Creationist Explains How Humans Could Have Hunted The Tyrannosaurus Rex

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

So, Creationism then. Anyone got any supporting evidence yet?

That is a valid question.

I thought not.

That is trolling. That is what we are trying to avoid here. You get to challenge, question, and even provoke. Open mockery is not welcome.

seriously though if anyone thinks they have any I will consider it.

That redeems you a little. Please don't go down that road again.

[Sammi79]

[edited upon reflection from Hottentot]
I apologise for any offense caused, that was not my intent. My intent was humour, to keep things light. it was in bad taste, but it amuses me I can't help it.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

Or is this yet another special plead for immunity where religious ideas are concerned?

Chill a little, mate, there is no secret religious reptilian conspiracy running the whole Internet. Steve was just pointing out that one specific line in your post was out of line with the rest. He's a moderator, that's what they do.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

I apologise for any offense caused though that was not my intent

Atheists are idiots. I don't mean to offend anyone, so that makes it alright

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

Chill a little, mate, there is no secret religious reptilian conspiracy running the whole Internet. Steve was just pointing out that one specific line in your post was out of line with the rest. He's a moderator, that's what they do.

You're right about Steve. I explained and apologised and I will edit my post directly. I can do no more and I stand by the statements I have made, which only August & MH (2 non religious folks) deemed worth approaching in any way. [edited]

Don't really know where you're going with the reptilian conspiracy thing. I don't see conspiracy - I see bad intellectual habits formed over centuries of religious manipulation of governments and people. Habits that are neither justifiable nor reasonable and habits that I will encourage people to drop, if and when I encounter them in discussion. In your opinion is that unreasonable?

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Atheists are idiots. I don't mean to offend anyone, so that makes it alright

If you take offense at anything I have said, then tell me what exactly and why. If you'd noticed, my stated concerns include all people, religious or not. As you state you are religious, I would appreciate any counter argument you may have to offer.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

Or is this yet another special plead for immunity where religious ideas are concerned?

^This. "We want to seriously and open-mindedly debate."

No, Mr. creationist, you want that NOT. You want to sneak in through the backdoor where at the front door you got rejected.

To debate something seriously and openmindedly demands a.) an object deserving that, and b.) open mindedness of the talking sides. In case of religious believers, the latter must be put into question, since they do not want to allow getting convinced by evidence, proof or argument. They want to get away with strawman arguments of their own, hilarious claims and playacts by themselves, and ridiculous construction of their think tanks that claim to be "evidence".

Steve may call it politeness to play by these rules and endlessly discuss this Serious and open-minded. I call it avoiding the necessary confrontation, and a distorted sense of tolerance and a perverted desire for harmony where harmony is not justifiable.

Creationists come with something, which indeed i not just another repetition of the same old claims once again, and it gets tested in the scientific process, and if it stands the test - THEN we politely, seriously, open-mindedly discuss that proof and what it means for the established theories of how life emerged and unfolded on earth. Doing so without that proof given first - is appeasement.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Skybird

a perverted desire for harmony

Huh?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Atheists are idiots. I don't mean to offend anyone, so that makes it alright

You compare apples with oranges.

If I go and tell people: "Creationists are idiots, no offense", and leave it to that - then it is an offense.

If I go and say "creationists claim this and that, it has been proven wrong by this and that so many times, and still they repeat it, making themselves look like dogmatic fools", then this is something different.

And yes, of course people have the right to be held responsible for what they say (or believe in). So if you defend something that does not stand the test of reasonable analysis by scientific methods, just repating it endlessly nevertheless, then this makes oyu look like a parrot, and if you give reasons as aerguments that so very very very often have already been proven wrong, then this allows conclusions on your intellectual state of mind. - And then it may be justifiable to shportcut the long drama and avoid the endless useless propaganda march, and just tell somebody: "You believe that? Idiot. Leave me alone."

Because the problem at the root of the problem is: try to make an idiot aware of what an idiot he is!

No respect where no respect is due. Inflationary distributing respect, devalues it. That is my view on it all. Creationists, believers and all the like have to earn people's respect instead of demanding to get a free ride for nothing. Until they understand that, its better if them and people not wanting to share their believes, stay separate, everybody for himself. So: keep thy religion for thyself. Do not dare to bother others with it, or force it into the public, the education system, the state legislation, and so on. Keep it to thyself. Then it is your belief. If you become loud about it, it becomes propaganda. If you go public about it, it becomes politics. And be not fooled: creationism is about religion, about nothing else.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Huh?

What in those five words exactly is it that you do not understand?

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

So if provocation is allowed as Steve states - Come on then you religious folks, what are you afraid of?

Perhaps they understand that just because you are allowed to provoke by one moderator's word doesn't mean that you should do so or that it would contribute to anything.

Don't really know where you're going with the reptilian conspiracy thing.

Comments like these help creating the idea:

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.

Or is this yet another special plead for immunity where religious ideas are concerned?

As rhetorical questions those do not work. If they were true, this discussion wouldn't have gone on for 18 pages and counting.

I don't see conspiracy - I see bad intellectual habits formed over centuries of religious manipulation of governments and people. Habits that are neither justifiable nor reasonable and habits that I will encourage people to drop, if and when I encounter them in discussion. In your opinion is that unreasonable?

I can comment on that if you can first show me where I implied it's unreasonable, or took any side for or against religion at all.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

Perhaps they understand that just because you are allowed to provoke by one moderator's word doesn't mean that you should do so or that it would contribute to anything.

Very fair point. My approach was definitely flawed, and thank you for succinctly pointing that out. Here I should point out my admiration for the lack of response,

Originally Posted by Hottentot

Comments like these help creating the idea:

Well in my defense the 1st was a statement of fact as referenced in this thread and for the 2nd would you deny that proponents of scripture as well as a good deal of non religious people often demand special treatment for the meanings or historical/existential validity of the stories contained within it? like not being able to poke fun or criticise and being chided for it?

It is not my failing if I find your beliefs or views or statements amusing, contemptible, or inspirational. If it is OK to criticise or poke fun of Stephen King or his books, then it is OK to do the same with scripture and its writers, that is all. When it comes to ID, Creationism, etc. it is based on scripture, or at least assuming the truth of the premise of it. Since I neither assume that truth nor completely deny it, depending on the idea itself I may be more or less confident about the fallacy of it, so in order to have a discussion about it the proponent must first concede that they similarly do not know either way and that they are merely more or less confident of its truth.

Like I said, I don't think of myself as a particularly critical thinker, I just do my best. I fail from time to time, nay, often. Nobody's perfect and I try to make amends after the fact. I know from my previous posts it might not sound like it, but I harbor no specific hatred, or antagonism towards religious people, I simply firmly disagree with many of the interpreted morals in scripture, such as homosexuality being a 'sin', the subjugation of women (how can you interpret the 'good' morals in that?) and would go as far to say I think it should probably have an age rating attached to it. That or a careful edit. It's been done many times before as I understand it.

Were they published today can you imagine the outcry from large numbers of people within society? Myself included.

Originally Posted by Hottentot

As rhetorical questions those do not work. If they were true, this discussion wouldn't have gone on for 18 pages and counting.

Again you are correct, and I think you answered that already in your first post. I was under the mistaken impression since various commentators on this thread had not been reproached for some pretty insulting generalisations depending on your point of view that it was either personal against me, or personal for him, and made a generalisation of my own. That and I think it polite to answer any reply. Shall I delete the whole thing then? why not.

Originally Posted by Hottentot

I can comment on that if you can first show me where I implied it's unreasonable, or took any side for or against religion at all.

I never implied that you implied that. It was a question. I wanted to know what you think. In your opinion am I being unreasonable in the relevant statement?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

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.

You have to realize that human knowledge is always evolving. Religions were early attempts by man to explain his environment.

The Big Bang Theory is the most logical explanation based on our current scientific knowledge, but we could easily be in a situation 50-100 years from now where a better explanation is found.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

Very fair point. My approach was definitely flawed, and thank you for succinctly pointing that out.

In your defense, such comment could have been aimed at other people as well and I'm hardly innocent of poking people every now and then myself. But as our old president used to say: ”If someone is trying to provoke you, don't get provoked.” It rarely leads to anything, aside from the petty satisfaction that lasts, according to my experiences, for whole 10 seconds.

would you deny that proponents of scripture as well as a good deal of non religious people often demand special treatment for the meanings or historical/existential validity of the stories contained within it? like not being able to poke fun or criticise and being chided for it?

I see so many people demanding special treatment to their favorite ideology that I really can't decide anymore which ones of them are religious and which are not.

Personally I try to give religions the same treatment as, say, vegetarians: I respect that some people find them important in their life and if I criticize them for something, I try to be constructive about it instead of just pointing finger and laughing at them. If they are constructive about it, we are going to have a discussion. If they are not, then I haven't really ever seen the point of trying to convert a brick wall. And I have had many more discussions with the followers of scriptures than with the vegetarians.

That's no special treatment, but simple civil discourse. Also when I say I'm critical towards something, it means by my definition that I must also be critical towards what I believe to be true. That includes my current beliefs and values regarding religions.

It is not my failing if I find your beliefs or views or statements amusing, contemptible, or inspirational. If it is OK to criticise or poke fun of Stephen King or his books, then it is OK to do the same with scripture and its writers, that is all.

I fully agree with the sentiment, but would again stress that if you are going to poke fun of anything, then be a fair player and poke fun of yourself every now and then too. If you've read my AARs at the General Games section, for example, you know that I love taking potshots at academics and I've written a whole story making fun of a stereotypical Finn.

It's not because I'd want to use them later for argument and say ”look at this”: it's simply because I love laughing at myself every once in a while. This is something that the most loud mouthed ”critical” (in varying contexts) people, in my opinion, seem to often be incapable of.

Since I neither assume that truth nor completely deny it, depending on the idea itself I may be more or less confident about the fallacy of it, so in order to have a discussion about it the proponent must first concede that they similarly do not know either way and that they are merely more or less confident of its truth.

That's sounds like a healthy attitude. It's difficult to have a discussion about anything if the other party just wants to convert you. Been there, done that.

I know from my previous posts it might not sound like it, but I harbor no specific hatred, or antagonism towards religious people

You didn't (at least to me) come across as someone harboring hatred towards anyone. Simply as someone who perhaps was starting to take this a little too seriously.

I never implied that you implied that. It was a question. I wanted to know what you think. In your opinion am I being unreasonable in the relevant statement?

Fair enough: as I have said above, your goals don't seem too unreasonable and you don't seem like an unreasonable fellow yourself. But it seemed to me that you were getting a little anxious about it and that's not a good foundation for convincing people of your viewpoint. I know it's easy for me to say, being a third party observer here, but you can obviously convey your viewpoints well enough without resorting to low tricks.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

This is exactly why I do not like either Hitchens or Dawkins, not only are they so blind and arrogant to see that their positions are also faith based. They don't even understand basic scientific principles.

You don't need evidence to prove something, evidence cannot nor will not prove anything. The only single thing that evidence can do is disprove something. The concept that you need evidence to prove something is utter hogwash in science, I can propose any scientific hypothesis I like so long as it remains scientific, in that it is refutable or that there is a way of showing that my hypothesis is wrong. So no the burden of proof does not rest with religion, the burden of disproof lies with atheists. Or it would anyhow if either was a scientific hypothesis/theory which neither is.

Just as much as the theists have no proof that god exists, atheists have no proof god does not exist either. Both positions are faith based, both sides believe something is true and neither has any evidence to show the other side is incorrect. The only logical answer to the question if you really want to be scientific is "I do not know" aka Agnosticism.

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Hypothesizing, actually. A theory requires some proof.

Sorry for being pedantic...

Well that is quite debatable, as again, proof does not exist. As I said above, evidence does not prove things, it just fails to show a theory/hypothesis to be wrong. Same goes for testing theories. This is how science progresses, as it refutes old theories with new evidence, and is forced to come up with a new theory.

It would be more accurate to say, that a theory requires some testing that does not disprove it

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

You have to realize that human knowledge is always evolving. Religions were early attempts by man to explain his environment.

The Big Bang Theory is the most logical explanation based on our current scientific knowledge, but we could easily be in a situation 50-100 years from now where a better explanation is found.

I am well aware of that yes I also have zero doubt that the big bang theory will be refuted as it is too seriously flawed in my opinion. I fully expect all our scientific theories to eventually be refuted as none of them are "the truth".