Creationist Explains How Humans Could Have Hunted The Tyrannosaurus Rex

[WernherVonTrapp]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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?
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.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by WernherVonTrapp

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?

Originally Posted by 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.

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....

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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....

[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.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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

10 points for Gryffindor!

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

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]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

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]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

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.

[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


3: the general or abstract principles 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 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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by WernherVonTrapp

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 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.