by believing it your ignorant.  Seems a little aggressive.  My approach is a bit less....offensive.

I just think they should be equally weighted because no matter what amount of faith either requires, it is still what you believe.  And I respect everyone's belief.  I don't think that either are indisputable.

If you respect everyones belief, regardless, then you should stop taking part in this discussion. You're disrepsecting my beliefs by insinuating that creationism is valid. Thus, I think you should cease discussion unless you choose to disrespect someones beliefs. The rule in debate is if you're going to be neutral, presenting opinions will only retract from the discussion. A neutral party's purpose is to present objective facts without a conflict of interests.

OMG I'm saying that BOTH Creationism and Evolution are valid.  If your offended that the thought of creationism could be valid, than you have some growing up to do if you think THAT is disrespect.

I was pointing out an objective comment on my #3 that you quoted, I was giving Creationism EQUAL weight with Evolution, I haven't even alluded to which if either I believe.  Unless you can quote me as saying otherwise.  I hope you were being sarcastic.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-07-26 14:18:25)

AllmightyOz wrote:

chittydog wrote:

Miller wrote:

False.  You have to be ignorant not to accept a religion.

You can't just make a statement like that and not give a reason. That is ignorant.

Edit: Miller provided his explanation below. I rescind my comment about him.

*claps* People of religion normally think they are right and are not open to discussing. Normally ending such things with YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!

I can't stand people like that, I wish more "people of religion" weren't so self-righteous, than they wouldn't seem so....seperated from the issue.

However people can be ignorant by not accepting a religion.  It all depends on someone's values.

Arguement #1:
Aethiest: You believe in God???
Christian: Yeah
Aethiest: Your ignorant.

Arguement #2
Christian: You don't believe in God???
Aethiest: Nope.
Christian: You're ignorant.

Are either of them wrong? Nope.  Its all about your beliefs.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-07-26 14:22:01)

Creationism is valid as a philosophy, and Evolution is valid as a scientific study.  They are not equally valid when regarded together in theologic or scientific realms.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Ok bottom line (my last post on this thread, I hope, Or at least my last point)

Evolution = Theory with strong evidence
Creatonism = Theory with strong evidence

Believe what you want, and give those with other beliefs the same respect you expect.

FFS Creationism has no evidence! If it did then it wouldn't be Faith, would it?

Evolution = Theory = with strong evidence
Creatonism = Bullshit = with strong evidence

I will not repest the opinion of a person, if the respect has not been reciprocated! This is hardly ever accomplished!

Funny http://www.deism.com/adamandeve.htm

Last edited by xGBlitzkrieg (2006-07-26 15:07:18)

Creationism is NOT a theory.  According to dictionary.com, theory is defined as: t
he·o·ry   Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries

   1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Creationism is a BELIEF

Evolution is a THEORY, because it can be backed with credible scientific data (IE: fossils, comparative anatomy, geographical distribution of species, etc), and not the testimony of a 2000 year old book.

EDIT:  About the "widely accepted" part in the definition of theory, in the 1300s it was widely accepted that the earth was flat.  This is the same vein as Creationism, a belief that is widely accepted yet not based on any scientific fact.

Last edited by Obey_m0rph3us (2006-07-26 15:16:04)