Evolution is a Religion! Not a Science....

A Fairy Tale for Infidels and Athiests...

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

50 Reasons why Evolution is an Impossibility....

http://www.youngearth.org/evowontfly.htm

[This message has been edited by Sniper Piper (edited 06-06-2004).]

............. what in the hell?

I love those cartoons! They are so stupid. If evolution isn't real why do people breed dogs? Or racing horses?

See? Even Jesus disagrees with your little cartoon...

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

Evolution is a Religion! Not a Science....

A Fairy Tale for Infidels and Athiests...

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

50 Reasons why Evolution is an Impossibility....

http://www.youngearth.org/evowontfly.htm

[This message has been edited by Sniper Piper (edited 06-06-2004).]

first of all, evolution is not a science, it's a scientific theory.... secondly, i don't even have to click on those links to know that they're probably more asinine than you. thirdly, there is a certain irony when you claim that evolution is a religion.

think of it this way. christianity is clearly not a science, nor does it propose to be. any attempt to merge faith with the scientific method is a vain rationalization, since dogma and skeptical rigor cannot reconciled. christianity is most definitely, inarguably a religion.

to say that evolution is a religion is to imply that it is LESS than a science... which is to place pre-eminence on science over religion.

so what's your point? the theory of evolution is just as shitty as your stupid religion?

well, besides the fact that it's not, there is absolutely no data to support the idea that supporters of evolution are in any way less morally upstanding than christians. in fact, even common sense and a little history would suggest the OPPOSITE!!! it is the modern secular world that is working against ethnocentric concepts such as slavery, empire, aristocracy, and genocide; your blood-thirsty religion had its superstitious day and age.

SCIENCE AND ETHICS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. DOGMA AND INTELLECTUAL HONESTY ARE.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 06-06-2004).]

I would like to see how long that "50 reason's" thing would last in Mad Scientists.

To be truthful, I don't know that much about evolution and geology, so I'm not really in a position to comment, but I'm sure that the people in that forum would find that interesting. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Sometimes I wonder if people who challenge science want good old medieval times and inquisition to come back...

wow... I expected that the resident atheists would have rebuked this by now...

Maybe the info IS right :S

crap :S

wow you fucken ignorant piece of shit god didnt wave his fairy wand jesus christ can fucken die on my cross 8=====D~~ <3

quote:I love those cartoons! They are so stupid. If evolution isn't real why do people breed dogs? Or racing horses?

Evolution doesn't equate to natural selection or genetics.

quote:Originally posted by VampireSlaya:

Evolution doesn't equate to natural selection or genetics.

Ha ha ha, you are kidding right? natural selection and genetics is what evolution is!

^read the stupid page, dude. sorry, but you won't understand the depth of these fanatical christians' idiocy until you do... the author thinks the world is only 10,000 years old.... <sight>

before anybody says anything in defense of this abomination, let me just pre-emptively say, 'you are soooooooooooo out of touch with the complexity of what's going on around you.'

<cut&paste from mad scientists>

dude, it's all bullshit. i read thru it, it's BOOOOL-SHEEE-IIITE!!!

i could go thru each example and explain why it's crap, but i just got out of working the nightshift and i'm tired as balls.

i'll be the first to admit that the author is a little tricky-dicky son-of-a-bitch... he presents his disinformation in a way that sounds fairly authoritative.... but if you've read any actual scientific treatises, you'll realize how this whole article is COMPLETELY slanted, his claims are super questionable, and the fact that he does not include reference sources is unforgiveable.

the skeptical mind will dismiss it in its entirety. the educated mind will laugh at how utterly stupid it is. the wise mind will lament the danger it presents.

(first reason evolution is flawed and the conterargument)

PARACONFORMITY: Evolutionary geologists contend that rocks were laid down in a uniform, predictable manner over billions of years. These scientists label and date these rock layers with familiar names such as Jurassic and Pre-Cambrian. The term Paraconformity describes those rock formations that are missing certain layers which are predicted by evolutionary geology. None of the typical gullying and weathering is visible in these examples, unlike what we see when the ground has been exposed for long periods. At several places in the Baltic region, clays of the so-called Pleistocene age rest directly on clays that contain Cambrian age fossils, creating an evolutionary gap of 400 million years. Yet in some places the break between layers can hardly be located, so similar are the two clays. Creationists say that the evidence from these anomalies indicates that the traditional, evolutionary dating methods for rocks are faulty. What do you say?



i say it is something called erosion you lay down one layer than another that second one is eroded then another layer settles on top of it.

2. GEOLOGY REVERSED: Around the world, we see rock layers out of normal evolutionary sequence. Naturalist geologists believe the earth’s rocks were laid down in a uniform manner over billions of years. In Glacier National Park, however, a block of Precambrian “old” rock sits on top of Cretaceous “newer” rock. Why is this important? Evolutionists have a hard time explaining this embarrassing example of 1 billion year-old rock sitting on top of 100 million year old rock. Perhaps the rocks have moved since they were laid down? Unfortunately, when geologists look for signs of movement such as scrape marks or tallis piles they find none. Additionally, the tensile strength of rock makes it highly unlikely that the older block of rock moved across the newer without shattering to dust. Looking at the evidence, creationists say that both rocks were created at the same time. What do you say?

i say you are full of shit and you propably just placed a big older rock on the newer rock not that the layers are that way maybe like the time a bunch of "creationists" tried to carve human footprints alongside dinosaur ones

3. RADIOMETRIC DATING: This process attempts to place an accurate date on the age of rocks by measuring the decay of radioactive minerals trapped within. Scientists first examine the relative ratios of various minerals in the host rock. Three basic assumptions are made when dating a piece of rock;



A. the rock contained no ” radioactive “daughter-product” atoms in the beginning, only parent atoms.

B. since the moment of its creation no parent or daughter atoms were either added to or taken from the sample rock.

C. the rate of decay has always remained constant (uniform decay).

These assumptions cannot be proven with any degree of accuracy. To make a scientific claim, one must be able to reproduce results. What do you think? In your experience, can an algebraic equation with three unknown variables yield a predictable, verifiable result?

A. they take several samples to make sure

B try cracking open a rock and putting it back together so nobody can tell you cant so please tell me how something can get inside a rock to add more daughter material.

C. yes we know how half lives work and we are left with one very easy logarithmic equation. A=Be^KT where A represents the final amount of radioactive material B=the intitial amount K=the constant of decay and T = the time. which anyone with a basic algebra II class can tell you

now i am getting tired of answering these several of which i believe are blatant lies google it and find some more answers

FUCK YOU PIPER AND HAVE A NICE DAY

Rock on, Eil.

quote:

the skeptical mind will dismiss it in its entirety. the educated mind will laugh at how utterly stupid it is.

[/B]

Hey, EIL, Did you see that chart of our supposed ancestors in the Comic book link?

Nebraska man....SCIENTIFICALLY built FROM ONE TOOTH!!!!!

When a Man INVENTS a skeleton from a tooth, its not science!!

No, Im laughing at Biased people like you!



[This message has been edited by Sniper Piper (edited 06-07-2004).]

Funny that you criticize others for being biased you fanatical, propaganda spreading, brainwashing, narrow-minded, deceptive, little shit. Do some reading outside of your local church group then return with an argument that you can actually back-up.

Sorry for the rant. Difficulty being eloquent when I just woke up.

quote:Originally posted by UnknownVeritas:

Funny that you criticize others for being biased you fanatical, propaganda spreading, brainwashing, narrow-minded, deceptive, little shit.

"Scientists" invented a skeleton from a TOOTH and played it off as a PROOF of Evolution!!!!!!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

Looks like Christians arent the only religious fanatics...."Scientists" are too!

Wow Sniper, you didn't even bother reading the fucking article you linked to, did you? The scientist who incorrectly identified the tooth as a primate tooth outright said that the humanoid fantasy sketch done by an ARTIST (not a scientist) is a product of the imagination with no basis in science.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

quote:Originally posted by Optimus Prime:

Wow Sniper, you didn't even bother reading the fucking article you linked to, did you? The scientist who incorrectly identified the tooth as a primate tooth outright said that the humanoid fantasy sketch done by an ARTIST (not a scientist) is a product of the imagination with no basis in science.

Did not Osborn originally say it was an ape? Even though he had only one tooth.

Was this not put into charts at that time as a "Missing Link"?

Exactly my point it took Religious fanatics to do this!

Dumbass, he identified it as a primate tooth, but one not seen before. The animal it actually belonged to has several pairs of teeth almost identical to primate teeth. It was a faulty ID, and even the guy who made the ID said to not put much weight on it and called the ARTWORK for a periodical something spawned from imagination with no basis in science. It wasn't on the charts as a step between humans and chimps. Also, dumbass, science spawned the misidentification (but not the spiel afterwards), but it also corrected it; that's something unique to the scientific method, it's self correcting.

quote:Originally posted by Optimus Prime:

[B]Dumbass, he identified it as a primate tooth, but one not seen before.[B/]The animal it actually belonged to has several pairs of teeth almost identical to primate teeth. It was a faulty ID, and even the guy who made the ID said to not put much weight on it and called the ARTWORK for a periodical something spawned from imagination with no basis in science. It wasn't on the charts as a step between humans and chimps. Also, dumbass, science spawned the misidentification (but not the spiel afterwards), but it also corrected it; that's something unique to the scientific method, it's self correcting.

Blah, Blah, Blah

Heres another interesting article, and its got pictures too!.... http://www.projectcreation.org/CStation/v9n2-meek1.htm



[This message has been edited by Sniper Piper (edited 06-08-2004).]

Blah blah blah? Optimus presents an argument and you simply blow him off? Then whip out another shitty little propaganda cartoon?

Do you even have a brain? If so, you certainly choose to ignores its presence. All you've done is regurgitate the same useless crap spelled out in your little cartoon. Once again, please return with some links that are NOT from your Christian propaganda spouting sites.

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

Evolution is a Religion! Not a Science....

A Fairy Tale for Infidels and Athiests...

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

50 Reasons why Evolution is an Impossibility....

http://www.youngearth.org/evowontfly.htm

[This message has been edited by Sniper Piper (edited 06-06-2004).]

Sniper Piper,obviously you are firm in what you believe. And thats ok.If it works for you, fine.

But the links you showed are a misrepresentation of evolution science. If you are going to dispute evolution, you should know something about what you are trying to dispute.

If you are open minded enough to try to understand what evolution is really about, follow these links.Maybe your point of view will change , maybe not.At least you will gain a better understanding of what you dispute.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html)

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Sniper Piper,obviously you are firm in what you believe. And thats ok.If it works for you, fine.

But the links you showed are a misrepresentation of evolution science. If you are going to dispute evolution, you should know something about what you are trying to dispute.

If you are open minded enough to try to understand what evolution is really about, follow these links.Maybe your point of view will change , maybe not.At least you will gain a better understanding of what you dispute.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html)



I ran your links, Im specifically arguing against Macro-evolution (not micro-evolution) as an origin of species commonly refered to as "Evolution".

Creationist answers. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp)

you know what is the most annoying thing about creationists?

they condescendingly pretend (or imagine) that they understand why supporters of evolution stand behind the theory - yet they really have beyond no friggin' clue. they can't even begin to grasp the beautiful logic of the theory because there is no space in their heads for anything that doesn't reek of christ...

but you know what the funny thing is? their hollow brains are no where near saturated with the crap... there are huge profits to be made in the virtually-untapped born again christian demographic. the 'left behind' authors were only the pioneers. these brain-washed drones have no idea their naivete is padding the pockets of the very people who connive to foster it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Pulse:

Creationist answers. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp)



This site is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post.They take a little fact and give it a good mix of fiction, state it with an air of authority, and present it as the truth.

I really enjoyed the way they dement themselves into believing that light from stars millions of light years away from earth, was created already on its way so Adam could see the distant stars.

At least reading through the site was more entertaining than what was on television at the time.

By the way, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn that I'd be willing to sell you for a very low price....

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

Heres another interesting article, and its got pictures too!.... http://www.projectcreation.org/CStation/v9n2-meek1.htm

Yep, there are plenty of examples of science "getting it wrong", whether hoaxed or simply mistaken.

But it was science that exposed these problems and corrected them, all by itself. Religion (and Creationism in particular) are not known for being self-correcting, or even testable.

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

I ran your links, Im specifically arguing against Macro-evolution (not micro-evolution) as an origin of species commonly refered to as "Evolution".



Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population - changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species' coloring or size.



Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

If you are honestly interested in factual information regarding evidence for or against macroevolution, take the time to read through this link.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html)



And for more accurate information about Nebraska Man:

www.members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie020.html (http://www.members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie020.html)





[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 06-08-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

you know what is the most annoying thing about creationists?

they condescendingly pretend (or imagine) that they understand why supporters of evolution stand behind the theory - yet they really have beyond no friggin' clue. they can't even begin to grasp the beautiful logic of the theory because there is no space in their heads for anything that doesn't reek of christ...

By all means fill us in!



quote:but you know what the funny thing is? their hollow brains are no where near saturated with the crap... there are huge profits to be made in the virtually-untapped born again christian demographic. the 'left behind' authors were only the pioneers. these brain-washed drones have no idea their naivete is padding the pockets of the very people who connive to foster it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

I agree, That series was aimed to make a buck off Christian Suckers! People wont read their Bibles but they will read the Left Behind Series.

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

Hey, EIL, Did you see that chart of our supposed ancestors in the Comic book link?

Nebraska man....SCIENTIFICALLY built FROM ONE TOOTH!!!!!

When a Man INVENTS a skeleton from a tooth, its not science!!

No, Im laughing at Biased people like you!

[This message has been edited by Sniper Piper (edited 06-07-2004).]

HOLY FUCKING SHIT! A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE BEING UNRELIABLE! THAT MEANS ALL OTHER EVIDENCE IS WRONG TOO!

*wanders off to the nearest church to wash all usefulness of his life away*

quote:Did not Osborn originally say it was an ape? Even though he had only one tooth.

Yeah, originally, untill he realised he wasn't and said so, flexible and fact-based that science is. A religious fanatic would take this and turn it into evidence against evolution.

quote:obviously you are firm in what you believe. And thats ok.

No it isn't! Inflexibility of belief is the basis for Al Qaeda, to give one prominant example of how fucking stupid it is.

quote:I ran your links, Im specifically arguing against Macro-evolution (not micro-evolution)

Macro-Evolution = Micro-Evolution + time.

Hmm, seems like Sniper Piper isn't doing a very good job defending Creation here. Well, first and foremost, I was bought up in a strong creationist family. My dad fully believes it and places it before anything else. So, yes I admit to being a bit biased. But, thats why I am replying here, I want to learn. Especially from people like truckfixr and Eil (when he's not getting all uptight about this discussion) because they seem to know their shit.

But, you can't just dismiss Creation straight away without a solid understanding of the concepts. In no way is Creation promoted as a science. Like Eil said, it is a religion. However there is science that supports the claims in the Bible which could lead one to believe it is the truth.

I am not trying to convert anybody here, because I am not too sure of what I believe at the moment either. I can honestly see why evolutionists believe what they do, and if I grew up in an evolutionist family chances are I would too. But there are good arguments for both sides. An open mind is needed rather than just dismissing everything like Eil is doing. No offense dude, but you are.

Quotes like this just demonstrate some misunderstandings of the general public who blindly accept evolution;

quote:Originally posted by Jesus:

Ha ha ha, you are kidding right? natural selection and genetics is what evolution is!

Even truckfixr if he knows his shit that well will know that's just stupid. Natural selection and genetics does not equal evolution, that's just fucking dumb.

Why natural selection isn't evolution. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n3_muddy_waters2.asp)

Genetics. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp)

Eil, you also condemned the idea of the Earth being less than 10,000 years old. I see where you are coming from as we have all been heavily evolutionized through school and life, however with an open mind read;

Evidence for a young Earth. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp)

Exploding stars. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/248.asp)

My point here is not to say that Creation is true and evolution is not, but to point out that there are respectable arguments from both sides. I am honestly interested in hearing about counter-arguments from an evolution viewpoint.

I would also gladly answer questions (reasonable) if asked and I am able to with my limited knowledge.

[This message has been edited by Pulse (edited 06-09-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Pulse:

Hmm, seems like Sniper Piper isn't doing a very good job defending Creation here. Well, first and foremost, I was bought up in a strong creationist family. My dad fully believes it and places it before anything else. So, yes I admit to being a bit biased. But, thats why I am replying here, I want to learn. Especially from people like truckfixr and Eil (when he's not getting all uptight about this discussion) because they seem to know their shit.

But, you can't just dismiss Creation straight away without a solid understanding of the concepts. In no way is Creation promoted as a science. Like Eil said, it is a religion. However there is science that supports the claims in the Bible which could lead one to believe it is the truth.

I am not trying to convert anybody here, because I am not too sure of what I believe at the moment either. I can honestly see why evolutionists believe what they do, and if I grew up in an evolutionist family chances are I would too. But there are good arguments for both sides. An open mind is needed rather than just dismissing everything like Eil is doing. No offense dude, but you are.

Quotes like this just demonstrate some misunderstandings of the general public who blindly accept evolution;

Even truckfixr if he knows his shit that well will know that's just stupid. Natural selection and genetics does not equal evolution, that's just fucking dumb.

Why natural selection isn't evolution. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n3_muddy_waters2.asp)

Genetics. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp)

Eil, you also condemned the idea of the Earth being less than 10,000 years old. I see where you are coming from as we have all been heavily evolutionized through school and life, however with an open mind read;

Evidence for a young Earth. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp)

Exploding stars. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/248.asp)

My point here is not to say that Creation is true and evolution is not, but to point out that there are respectable arguments from both sides. I am honestly interested in hearing about counter-arguments from an evolution viewpoint.

I would also gladly answer questions (reasonable) if asked and I am able to with my limited knowledge.

[This message has been edited by Pulse (edited 06-09-2004).]

To tell you the truth, I also came from a creationist background and I do not claim to be an authority on evolution.I have spent quite a bit of time trying to get answers for myself.

Having been unable to find conclusive proof for or against the existance of God, I take an agnostic view.

I have read many pages of information from scientists who present scientific findings concerning evolution.

I have also read many pages of information from creationists who try to invalidate the science.

To be quite honest with you, the creationists generally only take part of the information and add misinformation to it to try to give their cause validity.If you do any research on what they claim, their misrepresentations become pretty obvious.

Take the time to actually read through these sites and you will get a better understanding of what evolution is really all about and how it works:

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html) www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html)

Also, The link you posted about the supernovas is very misleading .I can see this just from my own (very limited ) experience with astronomy.In order for their claim to be any where near valid, we would have had to catalog every star, nebula,and deep space object in our galaxy. Obviously they do not understand the vastness of our galaxy and the complexity of locating and identifying deep space objects.New objects are being found every day,but we are a long way from cataloging the entire milky way.

Also, think about this. If the earth were only 10,000 years old as they claim, how can stars hundreds of thousands of light years away from us be visible to us now?Even creationists dont try to argue with the distances between the stars and the earth.

Keep an open mind. Research multiple sources.Find your own truth.

i'm not being uptight, i'm thoroughly enjoying myself...

why do creationists claim that the complexity and order of the universe is proof of god's existence, and yet fight any complex understanding of it?

i mean, is it really something so little and stupid as the disdain for apes? if the theory was that we evolved from panthers or something, would creationists be less opposed to it? is it only because apes are ugly, smelly, and obnoxious?

or is it the more insidious danger that curiousity presents by connecting too many dots?

No, I'd be more inclined to say that they'd rather continue to believe that they have a good bead on things.

Curiosity drives us to recognise that which we dont know and put things right by finding out about them. If you happen to be a member of an organisation that claims to have all the answers, to have connected all the dots, then you would be naturally opposed to the discovery of new "dots".

A scientist however will be perfectly content to say "I don't know", especially if it could lead to a future research grant.

truckfixr, the fact that you have come from a creationist background does open my eyes up a bit. I find it hard to refute the facts that I've been bought up to believe.

I guess the main reason I don't see the validility of evolution is the fact that I don't see how;

- Nothing explodes, causing a lot of dust which in turn forms planets and a whole universe and solar system.

- The dust on these planets somehow sparks life.

- This life then keeps changing it's information to contain more, through methods I don't understand and see possible.

- The evolution theory keeps changing, constantly. I've even heard evolutionists debate with me that they now believe we did NOT come from apes, while others say we do.

Thoughts like this keep me puzzled for hours.

I promise you truckfixr, I will read all the information in your links, and I hope it explains these questions. I just have to go to work at the moment and don't have the time. Thank you for your maturity about the discussion, it's not often I see that.

I'll keep you updated.

Isn't it funny how creationists and racists are usually the same person... (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum3/HTML/030461.html)

Morally challenged he says http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)...

In response to Pulse:

I have plenty of questions about the Big Bang theory as well. But at least this theory is based on logic. Everything in the universe is moving away from a point. This would suggest that something happened at this point, something to give the universe a push like that. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct. I'm going off of what I remember from my physics course... and my memory isn't all that great.

"The dust on these planets somehow sparks life" - Last I checked, we are made out of the same crap as everything else in this universe. When we die, we return to the planet just as everything else that breaks down over time. You just have to get the right mix to create life.

"This life then keeps changing it's information to contain more, through methods I don't understand and see possible." - Everyone and everything adapts to its surroundings. Those that don't are eventually destroyed. Evolution may seem like incredible leaps and bounds to reach out current state. But when you consider the time frame, it doesn't sound as farfetched. Beings adapt to their surroundings.

"The evolution theory keeps changing, constantly." - That's the beauty of it. Science, as others have stated, is self-correcting. Science is about the search for truth. If your initial theory doesn't add up in the end, do you give up? No. You try again. Search for the answer through a different method. Religion, on the other hand, states that THIS (whatever it is) IS the answer. Regardless of whatever new evidence may present itself, THIS is the answer. Hence the problem : If you disregard all future evidence based on your faith, you will never find the truth.

Again, if I'm wrong, feel free to point it out. I can take the criticism.

Pulse: man is an ape, man shares a common ancestor with apes, but that ancestor was not an ape.

I don't think it's the theory you're complaining about changing (though it does), it's people's explanations of it.

Hope that helps.

It is funny how people who want to know the truth, based on facts instead of a couple of books written hundreds of years ago suddently become morally challenged.

Not criticising UnknownVeritas, just questioning...

"When we die, we return to the planet just as everything else that breaks down over time. You just have to get the right mix to create life."

I see what you are saying with us returning back to the planet. But getting the right mix doesn't create life... not that I am aware of. I could sit there with dust for a million years and I'm pretty sure that life wouldn't suddenly spark and start living, know what I mean?

As for christianity starting with the Bible always as the authoritive truth... I understand your view that you can't find the truth thinking that way. But what if it is the truth? Know what I mean? Creationists discover information that validates the claims in the Bible and they use it. They don't change the views in the Bible because they see it as truth, and science just backs it up.

When people say science everyone automatically assumes evolution, whereas science can also validate creationist claims.

I am not flaming you, just providing food for thought.

Gaffer6, I'm not sure whether you are talking to me or someone else, or whether you are flaming me or what... so I'll just leave it go.

Sniper Piper has been a totse for 6 days now,

has 42 posts, and is irritating the fuck out of everyone,

well: most everyone....

why are allowing him to irritate us,

it's like letting our smaller siblings (or older)

irritate us, they do it 'cause it gets a reaction out of us.

and I'm willing to bet mr Snip here is having

fun laughing at the supidities of the secular mind,

as he perceives them -- I personally will not

bow down and take it up the butt with his cross --

I will not give him the satisfaction.

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

By all means fill us in!



basic chemistry supports evolution, not creationism. matter is composed of atoms. protons, electrons, and usually also neutrons. the quantities of these particles vary from each element to the next, effecting the shape and weight of the atom, and thus, the physical properties of the element. of the 118 (?) known elements, nearly all (excepting the man-made ones) can be found in varying degrees on earth. elements will undergo chemical reactions when in contact with other elements, bonding according to their geometry and creating compounds (or molecules). molecules in turn exhibit further unique properties.

spectral analysis of stars, galaxies, and nebulas reveals that the most abundant element in the known universe is hydrogen; not coincidentally, it is also the simplest. this is because the heavier elements are forged in the nuclear fusion reactions at the center of stars. first generation stars were made entirely of hydrogen. after a few billion years, the nuclear reactions exhausted, and in a supernova explosion, helium - the nuclear by-product at the core of these early stars - spread across space. second generation stars born of this cosmic debris consisted mostly of hydrogen, but now they had a core composed of both hydrogen and helium. further nuclear reactions in these stars created heavier elements, and in the explosions, more dust. this continued for many billion years (and continues still). our solar system formed from the debris of one or more of these later-generation stars... the elements that make up all matter on this planet came from stardust - including all plant and animal life.

as the raw matter of proto-earth condensed due to gravity, the pressure created intense heat, melting the dust into magma. over millions of years, the lava at the surface cooled, creating a thin crust. in the areas where the crust cracked and collided, lava spewed forth, releasing tremendous vapor into the thin veil of gas attracted to the planet by gravity. this early atmosphere was composed mostly of carbon dioxide, and now, water.

as a result of these eruptions, the surface gradually clouded over a period of possibly millions of years, and vast oceans formed under the continual down pour. for the first billion plus years of its existence, earth was lifeless, but far from uneventful. there are many theories as to how the initial spark of life came about. some believe the oceans and 'primordial mud' was the perfect place for new chemical reactions to build up the presence of amino acids on earth. others believe the warmth and pressure of underwater sea vents contained the necessary volatility to create the complex beginnings of life. still others believe life came from an external source - not aliens, but an asteroid containing simple proteins and amino acids. it is not as far-fetched as it seems. amino acids are now believed to be fairly common molecules in our solar system. whatever the case, the simple single-celled organisms existed and slowly evolved into multi-celled organisms in a process that spanned more time than the rest of all evolution. once these simple bacteria adapted properly for survival, the foundation was set for an explosion of diversity and complexity. multi-celled organisms became worms, plankton, plant matter, sea urchins, etc... the first mass extinction of life occurred because of the tremendous success of these life forms. they effectively destroyed their environment, and were suffocated by their own waste - oxygen.

you want me to go on? i'm getting tired, but i can...

quote:Ha ha ha, you are kidding right? natural selection and genetics is what evolution is!

Evolution theory - that we evolved from proto-single celled organisms, is very different to natural selection.

Natural selection is proven, and just says things adapt to their environments (genetically).

Evolution theory has quite a few holes in it (like the fossil record), and is just a theory.

^that's all semantics bullshit. you either have no idea what you're talking about, or are not explaining yourself well.

besides, no one is denying that evolution is a theory... that's STILL more than you can say for the pseudo-science of creationism... it's not even a theory, as the initial claim of 'GOD DID IT' has absolutely no way of being tested. IT IS LESS THAN A THEORY, it's a hypothesis, and not a very good one at that. that is why people take issue with it. especially when you insist on packaging it with all your other beliefs that are irrelevent to the topic.

edit: i take that back. it's not even a hypothesis... a hypothesis is an educated guess to be tested and accepted as theory or disproven. i can't even give you that much, since it isn't meant to be tested (i.e. the fallback answer is always 'God works in mysterious ways' - which really means, 'we don't know and shouldn't find out' ). i should have said, 'it's just a belief, and a poor one at that.'

creationism is based on the worldviews and knowledge of ancient peoples and cultures, who did not have a tenth of the access to raw facts that modern society does. just because it's continuously rationalized and modified in light of new, damaging evidence does not mean it is any stronger today than it was 150 years ago; it's still woefully behind the times. its purpose is not the acquisition and comprehension of new knowledge, but the promotion of a dogmatic belief system.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 06-10-2004).]

Pulse:

Well, Eil essentially answered everything that I could have included in this post. Mine was a very simple explanation, Eil went in depth. Thank you Eil, saves me a lot of time. Life did not start out in a very complex state, Pulse. As Eil stated, the basic components for creating life probably began in the primordial soup, bonding through different chemical reactions.

In my mind, this theory holds up much more than religion's explanations. I find it humorous when devout theists criticize scientific theories for being ridiculous and outlandish... when these are the people that explain things with a supernatural being that can never be proven. How insanely hypocritical is that?

quote:Originally posted by Pulse:

Hmm, seems like Sniper Piper isn't doing a very good job defending Creation here. Well, first and foremost, I was bought up in a strong creationist family. My dad fully believes it and places it before anything else. So, yes I admit to being a bit biased. But, thats why I am replying here, I want to learn. Especially from people like truckfixr and Eil (when he's not getting all uptight about this discussion) because they seem to know their shit.

But, you can't just dismiss Creation straight away without a solid understanding of the concepts. In no way is Creation promoted as a science. Like Eil said, it is a religion. However there is science that supports the claims in the Bible which could lead one to believe it is the truth.

I am not trying to convert anybody here, because I am not too sure of what I believe at the moment either. I can honestly see why evolutionists believe what they do, and if I grew up in an evolutionist family chances are I would too. But there are good arguments for both sides. An open mind is needed rather than just dismissing everything like Eil is doing. No offense dude, but you are.

Quotes like this just demonstrate some misunderstandings of the general public who blindly accept evolution;

Even truckfixr if he knows his shit that well will know that's just stupid. Natural selection and genetics does not equal evolution, that's just fucking dumb.

Why natural selection isn't evolution. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n3_muddy_waters2.asp)

Genetics. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp)

Eil, you also condemned the idea of the Earth being less than 10,000 years old. I see where you are coming from as we have all been heavily evolutionized through school and life, however with an open mind read;

Evidence for a young Earth. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp)

Exploding stars. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/248.asp)

My point here is not to say that Creation is true and evolution is not, but to point out that there are respectable arguments from both sides. I am honestly interested in hearing about counter-arguments from an evolution viewpoint.

I would also gladly answer questions (reasonable) if asked and I am able to with my limited knowledge.

[This message has been edited by Pulse (edited 06-09-2004).]

First: All you assholes are taking this shit too seriously; sniper is a troll, but then again everyone else who replied angrily is just as stupid. For fuck's sake if he wants to believe misinformation, let him. Don't have a 'moral obligation' to fix people's views; that makes you just as bad.

Pulse: I get where you're coming from (and your bias), but I urge you to read some unbiased scientific texts; you don't have to knock yourself out, it's just that by reading articles on creationist websites, you're getting a huge bias. It's misinformation, and that's not a flame: it's a truth.

There's no real explanation for exactly how the universe started; that is, all explanations are equally right (or wrong, if you wish), because nobody can prove anything. There is a lot of evidence, however, in support of the universe being very, very old.

I'm not going to hold anybody's faith against them (because I'm not that kind of person), but I will hold it against people who spread misinformation in the name of faith. Consider that the New Testament is nearly 2000 years old. Things have changed in the last 2000 years; "but the NT is the word of God!" you may say - even if it is the word of god, not only has it been interpreted by men, it's been translated countless times, making the Bible capricious at best.

Pulse, you seem like a fairly open-minded person; if you want to talk more without all the trolling, my AIM is SuperUberTek (this goes for anyone else who can have a civilized discussion about theology)

I wouldn't take anything Sniper Piper has to say seriously he cited David Duke once as a source in another debate.

quote:Originally posted by VampireSlaya:

Evolution theory - that we evolved from proto-single celled organisms, is very different to natural selection.

Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant.

quote:Natural selection is proven, and just says things adapt to their environments (genetically).

Yeah, that's called evolution. Natural selection is the mechanism for evolution.

quote:Evolution theory has quite a few holes in it (like the fossil record), and is just a theory.

Gravity is just a theory too, I hope you've invested in heavy boots.

And just how is "the fossil record" a hole in evolutionary theory?

*sniff sniff* I smell Creationist bullshit.

Oh, and even if I would like to let these people wallow in their own ignorance, it would be immoral for me to let them spread it; impressionable kids read these forums, and to let this kind of crap go by unchallenged would be a disservice to them.

Hey Jesus,

When they breed dogs, do they spontaneously combust into a new being or is it still a dog? You must be saying that black men and white men are actually different and one of them isn't human at all by this premise. Evolution speaks of mankind coming from ooze. No one says that adaptations don't occur, 'cause they do. What the theory as a whole says is that every creature comes from one ancestor. That means you are related to a snail.



quote:Originally posted by Jesus:

I love those cartoons! They are so stupid. If evolution isn't real why do people breed dogs? Or racing horses?

^you're severely confused. there is no evolutionary concept i know of that proposes a new species is created in a single generation. maybe 200 years ago... but i think our understanding of the evolutionary mechanism is a little bit more fleshed out now.

if evolution is true, isn't it likely that sometimes it will be punctuated, and other times protracted, depending on the specifics of the species in question?

for example, iguanas have been known to spread to islands and new territories by drifting along on floating debris... now if a small population (of say, like 2 or 3 lizards) manages to begin breeding on a very far away island, the gene pool will be very shallow. this will cause an increase in the mutation rate (a by-product of incest). now suppose that out of the many disastrous mutations that occur, there is one that is supremely advantageous, such as the ability to thrive on new food sources. in the span of a few thousand years, that mutation will likely spread like wildfire, and the gene pool will distance itself from the original pool to the point of speciation. that's punctuated evolution. you seem to not like it.

so let's draw the numbers out... suppose gene pool isolation of a species occurs over hundreds of thousands of years due to the drifting of entire continents. remember, this species has a very healthy population number in both territories, as its environment is slowly divided and differentiated. as the environments change according to their new positions on the globe, the two populations face difference selective forces. over millions of years, you get two distinct species with a common ancestor. a protracted evolution.

this is the type of evolution you arbitrarily deem 'ok.' so, uh, what's the difference?

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 07-02-2004).]

The greater chance of survival thing is from the Creationist Answers link posted earlier by some fundamentalist.

A greater chance of survival. I.e. the organism is ‘‘more fit to survive’’. This is what ‘‘survival of the fittest’’ means, by the way; it does not necessarily refer to physical fitness as commonly understood.

-If an organism is not physically fit, how then, do they survive over everything else? An animal that is heartier than others of its species has a greater chance of survival than its kind. It works to stay healthy and to survive. Think: two homeless people sitting on a side-walk. It is the dead of winter and they have no place to sleep. Some passer-by hands one a coat from a thrift store. Which hobo has a higher likelihood of survival? The one with the coat. He will survive until the next day where he can get a meal, maybe more clothing, while the other freezes to death. Why did ‘coat-hobo’ survive? Because he had an advantage over the other guy.

By saying that natural selection is not evolution, you are saying that man cannot exist. Man and all other species have been allowed to evolve because of natural selection. We, as a species, have developed into our surroundings. We have developed instincts over thousands of years that tell us how to survive with moderate success. Go take an anthropology class, it will explain to every creationist how the different species of man evolved from one variation to the other. Larger brains, the ability to walk upright, the ability to create crude tools to help us hunt and eventually form agrarian societies. The reasoning behind crude tribal rituals, and variations of different societies.

As well, man could not have been created. There is no feasible way that an individual human being could magically appear and then create another with just a rib. Go find a doctor to remove one of your ribs. Set it on a table and watch it. I guarantee you nothing will happen, no man(or woman) will grow from it.

If man was created in the image of God, then God must have looked like a monkey.

The kind of family one is raised in has nothing to do with their beliefs, unless you are a mindless sheep, then you should have the ability to form your own opinions, Humans have evolved that much(in most cases)

truckfixr, I’m not sure if you are for, or against, evolution, but I commend you on your post about macro- and micro-evolution. The only thing I would like to point out is that it takes thousands of years for these changes to have enough of an impact so that species could not mate. For the most part, minor differences in species, color, length of limbs, etc. don’t make a lot of difference. This kind of mating results in sub-species, that in turn, evolve and shape their own species by mating and continuing that cycle. At times, these sub-species are unsuccessful and die out quickly because their genes can become so mangled and inbred that they can no longer survive. Yet another example of survival of the fittest. The homeless guy with the thrift store jacket would be proud.

Finally Sniper Piper, evolution has nothing to do with morals. If you are ignorant enough to think that everyone is as fundamentalist and blind as you, then you’re in for a big surprise when you get out into the world. A persons morals are totally different from his or her beliefs. If anything, the post should be called, Creation: Religion for the Morally Challenged. Obviously, people like you have no morals if you are totally biased toward something you do not understand. As well, I challenge you to prove to me that a human can grow or “be created” from a rib, as your Holy Book of Lies so says. Of course there will be holes and inconsistencies in the evolutionary theory, not everyone is like you, we don’t pretend to know everything. There are some things that simply cannot be explained right now.

quote: Yet another example of survival of the fittest. The homeless guy with the thrift store jacket would be proud.

Im not exactly arguing Natural Selections role in nature, but Natural Selection as a Mechanism for Evolution....in other words Natural Selection is the reason we have different Species....that is Bunk.

Heres an article you can read about it....

of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved. (http://proxy.guardster.com/cgi-bin/nph-proxy.cgi/010100A/687474702f656d706f7269756d2e7475726e70696b652e6e65 742f432f63732f65766964322e68746d)



quote:Finally Sniper Piper, evolution has nothing to do with morals.

Where have you been? The Theory of Evolution is a Religion of no Morals...thats why its defended with such religious zeal by all Convient-Thinkers on Totse.

Eli,

It is a much more likely assumption that the iguanas were brought by boat from some indigenous tribes of Ecuador to Galapagos, vice, 2 or 3 iguanas floated on a log for 500 or more miles. Tell me how they survived afloat for that long? Aside from this, you still aren't understanding the premise. No one says that adaptations within a species doesn't occur, because they do. The topic is whether or not an animal can become an entirely new specie. This has NEVER been observed..... Never. Even the horse theory is flawed, because it's still a horse. A Chihuahua and German Sheperd are still dogs. And with the advance of new breeds of dogs multiplying each year, it's likely that if macroevolution were a viable operating method, that a new creature would spawn and branch out. Yet, it still has not happened. Furthermore, humans would be able to breed with monkeys, yet they cannot...... Even Aborigines who admittedly look like a throw back of ancestry. This what we are talkiong about. That is the difference between changes and CHANGES within a specie.



quote:Originally posted by Eil:

^you're severely confused. there is no evolutionary concept i know of that proposes a new species is created in a single generation. maybe 200 years ago... but i think our understanding of the evolutionary mechanism is a little bit more fleshed out now.

if evolution is true, isn't it likely that sometimes it will be punctuated, and other times protracted, depending on the specifics of the species in question?

for example, iguanas have been known to spread to islands and new territories by drifting along on floating debris... now if a small population (of say, like 2 or 3 lizards) manages to begin breeding on a very far away island, the gene pool will be very shallow. this will cause an increase in the mutation rate (a by-product of incest). now suppose that out of the many disastrous mutations that occur, there is one that is supremely advantageous, such as the ability to thrive on new food sources. in the span of a few thousand years, that mutation will likely spread like wildfire, and the gene pool will distance itself from the original pool to the point of speciation. that's punctuated evolution. you seem to not like it.

so let's draw the numbers out... suppose gene pool isolation of a species occurs over hundreds of thousands of years due to the drifting of entire continents. remember, this species has a very healthy population number in both territories, as its environment is slowly divided and differentiated. as the environments change according to their new positions on the globe, the two populations face difference selective forces. over millions of years, you get two distinct species with a common ancestor. a protracted evolution.

this is the type of evolution you arbitrarily deem 'ok.' so, uh, what's the difference?

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 07-02-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

The Theory of Evolution is a Religion of no Morals.

Why?

Because you say so?

It it hard to see anti creationism as a religion. The theroy of evolution is a theroy that has nothing to do with morals.

Please, if you can tell us what evolution has to do with morals post your examples.

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 07-03-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Nemesis_Juggernaut:

Eli,

It is a much more likely assumption that the iguanas were brought by boat from some indigenous tribes of Ecuador to Galapagos, vice, 2 or 3 iguanas floated on a log for 500 or more miles. Tell me how they survived afloat for that long? Aside from this, you still aren't understanding the premise. No one says that adaptations within a species doesn't occur, because they do. The topic is whether or not an animal can become an entirely new specie. This has NEVER been observed..... Never. Even the horse theory is flawed, because it's still a horse. A Chihuahua and German Sheperd are still dogs. And with the advance of new breeds of dogs multiplying each year, it's likely that if macroevolution were a viable operating method, that a new creature would spawn and branch out. Yet, it still has not happened. Furthermore, humans would be able to breed with monkeys, yet they cannot...... Even Aborigines who admittedly look like a throw back of ancestry. This what we are talkiong about. That is the difference between changes and CHANGES within a specie.



Ocean currents can move a log 500 miles in a mighty short period of time http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Also, speciation HAS been observed. Search for an article on "subway mosquitos"; genetic variation caused a new species of mosquitos to evolve in less than a decade that could no longer breed with its parent species.

"Furthermore, humans would be able to breed with monkeys, yet they cannot"

This part particularly confuses me. You understand that for creatures to breed, they have to have the same number of chromosomes along with genes that are similar enough to allow the fetus to survive, and different enough to not cause malicious mutations (as are caused by incest)?

From one of the sites Piper posted at the start of the thread...



'12. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The first law of thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy, states that there can be no creation or annihilation of mass or energy. Certainly, one form of energy can be converted into another, one state of matter can be converted into another, and matter/energy interconversions can occur. But, the total amount of matter and energy combined always remains constant. This law has application to the creation sciences by verifying that the universe could not just spring into existence by accident. The Big Bang theory, proposed and repeated as an article of faith by naturalists, violates this fundamental law of physics. What do you think: could matter and energy mysteriously appear without a Prime Mover, a Creator God?'



Yes, it is impossible to create matter from nothing. So, as it is impossible to create matter, the only plausable explanation for its existence is that the 'Creator God' created everything that exists. Out of nothing. In other words, he created matter from nothing, which the site just reminided us is impossible.

Wow, I think I'm converted...

where have I been, Sniper Piper? Where were you when your teachers were defining the word 'morals'. Morals: Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character. Where in that definition do you see anything about religion, evolution, or creation? Is somebody on the street going to kill somebody else because they believe in evolution and not creation? I highly doubt it. Religion and morals are two completely different things. MasterPython, I'd agree with you. Evolution is a theory. Not a religion. If you can prove otherwise Sniper Piper, be my(our) guest.

Ill repeat it a second time cause you all somehow missed it.

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

Where have you been? The Theory of Evolution is a Religion of no Morals...thats why its defended with such religious zeal by all Convient-Thinkers on Totse.

no, i think you must have missed it. As well, evolution is a THEORY, not a religion. how many times does it have to be said?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Solar Absolute:

Morals: Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character. Where in that definition do you see anything about religion, evolution, or creation?

[This message has been edited by Solar Absolute (edited 07-04-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

The Theory of Evolution is a Religion of no Morals...thats why its defended with such religious zeal by all Convient-Thinkers on Totse.



Your logic is flawed.

By that argument a man who trained his cat to bark and chase the mailman would have created a dog.

Just because it is defended like one doesn't make it one.

Also, just because you say something, that doesn't make it true.

But that post shows measurable improvement. You are at least trying to defend yourself now. Keep it up.

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 07-04-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

obviously you are firm in what you believe. And thats ok.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No it isn't! Inflexibility of belief is the basis for Al Qaeda, to give one prominant example of how fucking stupid it is.



Im not saying that i believe Al Qaeda. But lets make the assumtion that its right.

If it is right, shouldnt they be inflexible in their belief? If we truely are the infidels, should they just come and call us names and stick their tongues out at us or should they do what Allah told them to do?

Again... assuming that they are right.

QUOTE]Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Im not saying that i believe Al Qaeda. But lets make the assumtion that its right.

If it is right, shouldnt they be inflexible in their belief? If we truely are the infidels, should they just come and call us names and stick their tongues out at us or should they do what Allah told them to do?

Again... assuming that they are right.

[/QUOTE]

Why should I or anyone else assume that Al Qaeda are right in their religious beliefs? They have manuscripts written by men , just as Christians and Jews have their documents also written by men.They each believe that their's is the true religion, and all the others are false.

Willingness to commit mass murder simply because others have a different view is wrong.People who are willing to kill others in the name of a God who may or may not even exist, are not right in what they believe. They are simply murderous fanatics.

quote: Why should I or anyone else assume that Al Qaeda are right in their religious beliefs? They have manuscripts written by men , just as Christians and Jews have their documents also written by men.They each believe that their's is the true religion, and all the others are false.

Willingness to commit mass murder simply because others have a different view is wrong.People who are willing to kill others in the name of a God who may or may not even exist, are not right in what they believe. They are simply murderous fanatics.

I agree with you Truckfxr...alot of the Murderous Fanatics out there do it in the name of God. Whether God told them to do it or not that is debattable. But Human Nature is rotten to the core, if Men have a Moral Authority (Bible/Koran/Pope) that excuses these horrible acts....it eases their Conscience!

Let me simplify my point....The murder just acted out what was ALREADY IN HIS HEART TO DO but the excuse was His God, so he could ease his concience.

The argument that Religion is the source of this Evil is ridiculous! Human nature is the source of this Evil, Religion is the excuse to commit it.

And in the Spirit of Fairness....the majority of Wars and Murder out there were committed in the name....GREED....."I want more Land"....and Envy..."I want what he's got"!

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

QUOTE]Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Im not saying that i believe Al Qaeda. But lets make the assumtion that its right.

If it is right, shouldnt they be inflexible in their belief? If we truely are the infidels, should they just come and call us names and stick their tongues out at us or should they do what Allah told them to do?

Again... assuming that they are right.



Why should I or anyone else assume that Al Qaeda are right in their religious beliefs? They have manuscripts written by men , just as Christians and Jews have their documents also written by men.They each believe that their's is the true religion, and all the others are false.

Willingness to commit mass murder simply because others have a different view is wrong.People who are willing to kill others in the name of a God who may or may not even exist, are not right in what they believe. They are simply murderous fanatics.



[/QUOTE]

maybe i should have phrased that as: For the sake of arguementlet us assume...

if they are right, and God (Allah) told them what to do, then they should be inflexible, and do what God (Allah) commanded.

And for clearity sake, i do not believe that they are correct. And I am glad that I am not Abraham, because I would probably have failed that test(sacrificing son isaac).

I know...isaac was the hebrew tie to abraham and ishmael was muslin's tie. It doesnt matter, the point was that if God commanded, that is what should be done and why it should be inflexible.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

.... the point was that if God commanded, that is what should be done and why it should be inflexible.[/B]



When your religion tells you it is your duty to kill those who believe differently than you, it's time for common sense to take control.Should you be willing to commit mass murder because someone many centuries wrote a book that said you should.Shouldn't the suggestion that murdering men , women, and children, whose only fault is to have different beliefs than you,be enough to make you question the inspiration behind the scriptures?How can you be certain that God condones the murder of innocents?After all, the texts that make up the bible were written and compiled over the course of many years.Can you be certain that all of the scriptures were from Devine inspiration , and not from someone's personal agenda?Should someone be inflexible enough in their beliefs to commit mass murder based on something uncertain?

To commit murder in the name of religion requires fanaticism.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:



When your religion tells you it is your duty to kill those who believe differently than you, it's time for common sense to take control.Should you be willing to commit mass murder because someone many centuries wrote a book that said you should.Shouldn't the suggestion that murdering men , women, and children, whose only fault is to have different beliefs than you,be enough to make you question the inspiration behind the scriptures?How can you be certain that God condones the murder of innocents?After all, the texts that make up the bible were written and compiled over the course of many years.Can you be certain that all of the scriptures were from Devine inspiration , and not from someone's personal agenda?Should someone be inflexible enough in their beliefs to commit mass murder based on something uncertain?

To commit murder in the name of religion requires fanaticism.



my statement was less on religion and more on inflexibility. i did not say "murder in the name of religion. God is not religious. Religion is belief and devotion to God and faith in God.

If God truly told person A to kill person B, person A SHOULD do as commanded. And if person A said the reason he did it was from Divine direction, most people in the world would either view person A as a fanatic or insane because they see no proof that it was commanded by God.

I said in my post that i would probably fail if i had been Abraham. This is because i would be wondering if it was really God telling me to do this, or if it were the devil trying to trick me, or that it was just my own mind going faulty.

added in edit

When a country authorizes killing via war, fewer people question the individual's morals, and more people accept the authority of the command. But if a soldier refuses an order to kill, he may be subject to court martial and capital consequence... which is another command to kill by the governing authority.

Who's authority is greater, God's or country's?

sorry for getting off of the track of this post, just trying to explain my comment.



[This message has been edited by xtreem5150ahm (edited 07-05-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

Evolution is a Religion!

technically it is a religion. see definition 3

religion n. 1a: the service and worship of God or the supernatural b: belief in or devotion to religious faith and observance c; the state of a religious 2: a set ofor system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices 3: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

two definitions of faith are (a)firm belief without proof and (b)something that is firmly believed

[QUOTE]Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

my statement was less on religion and more on inflexibility. i did not say "murder in the name of religion. God is not religious. Religion is belief and devotion to God and faith in God....

....I said in my post that i would probably fail if i had been Abraham. This is because i would be wondering if it was really God telling me to do this, or if it were the devil trying to trick me, or that it was just my own mind going faulty.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood. Although for the example you used my response is still the same.Your own statement above proves that inflexibility is wrong.Common Sense must be a major factor in your beliefs.



When a country authorizes killing via war, fewer people question the individual's morals, and more people accept the authority of the command. But if a soldier refuses an order to kill, he may be subject to court martial and capital consequence... which is another command to kill by the governing authority.

Wars are waged for several different reasons, but the primary purpose of war is to protect and promote a way of life,be it Communism, Capitalism,Sociallism, etc.

Countries enter into a war because they percieve their action to be in the best interest for the preservation of their country.

When at war with another country,soldiers have to kill or the enemy will kill them . If a soldier refuses to kill the enemy,other soldiers may die through that soldier's inaction.Even pre-emptive military strikes against military targets are necessary to lessen the chances of casualty on the side of the country making the strike.

Al Qaeda is a radical-religious terrorist organization.They do not represent any Country.They target innocent civilians,not military targets.



Who's authority is greater, God's or country's?



That would depend on an individual's personal beliefs.If a person has religious beliefs which prevent him/her from performing their duties as a soldier,they should not join the military in the first place .Obviously they only have this option in countries with voluntary military service.

Even when the draft was in effect(in the U.S.),an individual could obtain Concsciensous(sp?) Objector status to prevent him/her from being placed in a position where they may have to go against their beliefs.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Your own statement above proves that inflexibility is wrong.Common Sense must be a major factor in your beliefs.

Im not sure where or how my statement proves that inflexibility is wrong.. unless you mean that it be determined by whether God really did command it or not.. which is why i said to assume that al Qaeda was right.

i find it difficult to be brief and clear in these forums.

I do understand the general hows and whys of war and the killings in wars. And the treat that one unwilling to kill would pose to his unit.

quote: Al Qaeda is a radical-religious terrorist organization.They do not represent any Country.

Part of the reason i chose to use al Qaeda for the example is that i have seen (many times) in this forum, people saying "how do you know the muslims arent right" and i'm under the impression that al qaeda is an extremist branch of muslim.



Who's authority is greater, God's or country's?

again, this was for explaination of my hypethetical. And with dealing with a religion, it is usually given that the belief in (a)God is already there.

this isnt meant as a cut down, just trying to clearify alittle more.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Part of the reason i chose to use al Qaeda for the example is that i have seen (many times) in this forum, people saying "how do you know the muslims arent right" and i'm under the impression that al qaeda is an extremist branch of muslim.



Who's authority is greater, God's or country's?

again, this was for explaination of my hypethetical. And with dealing with a religion, it is usually given that the belief in (a)God is already there.

this isnt meant as a cut down, just trying to clearify alittle more.







I didn't percieve any of your responses as any form of cut down , and I mean no disrespect in any of mine.

Your post I was referring to concerning flexibility is...

" This is because i would be wondering if it was really God telling me to do this, or if it were the devil trying to trick me, or that it was just my own mind going faulty."

You demonstrate flexibility by applying common sense in stead of blind faith.You show the ability to reason before you commit, which is the point I was trying to make in my post.



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 07-05-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:



Your post I was referring to concerning flexibility is...

" This is because i would be wondering if it was really God telling me to do this, or if it were the devil trying to trick me, or that it was just my own mind going faulty."

You demonstrate flexibility by applying common sense in stead of blind faith.You show the ability to reason before you commit, which is the point I was trying to make in my post.



Oh, now i see where you would think that.

Thanks for pointing it out.

quote:Originally posted by Nemesis_Juggernaut:

The topic is whether or not an animal can become an entirely new specie. This has NEVER been observed..... Never.

False. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5)

quote:Originally posted by Solar Absolute:

no, i think you must have missed it. As well, evolution is a THEORY, not a religion. how many times does it have to be said?



Don't bother, this guy just ignores or works around what he can't refute.

quote:DESIGN OF HAWKS: For birds to be able to fly, the ratio of weight to bone strength must be exactly right or the bird will be grounded. While hollow bones are good enough for most birds, the bone structure of hawks and a few other birds are much more advanced in their design. A hollow bone design does not allow for high gravity turns. The Creator added to the hawk’s bones a design that includes diagonal struts, which provides the very best strength-to-weight ratio. This structure, known as the Warren Truss, is very advanced, having been discovered only in the last 50 years by flight engineers.

Can you imagine a Hawk waiting a Million yrs for everything to "Evolve" just right so it can fly....

I wonder how it fed itself for those millions of years since it couldnt fly yet?

I wonder how it survived long enough to live millions of years since it couldnt fly away from Predators?

If by some miracle it could accomplish both of the above...Whats the point in further "Evolving?"

It takes quite a bit of faith to believe in Evolution!

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

Can you imagine a Hawk waiting a Million yrs for everything to "Evolve" just right so it can fly....

Either you don't want an answer, or you have no idea what you are talking about.

A hawk wasn't a hawk before it could fly. Hawks evlolved form another form of bird. Birds ingeneral only live a few years so there was no waiting folr millions of years.

quote:

I wonder how it fed itself for those millions of years since it couldnt fly yet?

It survived the same way everything else on Earth survived. by killing things and eating. If you didn't know animals can do that without flying.

quote:

I wonder how it survived long enough to live millions of years since it couldnt fly away from Predators?

See above.

quote:

If by some miracle it could accomplish both of the above...Whats the point in further "Evolving?"

There is no point in evolving. It is a natural process cause by reproduction and the enviroment.

quote:

It takes quite a bit of faith to believe in Evolution!

Not realy.

It makes sense without magic.

For hundreds of years people belived that the sun revolved around the earth. When ever someone sugested otherwise they were quickly discredited. There were verses in the Bible that suported it. Even when Galileo and others showed them proof that they were wrong it still took years before everyone accepted it. And even longer to get an apology for Galileo.

You would think that evolution would catch on faster. But I geuss people are just as stuborn as ever.



[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 07-07-2004).]

quote:There is no point in evolving. It is a natural process cause by reproduction and the enviroment.

The Hawk said "O wow, Look at these things on my side, I wonder what theyre for?"



How many Flightless Hawks do you know of?

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

The Hawk said "O wow, Look at these things on my side, I wonder what theyre for?"[B]

If you made an attempt to learn about evolution before dismising it you would know that changes are gradual over long period of time. And for a trait to be passed on it must be advantagious or conected to one that is.

quote:

[b]How many Flightless Hawks do you know of?





As for flightless hawks.

http://www.hrw.com/science/si-science/biology/animals/birdhouse/cassowry.html

Thats the closest thing I could find.

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 07-07-2004).]

quote:How many Flightless Hawks do you know of?

Your answer is basically "None!" Without knowledge of any flightless Hawks you casually say they "Killed and Ate"....

My, What faith!

Sniper Piper

As Master Python said, hawks evolved from a different species of bird. try looking up the Archaeopteryx

It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora[small predatory form of dinosaur], than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups.

Before the archaeopteryx evolved into what it was, it was a predatory animal(or lizard, how ever you see it) its species was known as raptor, just as the hawk is described. It may have been able to glide to the ground from the tree tops with crude wings. This animal survived by hunting and killing, and thousands of years later it evolved into the first species of bird, the aforementioned archaeopteryx.

Religious faith has nothing to do with evolution. Again, as master python said, it makes sense without magic. I'll say it again Sniper Piper do your homework and put together the peices of the puzzle before posting this bullshit.

[This message has been edited by Solar Absolute (edited 07-07-2004).]

First off, Sniper Piper, let me say those websites are insults to everyone's intelligence! The fact that we're supposed to believe that one stupid cartoon is going to debunk an entire sceintific theory with biased, Christian propaganda is insulting!

I nearly laughed my pants off when that cartoon suggested that atomic theory was a joke, that electrical charges do not hold the atom together, and that Jesus held all matter together! It's a good thing we didn't have Creationists at Los Alamos, or we might not have created the atom-bomb!

Now, to the other website!

quote:

44. HUMAN POPULATION: The human population can be extrapolated backwards to see how long it would have taken to achieve present-day numbers. Using even conservative growth figures of one-half percent per year, earth’s population would have been eight people about 5,000 years ago. That compares nicely with the number of people on Noah’s Ark. Starting with evolution’s claim for the origin of man, and using the same ½ percent growth figure for the human race, we calculate a huge present day population that can not be justified by the fossil record or current statistics.



This arguement is laughable in it's total lack of knowledge on the subject! Anyone who graduated high school should be able to debunk it!

The earth's population would not grow at a steady .5% a year, this is stupid. Everyone who's taken biology or satistics knows that population is an exponetial function!

I am by no means an expert in any field, yet I know these things!

[This message has been edited by Social Junker (edited 07-07-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Solar Absolute:



It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora[small predatory form of dinosaur], than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups.

Archaeopteryx in no more a Link between Reptiles and Birds than a Platypus is a link between a Beaver and a Duck!



quote:‘Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of “paleobabble” is going to change that.-Feduccia, A.; cited in V. Morell, ‘Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms’, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February, 1993. Return to text.

What are you talking about? find any

credible website and look at the structure of the archaeopteryx, it bears just as much a resemblance to reptiles as it does birds. I never said it was a feathered dinosaur, so don't use quotes like the second one trying to prove me wrong. It onlt makes you look stupid.

“paleobabble”

I like that.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

i'm not being uptight, i'm thoroughly enjoying myself...

why do creationists claim that the complexity and order of the universe is proof of god's existence, and yet fight any complex understanding of it?

i mean, is it really something so little and stupid as the disdain for apes? if the theory was that we evolved from panthers or something, would creationists be less opposed to it? is it only because apes are ugly, smelly, and obnoxious?

or is it the more insidious danger that curiousity presents by connecting too many dots?

*smiles*

I wouldn't mind being connected ancestrally to apes, if it were plausible.

Evolution is still a theory, to both creationist's and evolutionist's. So what about this "theory" is so profound that it should be used as supporting evidence to refute Creationism ? (not challenging you here, just wanting to understand your point of view)

I am a Christian, and strive, in my own arrogance, to understand the complexity of how we came to be...it matters not the origination. Since I believe God was involved in the creating, I have to ask questions that include that possibility. I have posted several threads with scientific formula's predicating the actual existence of an omnipotent being. (not of the being {God} per se, but the events that translate into divine intervention)

So, to say that Christians, as a whole, do not recognize true science and the complexity of our universe is not only false, but pretentious.

Are all evolutionist's as learned as some on this forum ? Absolutely not...but to deem them all mindless, god-hating morons would be unfair. Don't you agree ?

I certainly don't have that opinion, and I would hope that those here who do not agree with Creationsism would offer the same respect to those of us (Christians) that are intellectual, and strive for the knowledge necessary to stand on firm ground in our beliefs.

I am not preaching tolerance (that is a nice fantasy, but ultimately unachievable) here, but it seems that creationist's and Christians alike are vehemently attacked (personally) on this site, and that favor is not often returned.

Is it possible to have these discussions without the name-calling ?

I guess our dot-to-dot activity books just have different pictures in them.

;-)

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

basic chemistry supports evolution, not creationism. matter is composed of atoms. protons, electrons, and usually also neutrons.

Where did the atoms, protons, neurons, and electrons come from, Eil ?

quote:Pulse: I get where you're coming from (and your bias), but I urge you to read some unbiased scientific texts; you don't have to knock yourself out, it's just that by reading articles on creationist websites, you're getting a huge bias. It's misinformation, and that's not a flame: it's a truth.

[/B]

So, by going to creationist websites, you are reading biased information, but when you go to secular/evolutionist "scientific" sites, you're not ? Where's the justification for that thought process ?!

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

[B] Why?

Because you say so?

It it hard to see anti creationism as a religion.



re·li·gion - A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

quote:Also, speciation HAS been observed. Search for an article on "subway mosquitos"; genetic variation caused a new species of mosquitos to evolve in less than a decade that could no longer breed with its parent species.[/B]

Umm...it is still considered a mosquito, no ? It seems to me that if the original "subway mosquito" underwent some sort of mutation, then it is still of the same species, just evolved. (macro)

quote:Why should I or anyone else assume that Al Qaeda are right in their religious beliefs? They have manuscripts written by men , just as Christians and Jews have their documents also written by men.They each believe that their's is the true religion, and all the others are false.

Willingness to commit mass murder simply because others have a different view is wrong.People who are willing to kill others in the name of a God who may or may not even exist, are not right in what they believe. They are simply murderous fanatics.



[/B]

I, as a Christian, believe that the texts written by men were God-inspired, thus deeming them infallible.

That, I believe, is the difference between the Bible, and the other books you mentioned.

But I could just be ignorant of the "believed" origination of the other books.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Not realy.

It makes sense without magic.

I have a question for you...

Where are all the links in between the species that currently exist, providing evolution is true ?

And please do not tell me about the snake with legs...that is macro-evolution, in my opinion. It relates to the future, not the past.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

re·li·gion - A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

Is a religion also based on scientific facts, facts that have been derived from experementation, i.e., the scientific method? Or scientific observation?

"Anti-creationism" is not a religion by any definition of the word. It is based in scientific observation, methods, etc. It offers no code by which to live by, no God to pray to, etc., etc.

quote:

I, as a Christian, believe that the texts written by men were God-inspired, thus deeming them infallible.

That, I believe, is the difference between the Bible, and the other books you mentioned.



Infallible? That is a pretty arrogant assumption. How do you expect the Bible to be able to debunk evolutionary theory, when it was written when there was barely any scientific understanding in the world? I mean, come on, when it rained, people probably thought it was God crying!

I respect your beliefs and believe in your right to have them, but I believe that the Bible have no place in science, since it is an ancient religious document whose "principles" have no way of being tested.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Not realy.

It makes sense without magic.

no.. its still PFM

quote:

For hundreds of years people belived that the sun revolved around the earth. . Even when Galileo and others showed them proof that they were wrong it still took years before everyone accepted it. And even longer to get an apology for Galileo.

if memory serves... i think it was copernicus and about 1700 years before him, there was a guy named Aristarchus of Samos, that said that.

Where i'm going with this is that the current thought of the day is big bang/ evolution...

but maybe 17 centuries from now.. sniper may turn out to be finally understood to be right..

As you know, i personally believe the Bible, but i will admit that Christians have missed a thing or two in the past (and still). That does not mean that we are wrong about God.

And it does not mean that we are stupid, uneducated, or that we dont think about "stuff".

In fact, i am quite sure that most Christians question there faith often-- including church leaders-- especially in light of geological evidence for an old earth, astronomical evidence of an ancient universe, and the general logic of evolution.

I do give atta-boys to those like sniper, for keeping faith that the Bible is the inerrant, Active Word of God. And for trying to make sense of what we see from science and from our belief.

I also give atta-boys to people like you, craftian, truckfxr, DarkMag etc. for generally trying to inform us Christians to what you see as fact without getting (too) rude. It does help by giving understanding and also by keeping us on our toes.

quote:Originally posted by Solar Absolute:

Sniper Piper

As Master Python said, hawks evolved from a different species of bird. try looking up the Archaeopteryx

It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora[small predatory form of dinosaur], than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups.

Before the archaeopteryx evolved into what it was, it was a predatory animal(or lizard, how ever you see it) its species was known as raptor, just as the hawk is described. It may have been able to glide to the ground from the tree tops with crude wings. This animal survived by hunting and killing, and thousands of years later it evolved into the first species of bird, the aforementioned archaeopteryx.

This may be out dated but...

Francis Hitching -- 1982 (i think) (not direct quote)A fossil was found in Colorodo in 1977 of a true bird which could not have descended from Archaeopteryx, because it lived at the same time. Also Archaeop. appears to have had excellent wings that it should have been able to fly pretty good.

He said that you might as well call the penquin an intermediate between bird and fish, as to call Arch. a link between bird and dinosaurs.

I am not sure but i think Hitching IS an evolutionist. The book that was from was

"The Neck of the Giraffe"

I hope i remembered this stuff correctly.

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

Infallible? That is a pretty arrogant assumption. How do you expect the Bible to be able to debunk evolutionary theory, when it was written when there was barely any scientific understanding in the world? I mean, come on, when it rained, people probably thought it was God crying!

I respect your beliefs and believe in your right to have them, but I believe that the Bible have no place in science, since it is an ancient religious document whose "principles" have no way of being tested.

It is not an arrogant assumption, if you believe in God. It is faith. :-)

I don't expect the Bible to debunk evolutionary theory...I believe the current practices and beliefs of modern-day science do.

I believe the Bible is what it was intended to be...a handbook for us to live our lives by.

When it was written, there wasn't scientific theory, or otherwise. You are right...that is why it is so easy for me to believe in a living God. He didn't need science. He created it.

It didn't rain until God caused the flood. This is why people did not believe Noah when he said there would be a torrential downpour that would devour mankind. Their response ? "You're crazy, Noah...there is NO SUCH THING as RAIN !! Keep on buildin' your boat..." If you would like to see what the Bible says about the origin of water (for plants, animals, etc.) I would be more than happy to provide it for you.

I do not maintain that the Bible has anything to do with science...I believe that science can prove the Bible as accurate...thus proving the existence of God.

God is not to be tested...He states this several times in the Bible.

This is why the Holy Spirit is so important to us, because it is something spiritual that we can experience, which promotes the ability to have faith in a God we cannot see, touch, or physically hear.

Faith is proof (to Christians), but without proof man has a hard time having faith. It's a complex thing to explain...

Sometimes I feel like we're walking around in circles in this discussion, God created science...God is not to be tested....you must have blind faith in Him, he doesn't have to provide evidence......Well, that may all be fine and well for you, but not for me. Like someone famous said:

"I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it!"

[This message has been edited by Social Junker (edited 07-08-2004).]

Have you read the Bible cover to cover, in order to have an EDUCATED decision about whether or not it is "crap" ?

Have you tried to experience God (via the Holy Spirit) by opening yourself up to that sort of communication ?

It's not an easy thing to do...to become so selfless and open that you can finally accept the message...

Until you have done these things, how can you say, "There is no God ?"

If you can do them, and have done them...well, you'd believe.

I know that sounds so simple, and in fact, that is why most people cannot believe in God. He has simplified Himself to us to the point that we can't believe it could be so simple...

Anyway...TANGENT !!! (sorry)

The divinity, and provability of God cannot be summarized on a forum.

I wish I could "speak" to you...I am not very eloquent on totse.com...nor do I have the time to type all that I want to say.

For that, I apologize. I must sound like a raving lunatic...which I can assure you, I am not.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Have you read the Bible cover to cover, in order to have an EDUCATED decision about whether or not it is "crap" ?

Have you tried to experience God (via the Holy Spirit) by opening yourself up to that sort of communication ?

It's not an easy thing to do...to become so selfless and open that you can finally accept the message...

Until you have done these things, how can you say, "There is no God ?"

If you can do them, and have done them...well, you'd believe.

I know that sounds so simple, and in fact, that is why most people cannot believe in God. He has simplified Himself to us to the point that we can't believe it could be so simple...

Anyway...TANGENT !!! (sorry)

The divinity, and provability of God cannot be summarized on a forum.

I wish I could "speak" to you...I am not very eloquent on totse.com...nor do I have the time to type all that I want to say.

For that, I apologize. I must sound like a raving lunatic...which I can assure you, I am not.

First of all, let me say I do not believe that the Bible is "crap" is any way, I simply do not believe in it. I was a Christian before, and yes, I have read the Bible extensively, although not completely. I am a spiritual person, I should have said this before, I am a devout Buddhist. I believe that Christianity and Buddhism are "looking" and "pointing" at the same thing, so to speak. I do not believe Buddhism is "better" than Christianity, or vice versa. There are simply what they are.

Believe me, there is no need to apolgize. It is a good thing to see such a person as you so devout to your faith, whatever you choose that to be. Haha, you are not a lunatic, no more than I am!

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

I am a devout Buddhist.



Two questions...

which type of Buddist are you?

has anyone, besides Gautama, reached enlightenment and / or nirvana?

Just curious... not trying to set you up, just storing info in my brain so that i can forget it later

If I forget to answer a question by all mean bitch and complain. I would like to answer them all but I might overlook it.



Links seem to be a sticking point. They we don't see them because their decendants took over their place in nature and drove them to exstinction. And for all we know lots of animals are links we just don't know it.

If you compair the anatomy of diferent speciesof animals it is easy to assume that they are somehow related. All vertabrates are laid out in a similar manner as far as major organs go. If you compair closer related speciece you can see how their bone stucture is similer. If you belive that God did made these animals this way why?

[quote]quote: no.. its still PFM

Whats PFM?

quote:Where i'm going with this is that the current thought of the day is big bang/ evolution...

The Big Bang and Evolution are completly unrelated. The Big Bang theroy is about matter. And right now God did it is just a good an answer about why it happened as anything else. But there is lot of good evidence that it happened.

Evolution is concerned with how life on earth is related to single celled organisims. It say nothing about how life began. Again God did it is just as good a answer as anthing else.

These ideas only conflict with Christain Creationinsm if you believe that God told Moses exactly how the universe came to be.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Two questions...

which type of Buddist are you?

has anyone, besides Gautama, reached enlightenment and / or nirvana?

Just curious... not trying to set you up, just storing info in my brain so that i can forget it later

If I had to choose "what type" of Buddhist I am, I would say I subscribe to Zen Buddhism.

You ask a difficult question. First of all, I should say that Buddhists do not worship Buddha like Christians do Jesus. In fact, Buddha is not even a specific person, it is simply someone who has attained enlightenment.

When you speak of Gautama, you refer to the historical Buddha. In fact, in it rather complicated, there are many forms of Buddha, and I could not possiblely explain it to you, it would take forever to type out.

The short answer: Yes, people (besides Gautama) do obtain enlightenment. But that begs the question "what is enlightenment"?

When you say you have obtained enlightenment, you have not obtained enlightenment, because it is something the human mind is incapable of grasping.

I will conclude by saying "that the seed of enlightenment exists in every sentient beings mind, you have only to nuture it by folling the Eightfold Path."

If you want to know more, there are thousands of books on the subject. I hope I have been informative, somewhat!

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

..God is not to be tested....you must have blind faith in Him, he doesn't have to provide evidenceJunker (edited 07-08-2004).

God is not the subject of Research, but of Revelation.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

If you belive that God did made these animals this way why?

My belief that God made them (plants and animals) this way, stems first and foremost from belief that the 6 creation days were literally 24 hour days. Although i"ve read an interesting theory how the 6 days could be BOTH literal 24 hour periods AND 15 (or so) billion years.

IF literal days THEN not enough time for evolution. (flood geology vs. the science of geology has me somewhat stumped.. it answers some questions but leaves others) i mention geology because that really is the prime dating method of fossils.

If you are asking why i believe God made the animals THIS way, i'd have to answer that God must love diversity and order.. Diversity because just a few creations would be boring (to Him and us).

Order because of the diversity and to make things work. i.e. as an engineer.

these were just a few of my reasons for my belief.

quote:

The Big Bang and Evolution are completly unrelated. The Big Bang theroy is about matter.

Evolution is concerned with how life on earth is related to single celled organisims.



they arent completely unrelated because even though we are talking about evolution, it does imply that somehow, things began. And just as creationist argue against the start of life as accidental and having a Starter (God). Evolution implies that there was no Grand Designer. As does the Big Bang.

I realize that this is an over-simplification, but my posts tend to be too long anyway.

sorry, you asked what PFM was and i forgot to answer that one...

PFM is pure fuck'n magic

an acronym i picked up in the military and was recently reminded lol :-)

my wife says i forget alot, but her remembering everything is PFM lol

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

If I had to choose "what type" of Buddhist I am, I would say I subscribe to Zen Buddhism.



thanks was just curious

GEOLOGY REVERSED: Around the world, we see rock layers out of normal evolutionary sequence. Naturalist geologists believe the earth’s rocks were laid down in a uniform manner over billions of years. In Glacier National Park, however, a block of Precambrian “old” rock sits on top of Cretaceous “newer” rock. Why is this important? Evolutionists have a hard time explaining this embarrassing example of 1 billion year-old rock sitting on top of 100 million year old rock. Perhaps the rocks have moved since they were laid down? Unfortunately, when geologists look for signs of movement such as scrape marks or tallis piles they find none. Additionally, the tensile strength of rock makes it highly unlikely that the older block of rock moved across the newer without shattering to dust. Looking at the evidence, creationists say that both rocks were created at the same time. What do you say? (http://www.youngearth.org/evowontfly.htm)

Ever wonder how Paleotologists get the 4.6 million year dates and why they use them. Time is the "Magic" in Evolution. Time is the Cornerstone of Evolution, without Large amounts of time then Evolution loses its "Magic".

These Large dates arent Generated by Carbon Dating alone, but by the ASSumption that our layers of dirt took millions of years to lay down....so the deeper you dig the older the fossil. This Logical Assumption seems OK or reasonable...even to me, however its an ASSumption not a fact.

Quoted above is one example of a "New" layer on top of an "Old" layer, this example isnt the only one....I heard about a 500 mile stretch of a New layer on top of an Old layer in China....unfortunatly, I cant back that up with a link or name. Has anybody heard of it?

But if this is true, these Large dates are even more unbelievable.

Post some new stuff. We have all seen this site.

But while its here I'll give a few points a shot.

quote:47. OIL FIELDS FLUID PRESSURE: The pressure in modern day oil fields is too high for them to be very old. Current estimates indicate that the longest a rock layer could keep oil under pressure would be 100,000 years. Our oil is simply not as old as evolutionists’ claim.

Not many oilfeids have pressure. That is why oil is pumped. most of the oil in the world is in tar sands and shales, the result of a rock layer giving out. If it take one hundred thousand years to give out how come we have oil sands.

quote:48. ORIGIN OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION: No verifiable record of human civilization is older than 5,000 years. Civilization, like everything else, appears suddenly in the historical record.

That does not prove anything exccept civilizations are less that five thousand years old. Civilizations require very specific conditions to form. They need to have a good climate water large groups of people with knowledge of agroculture and other things. They don't just spring up.

quote:49. EARTH SPIN SLOWING DOWN: The Earth is slowing down its spin at a rate of one third of a second every year. If we extrapolate this back billions of years we obtain an unreasonable spinning speed for the earth.

Acceleration and deceleration do not follow linear curves. The earth may be slowing down fast know but it wasn't always. That statement is just bad physics.



[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 07-09-2004).]