Creationist Explains How Humans Could Have Hunted The Tyrannosaurus Rex

[WernherVonTrapp]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by WernherVonTrapp

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.
I don't get a lot of time to forum around.

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?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

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]

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Dowly

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]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

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

Still an hour 'till them bars open!

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Dowly

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?