Creationist Explains How Humans Could Have Hunted The Tyrannosaurus Rex

[vienna]

Perhaps too many "Fintstones" reruns?:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/creationist-explains-humans-could-hunted-181200018.html

<O>

[Platapus]

[quote]In June a Gallup[/URL] poll found that 46 percent of Americans (http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/gallup) believe the literal interpretation of Genesis i.e. that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years without the benefit of evolution. [/quote

Read more: [URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/creationism-v-the-bible-bet-2013-3#ixzz2PR3qX0ke

[Cybermat47]

Where's the :justacceptthatevolutionisreal: smiley?:hmmm:

Honestly, there's so much evidence out there for evolution, but very little against it. It's not like the existence of a God, which has very little evidence either way. In fact, at the Catholic school I go to, we learn that the garden of Eden was a myth. Which was quite a relief for me, seeing as up to that point I'd believed in both the garden of Eden and evolution :doh:

[Dowly]

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x462/Dowly/RESIST.jpg

[AndyJWest]

"T-Rex … could be herded into a blind canyon and have rocks dropped on their heads from above. And they'd soon be done in."

I suspect the same technique would work with creationists. ;)

[Rhodes]

"Human beings were smarter the further back we go in time because they have been less degenerated but the pollutants that we've been putting into the air, water, and soil," he said. "T-Rex … could be herded into a blind canyon and have rocks dropped on their heads from above. And they'd soon be done in."
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har: :har::har::har::har::har::har::har:

[CaptainHaplo]

The guy is PH.D. - but not in theology. His education is in kinesiology.
While this does make him qualified to discuss in some ways to discuss the possibility of evolution, it does not qualify him as a theologian.

He is entitled to his belief, however inaccurate others may see it.

Seems to me to simply be a "lets hate on creationists thread" - as so aptly demonstrated by andyjwest:

I suspect the same technique would work with creationists. ;)

Yes andy - I suspect it would - just as it would for any other group that you could trap in a canyon and drop rocks on their head.

This kind of hatefulness has begun to run rampant in GT, and it is sad to see. I wonder - what kind of a storm would it have created if it had been some other religion that had come up with such a claim?

[Cybermat47]

This kind of hatefulness has begun to run rampant in GT, and it is sad to see.

Amen to that :nope:

[AndyJWest]

Ok, here's the deal. I'll apologise for mocking creationists when they stop insulting the intelligence of the rest of us with their nonsensical arguments.

[August]

In June a Gallup poll found that 46 percent of Americans believe the literal interpretation of Genesis i.e. that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years without the benefit of evolution.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/creationism-v-the-bible-bet-2013-3#ixzz2PR3qX0ke



I know folks swear by it but I for one find it hard to believe that a thousand people can represent the opinion of 300 million Americans with 95% accuracy.

[Sailor Steve]

Here's another deal: Why not go mock them in their own forums rather that waste space here? I will cheerfully debate them here if they want, but dragging someone else's ideas here just to mock is cheap, low and petty.

[Lord_magerius]

Here's another deal: Why not go mock them in their own forums rather that waste space here? I will cheerfully debate them here if they want, but dragging someone else's ideas here just to mock is cheap, low and petty.

This, most definitely this.

[Cybermat47]

Here's another deal: Why not go mock them in their own forums rather that waste space here? I will cheerfully debate them here if they want, but dragging someone else's ideas here just to mock is cheap, low and petty.

:agree:

[Skybird]

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x462/Dowly/RESIST.jpg
Me too. It's hard.

[TLAM Strike]

"T-Rex … could be herded into a blind canyon and have rocks dropped on their heads from above. And they'd soon be done in."


That's not how you do it. You have to fight them hand to hand... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ghk7XUVv3o)

[Skybird]

Here's another deal: Why not go mock them in their own forums rather that waste space here? I will cheerfully debate them here if they want, but dragging someone else's ideas here just to mock is cheap, low and petty.

We also should never have dragged Northkorea's claim to have found dragon eggs in their mountains and to have spotted unicorns in their forests here, because just to mock was cheap, low and petty. We better mock their news in a forum about Northkorean news.

[Buddahaid]

That's not how you do it. You have to fight them hand to hand... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ghk7XUVv3o)

Thanks for that.

You know you don't have to get offended. If you believe, it is of no significance so ignore it, or is your faith insecure?. I'm tired of every group having to be always offended by something. I don't care anymore.

[nikimcbee]

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x462/Dowly/RESIST.jpg

http://i.qkme.me/3pdsd9.jpg

[August]

"Really big spears. Twice as long as a man"

http://images.askmen.com/entertainment/movie/1266446453_braveheart_1.jpg

[TLAM Strike]

Thanks for that.

You know you don't have to get offended. If you believe, it is of no significance so ignore it, or is your faith insecure?. I'm tired of every group having to be always offended by something. I don't care anymore.

I don't understand, how does that reply have anything to do with me posting a link about engaging in hand-to-hand combat with a Tyrannosaurus? :hmmm:

[Buddahaid]

I don't understand, how does that reply have anything to do with me posting a link about engaging in hand-to-hand combat with a Tyrannosaurus? :hmmm:

Sorry, my bad.

I love Red Dwarf and got a good laugh from the video. The other comment was my rant about being offended broadcast to the ether. :arrgh!:

[Buddahaid]

"Really big spears. Twice as long as a man"

http://images.askmen.com/entertainment/movie/1266446453_braveheart_1.jpg

I think maybe chainsaws on the ends of the spears? :hmmm:

[Tribesman]

I will cheerfully debate them here if they want, but dragging someone else's ideas here just to mock is cheap, low and petty.
Is real debate with creationists even possible?
They have fixed immovable views which they cling to even after their own evidence completely trashes their view.
Skybird answers the second part well....
"We also should never have dragged Northkorea's claim to have found dragon eggs in their mountains and to have spotted unicorns in their forests here, because just to mock was cheap, low and petty. We better mock their news in a forum about Northkorean news."

As for this post.
I wonder - what kind of a storm would it have created if it had been some other religion that had come up with such a claim?

No need to wonder, muslim creationists got their views torn apart as rubbish in exactly the same way on this forum, it was easily done as they are exactly the same views.

[Mork_417]

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTKYcICGGJ927ILtk336jqzTQGdIGmcV 28606nKqaakUhq0cAkqfA

[HunterICX]

Here's another deal: Why not go mock them in their own forums rather that waste space here? I will cheerfully debate them here if they want, but dragging someone else's ideas here just to mock is cheap, low and petty.

and

This kind of hatefulness has begun to run rampant in GT, and it is sad to see. I wonder - what kind of a storm would it have created if it had been some other religion that had come up with such a claim?

I've seen enough Muslim/Islam ideas&actions bashing on these forums too, just a reminder.

HunterICX

[Hottentot]

I've seen enough Muslim/Islam ideas&actions bashing on these forums too, just a reminder.

And lately the best result they have had has been a huge wave of yawning and sinking into oblivion.

[HunterICX]

And lately the best result they have had has been a huge wave of yawning and sinking into oblivion.

That's mostly laughing and making fun of the OP and it are usually the same suspects over and over again and those are usually the more *cough* serious *cough* topics. But when a Iranian Imam say earthquakes are caused by women wearing bikinis it's all for good laughs right? Then I don't hear anyone say to take their mockery and cheap shots somewhere else or think it is sad to see a religion is trashed in this manner.

HunterICX

[Hottentot]

Fair point, I was indeed thinking of the former kind and not the latter.

[Tribesman]

Then I don't hear anyone say to take their mockery and cheap shots somewhere else or think it is sad to see a religion is trashed in this manner.

Be fair, a few posters are regularly told to take their religion bashing crap back to stormfront.
Then again there are people who complain that ripping the piss out of neo nazi white supremacists is an attack on Christianity because the dumb racist scum just happen to call themselves "christian".:hmmm:

I suppose Phelps and his baptist church makes an interesting contrast.
Everyone rips into that, a few will make the point of freedom of speech but you don't get the :wah::wah::wah: they are picking on christians again comments.
It illustrates well that both the creationists(of any of the big3) and the WBC are easily ripped into, not because they claim they are of a certain faith but purely on what they say.

[Sailor Steve]

I've seen enough Muslim/Islam ideas&actions bashing on these forums too, just a reminder.
Of course. All kinds of bashing goes on here. Even threads like this one serve a purpose of sorts. I was speaking directly to people who have nothing more to add than "These people are all morons!" That kind of post serves no purpose at all.

If someone is making these claims here, fine. Show them they're wrong and why. Just saying "You're an ignoramus!" serves no purpose at all, especially when the claim wasn't even made here, but imported from another website.

On the other hand the people turning the "herding dinosaurs" claim into a joke about the best way to do said hunting are indeed serving a purpose. Humor is always a good thing.

[CaptainHaplo]

Of course. All kinds of bashing goes on here. Even threads like this one serve a purpose of sorts. I was speaking directly to people who have nothing more to add than "These people are all morons!" That kind of post serves no purpose at all.

If someone is making these claims here, fine. Show them they're wrong and why. Just saying "You're an ignoramus!" serves no purpose at all, especially when the claim wasn't even made here, but imported from another website.

On the other hand the people turning the "herding dinosaurs" claim into a joke about the best way to do said hunting are indeed serving a purpose. Humor is always a good thing.

Right on, Steve! :up:

"Bashing" one person's opinion does happen. Its when one person has a view, and suddenly that one idiotic view is used to bash an entire group - who may or may not agree with the original idiot - is where I start having issues.

It's like saying Kim Jong Un is a fat idiot. OK, maybe he is - but that doesn't mean that every North Korean is a fat idiot. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a real idiot too - but that doesn't make every Iranian one. Barbara Boxer and Sarah Palin are considered moronic by some people, but that doesn't mean that every person that agrees with some things they say are all morons either.

The whole "I suspect the same technique would work on creationists" is lumping anyone who says they believe in "creationism" (whether in 7 days or 7 billion years) as worthy of being killed. That kind of thing simply does not belong here at Subsim.com - like it or not.

People here don't have to agree with someone, or a group of people. But the rules are clear - they do need to be generally respectful - and grouping folks together and talking about a way to kill them because they hold some specific belief or common view - does not qualify.

[Dowly]

The whole "I suspect the same technique would work on creationists" is lumping anyone who says they believe in "creationism" (whether in 7 days or 7 billion years) as worthy of being killed.

People here don't have to agree with someone, or a group of people. But the rules are clear - they do need to be generally respectful - and grouping folks together and talking about a way to kill them because they hold some specific belief or common view - does not qualify.

I think you're taking what Andy said a bit too seriously. :roll:

[Tribesman]

I think you're taking what Andy said a bit too seriously. :roll:
No its all in perspective, did you know that the war on christmas has the dedicated aim of crucifying Santa and his little helpers.

[frau kaleun]

No its all in perspective, did you know that the war on christmas has the dedicated aim of crucifying Santa and his little helpers.

Well, to be fair, they've got it coming. I never did get that pony.

[Tribesman]

Well, to be fair, they've got it coming. I never did get that pony.
And you shall be rewarded for voicing support for the communitarian anti christmas revolution.
Once santa has gone the way of all tyrants, under the redistribution of welf program you are entitled to a small share in one of twelve reindeers.

[Sailor Steve]

Once santa has gone the way of all tyrants, under the redistribution of welf program you are entitled to a small share in one of twelve reindeers.
Umm...would that be a share of ownership or a portion of the meat?

Please try to be more specific when making these offers. Official documentation would be nice.

[edit] Just so you know, I'm good either way.

[Tribesman]

Umm...would that be a share of ownership or a portion of the meat?

Please try to be more specific when making these offers. Official documentation would be nice.


You lack vision young man.
Given the superb speed record of these fabulous beasts they shall be racing reindeer.
It works well in the new age of equality as since they all run at the same speed there will be twelve winners in every race.

[WernherVonTrapp]

For those of you who haven't seen it, I highly recommend you watch this documentary:
http://i43.tower.com/images/mm112276735/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed-ben-stein-dvd-cover-art.jpg

My favorite part is when Ben Stein confronts Mr. Evolution himself, Richard Dawkins, and ends up leaving him stammering and stuttering through his replies. Despite it's outward appearance, this is a very compelling documentary. It may not only change your opinion about Evolution, but a great many other alleged facts that the scientific community purports as truth. Science these days, it seems, is becoming more like a religion than a field of study.
If you subscribe to Netflix, you can watch it as a streaming movie on your PC or Laptop.

[Tribesman]

For those of you who haven't seen it, I highly recommend you waych this documentary:


Its not surprising the ADL condemned it for its ludicrious leaps of "logic"
About as entertaining and as a credible as a Micheal Moore "documentary"

[Cybermat47]

My favorite part is when Ben Stein confronts Mr. Evolution himself, Richard Dawkins, and ends up leaving him stammering and stuttering through his replies.

I don't care if it claims that God made life without Evolution, if it has that in it, 10 out of 10!

[Skybird]

For those of you who haven't seen it, I highly recommend you waych this documentary:
http://i43.tower.com/images/mm112276735/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed-ben-stein-dvd-cover-art.jpg

My favorite part is when Ben Stein confronts Mr. Evolution himself, Richard Dawkins, and ends up leaving him stammering and stuttering through his replies. Despite it's outward appearance, this is a very compelling documentary. It may not only change your opinion about Evolution, but a great many other alleged facts that the scientific community purports as truth. Science these days, it seems, is becoming more like a religion than a field of study.
If you subscribe to Netflix, you can watch it as a streaming movie on your PC or Laptop.

No sign of intelligence indeed, it seems, both in the movie - and in defending it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

And further:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know

Religion of this kind not only educates you to become stupid - and it even teaches you how to like and be proud of being stupid. Since nobody gets born being stupid per se, these are the reasons why I consider religious education of this kind to be a crime and an abuse. It's like poking children in the eyes with pencils so that they cannot see, or to cut off their hands so that they cannot do and handle things.

[Tribesman]

I don't care if it claims that God made life without Evolution, if it has that in it, 10 out of 10!
Perhaps you should watch it before you jump to those conclusions.
The "stammering and stuttering" are reactions like "what sort of question is that, are you serious, didn't you just hear what I said , have you read the book you are quoting"

[Dowly]

Perhaps you should watch it before you jump to those conclusions.
The "stammering and stuttering" are reactions like "what sort of question is that, are you serious, didn't you just hear what I said , have you read the book you are quoting"

He just doesnt like the guy, can't remember why, but remember him saying so in some other thread.

[Sailor Steve]

For those of you who haven't seen it, I highly recommend you waych this documentary:
I've seen it, and I can't imagine a worse piece of biased propaganda.

My favorite part is when Ben Stein confronts Mr. Evolution himself, Richard Dawkins, and ends up leaving him stammering and stuttering through his replies.
You mean the part where, as in all of this kind of "documentary", only a small part of the Dawkins interview is shown, with Ben Stein interjecting comments after the fact?

Despite it's outward appearance, this is a very compelling documentary.
Actually it's not a documentary at all. It is heavily edited so only the opinion of the writer and director is shown. All others are made to look foolish by post-production flim-flam.

It may not only change your opinion about Evolution, but a great many other alleged facts that the scientific community purports as truth. Science these days, it seems, is becoming more like a religion than a field of study.
Not really. While there are always people who jump on any bandwagon and adhere to it zealously, that applies to maybe 5% of the people who claim to believe in science. It only seems that way to those who want to believe that it is that way.

[Jimbuna]

In for reference :hmmm:

[Dowly]

In for +1 :yeah:

You seem to have made a typo, fixed that for you.

Dont worry, it happens to all of us. :yep:

[Twin Screws]

God is just another conspiracy theory.

But Santa is good bloke, he brought me the trainset I asked for. :yeah:
( never did figure out why there was a dead pony on the track though ......... )

[Sailor Steve]

Dont worry, it happens to all of us. :yep:
You can't say that! It's never happened to...

<looks at sig>


What was the question again?

[Skybird]

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/9062/bzdinoark111608wb480x25.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/89/bzdinoark111608wb480x25.jpg/)

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8681/rman13964l.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/199/rman13964l.png/)

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/994/darwinismusdt380.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/darwinismusdt380.jpg/)

[WernherVonTrapp]

I've seen it, and I can't imagine a worse piece of biased propaganda.


You mean the part where, as in all of this kind of "documentary", only a small part of the Dawkins interview is shown, with Ben Stein interjecting comments after the fact?


Actually it's not a documentary at all. It is heavily edited so only the opinion of the writer and director is shown. All others are made to look foolish by post-production flim-flam.


Not really. While there are always people who jump on any bandwagon and adhere to it zealously, that applies to maybe 5% of the people who claim to believe in science. It only seems that way to those who want to believe that it is that way.Although I only mentioned my favorite part of the documentary, I was speaking of the movie as a "whole", including the interviews with other scientists, science journalists and former university professors. All whom have been blackballed by the scientific community simply due to their "willingness" to concede there is evidence of "intelligent design".
I wasn't talking about God nor have I ridiculed anyone with my post.
It's interesting to see the passion with which I am confronted, simply because I posted a documentary that I liked, in what appeared to be an appropriate thread for such. I found the documentary to be extremely interesting, compelling, and thought others might find it interesting too, but instead, I am confronted with ridicule.
Very interesting indeed.:hmm2:

[Armistead]

Christ told parables, so did many of the OT writers. It's clear that many tales of lore were passed down and numerous groups gave them their personal spin. It's not so much the story be true, but what truth is being taught in the story. If people want to believe the earth is 10,000 years old or Noah's flood was a literal event, fine with me. I look more to what stories are teaching.

[WernherVonTrapp]

This forum is rather tame, try debating in a religious forum if you want some real fireworks.Do they make fun of other members' posts in these religious forums too?:huh:
I don't debate religion. That's for the hearer to believe or disbelieve as they choose. I won't treat them contemptuously because they choose to believe something different.

[Wolferz]

Perhaps God created evolution. Perhaps a monotheistic deity would have no concept of time to the point of considering a day to equal a million years or more on this planet. We just don't know for sure.
Science looks at everything in black and white and requires proof.
Religion looks at only one thing, The Bible, as proof and the rest is faith.
Bashing either view is just a sign of insecurity on the part of the basher.

Either side could be wrong. But, I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.:hmmm:

Then we can all bash all the folks with the egg on their faces Or the chicken, depending on which camp you pitched your tent in.:know:

[Dowly]

@WernherVonTrapp

People just simply pointed out that the documentary shouldnt be taken very seriously. Perhaps not in the most kindest manner possible, but I dont see anything
to be so upset about.

[Tribesman]

I don't debate religion.
Why not?
It is a fascinating subject which has been debated from all corners for thousands of years.

I think I see a problem you may have understanding with your "documentary".
All whom have been blackballed by the scientific community simply due to their "willingness" to concede there is evidence of "intelligent design".
What evidence?

[August]

@WernherVonTrapp

People just simply pointed out that the documentary shouldnt be taken very seriously. Perhaps not in the most kindest manner possible, but I dont see anything
to be so upset about.


That's because it's not about anything you hold dear to you. It's easier to excuse rudeness when it's directed toward someone else, especially if to some degree you share the criticisms that drive it.

[Madox58]

What evidence?
I saw a bunch of Guys on TV that say Aliens did it!
TV is like the 'Net, Right?
They can't show anything that ain't true.
Right?
:haha:

[Tribesman]

I saw a bunch of Guys on TV that say Aliens did it!
TV is like the 'Net, Right?
They can't show anything that ain't true.
Right?

Since this is the 'Net I can now formally declare that Santa did it and that is the evidence which I find compelling and irrefutable.

[Dowly]

That's because it's not about anything you hold dear to you. It's easier to excuse rudeness when it's directed toward someone else, especially if to some degree you share the criticisms that drive it.

Yeah, I understand that, but I still don't see why he got so worked up. :hmmm:

[Madox58]

Since this is the 'Net I can now formally declare that Santa did it and that is the evidence which I find compelling and irrefutable.
Links or it ain't true.
Just your opinion for now.
:hmmm:
I have it on good source Santa was a Saint.
Until he crossed into Enemy Air Space anyway.
Damned Drones!
:haha:

[WernherVonTrapp]

@WernherVonTrapp

People just simply pointed out that the documentary shouldnt be taken very seriously. Perhaps not in the most kindest manner possible, but I dont see anything
to be so upset about.Believe me when I say I'm not, nor wasn't upset. Rather, I was quite fascinated by the passion in the responses.
Trust me, I have no fear of debate, and heated ones at that. I've been grilled by attorneys, judges, the public and politicians, but they never poked fun of, or ridiculed me in the process. Well, maybe some defense attorneys.:haha:

[WernherVonTrapp]

That's because it's not about anything you hold dear to you. It's easier to excuse rudeness when it's directed toward someone else, especially if to some degree you share the criticisms that drive it.I'm sorry, I don't understand your reply. Was I rude, or did I make fun of something that someone holds dear? Is that what you're trying to say?:hmmm:
If I was rude or crass, I would expect to get back what I dished out.

[Buddahaid]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your reply. Was I rude, or did I make fun of something that someone holds dear? Is that what you're trying to say?:hmmm:
If I was rude or crass, I would expect to get back what I dished out.

No, just the opposite, he's pleading your cause. :arrgh!:

[WernherVonTrapp]

No, just the opposite, he's pleading your cause. :arrgh!::haha:Oh, well, I never said I was the sharpest tool in the shed. My apologies.

[CaptainHaplo]

I won't treat them contemptuously because they choose to believe something different.

And therein you have the issue. Some here do exactly that - take every opportunity to treat others with contempt simply because they have a different (or simply lack of) belief.

Why else would it be deemed "worthy of discussion" to post a personal opinion by someone from some outside source that probably none of us know or have even met? Of course, that one person then is treated as if they somehow speak for every person who believes in creationism, since all creationists should have rocks dropped onto their head until they are dead.

Seriously people - put it this way: If the Subsim forum was your creation, your baby - would you want someone new coming in and the start of this thread being the first representation of the forums they see? If that was the case - what message would most people take from it about this place we all enjoy?

Ok, here's the deal. I'll apologise for mocking creationists when they stop insulting the intelligence of the rest of us with their nonsensical arguments.

No creationist forced this topic - someone who disagreed did - yet the evil creationists are to blame. One person's opinion - and we have an admission that its "creationists" - plural - that get mocked.

Is that a message you want to promote for this site? Its not one I think that represents this site well. Think about that the next time you decide its ok to blast others for a personal belief.

I will quote Sailor Steve, because he nailed why this was such a waste and really bad representation of what this site and forum are supposed to be about....

I was speaking directly to people who have nothing more to add than "These people are all morons!" That kind of post serves no purpose at all.

If someone is making these claims here, fine. Show them they're wrong and why. Just saying "You're an ignoramus!" serves no purpose at all, especially when the claim wasn't even made here, but imported from another website.

Simply put, we should treat each other with a little more respect (see the FAQ/RULES if you have issues with that) and not intentionally bait/insult others for the fun of it. We all want this place to be a harbor in the storms of life, so lets treat it like one, instead of trying to create a typhoon in the lagoon....

[Tribesman]

Believe me when I say I'm not, nor wasn't upset. Rather, I was quite fascinated by the passion in the responses.

Which responses?
There is one response that strikes me as coloured by passion, and that is by someone agreeing with you(though they havn't even seen the movie).

[Tribesman]

Links or it ain't true.
Just your opinion for now.
:hmmm:
I have it on good source Santa was a Saint.
Until he crossed into Enemy Air Space anyway.
Damned Drones!
:haha:
Here is a link verifying the information

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203495

So it is now undeniably true:yeah:

[Mork_417]

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/9062/bzdinoark111608wb480x25.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/89/bzdinoark111608wb480x25.jpg/)



:har: Nice.

[Penguin]

It's not like the OP drove to Mastropaolo's house, took a picture of the man and posted it here with the headline "Look at that moron!"
This guy went to the public to talk about his ideas, so it is legitimate to discuss those in public, be it approval, disproval and everything in between. Yes: Mockery is also freedom of speech.

Instead of complaining how people paint a group with a wide brush (never happened in GT before :doh:), the Creationist folks could just have posted some links which show Mastropaolo does not belong to this group and how the real Creationists tick. (Btw: who is the authority to decide who belongs into this group?)
When I see someone claiming dinosaurs and the homo sapiens co-existed, I label them Creationist, I'm not terribly interested in the fine nuances, it's all the same belief to me.
Same if someone rants about genetic inferiority of races, I'm not particular interested if they call themselves (skin color) power, segregationists, dawinists, etc. It's fair to lump them all together, when their core belief is the same and absurd, read: everything pointing in the direction that it is wrong.

And a statement like this:

While this does make him qualified to discuss in some ways to discuss the possibility of evolution, it does not qualify him as a theologian.
is nonsense.
Again: who in Allah's name is the authority to decide who is qualified to discuss faith?. Freedom of belief much? :88)
Is someone not a Christian who can't cite more than 20 Bible verses? Should us here on this board refrain from discussing tactics in SH3, because none of us is actually a Kaleun? :06:

[Tribesman]

It's not like the OP drove to Mastropaolo's house, took a picture of the man and posted it here with the headline "Look at that moron!"
This guy went to the public to talk about his ideas, so it is legitimate to discuss those in public, be it approval, disproval and everything in between. Yes: Mockery is also freedom of speech.

If you look at it the OP is no different from someone posting an opinion piece by Wade Churchill or Glenn Beck and saying "look at what these people "think"".
The only people who would be actually offended are those that share the views being expressed, so if they want to try and defend those views go ahead.

I think the real problem some have towards the issue is the complete ease with which creationism can be taken apart using only the "evidence" they use to support their position.
That ease is what makes them so passionate about "attacks" on their views and so eager to go into outrage mode.

[Penguin]

I saw a bunch of Guys on TV that say Aliens did it!
TV is like the 'Net, Right?
They can't show anything that ain't true.
Right?
:haha:

I can assure you that everything you see on tv is a 100% reflection of reality (*). Nothing is cut, altered or edited.



I also never inhaled or had sex with this woman. :O:



(*) unrelated grammar question: would it be "reality" or "the reality" in this sentence? :hmmm:

[Penguin]

If you look at it the OP is no different from someone posting an opinion piece by Wade Churchill or Glenn Beck and saying "look at what these people "think"".
The only people who would be actually offended are those that share the views being expressed, so if they want to try and defend those views go ahead.

I think the real problem some have towards the issue is the complete ease with which creationism can be taken apart using only the "evidence" they use to support their position.
That ease is what makes them so passionate about "attacks" on their views and so eager to go into outrage mode.

I agree, we have the expression here:"Getroffene Hunde bellen" - "Struck dogs bark", our way of saying "if the shoe fits..."

For some weird reasons, Germans love dog proverbs, my favorite being "This makes the dog in the frying pan become mad!" - in plain English it's just: "Gosh!" :D

[HundertzehnGustav]

(*) unrelated grammar question: would it be "reality" or "the reality" in this sentence? :hmmm:

there is no the reality, because you can not count realities.
in conclusion there is an uncountable number of realities :haha:

[Skybird]

A miracle! A miracle!

http://freethinker.co.uk/2013/04/05/thou-shalt-have-a-fishie-florida-womans-miracle-cracker-is-a-sign-from-god/

[mookiemookie]

Guys that peddle this kind of belief and call it "science" are dangerous. It goes farther than handwringing and saying "ohh, this poor guy is having his personal belief mocked."

American students consistently lag behind those from other countries in science and math. We don't need the willfully ignorant like this guy pushing their agenda into American classrooms. Creationism has no place in a science class.

[Hottentot]

Instead of complaining how people paint a group with a wide brush (never happened in GT before :doh:)

I don't see how this concerns you as a male European, or what you could possibly even understand about it if you never were a carrot, so I kindly ask you to shut up with your stupid, argumented and informed opinions. No offence.

[Oberon]

Getting back on topic:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/7273248e2da34747d2a14c717538c4d8/tumblr_mil360Assa1qig0yjo1_500.jpg

[Dowly]

@CaptainHaplo

This thread has been quite civil so far, given the subject at hand. The only one
I find stirring the pot is you with your "holier than thou" posts, which I might add,
are absent from other threads where some other group is being ridiculed.

That's just my opinion.

EDIT: Oh oh oh, I want to post a funny picture too!!

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x462/Dowly/jebus-1.jpg

There. :smug:

[Tribesman]

Creationism has no place in a science class.
I disagree, I think science class should have a lesson covering it, together with the flat earth, geocentricism, astrology, phrenology, chirology........
Science should be fun and having one lesson devoted to various crank theories would bring some light relief to the syllabus.

[August]

American students consistently lag behind those from other countries in science and math. We don't need the willfully ignorant like this guy pushing their agenda into American classrooms. Creationism has no place in a science class.

Don't blame creationists for American students weak math and science skills. What's next you going to blame them for the weather too?

[mookiemookie]

http://www.thecrespogramreport.com/Site_10/THE_STRAW_MAN_COMETH_files/droppedImage.jpg

[Tribesman]

That wasn't a strawman Mookie, you clearly stated the levels of science education has suffered since Harry Potter was appointed as head of American science.
Don't try and run from your statements

[mookiemookie]

That wasn't a strawman Mookie, you clearly stated the levels of science education has suffered since Harry Potter was appointed as head of American science.
Don't try and run from your statements

10 points for Gryffindor! :rotfl2:

[Skybird]

When metaphors get taken as proof, all intellectuality has been corrupted and all reason is dead and all further communication has become useless. Avoid such people where they stay for themselves, but prevent them from coming to power, and fight them where they already have come to power. For the power you leave to them, they will turn against you.

[CaptainHaplo]

@CaptainHaplo
This thread has been quite civil so far, given the subject at hand.

So you don't have a problem with someone saying that anyone with a specific belief should be killed? Hmm - maybe they should have said that about people who like ferrets, or just kill all the finnish type folks who believe they are Scandinavian instead of Russian? Would that have been "quite civil"?

The only one I find stirring the pot is you with your "holier than thou" posts, which I might add, are absent from other threads where some other group is being ridiculed.

It's not me be being holier than thou - its simply expecting a little common decency. It isn't just here - its been running rampant around here for a while, and as I said - its sad to see. It isn't appropriate to call for the death of any large group of people for their belief, as well as its wrong to take one idiot's opinion and use it to mock an entire group. Those kinds of activities - not just in this thread but throughout the forum, have simply gotten way too old. I don't gripe about it in every thread - because I don't respond in every thread. Recent events have made this the "straw that broke the camels back" for me - and so I chose to say something.

I think the guy is a moron too - I got no problem with saying that. That doesn't justify the hatemongering that followed against a whole group though.

EDIT: Oh oh oh, I want to post a funny picture too!!

Now that - and some of the earlier ones (video included) were hilarious.

Poke fun at the person who makes a stupid statement. Don't assume that one person's opinion applies to everyone in a group. Treat people with differing views than you with a modicum of respect. Are those things too much to expect here anymore? Apparently so....

[Dowly]

So you don't have a problem with someone saying that anyone with a specific belief should be killed? Hmm - maybe they should have said that about people who like ferrets, or just kill all the finnish type folks who believe they are Scandinavian instead of Russian? Would that have been "quite civil"?

Sure, I have a problem if someone says something like that.
Andy's post to me comes off as having a go at creationists' stupidity (in his opinion), not calling for them to be killed.
Guess it's open for interpretation. :hmmm:


It's not me be being holier than thou - its simply expecting a little common decency. It isn't just here - its been running rampant around here for a while, and as I said - its sad to see. It isn't appropriate to call for the death of any large group of people for their belief, as well as its wrong to take one idiot's opinion and use it to mock an entire group. Those kinds of activities - not just in this thread but throughout the forum, have simply gotten way too old. I don't gripe about it in every thread - because I don't respond in every thread. Recent events have made this the "straw that broke the camels back" for me - and so I chose to say something. GT just being GT, it's a rollercoaster with ups and downs.
What got me in your post was the bit about newcomers coming here and being
put off by threads like this. Again, I must say that in my opinion, this thread
has been so far civil, given the subject at hand.


I agree with the rest of your post more or less. :yep:

[Tribesman]

So you don't have a problem with someone saying that anyone with a specific belief should be killed?
Oh the drama.
Can we have a subsim award for overacting?:rotfl2:

[Sailor Steve]

Although I only mentioned my favorite part of the documentary, I was speaking of the movie as a "whole", including the interviews with other scientists, science journalists and former university professors. All whom have been blackballed by the scientific community simply due to their "willingness" to concede there is evidence of "intelligent design".
I believe in the possibilty of intelligent design, but that also means the possibility that the Deists were right, that the Designer made it exactly the way science sees it, evolution and all. As for "blackballing", it looks to me that they've done a bit more than just "concede there is evidence". They've tried to promote "evidence" that isn't there, and shown themselves to be poor scientists, at least in that area.

Just my opinion, of course.

I wasn't talking about God nor have I ridiculed anyone with my post.
But the "documentary" did exactly that. "Intelligent Design" is the new term for "Biblical Creation", pure and simple. It's fine that they believe that, but to try to disguise it is dishonest in the extreme.

It's interesting to see the passion with which I am confronted, simply because I posted a documentary that I liked, in what appeared to be an appropriate thread for such. I found the documentary to be extremely interesting, compelling, and thought others might find it interesting too, but instead, I am confronted with ridicule.
Very interesting indeed.:hmm2:
I'm not passionate about it at all. The only thing I care about is honesty, and I pointed out just a few of the places in which the filmmaker was anything but honest.

I haven't ridiculed you at all. That you take my honest criticism of the film as personal hostility toward you shows, to me, that your own passion might be controlling your thoughts instead of the other way around. My beef is with the filmmaker, not you.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Which responses?
There is one response that strikes me as coloured by passion, and that is by someone agreeing with you(though they havn't even seen the movie).Well, now, one has to understand the nature of passion in order to recognize it's signature. There are many forms of passion but for all intents and purposes, it is something that elicits emotion. Emotion tends to cause arousal.
The passion I was referring to deals with superfluity of response. There are reasonable responses and then there are responses that rise above that which is warranted or necessary. For instance, the arousal that would cause someone to pick apart another member's post, almost sentence by sentence while interjecting specific words with suggestion of attitude that would insinuate or suggest that the poster is ridiculous, uncouth, or any other derogatory indication.
Then there are shorter replies where passion is evident when those replies attempt to suggest something, or anything negative about the poster. Passion is the reason that homicide victims are sometime found in a state of overkill; i.e., they've been stabbed or shot many many times beyond that which was needed to cause the victim's death.
Want to see passion in a forum? Just look for overkill or supererogatory responses. That is, going beyond what is needed to make ones point or ridiculing/belittling another in order to make that point.:03:

[Sailor Steve]

Do they make fun of other members' posts in these religious forums too?:huh:
Are you kidding? There are some forums that invite serious debate, but most of them openly ridicule any opinion different from their own, and don't allow actual debate at all.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Are you kidding? There are some forums that invite serious debate, but most of them openly ridicule any opinion different from their own, and don't allow actual debate at all.I can see and understand not allowing debate on a forum, but ridiculing another is not debate. It's childish. Just because other forums/people behave in that manner doesn't mean we should all follow suit.

[Sailor Steve]

I can see and understand not allowing debate on a forum, but ridiculing another is not debate. It's childish. Just because other forums/people behave in that manner doesn't mean we should all follow suit.
The only thing I addressed was your seeming incredulity that some religious forums would do that. I did not suggest that Subsim should do the same.

[WernherVonTrapp]

The only thing I addressed was your seeming incredulity that some religious forums would do that. I did not suggest that Subsim should do the same.Point noted.:salute:
I don't get a lot of time to forum around.

[Tribesman]

Well, now, one has to understand the nature of passion in order to recognize it's signature
Answer the question. You suggested a source, one person said they liked it without seeing it and a couple of others said they thought it was rubbish.
Reasons were given why the movie is simply crap.
So where are these passions you are claiming?

I think you are not interested in debate at all and were just chancing your arm thinking people hadn't seen the movie already and didn't know it for what it is.

However there is passion in this topic, its the sort which can take this....
I suspect the same technique would work with creationists. ;)
And turn it miracuously into this......
So you don't have a problem with someone saying that anyone with a specific belief should be killed?

[AndyJWest]

So you don't have a problem with someone saying that anyone with a specific belief should be killed?

Who said anyone should be killed? Nobody...

[WernherVonTrapp]

Answer the question. You suggested a source, one person said they liked it without seeing it and a couple of others said they thought it was rubbish.
Reasons were given why the movie is simply crap.
So where are these passions you are claiming?

I think you are not interested in debate at all and were just chancing your arm thinking people hadn't seen the movie already and didn't know it for what it is.

However there is passion in this topic, its the sort which can take this....
I suspect the same technique would work with creationists. ;)
And turn it miracuously into this......
So you don't have a problem with someone saying that anyone with a specific belief should be killed?I thought I already did answer it. And yes, my OP does clearly indicate that some people may not have seen it. You're also correct in assuming that I have no interest in debate. It was also clear, to me anyway, that my OP was merely a suggestion about a movie that I thought might raise some eyebrows. Forgive me, but I completely missed your point about "So you don't have a problem with someone saying that anyone with a specific belief should be killed?".

[Armistead]

Who said anyone should be killed? Nobody...

Agreed!

Not sure why this point was even made.

[Safe-Keeper]

Perhaps God created evolution. Perhaps a monotheistic deity would have no concept of time to the point of considering a day to equal a million years or more on this planet.Perhaps I made you and now control you through a chip in your head. You can create all the hypothetical scenarios you wish, so long as you realize it doesn't change reality or comprise evidence of anything.

Science looks at everything in black and white and requires proof.I don't understand what you mean with the first statement, and I also disagree with the second part. I think you need to read up on the scientific method.

Religion looks at only one thing, The Bible, as proof and the rest is faith.In other words, they have nothing.

Bashing either view is just a sign of insecurity on the part of the basher.Define "bashing". To point out that the ToE is proven and that the Bible has no evidence going for it isn't "bashing", it's stating facts, just like it was a statement of fact back when they discovered the Earth is round, and that it orbits the Sun.

I also disagree with your sweeping assessment that everyone who bashes science or religion does so for reasons of personal insecurity.

Either side could be wrong.Of course, but the question of evolution is like the question of whether or not the Earth is round. Offensive and hurtful thought it might be to some to hear, one side has all the evidence and the other side has none.

Sure, the Earth could be flat, the US could really be just off the coast of Australia, and Apollo 11 could have veered off course and accidentally landed on some other rocky moon without realizing. But as a wise man once said, "it's possible for one side to be simply wrong".


My favorite part is when Ben Stein confronts Mr. Evolution himself, Richard Dawkins...I think you've misunderstood something fundamental about reality: it doesn't care what humans do.

Firstly, Dawkins isn't "mr. Evolution" by any stretch of the word. Science isn't a religion where we blindly believe things with no evidence because prophets tell us so, and you can damage that belief by attacking those prophets. The scientific method is based on actual observation of reality, and testable hypotheses.

Put another way: let's say a murderer says the Earth is round, while a minister who has devoted his entire life to helping people says the Earth is flat and that 2+2=22.
The killer, of course, is correct. You can jump up and down and yell "but he's a murderer, and he smells bad, and he stutters when you ask him questions, and he drinks all day, why do you listen to him?!", but it doesn't matter who he is or what he's done, it matters whether or not he's correct.

Unlike religion, the scientific method is not about upholding traditional tribal beliefs, but about discovering how the world actually works. Personal attacks, of course, are completely irrelevant in this regard. All that matters is evidence. Dawkins could've pissed his pants and fainted and then gone stark raving mad in some documentary, and it wouldn't matter one thing, because the ToE would still be proven, and the evidence would still be there.

and ends up leaving him stammering and stuttering through his replies.Are you referring to the clip where they dishonestly cut together two clips that had nothing to do with each others?

Despite it's outward appearance, this is a very compelling documentary.I know. So are Michael Moore's documentaries. They've litterally manipulated hundreds of thousands of people. It's sad.

It may not only change your opinion about Evolution, but a great many other alleged facts that the scientific community purports as truth. Science these days, it seems, is becoming more like a religion than a field of study.Ummmm, nope. It might seem so from the outside because of how rigidly it tests new ideas (which it has to, because, of course, it's about discovery, not tradition or believers' feelings), but it's the best tool we have, and it does strive towards discovery, not dogma.

So you don't have a problem with someone saying that anyone with a specific belief should be killed? Don't. There are people out there who actually are subjected to this kind of feelings, and you trying to elevate light-hearted jokes on an internet forum to murderous "hatefulness" is an insult to all of them.
For the love of God, grow up.

[Buddahaid]

Perhaps I made you and now control you through a chip in your head. You can create all the hypothetical scenarios you wish, so long as you realize it doesn't change reality or comprise evidence of anything.

I don't understand what you mean with the first statement, and I also disagree with the second part. I think you need to read up on the scientific method.

In other words, they have nothing.

Define "bashing". To point out that the ToE is proven and that the Bible has no evidence going for it isn't "bashing", it's stating facts, just like it was a statement of fact back when they discovered the Earth is round, and that it orbits the Sun.

I also disagree with your sweeping assessment that everyone who bashes science or religion does so for reasons of personal insecurity.

Of course, but the question of evolution is like the question of whether or not the Earth is round. Offensive and hurtful thought it might be to some to hear, one side has all the evidence and the other side has none.

Sure, the Earth could be flat, the US could really be just off the coast of Australia, and Apollo 11 could have veered off course and accidentally landed on some other rocky moon without realizing. But as a wise man once said, "it's possible for one side to be simply wrong".


I think you've misunderstood something fundamental about reality: it doesn't care what humans do.

Firstly, Dawkins isn't "mr. Evolution" by any stretch of the word. Science isn't a religion where we blindly believe things with no evidence because prophets tell us so, and you can damage that belief by attacking those prophets. The scientific method is based on actual observation of reality, and testable hypotheses.

Put another way: let's say a murderer says the Earth is round, while a minister who has devoted his entire life to helping people says the Earth is flat and that 2+2=22.
The killer, of course, is correct. You can jump up and down and yell "but he's a murderer, and he smells bad, and he stutters when you ask him questions, and he drinks all day, why do you listen to him?!", but it doesn't matter who he is or what he's done, it matters whether or not he's correct.

Unlike religion, the scientific method is not about upholding traditional tribal beliefs, but about discovering how the world actually works. Personal attacks, of course, are completely irrelevant in this regard. All that matters is evidence. Dawkins could've pissed his pants and fainted and then gone stark raving mad in some documentary, and it wouldn't matter one thing, because the ToE would still be proven, and the evidence would still be there.

Are you referring to the clip where they dishonestly cut together two clips that had nothing to do with each others?

I know. So are Michael Moore's documentaries. They've litterally manipulated hundreds of thousands of people. It's sad.

Ummmm, nope. It might seem so from the outside because of how rigidly it tests new ideas (which it has to, because, of course, it's about discovery, not tradition or believers' feelings), but it's the best tool we have, and it does strive towards discovery, not dogma.

Don't. There are people out there who actually are subjected to this kind of feelings, and you trying to elevate light-hearted jokes on an internet forum to murderous "hatefulness" is an insult to all of them.
For the love of God, grow up.

That is outstandingly well put.

[Cybermat47]

Define "bashing". To point out that the ToE is proven and that the Bible has no evidence going for it isn't "bashing", it's stating facts,


No it isn't. Saying that the book of Genesis has been proven wrong is a fact. Saying that the Bible as a whole has been proven wrong is an opinion. A large number of Christians believe in Evolution, including a member of Darwin's party. The fact that we evolved from fish doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist.

[Hottentot]

The fact that we evolved from fish doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist.

The existence of Jesus as a historical character is much more rarely questioned than his possible divinity or miracles. Two different things.

[Dowly]

Shut up Hottentot, you're makin' too much sense.

Have I ever said how much I appreciated yer posts`?

If I havent, I say so nay, make love to me, like, now!

EDIT: It's 7:54am and I be drunk, so the contract does not count Hottentot.. right?

EDIT2: Just stay away ok?

[Cybermat47]

EDIT: It's 7:54am and I be drunk, so the contract does not count Hottentot.. right?

Ah, it all makes sense now. Try some medicine, Dowly.

[Dowly]

Ah, it all makes sense now. Try some medicine, Dowly.

Still an hour 'till them bars open!

[Hottentot]

EDIT: It's 7:54am and I be drunk, so the contract does not count Hottentot.. right?

Dunno, mate. I woke up at 6 and took a healthy, long walk with the dog in the forest. The sunrise was beautiful, you know. Not too cold either, only -7. Mild breeze. Soon going to have a splendidly healthy breakfast before going to work and spending another day by being a productive member of the society.

Should I continue, or was that holier-than-thou enough? :03:

[Tribesman]

I thought I already did answer it. .
Not at all, you just claimed it was there.

And yes, my OP does clearly indicate that some people may not have seen it.
The problem you had there was that some people had seen it.

You're also correct in assuming that I have no interest in debate.
So you enter a topic suggesting a source to support creationism but have no interest in debating the topic.
That makes sense.

It was also clear, to me anyway, that my OP was merely a suggestion about a movie that I thought might raise some eyebrows.
It raised some eyebrows, as in one "woohoo trash dawkins" and several "are you for real with that rubbish?"

Forgive me, but I completely missed your point about "So you don't have a problem with someone saying that anyone with a specific belief should be killed?"
The point was that it as example of a passionate response, examples of which you have failed to show.

[Skybird]

No it isn't. Saying that the book of Genesis has been proven wrong is a fact. Saying that the Bible as a whole has been proven wrong is an opinion. A large number of Christians believe in Evolution, including a member of Darwin's party. The fact that we evolved from fish doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist.

Religion-critics usually do not attack people claiming that the bible speaks in metaphors to deliver a piece of wisdom. Metaphors often do a wonderful job in doing so. Parables. Fables. Even fairy-tales. Maybe that is why that rebellious carpenter talked so much in parables - it was the best way to adress a crowd of uneducated simpleminded Peters and Pauls most of which never attended a school and could neither read nor write. Not to mention joining philosophy classes and courses on ethics and history. Would you discuss Einstein'S theorems with a goat shepard who never had left his mountains and thinks some deities are angry when thunder and lightning strike the earth?

Metaphors. Parables.

Trouble with people swinging the bible like a club starts where they take its miracle stories as real matter and fact that is to be taken for real and as factual truth. And when the barbaric and inhumane content - that the Bible also includes and in large quantities - is taken as an argument why to shape the world according to this blueprint, barbarism and hate kill tolerance and humane peacefulness, and life turns into a hellhouse inhabited by hopeless stupids and hate-filled fanatics.

[Safe-Keeper]

No it isn't. Saying that the book of Genesis has been proven wrong is a fact. Saying that the Bible as a whole has been proven wrong is an opinion. A large number of Christians believe in Evolution, including a member of Darwin's party. The fact that we evolved from fish doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist. You are absolutely right. Of course there's plenty of evidence for many of the events in the Bible. I don't know why I put it like that, exactly, I guess I meant the Bible has no evidence of creationism :P .

[WernherVonTrapp]

Not at all, you just claimed it was there.


The problem you had there was that some people had seen it.


So you enter a topic suggesting a source to support creationism but have no interest in debating the topic.
That makes sense.


It raised some eyebrows, as in one "woohoo trash dawkins" and several "are you for real with that rubbish?"


The point was that it as example of a passionate response, examples of which you have failed to show.I don't have have the least bit of desire, or passion enough, to entertain your unusal obsession with me. You act as if you're trying to impress me, or perhaps others with your incessant quibbling. I have to be honest, I am not impressed by you.
And, no, it's not because of disagreement. It's the manner in which you conduct yourself.
http://i1045.photobucket.com/albums/b456/archangel501/Gump-all-i-have-to-say_zps78ed1d4f.jpg

[WernherVonTrapp]

@Safe-Keeper:
Unfortunately, my typing skills are so inept, I could only dream about making such replies. I have typed out long replies before, but it took me (usually) over and hour to do so. Now, I try to keep them as short as possible.
You make a lot of good points to many different posters, though it's hard to keep track of who said what.
Perhaps you're correct, that Mr. Dawkins is not Mr. Evolution himself, but then again, I suppose neither was Darwin, since so many different theorists have tried to link all the missing pieces of evolution together. I find, for myself, that it takes much more faith to believe in some of the evolution theories than it does to believe in "Intelligent design".

My context of the use of the word religion may have been misinterpreted, but it does fit with one of the definitions found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
4. :a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

I never said Science was a Religion, but that" it seems, is becoming more like a religion". Religion-like was my meaning, as defined by number 4 in Websters.


Theory as defined in the same dictionary:
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2: abstract thought : speculation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speculation)


3: the general or abstract principles (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principle) of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>


4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>


5: a plausible (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plausible) or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>


6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

To define "hypothesis" is to include even more uncertainty than Theory. It includes words like "assumption" and "interpretation".
Theory and Hypothesis, from my perspective, takes a degree of faith to accept as fact.



Now Evolution involves a lot of Theory and Hypothesis. The entire puzzle is not complete. There are missing pieces. Despite some facts (e.g., the finding of fossils), theory and hypothesis is used in extrapolation or inference to try and tie various aspects together. This means that an unknown quantity exists and it takes "faith" in the science (or scientist) to believe unproven theories or hypothesis. Once they are proven, they are known facts and no longer listed as theory. It takes faith to believe in that.

Now, I suppose every documentary is edited biasly, one way or another, in favor of the producer, director, organization or science vying for the funding to continue it's cause. So, in essence, all documentaries can be considered suspect. I suppose I should toss out all the documentaries I have watched about Evolution. But, I don't. I simply find that the more I watch about Evolution by National Geographic or Discovery Science, the more I realize how much they still don't know "by their own account".

BTW, I never said anyone should kill anyone. I still have no idea where that one came from.:huh:

[Sailor Steve]

Theory as defined in the same dictionary:
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

That definition applies to all scientific theory: Gravity, electricity, aerodynamics anything. We observe that gravity is real, and we use electricity every day, but we still don't know exactly why and how they work the way they do. Evolution, like any other scientific endeavor, attempts to explain observed phenomena within the context of what we do know.

5: a plausible (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plausible) or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
That definition is what science is all about.

6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
That definition is what non-scientists think of when they say "It's only a theory."

To define "hypothesis" is to include even more uncertainty than Theory. It includes words like "assumption" and "interpretation".
Theory and Hypothesis, from my perspective, takes a degree of faith to accept as fact.
This is the difference between a wild guess and an educated guess.

Now Evolution involves a lot of Theory and Hypothesis. The entire puzzle is not complete. There are missing pieces. Despite some facts (e.g., the finding of fossils), theory and hypothesis is used in extrapolation or inference to try and tie various aspects together. This means that an unknown quantity exists and it takes "faith" in the science (or scientist) to believe unproven theories or hypothesis. Once they are proven, they are known facts and no longer listed as theory. It takes faith to believe in that.
And there are different kinds of faith. Here we are talking about not belief, but acceptance of what has gone before. I "believe" that 1+1=2 because I can do the math myself, and I know what the terms mean. Scientific theory is based on what has been observed and how it fits together with older information. Any true scientist knows that it's "only" theory, and that information may come to light tomorrow which will force him to sit back and re-think his whole concept of what it is and how it works.

Creation "theory", on the other hand, is based on what was written in an ancient manuscript. There is no evidence for it at all. Creationist arguments hinge solely upon trying to disprove Evolution. If we can do that them our alternative must be the correct answer. Yes, there are questions involving any scientific theory. There are no holes in Creation arguments because there is nothing there to make a hole in.

I simply find that the more I watch about Evolution by National Geographic or Discovery Science, the more I realize how much they still don't know "by their own account".
Yes, every documentary is suspect, even the ones that appear unbiased, and should be followed up by careful research. This kind of "documentary", however, doesn't document anything, but constructs an argument for one thing and against another. This type of film is not biased in the conceptual sense, but is intentionally trying to prove a point. There is a big difference between letting your beliefs influence your work and flat-out lying to "prove" that you are right. Any film that is intentionally edited to make someone look bad as a method of "proving" them wrong is not a documentary, but a propaganda piece.

To sum up: Yes, all science can be influence by the observer's bias. There is a modicum of faith involved. Creationism, on the other hand, is no science at all, but an attempt to "prove" something that has nothing other than faith to support it. I have no problem with stating that a branch of study has flaws, but anyone truly interested in the truth will apply the same rigor and technique to his own beliefs as well. Anything less is being dishonest with oneself.

[mookiemookie]

words

I would suggest that you put down Websters and pick up a science textbook for definitions of the terms "theory" and "hypothesis" as used in a scientific sense. They do not mean what you think they mean.

Now Evolution involves a lot of Theory and Hypothesis. The entire puzzle is not complete. There are missing pieces. Despite some facts (e.g., the finding of fossils), theory and hypothesis is used in extrapolation or inference to try and tie various aspects together.

"Science doesn't know everything. But science knows it doesn't know everything. Otherwise it'd stop." – Dara O'Briain

Once they are proven, they are known facts and no longer listed as theory. Stop. Just....stop. And go back, and read how science defines theories and hypotheses and then try again.

[WernherVonTrapp]

That definition applies to all scientific theory: Gravity, electricity, aerodynamics anything. We observe that gravity is real, and we use electricity every day, but we still don't know exactly why and how they work the way they do. Evolution, like any other scientific endeavor, attempts to explain observed phenomena within the context of what we do know.


That definition is what science is all about.


That definition is what non-scientists think of when they say "It's only a theory."


This is the difference between a wild guess and an educated guess.


And there are different kinds of faith. Here we are talking about not belief, but acceptance of what has gone before. I "believe" that 1+1=2 because I can do the math myself, and I know what the terms mean. Scientific theory is based on what has been observed and how it fits together with older information. Any true scientist knows that it's "only" theory, and that information may come to light tomorrow which will force him to sit back and re-think his whole concept of what it is and how it works.

Creation "theory", on the other hand, is based on what was written in an ancient manuscript. There is no evidence for it at all. Creationist arguments hinge solely upon trying to disprove Evolution. If we can do that them our alternative must be the correct answer. Yes, there are questions involving any scientific theory. There are no holes in Creation arguments because there is nothing there to make a hole in.


Yes, every documentary is suspect, even the ones that appear unbiased, and should be followed up by careful research. This kind of "documentary", however, doesn't document anything, but constructs an argument for one thing and against another. This type of film is not biased in the conceptual sense, but is intentionally trying to prove a point. There is a big difference between letting your beliefs influence your work and flat-out lying to "prove" that you are right. Any film that is intentionally edited to make someone look bad as a method of "proving" them wrong is not a documentary, but a propaganda piece.

To sum up: Yes, all science can be influence by the observer's bias. There is a modicum of faith involved. Creationism, on the other hand, is no science at all, but an attempt to "prove" something that has nothing other than faith to support it. I have no problem with stating that a branch of study has flaws, but anyone truly interested in the truth will apply the same rigor and technique to his own beliefs as well. Anything less is being dishonest with oneself.Well, your being quite general in certain areas, as maybe I was too, but Gravity and Electricity, in and of themselves, are not theories. They have been proven to exist. Some laws that apply to them are still (perhaps) unknown and theory can be applicable in those unknown quantities.
I agree that Def. 5 "scientific acceptability" is what science is all about. It bears it's owner's name (Science).
Are we to assume that scientists do not hypothesize?
An educated guess is still a guess nevertheless, even though extrapolation may draw an inference (i.e., conclusion based on circumstantial evidence rather than on the basis of direct observation).
As far as Creation Theorists, I don't believe that all of them have the sole purpose to disprove Evolution, though some of them may. They certainly aren't anywhere nearly as well funded as their counterparts, but these ancient manuscripts you allude to are becoming to be found (slowly albeit) more and more historically corroborated with the findings of temples, scrolls, artifacts and cities being excavated in the middle east.

If you look up the word "evolution" in Websters, it offers a series of generally applicable definitions until you reach number 4:
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phylogeny)


b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Yes, there are indeed many different types/kinds of faith but they all (usually) involve something that is believed especially with strong conviction. Sometime there is some (or a lot of) proof, sometimes there is little proof, sometimes there is no proof. Many people have been jailed or executed because the criminal proof appeared, at one time, to be overwhelming. It was only later that, through various channels or venues, we hear that another convict is set free after years of wrongful imprisonment.
I understand your point on many issues. I cannot see the wind, but I can feel it's existence. I don't need to rely on a science or theory to convince me that there is such a thing as wind. I believed in it long before they could scientifically explain it.

So, the question now comes down to this: Do I believe in Evolution?
No. Can I prove the existence of God? Of course not. Only He can do that with whomever He wants when He wants to.
But, I was not trying to convert anyone by posting about a documentary that has called into question, the blackballing of other well respected scientists, science journalists and university professors simply because they entertained another theory that kept creeping up in their own research: "Intelligent design".
There are some facts in this documentary, and you hear it from those who were affected. Should we assume they are all liars?

[AndyJWest]

Gravity and Electricity, in and of themselves, are not theories. They have been proven to exist.

A meaningless statement. 'Theory' does not mean what you think it means, no matter how many times you misuse the word.

[WernherVonTrapp]

A meaningless statement. 'Theory' does not mean what you think it means, no matter how many times you misuse the word.
Theory means what the dictionary says it means:

Definition of THEORY
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another


2: abstract thought :speculation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speculation)


3: the general or abstract principles (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principle) of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>


4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>


5: a plausible (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plausible) or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>


6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture)
c : a body of theorems (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theorem) presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

[Skybird]

Facts, Hypotheses, Theories, and all that stuff

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science7.html

I especially liked this paragraph

Some people dismiss a given scientific idea with "That's just a theory". They're right - all science can provide is theories. However, those theories have proven quite useful to all of us. Most of us won't step off the top of a building because of the results predicted by Newton's theory of gravitation - and yet it's just a theory. NASA and other space agencies launch space craft to distant planets on the basis on Newton's theory of gravitation and Copernicus's theory of the heliocentric solar system - and yet they're just theories. It's instructive to remember that Copernicus was required by the authorities of his time to preface his work as just a series of "hypotheses", and not even as a "just a theory".


What a dictionary from a linguistic POV has to say on terms, means little as long as it is not specific dictionary of scientific terminology.

Scientific theory is what theory means in context of scientific methodology.

Science does not claim to produce ultimate knowledge. What it does is putting observations into a systemtiac, artifical order - and order designed by us in a way where observations make the most sense, can be explained in the easiest way and are the least confusing and opposing to each other. Said order we try to arrange so that we can make predictions about the conditions needed to reproduce an event. All scientific "knowledge" always is object of constant re-checks and repeated analysis, and if new data proposes, leads to theories being corrected, altered, replaced. But any data doing that must be verified and by procedures meeting the basic standards of scientific methodology - just claiming something or making an argument of some randomly overheard hear-say, does not qualify for that, for example. Events and effects must be reproducable. (does one use that word: reproducable?)

Thus, science makes preliminary statements on and about things, events, phenomenons, and tries to harden these statements by constant trial and error that either adds credibility to the content of these statements, or forces the statements to be corrected or deleted. Total ultimate truths science does not claim to announce. It is not about certainties, it is about probabilities.

relgions do not ask such quesitons, but already announce answers from all beginning on, and claim to ask questions about these statements is unneeded and unnecessary. Often rtelgious people attack scientists on that scientists are claimed to announce absolute truths, while a responsible and reasonable scientists would never do that. But religions do that, ALL THE TIME. And they do not want to have their statements critcally questioned and analywsed. What they want is that they arew bliondly believed, without any reason that stands the test of what a scientiifc theory must pass in order to become accepted as a theory.

Science is about theories, and theories must qualify for that status. Religion is about claims that state they are absolute truths. They want to corrupt scientific methodology and the rules of logic and the standards of reason by being seen as equivalent if not superior to theories - without ever having passed the standard tests for that.

That is why I refuse to take arbitrary claims like creationism serious, and why I refuse to debate it beside scientific theories on evolution, as if the two would have both the same intellectual qualification. They have not. If you want to believe in the existence of pink elephants on one planet in the system of Alpha Centauri, well, do it, but leave me alone with it - for what I say on that, is this: the probability for that claim being true is so incredibly small that it does not reward the effort to take it serious and consider it as if it were a well-founded theory - it is not.

[Tribesman]

I don't have have the least bit of desire, or passion enough, to entertain your unusal obsession with me.
Is this Haplo with a fake account?
It certainly bears all the hallmarks:rotfl2:

As for passion, your contribution to this topic displays your passion and your inability to actually defend your views shows that passion is all you have.

You act as if you're trying to impress me, or perhaps others with your incessant quibbling.
So you object to being asked questiions about claims you have made which appear to be false.
Not surprising really.


It's the manner in which you conduct yourself.

Yes, questions can be a real bugger for creationists to face.
But its OK, I see you are tying yourself in knots with your attempt on theories which is even funnier than your OP was.

[Buddahaid]

By definition, scientific theory must be falsifiable but is based on tested verifiable fact and observation. It is a story made up to fit those facts and observations.

When someone is driving slowly in the passing lane, we make up a story about what an idiot they are based on one observation that may, or may not be true, but our theory is they are an idiot. That is not a scientific theory because it was not tested. If we were to investigate why they are driving slowly, gather facts about them, and further observations, we come up with a scientific theory for why they are an idiot, or we disprove the theory by finding a fact that shoots it down such as they were having some type of medical emergency.

[Buddahaid]

The thought occurred to me of why would humans hunt a T. Rex in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier to hunt the lesser dinosaurs? :huh:

[Sailor Steve]

Well, your being quite general in certain areas, as maybe I was too, but Gravity and Electricity, in and of themselves, are not theories. They have been proven to exist. Some laws that apply to them are still (perhaps) unknown and theory can be applicable in those unknown quantities.
We knew they existed before the fact. The science, and the theory, is in trying to discover how and why they work the way they do. They are indeed theories. This seems to be what you're misunderstanding. As was pointed out, you need to use a science dictionary, not a general one. Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Then go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

Are we to assume that scientists do not hypothesize?
Of course they do. That is the starting point of any theory. They then experiment with the hypothesis, attempting to prove it right or wrong. The theory is formed from the results. What they don't do (at least the good ones) is to make something up out of whole cloth and then do everything they can to prove themselves right, and if they can't do that do everything they can to prove any other theory wrong.

An educated guess is still a guess nevertheless, even though extrapolation may draw an inference (i.e., conclusion based on circumstantial evidence rather than on the basis of direct observation).
Yes it is, and when it happens there are other scientists in the same field who are quick to point that out.

As far as Creation Theorists, I don't believe that all of them have the sole purpose to disprove Evolution, though some of them may. They certainly aren't anywhere nearly as well funded as their counterparts, but these ancient manuscripts you allude to are becoming to be found (slowly albeit) more and more historically corroborated with the findings of temples, scrolls, artifacts and cities being excavated in the middle east.
Other manuscripts are being found that agree with the ones we have? That doesn't surprise me at all. Does the existence of more ancient writings prove that the Young Earth claims are true? Is there heretofore undiscovered science in these manuscripts? Sure, they tell us more about the civilizations that wrote them, and that's a good thing. Unless they can actually show evidence that the Creationist claims are true, they mean nothing to this topic.

I understand your point on many issues. I cannot see the wind, but I can feel it's existence. I don't need to rely on a science or theory to convince me that there is such a thing as wind. I believed in it long before they could scientifically explain it.
You don't "believe" in wind. You feel it. The science comes with trying to explain it. Many people came up with theories of why it's there. The current explanations are accepted. I don't "believe" the current explanations; I accept them as offering the best answer to the question. Until something comes along that disproves them I'll continue to accept them.

So, the question now comes down to this: Do I believe in Evolution?
Nor do I. I do, however, accept the word of thousands of people working in the field that it is the best answer so far to the questions involved. If something comes along tomorrow that disproves it, great.

Can I prove the existence of God? Of course not. Only He can do that with whomever He wants when He wants to.
Nor would I ask you to, though some will. Well, if you claim to "know" God exists then I will ask for proof. You can't prove faith either, but I not only admit but proclaim that I don't know. Before I'll believe again I would like to see some evidence, but that's just me. I freely admit that it could be true. I just want to see it.

But, I was not trying to convert anyone by posting about a documentary that has called into question, the blackballing of other well respected scientists, science journalists and university professors simply because they entertained another theory that kept creeping up in their own research: "Intelligent design".
But you were proposing as a serious document that disproved Evolution.

Blackballed how? Laughed at? Refused funding? Refused printing of their articles? If a "respected scientist" seriously proposed that the ancient Hindu, Greek or Babylonian ideas of Creation might be true, would it be blackballing to refuse him funding or refust to print his "theories"? How is Biblical Creation any different in that respect. Is there any discovery that would lead an unbiased observer to that conclusion if he didn't already believe the Bible's account? Any evidence at all?

And yes "Intelligent Design" is just the modern phrase for "Biblical Creation". No one who proposes ID ever equates it with the Deistic concept that God (or Somebody) made the universe exactly the way we find it and that science is the tool He gave us to figure it out.

There are some facts in this documentary, and you hear it from those who were affected. Should we assume they are all liars?
It's funny. Their interviews don't seem to have been edited for the sake of mockery or called into question. As I've said, any film with an axe to grind is not a documentary; it's propaganda.

[Sailor Steve]

The thought occurred to me of why would humans hunt a T. Rex in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier to hunt the lesser dinosaurs? :huh:
I think the point was to create a plausible theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs that would fit in with Young Earth beliefs. It didn't have to make sense; it just had to fit what was already believed.

[Betonov]

The thought occurred to me of why would humans hunt a T. Rex in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier to hunt the lesser dinosaurs? :huh:

Offence is the best defence :)

[Buddahaid]

I was thinking more of an early on form of divorce.

Cavewoman: Honey! I don't have enough meat for dinner tonight. Would you be a dear and pick up a T. Rex on the way home from the quarry?

Caveman: Nnnggh!(What is she crazy?)

Cavewoman: Oh don't be such a grump. It'll only take a few minutes(I hope).

[AndyJWest]

I notice that Leviticus 11, which goes into great detail regarding which creatures are fit or unfit to eat, fails to mention dinosaurs...

http://www.bartleby.com/108/03/11.html

[mookiemookie]

I think the point was to create a plausible theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs that would fit in with Young Earth beliefs. It didn't have to make sense; it just had to fit what was already believed.

And illustrates exactly why creationism is pseudoscience that has no place in a classroom. It attempts to make evidence fit a hypothesis, rather than coming up with a hypothesis from available evidence.

[Platapus]

I notice that Leviticus 11, which goes into great detail regarding which creatures are fit or unfit to eat, fails to mention dinosaurs...

http://www.bartleby.com/108/03/11.html

I believe the explanation offered is that the word dinosaur was not used to describe these animals but other terms were

before the mid-19th century, dinosaurs were identified with a different name such as dragon, behemoth, or Leviathan.

The words Dragon, Behemoth, and Leviathan all occur at least once in the KJ version of the bible and I am sure in the other language translations of the bible.

As for Leviticus 11, there are multiple loopholes that would allow the eating of Dragons, behemoth, and leviathans depending on how they are defined.

[Tribesman]

And illustrates exactly why creationism is pseudoscience that has no place in a classroom.
But it may be placed in a maths lesson.
Set students the problem of fitting the creatures into the ark.
It gets even more interesting with the young earthers who need to fit in T-Rex too.
The Answers in Genesis website has some great examples of extreme mathematical gymnasics where they try to make it all add up into the figures that they "know" must be the answer.

[Sailor Steve]

I believe the explanation offered is that the word dinosaur was not used to describe these animals but other terms were

The words Dragon, Behemoth, and Leviathan all occur at least once in the KJ version of the bible and I am sure in the other language translations of the bible.

As for Leviticus 11, there are multiple loopholes that would allow the eating of Dragons, behemoth, and leviathans depending on how they are defined.
That is all true. The problem then becomes the question that started this thread in the first place: If such animals existed within the framework of recorded history, what happened to them? When did they die out? The words are used to describe something, and there is no direct evidence of what that something was. There are other Hebrew manuscripts which mention them. Are there others from outside the region? Well, the Greek and Norse heroes fought monsters. Do we consider those stories to be true?

[Platapus]

I did not write that the explanation was right or even logical. I was pointing out that using Lev 11 to counter the nutter's argument was sophistry.

[Skybird]

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5859/roundearthcontroversy.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/20/roundearthcontroversy.jpg/)

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/1552/a5njncqaatzx.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/689/a5njncqaatzx.jpg/)

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/2158/110creationisthypocrite.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/801/110creationisthypocrite.jpg/)

[WernherVonTrapp]

I would suggest that you put down Websters and pick up a science textbook for definitions of the terms "theory" and "hypothesis" as used in a scientific sense. They do not mean what you think they mean.



"Science doesn't know everything. But science knows it doesn't know everything. Otherwise it'd stop." – Dara O'Briain

Stop. Just....stop. And go back, and read how science defines theories and hypotheses and then try again.You mean, Science has actually published a Dictionary with definitions that are different than a standard Dictionary? Why would they have to do that? What I mean is; why would they have to change the standard definition of "Theory" or "Hypothesis"?

[Skybird]

Once you have studied at university you will know that most if not practically all branches you can study at university have their own specific manuals defining terms and labels.

And yes, any academic book specifically dealing with explaining scientific terms and names and concepts, are superior to a common ordinary general dictionary. If you think you can assess the meaning of the evolving of scientific paradigms for example by reading two or three lines in a dictionary, then you will die as a practical illiterate one day even if you have read ten different dictionaries.

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/6403/53163910151489118945155.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/713/53163910151489118945155.jpg/)

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/5420/religionvsciencesethmcf.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/43/religionvsciencesethmcf.jpg/)

[AndyJWest]

You mean, Science has actually published a Dictionary with definitions that are different than a standard Dictionary? Why would they have to do that? What I mean is; why would they have to change the standard definition of "Theory" or "Hypothesis"?

Are you really so ill-educated as to believe that words cannot have different meanings in different contexts? Are you really so ill-educated to believe that old words cannot have new meanings attached to them? Or are you just relying on bluster and semantic quibbles to divert attention from a simple fact: that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and the evidence for creationism is non-existent...

[Buddahaid]

Really? It's not a new definition but a narrowing of the possible meanings.

In this dictionary, definitions one, three, and five apply to scientific theory where the others don't fit right.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Sure definitions two and six are used during the discovery process of publishing a scientific theory, but are not presented as the theory.

[vienna]

I wish to clarify something about my original post starting this thread...

I did not post to mock anyone's religious beliefs; that is something I would never do, to anyone's faith. I posted because I found it to be somewhat interesting in the frame of scientific debate. I do believe the creationist's attempts to explain their position, outside of simple religious belief ("it is true, because God said it is so...") are to be considered as equally valid as any non-religious explanation as anyone. That being said, the creationist theories are also subject to the same critical thought and scientific rigors as the explanations of the "mainstream" scientific community. It is philosophically and morally cowardly to hide behind the cover of "you are attacking my religious beliefs" when pressed to validate the non-religious aspects of the theories the creationists put out to the general public. If there is any validity or proof to any theory, it must stand the same tests or it is not a serious theory...

For the sake of full disclosure, I am not, my self, a religious person. I was raised as a Catholic, attended Catholic school, and went through the usual school processes; I was confirmed; at one point; I was an altar boy; sang in the choir; and mulled the idea of possibly becoming a priest (an idea that mysteriously left me when my female classmates came back to school one fall in about my 13th year somehow changed, in the most delightful ways...). The education I received was in a Jesuit-run school. The Jesuits are known for their advocacy of education and science and my school was very "old-school" in its curriculum and methods (the period I attended was between 1956-1966). We wre taught to respect all other religions and, in daily "Religion" class, we were told about the beliefs of other faiths in a manner, looking back from a veiwpoint of a few decades and with the benefit of experience over that time, that was surprisingly even-handed. There was no bashing of the other faiths, although the Protestants did seem to suffer a bit in the translation, but more as being "misguided than "wrong". The bible was taught as more of a allegory than a chronicle of absolute, word for word, "facts" and the teachings of Christ were noted as being the parables they were. We were encourage to think for ourselves and to make decisions based on as full an understanding of all sides of an issue as possible...

I did leave my more Catholic life behind once I left Catholic school and have, in the intervening years, gone to a more personal, ethics based take on life. I do not subscribe to any one belief, I do not pretend to have any absolute proof or knowledge of those things many find as "facts", and I do not gratuitously mock or "bash" those who do; I am pretty much open to any idea, but that idea must be based in more "because I or <insert diety or belief here> say it is so"...

I have been checking in on this thread from time to time. I was rather startletd when the first few posts were mainly invective based on what appeared to be a "kneejerk" reaction to a simple post. There was no actual mention of any religion nor any real bashing of a faith. The "flinstones"reference was to the similarity of the idea put forth by the creationist and its similarity to a pop culture idea (although, in retrospect, I probably shou;d have used a "1,000,000 Years B.C. reference or some other 'caveman' movie). The nature of the thread seem to have settled down a bit to more a view of the science than the religion...

...although, the sidetrip into the belief in Santa was interesting. There is the old joke abouth the dyslexic who mistakenly sold his soul to Santa. (And, bofore anyone accuses me of dyslexic bashing, I am mildly dyslexic and claim the right to joke about my own disability)...

If I offended anyone's belief, it was not my intent and I am sorry you took it the wrong way, but I am not sorry for the post...

<O>

[Skybird]

I wish to clarify something about my original post starting this thread...

I did not post to mock anyone's religious beliefs; that is something I would never do, to anyone's faith.

Let me fill the void then.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/8775/religionj.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/96/religionj.jpg/)


I posted because I found it to be somewhat interesting in the frame of scientific debate. I do believe the creationist's attempts to explain their position, outside of simple religious belief ("it is true, because God said it is so...") are to be considered as equally valid as any non-religious explanation as anyone.


The church of the flying Spaghetti Monster claims the same. Ramen! :yeah: Let'S discuss the faith of that there is the flying spaghetti monster beside relativity, gravity, and the effectiveness of penicillin.


That being said, the creationist theories are also subject to the same critical thought and scientific rigors as the explanations of the "mainstream" scientific community. It is philosophically and morally cowardly to hide behind the cover of "you are attacking my religious beliefs" when pressed to validate the non-religious aspects of the theories the creationists put out to the general public. If there is any validity or proof to any theory, it must stand the same tests or it is not a serious theory...
Creationism is no theory, it never found any material qualifying it for that status. It is superstition. The Kindergarden-boy believes in the Easter bunny. The elementary school boy may believe in Santa Claus. The adult believes in creationism.

You see, the problem is that time and time again it is demanded to debate creationism and test it and make it object of academic analysis - while ignoring totally that this has already been done a thousand times, always with the same overkilling result. But still the demand is coming in that this dead horse must still be beaten. It mjust be beaten not to test the validity of a claim, but to produce the result of the claim being seen as a valid one - ignorring the lacking validity.

When you defend this, you do not want any scientific result on assessing creationism. What you want is creationism being given same status of reputation and credibility like a scientific theory that has proven its value to man since long. You want the reward. But you don't want to deliver first.

You know what. Creationism has been disproven so often, it is no longer science's "duty" to repeat that once again. It is the duty of those believing this fantastic stuff to prove their claims. As long as people cannot do that and cannot show that evidence and proof, they have no claim to make that their pet hobby should be taken serious as an academic object.

You bring something new, you bring some new proof - we talk again. Til then: bye, and please, creationists out there in the intellectual wilderness: try to be less noisy. Nessie else one day may find and eat you.

[Buddahaid]

The thread hasn't been closed as no one has gone berserk yet. :wah: :arrgh!:

EDIT: I probably spoke too soon......

[u crank]

This thread has been quite civil so far, given the subject at hand.

It was only a matter of time.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Are you really so ill-educated as to believe that words cannot have different meanings in different contexts? Are you really so ill-educated to believe that old words cannot have new meanings attached to them? Or are you just relying on bluster and semantic quibbles to divert attention from a simple fact: that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and the evidence for creationism is non-existent...Why do you feel the need to be insulting so as to call me "ill educated"? I know very well about the use of words in and out of context. Now, you seem to be upset that I don't believe in what you believe. That's not taken out of context, that's what the entirety of your post is indicating.
I don't believe in Evolution so, according to you, you assume and call me names. Those are schoolyard tactics. Sorry, I don't believe what you believe, but I never called you any names. I've been spending most of my time in this thread replying to posts that are trying to convince me of something instead. All because I suggested a film that I thought might raise some eyebrows about what the scientific community does to scientists, professors and journalists who claim to have found some evidence of "Intelligent design". Some members of this thread have offered intelligent and insightful comments, and a few have brought nothing more to the table than an instigative comment or two. You yourself, offer nothing more than an insult while basically saying, "yeah, what they just said".

Now, I've seen the documentaries, I've read the books (some of them, very long ago). I know what Evolution teaches, I know that it claims to have volumes of evidence, and all this was told to me by other people who said, "This is it! This is the way it happened. This is how it happened and why it happened that way".
Sorry, I'm still unconvinced. I don't have to resort to name calling or belittling tactics because I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I never told anyone they need to believe what I believe. My OP simply suggested that, maybe there's more to the story.

[vienna]

The thread hasn't been closed as no one has gone berserk yet. :wah: :arrgh!:


I think the post before yours may qualify...

BTW, I am not a creationist. I have a rather firm belief in the theory of evolution. I simply believe anyone may put forth an idea or theory, but must defend that idea, when asked, by logic, critical thinking, empiricism, or any other rigor to which any other idea or theory is subject. History is rife with ideas and theories initially derided by the "science" of their times only to be proved as valid. Flat earth, anyone? History is also rife with theories and ideas subjugated by the "beliefs" of their time. Galileo, anyone?...

EDIT:


EDIT: I probably spoke too soon......


My god, but your posting speed (and acuity) are impressive...
<O>

[WernherVonTrapp]

Once you have studied at university you will know that most if not practically all branches you can study at university have their own specific manuals defining terms and labels.

And yes, any academic book specifically dealing with explaining scientific terms and names and concepts, are superior to a common ordinary general dictionary. If you think you can assess the meaning of the evolving of scientific paradigms for example by reading two or three lines in a dictionary, then you will die as a practical illiterate one day even if you have read ten different dictionaries.




Would Seton Hall University count? No, I did not major in science, nor did I get my degree. I basically studied Criminal Justice, Criminal Science, Psychology and Sociology. I can't remember half of what I was taught anymore (sincerely). That goes for even the simple things like Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry; hell I can't even do short division anymore.:nope: (Half-joking) I honestly believe I'm a candidate for Alzheimer's.

If any field of study is rife with definitions of it's own, it's Law. There are definitions for everything. Almost every chapter of Criminal or Civil Law has an opening index of what each word/term means for each different chapter. It's actually mind boggling. But, that's law. The intrinsic definitions of the words don't change, only their applications to specific statutes or rules of law.

@ vienna: I don't feel you did anything wrong by posting this thread.

[mookiemookie]

You mean, Science has actually published a Dictionary with definitions that are different than a standard Dictionary? Why would they have to do that? What I mean is; why would they have to change the standard definition of "Theory" or "Hypothesis"?

You may find this of interest:

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist

[WernherVonTrapp]

You may find this of interest:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
I was unable to view the page in it's entirety. I got some Windows message about a "long running script" on the page. I was able to read the first paragraph though. Looks like all the things I've already heard over the past 45+ years.
I'd be a liar if I didn't say that, "very much of it sounds as plausable today as it did when I was first taught about it in school". However, I have chosen the narrow path. It was my choice and I'm not trying to convince anyone that they have to follow me.
There are arguments on both sides of the fence. Being in a majority does not substantiate the credibility of either side. One simply chooses to believe one or the other.
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

[Buddahaid]

Fair enough mate.

[Armistead]

I don't know of any instance in history, that science, historical methods or math has ever proved the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural stands on faith.

[Sailor Steve]

Interesting link. It cites 6 total hoaxes, with 77 links to make it look more impressive. Yes, frauds are committed, usually by someone either out to make a name for himself, make money, or just have a good laugh. They are not usually perpetrated by scientists desperate to prove a point, and they are usually found out by other scientists. National Geographic made themselves and others look foolish by not doing their research.

Does this make Evolution unreal? Not really. The question still stands: If the dinosaurs were created at the same time as everything else, where did they go? Did men hunt them to extinction, as the original link suggests? If so, why are there no records?

All the links on that page (the ones that still work anyway) are attempts to condemn Evolution by association. Someone perpetrated a hoax, therefore all Evolutionary claims are suspect. I looked at one article on the Archeoraptor hoax and found 36 separate verified feathered dinosaur finds. Are they all hoaxes too? Then there are links that try to use the comparative gambit: If Evolution can be shown to have flaws then Creationism must be true. That's not only bad science, it's bad logic as well.

So my other question still stands: Is there one single piece of evidence ever found anywhere that would lead an unbiased observer to the theory that the universe was created, as it is today, in six days? Unbiased meaning anyone who didn't already believe it because he read it in the Bible? Just one?

[AndyJWest]

There are arguments on both sides of the fence.

Arguments aren't what matters. What matters is the evidence. So far, creationists have produced no scientific evidence whatsoever...

[Buddahaid]

It seems to me that if man was sharing space with T. Rex and all the other baddies of the dinosaur realm, there would be many more stories of dragon slaying in mythology, and the Bible. Man defeating T. Rex would be epic in scope n'est pas?

[Stealhead]

It seems to me that if man was sharing space with T. Rex and all the other baddies of the dinosaur realm, there would be many more stories of dragon slaying in mythology, and the Bible. Man defeating T. Rex would be epic in scope n'est pas?


True why did David not kill a T-Rex with just a sling?

Honestly I do not believe the story in Genesis.At the same time life does not simply come from nothing.As far as I am aware no one has proved how life occurs(meaning originates the first example of a living thing) and evolves from a scientific means.

[vienna]

While pondering the possible origins of life, I was just suddenly reminded of this experimant I first heard of when I was in junior high school. I couldn't recall the exzct name of the scientists involved, so I Googled "experiment to create life from chemicals" and found the reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

This is far from a "smoking gun" to fully support the scientific theory of the origins of life, but it is an interesting idea, nonetheless...

<O>

[Tribesman]

Being in a majority does not substantiate the credibility of either side. One simply chooses to believe one or the other.

While AndyJ was somewhat insulting in his post you objected to it would appear that he is correct.
You clearly seem to be getting very basic concepts completely wrong.

I like your last link, it manages to do nothing to support your claims about creationism or do anything to undermine science.
In fact if you read the spiel you can see that it is nothing but crap with a fixed agenda and backwards logic.
The primary function of a creation scientist is to investigate the nature of our world from the intelligent design perspective. We must theorize from our unique point of view if the truth is to be understood. Given the effect of the theory of evolution on people's ability to believe in God, evolutionary biology is probably the most important topic for a creationist to study.

[Feuer Frei!]

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18jphbgnxjzr3jpg/k-bigpic.jpg

/thread

[Skybird]

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8652/ifyoucouldreasonwithrel.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/443/ifyoucouldreasonwithrel.jpg/)


http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/817/tumblrly40hkuppc1qizwbz.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/248/tumblrly40hkuppc1qizwbz.jpg/)


http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8245/31245310151464878005155.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/59/31245310151464878005155.jpg/)

[Oberon]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/057/949/CleverGirl_Fullpic_1.gif

[Betonov]

I thought raptors would be faster :hmmm:

[WernherVonTrapp]

Interesting link. It cites 6 total hoaxes, with 77 links to make it look more impressive. Yes, frauds are committed, usually by someone either out to make a name for himself, make money, or just have a good laugh. They are not usually perpetrated by scientists desperate to prove a point, and they are usually found out by other scientists. National Geographic made themselves and others look foolish by not doing their research.

Does this make Evolution unreal? Not really. The question still stands: If the dinosaurs were created at the same time as everything else, where did they go? Did men hunt them to extinction, as the original link suggests? If so, why are there no records?

All the links on that page (the ones that still work anyway) are attempts to condemn Evolution by association. Someone perpetrated a hoax, therefore all Evolutionary claims are suspect. I looked at one article on the Archeoraptor hoax and found 36 separate verified feathered dinosaur finds. Are they all hoaxes too? Then there are links that try to use the comparative gambit: If Evolution can be shown to have flaws then Creationism must be true. That's not only bad science, it's bad logic as well.

So my other question still stands: Is there one single piece of evidence ever found anywhere that would lead an unbiased observer to the theory that the universe was created, as it is today, in six days? Unbiased meaning anyone who didn't already believe it because he read it in the Bible? Just one?I never said there was such evidence. In fact, I think I stated definitively, somewhere in this thread, that I could not prove the existence of God.
In all honesty, I don't frequent that website to which I posted the link. I happened upon it by chance while trying to research a name that I could not recall. I simply posted it as an example of the arguments on both sides of the fence, and, to show why I don't always trust everything others purport as fact. I did not post it to prove OR disprove anything or anyone. I started (in my OP) by posting a reference to a film that, according to those interviewed (scientists, professors and science journalists), if there is such evidence, it is being quashed and those trying to bring it to light are being blackballed.
As an afterthought:
I don't know exactly how many hoaxes it cites, you say 6. The links that do work (I checked some of them) appear to be credible. I'm certain, if you really wanted to, you could easily Google them to check their validity. I'll bet they are all correct. I may be wrong, but your response implies (to me) that you were somewhat unaware of such hoaxes (if you already knew, you wouldn't have had to research the links) . If 6 hoaxes (i.e., lies) are not enough; How many times does someone have to lie to you before you begin to question their credibility?

[CaptainHaplo]

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8245/31245310151464878005155.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/59/31245310151464878005155.jpg/)

And the suggestion that the technique of dropping rocks on the creationists heads would work in a similar fashion - aka - extinguishing the physical life of whomever/whatever was hit in the head with said rocks, follows this how?

No one had posted that everyone must believe or be condemned. No one was imposing any belief..... but the comment was still made. Which is where my problem is. Respect is a 2 way street. I disagree with much of the evolutionary theory - yet I don't go suggest that evolutionists should be killed.

[Oberon]

I thought raptors would be faster :hmmm:

Depends on the raptor, but the average is about 30mph which is 13.41m/s, but some supposedly could reach 50mph (21m/s).

Gallimimus could hit 43mph, but others of its genus (Ornithomimosauria) could clock 60mph in a sprint. :yep:

Being on the wrong side of either genus would be a bad thing though, especially given how damaging an ostrich kick is.

The Velociraptor size is right, but the Dilophosaurus size is wrong, far too big.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Dilophosaurus_scale.png/800px-Dilophosaurus_scale.png

[u crank]

I am amazed at the rhetoric you can get on this subject. None of it is new. Even the insult jokes are reruns. I think it is all pretty childish. Yes, the claim in the link is laughable, but the internet is full of that kind of stuff. You would think it was something new. Why it still gets the reaction it gets is the real joke.

History can be a good teacher. Look at the United States of America. From the first moment that Europeans set foot on this continent, religion has played a prominent role in American life. Through out its entire history up to the present it has contributed to American life and culture in a significant way. At the same time the US was and still is one of the most advanced nations on earth. Americans fought a civil war, two world wars, put men on the moon, expelled their segregation demons and went through many other trials. Technologically and scientifically they are a very advanced nation. Yet they are still a religious people. Is this a coincidence? Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the US is a 'blessed nation'. What I am suggesting is that diversity in all things is a strength, not a weakness. Still there are those who wish to change this model in the belief that the world will be a better place. I would say that that would be mistake.

I am almost certain that we will never see Creation Science taught in the public education system of any Western democracy. I would bet on it. Most religious people would oppose it as well as the secular. I also think that the New Atheists like to make a big deal out of the possibility because it gives them a chance to speak.

Some time ago I saved this quote but I don't know who wrote it. I thought it was pretty good. The emphasis is mine.

How things have changed. When John Scopes went on trial in Tennessee in 1925, religious fundamentalists fought to keep evolution out of the classroom because it was at odds with a literal reading of the Biblical creation story. Today, Darwinian fundamentalists fight to keep the evidence of intelligent design in the diversity of life on earth out of the classroom, because that would be at odds with a strictly materialist view of the world. Eighty years ago, the thought controllers wanted no Darwin; today's thought controllers want only Darwin. In both cases, the dominant attitude is authoritarian and closed-minded -- the opposite of the liberal spirit of inquiry on which good science depends.

[Sailor Steve]

I never said there was such evidence. In fact, I think I stated definitively, somewhere in this thread, that I could not prove the existence of God.
We aren't talking about the existence of God. Despite some people's insistence on overt hostility, this thread is about Creationism and Evolution. What I said was that there is no evidence for the six-days creation of Earth. All evidence used in that argument is force-fitted into the pre-existing concept, which is derived solely from the Bible. It's attempting to use science to "prove" faith.

Unlike some, I'm not anti-religion, or anti-anything other than faulty arguments. Yes indeed, there are a few who treat their belief in Evolution, or even Athiesm, as though it were a religion. That may be a part of human nature. They are, however, in the minority. I may be unique in not having a dog in this hunt. I don't care if Evolution is the correct answer or not. I only look at the logic applied by both sides of an argument, and try to understand what they're doing wrong. I still get it wrong as often as not.


As an afterthought:
I don't know exactly how many hoaxes it cites, you say 6. The links that do work (I checked some of them) appear to be credible. I'm certain, if you really wanted to, you could easily Google them to check their validity.
I did check them - every single one.

I'll bet they are all correct.
And you would win that bet, if only on the point that the hoaxes were real. People do that sometimes. On the other hand the agenda behind the links themselves is false. The people posting the links are trying to prove Evolution wrong based on what some dishonest people perpetrated. They attempt to paint all research and all finds with the same brush, which is dishonest on their part.

I may be wrong, but your response implies (to me) that you were somewhat unaware of such hoaxes (if you already knew, you wouldn't have had to research the links) .
I was familiar with Piltdown Man and a couple of others. I wasn't aware of Archeoraptor. As for looking at links or not, I have the habit of looking at everything, just to see what that particular take is.

If 6 hoaxes (i.e., lies) are not enough; How many times does someone have to lie to you before you begin to question their credibility?
1. Each lie was put forth by a different person, or set of people. Each case must be taken individually. Why did they do it? Money? Fame? As I said earlier, was any of the six perpetrated by a reputable scientist desperate to prove Evolution? I couldn't fine one, or even anyone accusing them of that other than some Creationist or other. Therefore the Creationist in question is trying to apply someone's personal motivation to all scientists who subscribe to Evolution. Therefore the Creationist is lying just as much as he accuses the Evolutionist of doing.

Therefore: 2. How many lies are you going to believe before you begin to question their credibility? It has been pointed out several times that Creationism has no science behind it all, and there is nothing discovered that would lead an unbiased observer of the evidence to conclude that the Earth was created in six days. For all I know it may have happened that way, but there is no evidence for it at all.

[Tribesman]

but your response implies (to me) that you were somewhat unaware of such hoaxes (if you already knew, you wouldn't have had to research the links)
What an incredible failure of logic:rotfl2:
I clicked on your link, I was astounded that there was a hoax involving Pildown man, I am so glad you brought this world famous event to my attention as I would never have heard of it unless I followed your link as world famous well repeated stories are not something many people know about.

If 6 hoaxes (i.e., lies) are not enough; How many times does someone have to lie to you before you begin to question their credibility?
Do you realise that the examples you are citing actually undermine the position which you claim you don't want to defend?




And the suggestion that the technique of dropping rocks on the creationists heads would work in a similar fashion - aka - extinguishing the physical life of whomever/whatever was hit in the head with said rocks, follows this how?

Is it time for the academy award for hamming it up?
Bonus points for the pun:03:

[Sailor Steve]

What an incredible failure of logic:rotfl2:
I clicked on your link, I was astounded that there was a hoax involving Pildown man, I am so glad you brought this world famous event to my attention as I would never have heard of it unless I followed your link as world famous well repeated stories are not something many people know about.

Do you realise that the examples you are citing actually undermine the position which you claim you don't want to defend?

Is it time for the academy award for hamming it up?
Bonus points for the pun:03:
And once again you descend to crapping on people while managing not to contribute anything of your own. Mockery is not discussion. Also once again, despite your claims to the contrary, you make me wonder if you aren't actually Skybird's second account.

[Skybird]

And the suggestion that the technique of dropping rocks on the creationists heads would work in a similar fashion - aka - extinguishing the physical life of whomever/whatever was hit in the head with said rocks, follows this how?

No one had posted that everyone must believe or be condemned. No one was imposing any belief..... but the comment was still made. Which is where my problem is. Respect is a 2 way street. I disagree with much of the evolutionary theory - yet I don't go suggest that evolutionists should be killed.

By the way in which I post in this thread I give the original issue linked in posting #1 and the following debate on later pages in this thread exactly the kind of respect and serious honesty that after having done these kinds of threads for so many years I think the issue deserve. I cannot bring it over me to deal with it as an equal opponent anymore that qualifies for any sort of intellectual, reasonable not to mention academic exchange, and it is an insult of my intellect and whatever I have in wittiness if the same creationist nonsense claims that have been disproven so very often already again get brought to my attention as if now they deserve any more serious consideration than before. I cannot take serious and pay respect to this nonsense without violating my own reasonability and standards. So may see why I have a problem there.

What this all qualifies for only, is this: mockery and laughter. These things have been taken serious and been treated with respect for far too long in history already. And have not been of positive effect.

And you are wrong in this, too: when somebody comes with creationist "theories" and then somebody says that has nothing to do with wanting to impose a belief on other people and want this belief to creep into a wider public's awareness, then somebody has not heard the starting shot. Since creationism bases in its roots on belief and said belief's dogma on historic explanations, it of course is propagating belief and said dogma. Creationism without locating it within the theistic dogmas of Christianity and Islam does not make sense (I mention Islam since Creationism is spreading in the Muslim world, too, just in case you did not know that).

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/4092/religionheaven.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/687/religionheaven.jpg/)

[MH]

I am almost certain that we will never see Creation Science taught in the public education system of any Western democracy. I would bet on it. Most religious people would oppose it as well as the secular. I also think that the New Atheists like to make a big deal out of the possibility because it gives them a chance to speak.

True.
Im not religious but i find all those you tube atheist speakers very amusing.
I just cant stop wondering that this is some alternative way for them to make celebrities of themselves and loads of money because they could not really make it in serious fields of science.

As for the issues of world being 7 thousand years old , dinosaurs or so , the theology is far beyond that if you care to look.
Religious educated thinkers have dealt with this in some interesting ways.

[Tribesman]

You would think it was something new. Why it still gets the reaction it gets is the real joke.

Be fair Crank, it is quite a while since there has been a creationism topic.

And once again you descend to crapping on people while managing not to contribute anything of your own.
Yes Steve, the middle line really just craps on creationism without contributing any explaination as to why the hoaxes exposed by science undermine the conspiracy theory of a cover up.
The top portion addresses a complete failure of logic.
The last portion deals with someone still harping on with a claim that was clearly a ridiculous when it was first made and remains ridiculous no matter how many times he repeats his faux outrage about it.

[WernherVonTrapp]

We aren't talking about the existence of God. Despite some people's insistence on overt hostility, this thread is about Creationism and Evolution. What I said was that there is no evidence for the six-days creation of Earth. All evidence used in that argument is force-fitted into the pre-existing concept, which is derived solely from the Bible. It's attempting to use science to "prove" faith.

Unlike some, I'm not anti-religion, or anti-anything other than faulty arguments. Yes indeed, there are a few who treat their belief in Evolution, or even Athiesm, as though it were a religion. That may be a part of human nature. They are, however, in the minority. I may be unique in not having a dog in this hunt. I don't care if Evolution is the correct answer or not. I only look at the logic applied by both sides of an argument, and try to understand what they're doing wrong. I still get it wrong as often as not.



I did check them - every single one.


And you would win that bet, if only on the point that the hoaxes were real. People do that sometimes. On the other hand the agenda behind the links themselves is false. The people posting the links are trying to prove Evolution wrong based on what some dishonest people perpetrated. They attempt to paint all research and all finds with the same brush, which is dishonest on their part.


I was familiar with Piltdown Man and a couple of others. I wasn't aware of Archeoraptor. As for looking at links or not, I have the habit of looking at everything, just to see what that particular take is.


1. Each lie was put forth by a different person, or set of people. Each case must be taken individually. Why did they do it? Money? Fame? As I said earlier, was any of the six perpetrated by a reputable scientist desperate to prove Evolution? I couldn't fine one, or even anyone accusing them of that other than some Creationist or other. Therefore the Creationist in question is trying to apply someone's personal motivation to all scientists who subscribe to Evolution. Therefore the Creationist is lying just as much as he accuses the Evolutionist of doing.

Therefore: 2. How many lies are you going to believe before you begin to question their credibility? It has been pointed out several times that Creationism has no science behind it all, and there is nothing discovered that would lead an unbiased observer of the evidence to conclude that the Earth was created in six days. For all I know it may have happened that way, but there is no evidence for it at all.Points duly noted. And, I know you are not anti religion. You and a few others have offered some credible and commendable perspectives. I apologize if I gave you the impression that I thought any of your replies were hostile in any way. I understand your point on Creationism. I cannot prove the exitence of God, hence; How much more so the way or means of creation?

I have horrible typing skills. I not only don't have enough time (right now) to read/scrutinize every post, I could never find enough time to reply to all of them. I ignore the ones that offer nothing more than inciteful or instigating content and only reply in accordance with my typing speed and legitimacy of the posts. A triage of sort.

I understand that lies are perpetrated by individuals. These individuals belong to a group or a whole. I also understand the "one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch" adage, but from my perspective, they do call into question the credibility of the same mindset, theory, idea, etc., that the group is representing or trying to actualize.

I understand that certain groups, people and even members of this thread are trying to prove that something is true or false. I simply started by posting a suggestion to a film that, (aside from Mr. Stein's personal beliefs), is mostly about credible members of the scientific community being ostracized by that community for presenting anything (alleged evidence, suggestions, ideas, etc.) suggesting the possibility of "Intelligent Design". Perhaps, I should've read what the thread was all about before posting. And I have to admit, I've received some very childish replies from a scant few members. I know that this too is not a reflection of the Subsim community as a whole.

[Tribesman]

I simply started by posting a suggestion to a film that, (aside from Mr. Stein's personal beliefs), is mostly about credible members of the scientific community being ostracized by that community for presenting anything (alleged evidence, suggestions, ideas, etc.) suggesting the possibility of "Intelligent Design".
And where you came unstuck is on the claims of credibility both for the movie itself and the individuals concerned.

[Sailor Steve]

Yes Steve, the middle line really just craps on creationism without contributing any explaination as to why the hoaxes exposed by science undermine the conspiracy theory of a cover up.
No, it just mocks the guy without providing any explanation of how or why. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

The top portion addresses a complete failure of logic.
Addresses it yes, with open mockery, and then jumps to sarcasm, all without actually adding anything useful.

The last portion deals with someone still harping on with a claim that was clearly a ridiculous when it was first made and remains ridiculous no matter how many times he repeats his faux outrage about it.
You may think that this sort of insult "deals with" something, but it serves no purpose other to inflame and cause trouble. Again you fail to provide anything of substance, just an attack. Hence my use of the term "crapping on people". Or would you prefer "trolling"?

[WernherVonTrapp]

I am almost certain that we will never see Creation Science taught in the public education system of any Western democracy. I would bet on it. Most religious people would oppose it as well as the secular. I also think that the New Atheists like to make a big deal out of the possibility because it gives them a chance to speak.

Some time ago I saved this quote but I don't know who wrote it. I thought it was pretty good. The emphasis is mine.Well, as far as my own personal knowledge, in my own lifetime it hasn't been taught in any public school of anyone I know, be they family or friend. So I would agree.

[Tribesman]

You may think that this sort of insult "deals with" something, but it serves no purpose other to inflame and cause trouble. Again you fail to provide anything of substance, just an attack. Hence my use of the term "crapping on people". Or would you prefer "trolling"?
I disagree, I think the "OMG they want to kill creationists" avenue is attempting to crap over the whole subject.

No, it just mocks the guy without providing any explanation of how or why. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Its self explainitory.
Though there is another question, you were challenged because you read the link, but I think perhaps Von Trapp didn't read his own links or was being thorougly dishonest.

[Safe-Keeper]

If 6 hoaxes (i.e., lies) are not enough; How many times does someone have to lie to you before you begin to question their credibility?Basic life lesson #1: sometimes humans (incl. scientists) do bad things.


There are bad car mechanics out there. Same with women. Same with Jews, and Africans... and it's no different with left-handed people or stamp collectors. No matter how you arbitrarily split people into groups, each of those groups will have "bad apples". This includes scientists.

This does not, however, mean that you can disregard all the evidence of evolution. Sure, if all the evidence for the ToE came from known hoaxers, we've have a problem (still depending on the quality of the evidence). It doesn't, however, so the ToE is still doing fine.

Oh, and six hoaxes, when considering the probably millions of people employed in various scientific fields over hundreds of years, is a drop in the ocean. It's litterally nothing. Of course there are poorly written papers, experiments of questionable quality, and outright swindlers and hoaxers. The ruthless peer review process exists precisely to weed these out. It's like a sports event -- there will be athletes who use illegal performance boosting substances, but there will also be people working hard to expose them.

[CaptainHaplo]

The question still stands: If the dinosaurs were created at the same time as everything else, where did they go? Did men hunt them to extinction, as the original link suggests? If so, why are there no records?

Steve,

Let me present to you a couple of thoughts - do with them what you will. IF, as evolution says, dinosaurs ruled the earth up until about 65 Million years ago, it is rather doubtful than mankind (or its evolutionary predecessor) are responsible for the extinction of the entire genus.

Then you have those who suggest a "young earth" policy, stating that the creation of the world by God and the subsequent fall of man require the earth to be ~6,000 yrs old. If this is correct, then dinosaurs walked the earth much more recently than science indicates. Since this is where your question arises from, I will use that starting point to offer one possible explanation.

This start requires, by definition, that dinosaurs be a creation of God at the time when everything else. Once the fall of man occurred, dinosaurs would have been one more animal out there looking to survive. The person quoted in the original link for this thread is right on one point - the word "dinosaur" would not be used as its advent is recent. However, if you review the Bible, there are 28 uses of the word tanniyn which is translated at various times as "great dragon", or as a sea serpent and even as a whale. There is also a specific reference to a vegetarian land creature with a tree-trunk sized tail. Thus, we do find some reference to creatures of significant size and dinosaur like attributes in the Bible.

Using the Biblical recounting of a worldwide flood, it is natural that some of the animals saved past the flood itself would have struggled to adapt to a world in which the environment was so significantly different than it was previously. Would not the dinosaurs also suffer, and as "generally" one of the larger of the types of animals, would they not have suffered moreso? If, for example, the "Behemoth" (sometimes considered a brachiosaurus) found itself suddenly leaving an ark (assuming dino's were even on it) then what would it have eaten? Vegetation had been underwater for 40 days - land plants won't survive that. It would have had to wait at least until the next plant cycle to find food. Even then, with the environmental changes, such food sources would be significantly different, and perhaps unsuitable. It is not unreasonable from a "new earth" perspective to suspect that the flood - and its attending aftermath, may have resulted in the final extinction of such mammoth beasts.

For the record, I am not defending a personal belief, but merely answering a question asked based upon easily available source information.

[MH]

tanniyn == crocodile.:o
leviatan ==whale.

[Tribesman]

An interesting view from Haplo, the plant eating dinosaurs died out because there was no food after the flood.
So what about all the other plant eating animals? Can a cow go without food longer than a brachiosaurus?
What happened to T-rex? surely with all the dead vegetarians they must have had one hell of a post flood feast for the carnivors.:yep:

Not wanting to be too picky or to bring something like scripture into a science thing, but when haplo says vegetation underwater for 40 days he of course only means under the big shower for 40 days as (depending on which source you use for specific length of the flood) the water still covered all the vegetation for a long period after the rain stopped.
But if I recall correctly ther was some mention of an olive tree which had miraculous flood resistant properties so maybe that olive tree supplied enough nutrition for just some of the animals which god told noah had all to be saved.

[Sailor Steve]

I disagree, I think the "OMG they want to kill creationists" avenue is attempting to crap over the whole subject.

Its self explainitory.
Though there is another question, you were challenged because you read the link, but I think perhaps Von Trapp didn't read his own links or was being thorougly dishonest.
The difference is between adding something to the conversation, even if someone else considers it stupid, and making fun of people just to do it. If you don't actually provide any information, then you're trolling. Either add something to the conversation or stay out of it.

[Sailor Steve]

This start requires, by definition, that dinosaurs be a creation of God at the time when everything else. Once the fall of man occurred, dinosaurs would have been one more animal out there looking to survive. The person quoted in the original link for this thread is right on one point - the word "dinosaur" would not be used as its advent is recent. However, if you review the Bible, there are 28 uses of the word tanniyn which is translated at various times as "great dragon", or as a sea serpent and even as a whale. There is also a specific reference to a vegetarian land creature with a tree-trunk sized tail. Thus, we do find some reference to creatures of significant size and dinosaur like attributes in the Bible.
That is a reasonable point, and I also read that idea in some of the links provided by WernerVonTrapp. It's certainly a possibility when taken by itself, but it also raises its own questions. The first question is radiocarbon dating. I've read from some Creationist sources that radiocarbon and radiometric dating are suspect. I'll only provide one link on that, from a Christian who is a Geologist by profession.
http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/RadiometricDatingEvo3.html

The second question is that of layer-dating. It is reasonable to assume that if dinosaurs existed at the same time as the larger mammals, including man, there would be at the very least a number of finds involving both in the same strata. Such is not the case. If just one verifiable find were to be made with human and dinosaur bones together at the same level, the entire argument would change.

If, for example, the "Behemoth" (sometimes considered a brachiosaurus) found itself suddenly leaving an ark (assuming dino's were even on it) then what would it have eaten? Vegetation had been underwater for 40 days - land plants won't survive that. It would have had to wait at least until the next plant cycle to find food. Even then, with the environmental changes, such food sources would be significantly different, and perhaps unsuitable. It is not unreasonable from a "new earth" perspective to suspect that the flood - and its attending aftermath, may have resulted in the final extinction of such mammoth beasts.
As has already been pointed out, the same would also be true of the elephant. Also note that the term only appears once in Genesis, where it is usually translated as "whale". It is used three times in Exodus, all three referring to Aaron and Pharoah's priests casting down their rods and them becoming "serpents". I think it's doubtful that in this case it means a whale, let alone a brachiosaur.

It is used twice in Job, once translated as "whale" and again as "dragon". All uses after that are from the prophets Nehemiah, Isaiah and Jeremiah, and in four different psalms. All these date from historical times, from the original kingdom of David through the divided kingom leading to the fall to Assyria and then Babylon, and we would certainly know if there was evidence of man mixing with "dragons" during that era. The term is translated in Lamentations as "sea monster", but it is also described as "draw [ing] out the breast, and give suck to their young ones", something only done by mammals.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H8577

For the record, I am not defending a personal belief, but merely answering a question asked based upon easily available source information.
Yes, the information is indeed readily available.

[NeonSamurai]

You know... It isn't evolution that is against the young earth "theory" (a term I am using very loosely), it is almost all of science as a whole. There is absolutely zero evidence supporting the young earth "theory", but plenty that shows it to be utterly false.

As for intelligent design, well... it is also not a theory; it is not theoretical in the slightest. The reason why it is not is simple, there is no way to show that it is not true, it is not quantifiable or testable. This is the fundamental heart of science and the scientific endeavor; all scientific theories have ways of being testing, and of demonstrating that the theory is false. This is why a lot of people feel science is superior, as it is debateable, testable, and refutable.

As for evolution, it is wrong... guarantee it. Sooner or later it will be disproven, and a new theory will take it's place. No theory is the truth, at best they better encapsulate what we think is the truth compared to the previous theory; but they are all flawed. We cannot posses the truth, due to our basic nature, as everything we experience is an interpretation at best. Theory, unlike faith, can be proven wrong.

As for taking the bible literally... probably not the best idea. First off the "old testament" is a really bad translation of the Jewish Torah. Funny thing, written ancient Hebrew has no vowel symbols. As a result, each written word could have multiple possible spoken words, which each could have multiple meanings. This is one of the reasons why the Jewish faith is built on endless debate (some of the major texts like the Talmud, are compilations of opinions on what different sections of the Torah means). Things don't get much better with the new testament either. The earliest accounts date approximately 50 years after Jesus's death. They also frequently disagree with each other or offer divergent stories, and were cherry picked from hundreds of other gospels. Plus they also run into translation issues, and have likely been edited over the centuries. So we are dealing with a book, that at its heart is very flawed, and full of errors, confounds, tracts which radically disagree with other tracts, etc. If this book was really written by the hand of God, it needs to find a better editor and proof read it work.

As for respecting other views, ok perhaps, but to what extent? Why should some beliefs be respected while others do not. Are we not to challenge views that we disagree with, or find absurd? I agree that we should try to contain our ridicule (especially here, I am watching this thread and some of you are pushing it). Remember that for some, these are cherished beliefs, no matter how laughable those beliefs may be to you. This does not mean you can't point out that it is not likely that these beliefs are true, or thoroughly try to refute the belief point by point. It only means that you try to do it with some level of respect for the person themselves. I am not about to censor debate against religious views, but I will censor and prosecute attacks against the person themselves, or elements of hate speech.

It should be noted that I am not making any claims one way or another as to the existence of god(s). I am just making the point that all of the above, like all human endeavors is flawed, some aspects more than others.

[Tribesman]

The difference is between adding something to the conversation, even if someone else considers it stupid, and making fun of people just to do it. If you don't actually provide any information, then you're trolling. Either add something to the conversation or stay out of it.
Excuse me, refresh your memory on this topic.
The poster in question joined a topic with a link, the link was dealt with politely(as was the other persons post supporting what the movie claimed to portray).
Another post was made containing some claims , the claims were questioned and the poster tried giving the run around then flatly refused to answer.
The poster has stated that they have no interest in debating the specific topic or the wider backround which raises the question of why he is posting about it at all.
The poster further attempted to push debate which he said he didn't want to partake in with another link.
That link apart from making wild assumptions specificly verifies an agenda the poster is insisting he is not pushing, that too was questioned and I quoted the relevant specifics from his own source.
All the poster is supplying so far reads like amatuer night at the creationist convention (even down to the back and forth about what a theory is in science)and by this stage is being treated as such due to the consistant pattern that emerges from his posts.
To top it all he has now stated that he didn't even read the topic before posting, which means his initial post could be described as being a leap made in blind faith, which is apt really.

Now would you like to take apart the post preceeding yours too and point out what you see as faulty in what I wrote, after all surely it adds nothing to the conversation and in no way deals with the post it responds to.
Do you think perhaps I should add in the differing given lengths of the flood perhaps, to add more details for those that don't read much scripture and don't know there are quite different versions of the story.

[Sailor Steve]

If you're referring to Haplo's post, which I just finished answering, then your immediate reply to it did indeed address at least one of the points raised, and I actually referenced it in my own reply.

That said, all my argument with you has been over one post of yours, and you know which one it was. I don't say you exhibit this behaviour all the time, but even once is too many, and you've done it a lot more than once.

This is no longer a debate. Once again it has come down to a warning. If you've run out of things to say, or tired of working at it, take a break. Don't make posts that do nothing but ridicule.

[CaptainHaplo]

You know... It isn't evolution that is against the young earth "theory" (a term I am using very loosely), it is almost all of science as a whole. There is absolutely zero evidence supporting the young earth "theory", but plenty that shows it to be utterly false.

I personally agree - the "young earth" theory ultimately requires God to have put a lot of "pre-creation" history into his creation, just to fool mankind. But different people can believe different things. I hear one guy even believes that mankind hunted T'rex to extinction - which I think is a load of tosh. But he is entitled to it. Just like Sky is entitled to think there is no God.

[Skybird]

. Just like Sky is entitled to think there is no God.

:O:

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/1729/evolutionyr.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/268/evolutionyr.jpg/)

[Oberon]

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9480/loluld.jpg

:har::har::har::har::har:

[Skybird]

Oooops! Somebody played foul there.

But that can be helped:

---

6000 years ago, the Lord said: "Let there be light".

A slightly confused caveman who had evolved through natural selection looked around, seing nothing said: "OK", he struck a piece of flint with an iron pyrite nodule, and started a fire.

The Lord looked at the fire, and said: "It is good."

The caveman looked back and said: "WE've been doing this for 50,000 years, are you not a bit late?"

And the Lord looked confused, he said: "Where did you come from, how did you get here without a creator?"

And the caveman looked back and said: "I was about to ask you the same question."

[Tribesman]

Was that divine retribution?

[Hottentot]

Was that divine retribution?

I think the responsible divine entity just responded to the numerous "please deliver us from the drivel" prayers suddenly originating from Subsim.

[Jimbuna]

Some might say...Amen.

[Armistead]

I doubt science will ever be able to prove origin of life, because first cause is scientifically impossible to find. Yes, they're a few theories saying something can be created from nothing, but nothing" doesn't exist, as even empty space has particles, energy, etc.. The problem is each time we figure an energy or life source out, we're left with another one to figure out...cause and effect. Right now, our laws require a first cause, but a first cause is impossible by current science, that's a big problem.

Many scientist believe in God out of logic, that if within our physical laws it's impossible to ever prove origin of life, then we should consider another source outside physical law.

[Skybird]

I doubt science will ever be able to prove origin of life, because first cause is scientifically impossible to find. Yes, they're a few theories saying something can be created from nothing, but nothing" doesn't exist, as even empty space has particles, energy, etc.. The problem is each time we figure an energy or life source out, we're left with another one to figure out...cause and effect. Right now, our laws require a first cause, but a first cause is impossible by current science, that's a big problem.

Many scientist believe in God out of logic, that if within our physical laws it's impossible to ever prove origin of life, then we should consider another source outside physical law.
Religion always demands perfect proof from science, feeling triumphant if science does not give that, just "another theory". :hmph:

For some reason, religion never demands perfect proof for its own claims. :hmmm:

[mookiemookie]

Religion always demands perfect proof from science, feeling triumphant if science does not give that, just "another theory". :hmph:

For some reason, religion never demands perfect proof for its own claims. :hmmm:

Hah, good point. But then again, that's the definition of religion: faith in the unseen without the need for proof.

[Safe-Keeper]

For some reason, religion never demands perfect proof for its own claims. :hmmm:
Sometimes I want to debate Creationists the way they debate us -- "don't insult/bully me by attacking evolution! It's my faith! It doesn't require evidence!".

Don't think they would get the point, though.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9480/loluld.jpg

Expelled! No evolution allowed!

[Sailor Steve]

6000 years ago, the Lord said: "Let there be light".
Many years ago I postulated my own theory on that. One day God decided to tell the world how he came to create the universe. He picked a random shepherd. Why he didn't pick the head of a major city-state, I don't know. Maybe he didn't like any of them. We'll call this random shepherd "Abraham" (or "Moses" if you like). So anyway, one day God appears to this guy, and says he wants to tell him how it was done. But God has a problem. This shepherd (or the most advanced learned man of the time) isn't going to understand quantum physics or string theory. Heck, I don't understand them and I have the benefit of thousands of years of developed science. So God decides to show him instead, filling his head with images of the Big Bang. Abraham sees this and scratches his head, then writes "God said 'Let there be light!' And there was light."

[NeonSamurai]

I have to say, the big bang theory is one theory that I think is utter rubbish and am extremely skeptical of. Sheldon is ok though (figured I would preempt you all).

Seriously though, bang and the universe was flung into existence? Before there wasn't even nothing, as the big bang even created the vacuum of space and space itself. Otherwise the universe couldn't be "expanding". There are so many gigantic flaws in the theory it isn't funny. Ironically I think it is just another creationist "theory".

[August]

Many years ago I postulated my own theory on that. One day God decided to tell the world how he came to create the universe. He picked a random shepherd. Why he didn't pick the head of a major city-state, I don't know. Maybe he didn't like any of them. We'll call this random shepherd "Abraham" (or "Moses" if you like). So anyway, one day God appears to this guy, and says he wants to tell him how it was done. But God has a problem. This shepherd (or the most advanced learned man of the time) isn't going to understand quantum physics or string theory. Heck, I don't understand them and I have the benefit of thousands of years of developed science. So God decides to show him instead, filling his head with images of the Big Bang. Abraham sees this and scratches his head, then writes "God said 'Let there be light!' And there was light."

I have believed to a long time that the Bible and other religious texts make a lot more sense if you see them as just as a collection of stories designed to teach a moral.

[Sammi79]

Where's the :justacceptthatevolutionisreal: smiley?:hmmm:

Honestly, there's so much evidence out there for evolution, but very little against it. It's not like the existence of a God, which has very little evidence either way. In fact, at the Catholic school I go to, we learn that the garden of Eden was a myth. Which was quite a relief for me, seeing as up to that point I'd believed in both the garden of Eden and evolution :doh:

As far as I know, there is 0 evidence that contradicts evolution, as well as 0 evidence for or against the existence of entities that somehow exist outside physical reality. As the existing outside physical reality is a prerequisite for the idea of a creator god, it is completely unfalsifiable and therefore definitely not to be given elevated status above idle speculation, until a method of testing the hypothesis is hypothesised. Lets be fair, since all you have to do to achieve religion is simply believe in one or more of the 28 million or so gods hypothesised by humans in recorded history, all of which are unfalsifiable this speculation is intellectually idle unlike String/M theory, while it is clearly not 'idle' it is certainly still 'speculation' and nothing more.

@thread contributors

And if people want to post in GT to make jokes, or poke fun, however bad taste, as long as it does not contravene the site rules, where is the problem? Those crying out about hating are hating on people who like to have a laugh once in a while. Religious folks rarely realise the offense that their platitudes often cause, the insinuations of immorality or hubris, neither do they attenuate their regurgitation of scriptures (antiquated propaganda) to spare our feelings, so why on earth should we spare theirs? my skin is thick enough, you can laugh at my expense and I will feel happy that you find it amusing.

@those who are religious

Smells like the age old appeal for special treatment wherever religion is concerned to me. Not buying I'm afraid, not now, and not ever. You take your scrapes with the rest of us, be an adult (if you are able) and deal with it. This crying foul whenever someone makes a joke about ID, creationism, God, your religion, another religion is a detestable result of people pandering to your demand that whatever it is be placed on a pedestal of immunity against scientific scrutiny above all, but humour as well?

I think you missed your stop.

[Sammi79]

I have believed to a long time that the Bible and other religious texts make a lot more sense if you see them as just as a collection of stories designed to teach a moral.

Like if god commands it you should murder your own child?

[MH]

I have to say, the big bang theory is one theory that I think is utter rubbish and am extremely skeptical of. Sheldon is ok though (figured I would preempt you all).

Seriously though, bang and the universe was flung into existence? Before there wasn't even nothing, as the big bang even created the vacuum of space and space itself. Otherwise the universe couldn't be "expanding". There are so many gigantic flaws in the theory it isn't funny. Ironically I think it is just another creationist "theory".

:o

Do you have any scientific data to back it up or this is just how you feel/believe?
Yep , someone should come up with something less creationist lol

[August]

Like if god commands it you should murder your own child?

You're missing the point.

[Betonov]

I have believed to a long time that the Bible and other religious texts make a lot more sense if you see them as just as a collection of stories designed to teach a moral.

Ironic, that's what our priest taught me.

[August]

Ironic, that's what our priest taught me.

He must not be a follower of Martin Luther.

[Armistead]

Religion always demands perfect proof from science, feeling triumphant if science does not give that, just "another theory". :hmph:

For some reason, religion never demands perfect proof for its own claims. :hmmm:

Many religions created doctrines connected to events in the bible that must be taken literally, instead of changing doctrines, they'll hold these events took place regardless of scientfic or historical evidence otherwise.

Like the head scientist at the creation museum stating he believes in science as long as it supports the bible, if not, he admits science is discarded and faith is used.

[Betonov]

He must not be a follower of Martin Luther.

Catholic. But very liberal. He did baptised a bastard. :arrgh!:

Never went into a litteral interpretation of the Bible. He regarded it as a moral signpost and a history lesson. But catholics here were focused on the new testament.

[Sammi79]

I have to say, the big bang theory is one theory that I think is utter rubbish and am extremely skeptical of. Sheldon is ok though (figured I would preempt you all).

Seriously though, bang and the universe was flung into existence? Before there wasn't even nothing, as the big bang even created the vacuum of space and space itself. Otherwise the universe couldn't be "expanding". There are so many gigantic flaws in the theory it isn't funny. Ironically I think it is just another creationist "theory".

There is however a rather large amount of compelling evidence that supports the big bang, and a growing amount that supports that the big bang was not the beginning, and that a vastly different state of physical reality existed before it, and gave rise to it.

But it is important to remain sceptical about these things to a degree. Sometimes big ideas get overturned. With something like the big bang it is reasonable to suggest that under further analysis it may yet prove to be a big crunch, or a big bounce, or something else entirely.

[MH]

Like if god commands it you should murder your own child?

Here we go again...
Some cherry picks again.
Actually there is so much theology , philosophy and ethic based on bible.
Whole volumes of books that deal with ethics and humanism .
No one actually takes bible (old testament)literally besides ignorant atheist who try to prove some points and faithful ignorant morons.

[Sammi79]

You're missing the point.

The point I didn't miss was that you advocate the bible as a moral educator, so I simply point out that as a moral educator containing such moral lessons like being willing to murder your own child might be very confusing to someone trying to educate themselves 'morally'

There are a great many other examples, I just picked on one of the worst. Do you wish me to do some digging?

[Skybird]

I have to say, the big bang theory is one theory that I think is utter rubbish and am extremely skeptical of. Sheldon is ok though (figured I would preempt you all).

Seriously though, bang and the universe was flung into existence? Before there wasn't even nothing, as the big bang even created the vacuum of space and space itself. Otherwise the universe couldn't be "expanding". There are so many gigantic flaws in the theory it isn't funny. Ironically I think it is just another creationist "theory".

It is probably the best theory so far to explain HOW things unfolded SINCE there has been the Bang!. It does not explain WHY there was a Bang!. That does not mean that it will not see corrections, attachments, deletions, and maybe finally complete replacement.

Attempts like the pulsating/expanding-contracting universe that state that after a Bang! the universe grows, collapses again, and when it collapses into just one single point, it Bangs! again, just try to eternally delay the need to explain the Why by moving the point of time when the WHY became an important variable towards an infinite past. "It has always gone like this. Bang!-Grow-Collapse. Bang!-Grow-Collapse. It's just how it is."

WHY there are things, in the end is an object of philosophical speculation. We call it metaphysics, and we better never forget that metaphysics are always speculation for sure. We cannot know for sure, our nature and essence as the being that we are define the way we function, perceive, think and know. And with that definition stands and falls what we are not, and cannot perceive like, and cannot think out. In other words: the limited cannot embrace the unlimited. But we can know that we cannot know. That's at least something. :)

But for question about the HOW, science is the best thing we have for analysis and examination. But of course, our theories are OUR theories, however well-founded they are. They are our artificial orders by which we try to make sense of things as best as we currently can.

To me the great mystery and miracle of existence is the question why there are things at all, and mind to reflect on them. Why isn't there simply nothing instead? We cannot know that. That inability is a challenge to us, a dilemma, that we either grow by, or that burns us out and makes us falling into existential despair. That choice is ours. Or not?

What I wanted to say is, I agree with what you said. :haha:

[Sammi79]

Here we go again...
Some cherry picks again.
Actually there is so much theology , philosophy and ethic based on bible.
Whole volumes of books that deal with ethics and humanism .
No one actually takes bible (old testament)literally besides ignorant atheist who try to prove some points and faithful ignorant morons.

Sorry would you like me to paraphrase the entire chapter?

[MH]

Sorry would you like me to paraphrase the entire chapter?

No :salute:

[August]

The point I didn't miss was that you advocate the bible as a moral educator, so I simply point out that as a moral educator containing such moral lessons like being willing to murder your own child might be very confusing to someone trying to educate themselves 'morally'

There are a great many other examples, I just picked on one of the worst. Do you wish me to do some digging?

I didn't advocate anything. I only said that the bible and other religious texts make a lot more sense if you look at them as a collection of stories with a moral than as a history book.

You're the one trying to assign a literal meaning to them and in that you are just like the Creationists.

[frau kaleun]

Here we go again...
No one actually takes bible (old testament)literally besides ignorant atheist who try to prove some points and faithful ignorant morons.

Post edited for shamefully poor reading comprehension on my part. :P

[Sammi79]

I didn't advocate anything. I only said that the bible and other religious texts make a lot more sense if you look at them as a collection of stories with a moral than as a history book.

You're the one trying to assign a literal meaning to them and in that you are just like the Creationists.

I'm not assigning a literal meaning - it is all fiction to me and thus has no literal meaning - it is a fantasy. I'm asking how such stories can be considered good moral teaching when they contain such abhorrent, downright blasphemous stories like the one I mentioned. [edit] I'm also saying I think that the morals of many of the stories are suspect, to say the least.

How am I like creationists?

[August]

I'm not assigning a literal meaning - it is all fiction to me and thus has no literal meaning - it is a fantasy. I'm asking how such stories can be considered good moral teaching when they contain such abhorrent, downright blasphemous stories like the one I mentioned. [edit] I'm also saying I think that the morals of many of the stories are suspect, to say the least.

How am I like creationists?

Whether you agree with it or not you're still assigning a literal meaning to a bible story. I think the lesson taught by Issac is about obedience and sacrifice. You'll note that God didn't actually make Abraham kill his son.

I'm asking how such stories can be considered good moral teaching when they...

I made no such claim. You seem to demand either perfection or total rejection of the entire text. I would not be so dismissive.

[Sammi79]

Whether you agree with it or not you're still assigning a literal meaning to a bible story. I think the lesson taught by Issac is about obedience and sacrifice. You'll note that God didn't actually make Abraham kill his son.

But he made damn well sure Abraham was willing didn't he?
Got to be honest when I was read that story by a teacher my blood ran cold.

also I have to add, obedience to a murderous command? the sacrifice of your child? for what reason? because god is so insecure he needs to play a power trip on a little man to obey his command to murder his child for no other reason than god said so?

Or was it the absolute subjugation of the innate human knowledge that murdering your child is terribly wrong, and yet if you have faith that god knows best you still would? To me this is a poisonous lesson whichever way you look at it.

You see the trouble with subjective interpretation? we can experience the same story and yet take practically opposite meanings away from it.

I made no such claim. You seem to demand either perfection or total rejection of the entire text. I would not be so dismissive.

I make no such demands.

If it is to be held up as stories with morals, then call it how it is, fantastical stories with some good and some bad morals, often in the exact same story. The good morals can all be more directly taught without involving metaphysics anyway. Aesops fables or the I-Ching springs to mind, and both are self admittedly absolute allegory.

I would be satisfied with a conscientious edit, actually. That is if believers expect me to simply concede that their judgement of good or bad morals is correct. I have one huge problem with the arguments against literal meanings or subjective interpretation. If the story involving Abraham or indeed any biblical story is allegory, then why are some parts of the bible considered literal truth, like the existence of the christian 'God' at all? It is one thing to accuse me of assigning literal meanings to a fantasy story, but everyone who believes in the christian god assigns a literal meaning to all parts of the bible that suggest the existence of god.

Where is the differentiation between what is considered literal truth and allegory? who decides? each to their own? Who is right?

[August]

Where is the differentiation between what is considered literal truth and allegory? who decides? each to their own? Who is right?

Every man must look for the answers to those questions in the chambers of their own heart. I'm not religious but I think that is the whole point.

[MH]

But he made damn well sure Abraham was willing didn't he?
Got to be honest when I was read that story by a teacher my blood ran cold.




long story short...
This can viewed that god made a point that he wasn't really into human sacrifices.
What the bible says black on white is "hey don't do this stuff i was kidding" in a somewhat crude but strong way.
If anyone ask a question if god would like sacrifices as prove of faith(some reformist lol)he can look into this story.:haha:
Very cool for that period of time....don't be into Inca stuff folks

[Sammi79]

Every man must look for the answers to those questions in the chambers of their own heart. I'm not religious but I think that is the whole point.

I know :salute:

Just men? ...joking, joking.

I on the other hand tend to think of the whole point as a clever propaganda written and re-written by power hungry Jewish priests in a dark age of little enlightenment.

Maybe everyone should write their own bible, and not worry about anyone else version of it, nor show their own to others.

[Sammi79]

long story short...
This can viewed that god made a point that he wasn't really into human sacrifices.
What the bible says black on white is "hey don't do this stuff i was kidding" in a somewhat crude but strong way.
If anyone ask a question if god would like sacrifices as prove of faith(some reformist lol)he can look into this story.:haha:
Very cool for that period of time....don't be into Inca stuff folks

Yeah, that is cool for the age they were in. That Jesus feller was apparently even on about not beating your slaves so hard they died immediately, and that women although servants of men should have some rights.

Certainly progressive thinking for the time.

Can't see the relevance today though.

Nevermind :salute:

[August]

I know :salute:

Just men? ...joking, joking.

I on the other hand tend to think of the whole point as a clever propaganda written and re-written by power hungry Jewish priests in a dark age of little enlightenment.

Maybe everyone should write their own bible, and not worry about anyone else version of it, nor show their own to others.

Sounds to me like you harbor a lot of hatred for a mere book.

Go ahead and write your own version. Surely you can do as good a job as a bunch of power hungry Jewish priests.

[Sammi79]

Sounds to me like you harbor a lot of hatred for a mere book.

Go ahead and write your own version. Surely you can do as good a job as a bunch of power hungry Jewish priests.

Not hatred. Exasperation and criticism. I speak my mind, as you spoke yours. That old testament god is the one who harbors hatred amongst other decidedly human failings like pride, envy, vindication etc.

And no I'm not nearly skilled enough in dark fantasy as they were. I could never write a story that made me feel sick. If the bible was written today would anyone believe in it? No. But again, I can hear the special pleading. The fact that it was written, mistranslated, re written by various people over hundreds of years, none of whom lived within 200 years of the events that are described as 'truth' or gods 'word' in the book itself, and was finalised sometime before the turn of the 2nd millenium should imply that it should be treated with even more scepticism than were it writ today, but it is not. In fact when people like me decide to point certain things out about it, I am called an 'ignorant atheist' and/or otherwise actively discouraged from speaking my mind. It's OK to ridicule politicians or celebrities, it's OK to berate people behaving badly, but religious texts are off limits for simple criticism?

No. No more special treatment. This world does not owe that book or any other immunity.

Neither do I need a bible to teach me or anyone else about my morals.

So I'll pass, thanks.

[Buddahaid]

Sounds to me like you harbor a lot of hatred for a mere book.

Go ahead and write your own version. Surely you can do as good a job as a bunch of power hungry Jewish priests.

Well if one is just using parts of these books as they interpret them to apply to their lives, then one is creating yet another new version anyway.
Yes it's just a mere book but one that can be seen to have caused some of the ugliest chapters in human endeavor, or some of the brightest. That said what happened to the creation arguments?

[Skybird]

Not hatred. Exasperation and criticism. I speak my mind, as you spoke yours. That old testament god is the one who harbors hatred amongst other decidedly human failings like pride, envy, vindication etc.

And no I'm not nearly skilled enough in dark fantasy as they were. I could never write a story that made me feel sick. If the bible was written today would anyone believe in it? No. But again, I can hear the special pleading. The fact that it was written, mistranslated, re written by various people over hundreds of years, none of whom lived within 200 years of the events that are described as 'truth' or gods 'word' in the book itself, and was finalised sometime before the turn of the 2nd millenium should imply that it should be treated with even more scepticism than were it writ today, but it is not. In fact when people like me decide to point certain things out about it, I am called an 'ignorant atheist' and/or otherwise actively discouraged from speaking my mind. It's OK to ridicule politicians or celebrities, it's OK to berate people behaving badly, but religious texts are off limits for simple criticism?

No. No more special treatment. This world does not owe that book or any other immunity.

Neither do I need a bible to teach me or anyone else about my morals.

So I'll pass, thanks.

:yep:

Ironically August said it himself: the bible is best taken not literally, but as a collection of stories to transport a moral. I called that speaking in metaphors and parables earlier in the thread.

Because what is this religion any different than this:

"The belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. "

How can one take that literally, and not just as story of fiction? :woot: What does this deserve special status and privileged respect for? Better read Tolkien's Silmarillion, there you get a very poetic creation story in much better prose.

[Sammi79]

:yep:
Ironically August said it himself: the bible is best taken not literally, but as a collection of stories to transport a moral. I called that speaking in metaphors and parables earlier in the thread.

Yes I am not disagreeing with August, as I mentioned earlier in the thread in my opinion some of those morals are inferior and/or dangerous, and as such the whole work should be treated with great care especially with children whose minds are so impressionable.

How can one take that literally, and not just as story of fiction? :woot: What does this deserve special status and privileged respect for?

Good question. I would say it doesn't, but it certainly gets it, just not from me.

Maybe there is a believer who can answer that.

[MH]

Not hatred. Exasperation and criticism. I speak my mind, as you spoke yours. That old testament god is the one who harbors hatred amongst other decidedly human failings like pride, envy, vindication etc.

And no I'm not nearly skilled enough in dark fantasy as they were. I could never write a story that made me feel sick. If the bible was written today would anyone believe in it? No. But again, I can hear the special pleading. The fact that it was written, mistranslated, re written by various people over hundreds of years, none of whom lived within 200 years of the events that are described as 'truth' or gods 'word' in the book itself, and was finalised sometime before the turn of the 2nd millenium should imply that it should be treated with even more scepticism than were it writ today, but it is not. In fact when people like me decide to point certain things out about it, I am called an 'ignorant atheist' and/or otherwise actively discouraged from speaking my mind. It's OK to ridicule politicians or celebrities, it's OK to berate people behaving badly, but religious texts are off limits for simple criticism?

No. No more special treatment. This world does not owe that book or any other immunity.

Neither do I need a bible to teach me or anyone else about my morals.

So I'll pass, thanks.

People are taking piss on religious people through this whole thread.
Does being called ignorant atheist on that specific issue(im one of them too actually)hurts your feelings?
Do you really think that you have the tools to judge this whole subject by quoting some lines but being ignorant about the theological debates behind them?

[Sammi79]

People are taking piss on religious people through this whole thread.
Does being called ignorant atheist on that specific issue(i'm one of them too actually)hurts your feelings?
Do you really think that you have the tools to judge this whole subject by quoting some lines but being ignorant about the theological debates behind them?

MH, I was not offended, seriously. I am used to it, it is a standard ad hominem that often indicates that the opposing view has no case, especially when it is coming from a religious person. Similar to 'you're just like the creationists' from August - I don't take offense there either but it does seem to me that you're conceding the argument with no case of your own.

And yes I believe a mind well versed in critical thinking (not implying I am or anything - I live and learn) has all the tools it will ever need to make the most accurate judgements about anything as far as we currently know. I have not 'taken a piss on religion' just called it how I see it.

If you want to debate what I have stated so far, go ahead.

[August]

Well if one is just using parts of these books as they interpret them to apply to their lives, then one is creating yet another new version anyway.
Yes it's just a mere book but one that can be seen to have caused some of the ugliest chapters in human endeavor, or some of the brightest. That said what happened to the creation arguments?

Blaming the bible is like blaming the gun. In both cases it take a human to actually commit the ugliness.

[Buddahaid]

People are taking piss on religious people through this whole thread.
Does being called ignorant atheist on that specific issue(im one of them too actually)hurts your feelings?
Do you really think that you have the tools to judge this whole subject by quoting some lines but being ignorant about the theological debates behind them?

As far as I'm concerned the religious have been pissing on everybody from day one, including themselves. It's what happens when you think your world view is the only righteous one and is backed by holy words that must not be called into question. Where questioning those words is made a high crime with high punishment. In other words be a sheep in the flock and hope your not getting herded into the abbattoir.

[August]

:yep:

Ironically August said it himself: the bible is best taken not literally, but as a collection of stories to transport a moral. I called that speaking in metaphors and parables earlier in the thread.

Because what is this religion any different than this:

"The belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. "

How can one take that literally, and not just as story of fiction? :woot: What does this deserve special status and privileged respect for? Better read Tolkien's Silmarillion, there you get a very poetic creation story in much better prose.

Do what you want Skybird. I don't think the worlds religions will take it as any great loss if they fail to convert you. There is way too much hatred and anger in your heart.

[Skybird]

People are taking piss on religious people through this whole thread.
Does being called ignorant atheist on that specific issue(im one of them too actually)hurts your feelings?
Do you really think that you have the tools to judge this whole subject by quoting some lines but being ignorant about the theological debates behind them?

What is the importance of those theological debates? Either they< are run by historians by academic standards, then that is what you should call them: history studies. You go and look if you can find evidence for historic events, and when somebody has lived and where, and what the influence of his written work was in the politics of this or that country. for example. Or you understand "theology" as a discussion of the nature of supernatural messages and deities who are taken for real. Then I would say you are dealing with a profession that probably and most likely has no object, and all you need to run that debate is a vivid fantasy indeed, and your discussion is pretty much what psychoanalysts call "free association".

http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/7883/sciencereligion.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/803/sciencereligion.jpg/)

Science gets things done.

Hitchens nailed it on top best: "I'm not an atheist because it is cool. I'm not an atheist because religious extremism or oppression in some depraved corners of the world. I'm not an atheist because I don'T think evil can exist in a world with a god. I am not an atheist because I think science can disprove god. I am an atheist because of one simple fact: THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON RELIGION. If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you."

And Dawkins said this: "What worries me about religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not knowing. (...) Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not."

Maybe we should have a thread to discuss the rational-scientific aspects of astrology, to separate the reason from the myth, the science in it from the cheap esoteric? Makes about as much sense like discussing the science in creationism.

And as being said earlier: it already has been done so many times before. Not a single argument by creationism there seems to be that has not already been rebutted and falsified a thousand times. But like the march of the lemmings, the same old stories comes marching for your position, on and on.

How could one endlessly react to that with a serious and sober mind when a serious and sober mind is what gets blatantly ignored by it?

I react with acid mockery, therefore. And I refuse to pay respect and tributes to those who believe in this stuff. Because they never consider what an insult it is to my intellect and reason that they come to me with this old stuff time and again and expect me to treat it reasonably as if it were of any intellectual or scientific or academic standard. Expecting people of my thinking to just play by their rules is an insult for sure! That is why I react to it like I do. With mockery, ridicule and laughter, all three well-deserved.

[MH]

What is the importance of those theological debates? Either they< are run by historians by academic standards, then that is what you should call them: history studies. You go and look if you can find evidence for historic events, and when somebody has lived and where, and what the influence of his written work was in the politics of this or that country. for example. Or you understand "theology" as a discussion of the nature of supernatural messages and deities who are taken for real. Then I would say you are dealing with a profession that probably and most likely has no object, and all you need to run that debate is a vivid fantasy indeed, and your discussion is pretty much what psychoanalysts call "free association".

What about ethics and humanism?

[August]

I am an atheist because of one simple fact: THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON RELIGION. If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you."

Says the man who can never let a religious thread pass by without finding something to about it get outraged over.

[Skybird]

What about ethics and humanism?
Call it ethics and humanism.

Theology of the non-historic type I described, is about propagating dogma.

[Sammi79]

Blaming the bible is like blaming the gun. In both cases it take a human to actually commit the ugliness.

Yes, but strangely I recall you do blame films and computer games for violence, rather than the humans instigating it. Why not the book that has a godly amount of violence in it?

[MH]

Call it ethics and humanism.

Theology of the non-historic type I described, is about propagating dogma.
No it ia about establishing ethical guidelines based on belief that we are held responsible and judged by our deeds later on.
You can reverse it off course to your liking i also don't say that it is not done the way you describe but then science or some ideologies had been used this way as well.
All you need is just bunch of people who think that buying some idea makes them as cleaver as the seller.

[Sammi79]

No it ia about establishing ethical guidelines based on belief that we are held responsible and judged by our deeds later on.
You can reverse it off course to your liking i also don't say that it is not done the way you describe.

Interesting. When you say 'later on' do you mean in an imagined unknowable realm outside physical reality, or simply later on like in the courts of law?

Because if it is the former, then in my opinion it is no more than a pipe dream (however comforting) and not really worth further consideration.

[Buddahaid]

No it ia about establishing ethical guidelines based on belief that we are held responsible and judged by our deeds later on.
You can reverse it off course to your liking i also don't say that it is not done the way you describe but then science or some ideologies had been used this way as well.

I'm fine with that thinking only for many the held responsible later part is preempted by the outrage of the pious who make it their job to implement Gods will on Earth as they define it. They will say that God is working through them as a means to justify their actions. It gets all so messy and convoluted.

[Skybird]

People showed ethical behaviour long before the first written scriptures of religious dogmas were around. Altruism already can be observed in the behavior patterns of some bird, gorillas, dolphins and orcas, and chimps.

Whereas religion is the prime cause in human history to make people going mad and leaving all ethics and tolerance behind and turn against each other in bloodthirsty rage and unspeakable cruelty.

No, you do not need religion to teach ethics. Not at all. The stronger you believe in a dogma, the more dogmatic you become, and the more dogmatism replaces humanism.

What humane acting is about, is not in the teachings of some long-.since rotting man, may it be Jesus, may it be Buddha. It is in looking at the world not just with your eyes, but your heart. The heart that has learned to see, needs no hypocritica,l powermongering moralists' preachings. And to see with your heart is something you cannot be taught, but must discover yourself. Life's ways may mean it well with you and provide you with opportunities where you can realise how to do it. But do not be mistaken. You mean nothing to life, and it may as well not care for your fate at all. Whether it does or not, is just you attributing your hopes and fears to situations.

[Skybird]

Says the man who can never let a religious thread pass by without finding something to about it get outraged over.
What? Hitchens participates in GT debates? I finally turned into a believer: you just convinced me there is an afterlife!

[mookiemookie]

What? Hitchens participates in GT debates? I finally turned into a believer: you just convinced me there is an afterlife!

:rotfl2: Score one for Skybird

[Cybermat47]

Blaming the bible is like blaming the gun. In both cases it take a human to actually commit the ugliness.

:hmph: Fine, you win the gun debate August.

[Armistead]

What? Hitchens participates in GT debates? I finally turned into a believer: you just convinced me there is an afterlife!

If Hitchens is posting here in GT, I'll be convinced of the afterlife myself.

[August]

:rotfl2: Score one for Skybird

Well aren't you an eager beaver...

Don't let your hatred of me blind you to who you are agreeing with.

[August]

What? Hitchens participates in GT debates? I finally turned into a believer: you just convinced me there is an afterlife!

So you're claiming that these aren't your feelings on the subject Skybird?

[Tribesman]

Don't let your hatred of me blind you to who you are agreeing with.
An interesting demonstration of faulty "thinking".

[Skybird]

So you're claiming that these aren't your feelings on the subject Skybird?

I claim that the quote is by him and that you try to trigger something here. If you want to quote me, than quote me by my own words, and not by those of somebody else. Cannot be that difficult, I guess.

[August]

I claim that the quote is by him and that you try to trigger something here. If you want to quote me, than quote me by my own words, and not by those of somebody else. Cannot be that difficult, I guess.

Ok point taken, but you should understand that I was commenting on the meaning behind the words more than the words themselves and since apparently you do indeed share his beliefs then my observation stands.

[NeonSamurai]

:o

Do you have any scientific data to back it up or this is just how you feel/believe?
Yep , someone should come up with something less creationist lol

The evidence backing up the big bang theory is pretty scant at best (and can be explained in other ways). Most of it seems to be a lot of postulation. There are also huge problems with it and our other theories, like for example how did the galaxies spread out as far as they did in the time frame that the universe was supposed to come into existence.

As for the existing evidence, my suspicion is that they are measuring signals from the birth of galaxies, not the universe. I really do not think that the universe truly exists in our linear perspective of time. I am also not sure that it has a beginning or an end, in time, or space, or anything.

Plus the theory to me logically does not make sense. In the beginning, there was nothing (not even time or space or anything), then there was some universe creating explosion and the universe went expanding out in all directions from one point, the end.

I am also skeptical of the entropy theory as well, though the logic is more sound at least. I suspect though, that the universe has mechanisms to deal with this, and that the formation of galaxies is cyclical.

But this is pure wild theorizing.

[Cybermat47]

But this is pure wild theorizing.

Hypothesizing, actually. A theory requires some proof.

Sorry for being pedantic...

[Sammi79]

If Hitchens is posting here in GT, I'll be convinced of the afterlife myself.

That would do it for me. All I ever asked for was a single shred of evidence.

Begs the question though, what would it take a believer to become a sceptic?

[August]

Begs the question though, what would it take a believer to become a sceptic?

I thought that happens all the time judging by the number of disaffected altar boys around here. :)

Seriously though i imagine that most loss of faith is related to despair in some way.

[Buddahaid]

Or a new girlfriend.....

[August]

Or a new girlfriend.....

You mean like how certain young men will feign interest in various social causes just to meet chicks? :)