PDA

View Full Version : Dinosaurs Compatible With Christianity?


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

chimp_spanner
06-29-2005, 12:21 PM
"who is to say that they weren't plant life? How the **** do they figure it's a leg/arm of some boogie monster? Maybe it was used as a temple support beam by the philistines, or maybe it was a big ****ing bong used by the Africans..."

I present to you a plant, a bong, and a dinosaur bone. Please note the difference between the three. *chuckles*


http://img238.echo.cx/img238/5198/dinosaurbone7pa.jpg

http://img257.echo.cx/img257/4426/pondplantuse0tr.jpg

http://img257.echo.cx/img257/1785/010colorchangingwaterbong5bo.jpg

fenwood
06-29-2005, 12:21 PM
Fenwood, I thought you were smarter than this. How can you deny actual concrete proof?

I'm a ****ing masters student, I've more brains than you lot. How can you believe such nonsense? I don't believe in fairy tales, ghosts or witchcraft... how are dinosaurs any different?

chimp_spanner
06-29-2005, 12:22 PM
lol!!! Masters student???? Then you should know fossilised plant life is what we burn in our **** furnaces. It doesn't turn into "fake" bones. What exactly is your masters in?

fenwood
06-29-2005, 12:22 PM
I present to you a plant, a bong, and a dinosaur bone. Please note the difference between the three. *chuckles*


http://img238.echo.cx/img238/5198/dinosaurbone7pa.jpg

http://img257.echo.cx/img257/4426/pondplantuse0tr.jpg

http://img257.echo.cx/img257/1785/010colorchangingwaterbong5bo.jpg

I know what a waterbong looks like. I don't know what trees looked like 3000 years ago.

fenwood
06-29-2005, 12:23 PM
lol!!! Masters student???? Then you should know fossilised plant life is what we burn in our **** furnaces. It doesn't turn into "fake" bones. What exactly is your masters in?

Business, although I don't see how that's relevant.

chimp_spanner
06-29-2005, 12:26 PM
Well I do - see, if you were particularly well versed in....palaeontology, dendrology, archaeology, geology, or anything that might give you that inside bit of knowledge, you might have some credibility. As it is...I refuse to believe that you're being serious. It's just not possible............is it...........?

RouteOne
06-29-2005, 12:27 PM
I'm a ****ing masters student, I've more brains than you lot. How can you believe such nonsense? I don't believe in fairy tales, ghosts or witchcraft... how are dinosaurs any different?
Explain to me then, how this skull is "fake".

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/rajasaurus02.jpg

It's also funny how you mention fairy tales. Believeing in a invisible man in all.

chimp_spanner
06-29-2005, 12:29 PM
Route - that picture is clearly the fossil of a rather large daisy that got caught up in a rock sediment along with a gargantuan african bong.

RouteOne
06-29-2005, 12:33 PM
Route - that picture is clearly the fossil of a rather large daisy that got caught up in a rock sediment along with a gargantuan african bong.
yes, it is of the orchid species that through evolution, grew teeth, nasal cavities and a jaw bone. How could I have been so stupid?

fenwood
06-29-2005, 12:34 PM
Ever heard of photoshop? If the dinosaurs existed 14 million years ago or whenever, then wouldn't the bones have not vanished?

Typical amerikkkans brainwashed by their spoonfed propaganda, I'm sure you also believe you guys won WWII or the cold war. Idiots.

RouteOne
06-29-2005, 12:38 PM
Ever heard of photoshop? If the dinosaurs existed 14 million years ago or whenever, then wouldn't the bones have not vanished?

Typical amerikkkans brainwashed by their spoonfed propaganda, I'm sure you also believe you guys won WWII or the cold war. Idiots.
Ever hear of fossilization? I would hope so with that fancy masters you have...

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

fenwood
06-29-2005, 12:42 PM
I'm no science major, but I know that bones turn to dust after a while, certainly long before a million years you titwank.

RouteOne
06-29-2005, 12:44 PM
I'm no science major, but I know that bones turn to dust after a while, certainly long before a million years you titwank.
When something is encased in stone, it is like it is frozen. It does not decay or breakdown.

chimp_spanner
06-29-2005, 12:45 PM
I'm not American. I'm British.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/beasts/fossilfun/makingfossils/

RouteOne
06-29-2005, 12:48 PM
I suppose you don't believe in Wooly Mammoths either huh?

http://www.geocities.com/stegob/mammoth.html

fenwood
06-29-2005, 12:49 PM
It's not physically possible for so many fossils to have lasted so long. Why is it so hard to understand that these 'bones' are human made?

fenwood
06-29-2005, 12:49 PM
I suppose you don't believe in Wooly Mammoths either huh?

http://www.geocities.com/stegob/mammoth.html

such a reputable link

RouteOne
06-29-2005, 12:50 PM
It's not physically possible for so many fossils to have lasted so long. Why is it so hard to understand that these 'bones' are human made?
So you believe that man was able to make REAL bone, bury them under rock that has been undestrubed for millions of years and scatter them across the planet? You must be joking.

RouteOne
06-29-2005, 12:51 PM
such a reputable link
It's been on the discovery channel, history channel, national geographic, modern science and world newspapers.

Do you seriously disagree with hard evidence?

fenwood
06-29-2005, 12:52 PM
So you believe that man was able to make REAL bone, bury them under rock that has been undestrubed for millions of years and scatter them across the planet? You must be joking.

Where is the proof it's a 'real' bone? How come lay men can't play around with them, see for themselves?

I know not why these were created or for what purpose they once served, but there is absolutely no way all these bones could survive that long w/o being frozen.

RouteOne
06-29-2005, 12:55 PM
Where is the proof it's a 'real' bone? How come lay men can't play around with them, see for themselves?

I know not why these were created or for what purpose they once served, but there is absolutely no way all these bones could survive that long w/o being frozen.
Are you familiar with the process of fossilization? Look it up and come back.

chimp_spanner
06-29-2005, 12:58 PM
Alot of the time, the "dinosaur bones" are not made of bone. They're hardened mineral "casts" (or inverse moulds) created when the original skeletal material decayed within a compacted sedimentary environment. Minerals seep into the cavity left in its place (deposited by, say the water table) and over time, these deposits harden to form casts of the bones that were once there.

I learnt that at GCSE level man. It's not particularly challenging stuff.

**And it's not even my area of expertise...I'm a friggin musician. So if I know this crŠp...you should too, seeing how you're so intellectually superior, by your own admission I might add.

GimmeSlack12
06-29-2005, 02:29 PM
Ever heard of photoshop? If the dinosaurs existed 14 million years ago or whenever, then wouldn't the bones have not vanished?

Typical amerikkkans brainwashed by their spoonfed propaganda, I'm sure you also believe you guys won WWII or the cold war. Idiots.

Fenwood, wow, long time no see man. Hey don't get caught in these dumb threads, stick to things that are relevant like our President or something.
I'm moving to England (Manchester) in September, where you live? We should jam.

Rearviewmirror
06-29-2005, 02:32 PM
Where is the proof it's a 'real' bone? How come lay men can't play around with them, see for themselves?

I know not why these were created or for what purpose they once served, but there is absolutely no way all these bones could survive that long w/o being frozen.

Man, you often write intelligent posts, but this one ...


Fossils. :thumb:

fenwood
06-29-2005, 02:34 PM
Fenwood, wow, long time no see man. Hey don't get caught in these dumb threads, stick to things that are relevant like our President or something.
I'm moving to England (Manchester) in September, where you live? We should jam.

aye mate, I'm in Canada @ the moment, but hope to get back to glasgow if I can find a job after I graduate, it's brutal here

the_uber_penguin
06-29-2005, 03:48 PM
So we have a case here that fossils have been faked and radiometric dating is dodgy and can't be trusted.

On the one hand, many people haven't actually seen any dinosaur bones first hand, and there are flaws in the radiometric dating methods.

However, the theories proposed by the fake dinosaur bones theory tend to be very conspiricy-theory like. They lack an insider to lend them credibility. It's very easy to accuse scientists of fabricating the entire dinosaur theory, but no one has (to my knowledge) ever given a testimony to say that they worked in the field and that's what they saw.

Surely if someone had given such a testimony, it would cause uproar, and be remembered in infamy at least?

For those who say museums still make a lot of profit, they don't make very much, and still rely on Government funding! In London, museums don't make ANY money from visitors.

I will strongly argue the case for fossils being genuine. I've been fossil hunting and found a plenty of them. Is anyone going to tell me I'm wrong, and that I can't trust my own eyes?

As for timings, if live only appeared 6000 years ago, how did all find room to breath, given the sheer number fossils we've unearthed. There simply wouldn't be enough time-space for all of them (especially considering that only a very small proportion get fossilized)

chimp_spanner
06-29-2005, 04:00 PM
^ Exactly. Finally someone making some sense ;)

GimmeSlack12
06-29-2005, 04:01 PM
Ok, the whole Dino bones are FAKE???????

Please for a second explain how that is possible??? Actually don't explain, cause you'll just drum up some lame response. I mean c'mon! A worldwide dinosaur hoax?? So fucking stupid.

And sorry but the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. Not 6000. Think for yourselves!!

devonte_da_drummer
06-29-2005, 04:23 PM
don't feel like going back and quoting it from the actual post, but to whoever used the cent/ hundred dollar bill, tricycle/747 analogy... wow, that is one of the most biased statements I've ever heard. Sure, there is a crapload of evidence for evolution out there... as long as you still include the lot of it that have been proven as hoaxes, and dismissed by evolutionary scientists themselves, yet still manage to find their way into textbooks.
edit: to the post directly above, I find it funny that you tell us to think for ourselves when you yourself automatically post the standard evolutionary view of the earth's age. If you're going to tell us to think for ourselves, I would think you'd at least go to the trouble of posting an idea thats somewhat original instead of blidnly agreeing with the majority...

desertcircus
06-29-2005, 04:37 PM
"Sure, there is a crapload of evidence for evolution out there... as long as you still include the lot of it that have been proven as hoaxes, and dismissed by evolutionary scientists themselves, yet still manage to find their way into textbooks."

Evidence? Also, any proof for creationism that isn't produced by nutballs with a clear agenda? If you're going to pretend that the evidence is equal either way, you need to seriously re-evaluate your belief system.

"I would think you'd at least go to the trouble of posting an idea thats somewhat original instead of blidnly agreeing with the majority..."

Original? What on earth do you mean? This isn't about being original; it's not some artistic merit contest. It's about who's right. The balance of evidence lies overwhelmingly on one side, and the poster you disagree with has simply pointed out which side the evidence lies on. Why on earth would he need to be original? What on earth has that got to do with his arguments?

the_uber_penguin
06-29-2005, 04:48 PM
I'm going to give up trying not to take sides for a post here:

I don't see how the Universe could have to got the way it is, or how life could have got to its current state in only 6,000 years.

Maybe a creator such as an all powerful god did create the Universe so that it would appear to be much older then it really is.

In that case, why? Assuming that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, my best guess would be that all the evidence to do with dinosaurs and such like would be a puzzle for us to fit together to discover a deeper meaning to life.

I would prefer to take the scientific version of events.

Perhaps I should explain some of the underlying philosophy behind science.

Science is NOT an attempt to say "This is how it happened, this is fact". It is an attempt to describe what we see. All the equations it comes up with aren't the rules which run the universe, but merely a way of working out what will happen.

In many ways this renders this entire debate pointless.

From a scientific point of view, the evolutionist argument has so much evidence to furhter their cause that in scientific terms. This means all the evolutionists can do is try to discredit the methods used, and come up with counter theories. These counter theories rarely have the same scientific basis and so are never fully accepted into the scientific community.
In other words, what we see is a universe that appears to be ~20 billion years old and a planet that appears to be ~5 billion years old. In terms of predicting what we'll find when we dig up rocks, this model works perfectly well, and so has no reason to be changed, young earth or not.

From a philosophical point of view, the creationists can argue that God created the earth in 4004BC and true scientific reasoning would say "That might be true, but it doesn't explain what we see."

I think the line taken by the creationists, if not the creationist view, to be very dangerous.

The creationist line is that because dinosaurs and the old earth theory are at odds with what is in the bible, they are a trick by Satan. This inhibits research into those fields. It also weakens their case philosophically, in that their reasoning can be interpreted as "I'm scared of my faith being proved wrong, therefore I will try and stop my faith getting proved wrong". What if God has in fact planted all these fossils in the earth as puzzle for the human race to work out? Sure then in that case, all the evolutionists will find at the end of their research is that you, the creationists, were right all along?

I'd like to say on behalf of all scientists: stop being so scared of the theory of evolution. No scientific theory will ever, or can ever prove or disprove the existance of God, or prove or disprove the story of creation. All it can do is provide a model to describe what we see, and predict what we will find. This is entire independant of religion (no matter how much it contradicts the Bible) and religion should be left out of science.

Thank you, case closed.

siva_chair
06-29-2005, 05:46 PM
He's talking about a hippo/elephant you sycophant riddler

Have you ever seen a hippo/elephant with a tail like a cedar tree?

devonte_da_drummer
06-30-2005, 02:00 AM
"Sure, there is a crapload of evidence for evolution out there... as long as you still include the lot of it that have been proven as hoaxes, and dismissed by evolutionary scientists themselves, yet still manage to find their way into textbooks."

Evidence? Also, any proof for creationism that isn't produced by nutballs with a clear agenda? If you're going to pretend that the evidence is equal either way, you need to seriously re-evaluate your belief system.

"I would think you'd at least go to the trouble of posting an idea thats somewhat original instead of blidnly agreeing with the majority..."

Original? What on earth do you mean? This isn't about being original; it's not some artistic merit contest. It's about who's right. The balance of evidence lies overwhelmingly on one side, and the poster you disagree with has simply pointed out which side the evidence lies on. Why on earth would he need to be original? What on earth has that got to do with his arguments?

There is reputable evidence on the creationist side, incase you didn't bother to read the many links posted a few pages back in this thread. The "originality" comments were meant to be sarcastic, because of the absurdity of the poster's comment that we(assuming the post was directed at the other creationists on this forum as well, not just me)didn't think for ourselves because we believed in creationism.

desertcircus
06-30-2005, 02:28 AM
That evidence wasn't reputable. I want to see a proper peer-reviewed journal producing conclusive evidence for creationism. But I don't think I will see one, because there is no conclusive evidence.

Futue te Ipsum
06-30-2005, 03:26 AM
you know, the premise of this thread is rather silly.

the_uber_penguin
06-30-2005, 04:21 AM
you know, the premise of this thread is rather silly.

Read my last post.

chimp_spanner
06-30-2005, 04:25 AM
Yes it's incredibly silly. It's also incredibly alarming that there are people who believe it. What are they teaching you guys over there :lol:

Still, could have something to do with the fact that the education system I went through was almost entirely devoid of any religious influence. I did however ace R.E.

¨_¨

Metal_Licker
06-30-2005, 04:50 AM
I'm no science major, but I know that bones turn to dust after a while, certainly long before a million years you titwank.

:lol: You are so stupid. Photoshopping a dinosaur skull? Fair enough, but have you ever in your life been to a museum? Perhaps you don't believe in fairy tales because there was no evidence that any of them ever took place, but have you stopped and thought "hey, its like christianity"? Both christianity and fairy tales are documented in books (bible), both have no evidence in there favour whatsoever, except christians and thier 'faith'. Here is a question about faith, if a 40 year old man still believed in santa clause, the easter bunny and the toothfairy came up to you and tried to get you to believe aswell, would you dub him insane? I mean, as a child your 'faith' in these fictional characters gave them life. It's like god, does your faith in him actually make him exist? Does your faith prove anything? Really it doesn't. Go to a museum, talk to a paleantologist and you will see that to believe in dinosaurs you don't need faith, there is physical evidence that they existed.

Der ‹bermensch
06-30-2005, 10:00 AM
I'm no science major, but I know that bones turn to dust after a while, certainly long before a million years you titwank.

Yep, bones will turn to dust by that point. But Fossils aren't bones. They are sediment deposits that seeped into the bones soon after death, and were left there even after the bones themselves were gone. Thats why dino fossils are ussualy only found in what once were swamps or rivers, they need lots of sediment.

And whats bad about being a 'titwank'? Sounds like a rather enjoyable past time.

GimmeSlack12
06-30-2005, 10:09 AM
Yep, bones will turn to dust by that point. But Fossils aren't bones. They are sediment deposits that seeped into the bones soon after death, and were left there even after the bones themselves were gone.

OHHHH Burn.

Nice one queer.

hitchface2001
06-30-2005, 10:09 AM
:lol: You are so stupid. Photoshopping a dinosaur skull? Fair enough, but have you ever in your life been to a museum? Perhaps you don't believe in fairy tales because there was no evidence that any of them ever took place, but have you stopped and thought "hey, its like christianity"? Both christianity and fairy tales are documented in books (bible), both have no evidence in there favour whatsoever, except christians and thier 'faith'. Here is a question about faith, if a 40 year old man still believed in santa clause, the easter bunny and the toothfairy came up to you and tried to get you to believe aswell, would you dub him insane? I mean, as a child your 'faith' in these fictional characters gave them life. It's like god, does your faith in him actually make him exist? Does your faith prove anything? Really it doesn't. Go to a museum, talk to a paleantologist and you will see that to believe in dinosaurs you don't need faith, there is physical evidence that they existed.

Have you ever thought that physical evidence of God is everywhere you turn, you are just too blind to see it? I won't blame you, as you cannot blame a blind man for not being able to see. Don't call Christianity a fairy tale, nor any other religion for that matter. It takes far more faith to not believe in a higher power than it does to believe.

Der ‹bermensch
06-30-2005, 10:17 AM
queer? What the **** is that supposed to mean?

RouteOne
06-30-2005, 10:25 AM
OHHHH Burn.

Nice one queer.
Who the hell are you? Leave.

desertcircus
06-30-2005, 02:10 PM
"It takes far more faith to not believe in a higher power than it does to believe."

Winner of the Most Self-Evidently Idiotic Argument Award of the Week. Really, what sort of nonsensical argument is that? You have to have more faith to have no faith?

"Have you ever thought that physical evidence of God is everywhere you turn, you are just too blind to see it?"

Have you ever thought that physical evidence of dinosaurs is all too apparent, you are just too spectacularly ignorant to see it? Really, what is this physical evidence of God? Did he leave a handkerchief monogrammed with "G" behind when he created the world?

"I won't blame you, as you cannot blame a blind man for not being able to see."

Maybe not, but can you blame a creationist for not being able to see?

Berserker!
06-30-2005, 02:40 PM
MattSharp up above states that dinosaur fossils "hundreds of millions of years old" and a "6000 year old" Earth is a mystery. Think about it. If I keep the time the same way God did in the first few books of the Bible, then someone's lying. Maybe the scientists and their carbon-dating. I think the scientists are the culprits here. The godless bastards. It was a hoax started by Satan and continued on by the scientists. Dinosaurs never existed.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Idiot.

No one can refute the existence of dinosaurs unless one's sincerely deluded.

constantlydrinking
06-30-2005, 02:44 PM
No one can refute the existence of dinosaurs unless one's sincerely deluded.

I refute the existence of dinosaurs.

Berserker!
06-30-2005, 02:46 PM
I refute the existence of dinosaurs.

If one refutes the existence of dinosaurs then one is seriously deluded

Yeah man, screw concrete scientific evidence!

SoleFactionBassist
06-30-2005, 06:13 PM
The seven days of creation aren't seven literal days. They are more symbolic of seven stages.

SoleFactionBassist
06-30-2005, 06:15 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Idiot.

No one can refute the existence of dinosaurs unless one's sincerely deluded.

What if i am seriously deluded?

Rearviewmirror
06-30-2005, 06:21 PM
No one can refute the existence of dinosaurs unless one's sincerely deluded.

End of story. :thumb:

Immortalsoul
06-30-2005, 06:55 PM
Hey, the whole noah's ark thing DID happen. I mean, its possible for one human to create a large enough boat for every species of every organism, assuming none of them ate eachother, put a hole in the boat, or died nonetheless. Not to mention there are over 600,000 species of insects alone.... ITS POSSIBLE YOU BABY KILLIN' HEATHENS!!!


Anything is possible when you place it in the supernatural

devonte_da_drummer
06-30-2005, 08:25 PM
The seven days of creation aren't seven literal days. They are more symbolic of seven stages.
wrong...
I'd you ever bothered to read Genesis, you'd notice that for each day of creation it says "and there was morning, and there was evening on the _ day" Also the Greek word used for day is the one used to describe a 24-hour literal day. Also, how would plants survive however longer than a day on whatever non-thermal light source that was created on the first day? The links on about page 17 or 18 explain this.

Most of the people on both sides of this argument have hardened their hearts towards the other side. Believers in evolution will continue to say that Creationist evidence isn't reputable as long as it isn't changed and perverted to support evolution because anything that isn't what they believe apparently has no chance to be true. And creationists will continue to say that Evolutionary dating methods are flawed(which some, like carbon 14, have been proved to be wrong), and that all the rest is a hoax and such. The ammount of intelligent, worthwile posts in this thread is going down with every page.

It all comes down to this; Creation and Evolution are both faiths. No matter how much evolutionists claim that all of their evidence is reputable(which isn't the case), and that there is no reputable evidence for creation(definitely not the case), evolution still takes just as much, if not more faith as creationism. Why? Because it cannot be proven. No theory of origin can be proven, this is an inescapable truth.

I probably won't be checking this thread much after this, have to keep things going with my band and drums in general. I'm moving to a much larger school next year, so I want to be good enough to still be a safe choice for drumline captain. So as a closing statement, I leave this to the atheists and evolutionists on this thread...Where did the universe come from? The big bang? where did that come from? An infinitely small and infinitely dense point containing all the matter in the universe? Well, where did that come from?
To stay true to your beliefs, you have to say that it was always there. So how did a non living piece of matter, after existing for eternity past, finally end up exploding into the universe? And after that, how did life come from something non-living? The law of Biogenisis states that this cannot happen. This law has been true as long as humans have been around to observe it. Why would this law not be in effect for one infintesimal moment in time? Evolutionists believe that a non-living, unintelligent ball of matter formed the universe at random, and that life randomly sprung out of unorganic material, going against the laws of nature. Yet you scoff at people who believe that a living, intelligent being created the universe, and then created life in that being's own image...Seems strange to me.

SoleFactionBassist
06-30-2005, 08:39 PM
^Did you think that possibly the morning and evening can be seen as symbolic, the begining of that stage and the end.

SoleFactionBassist
06-30-2005, 08:42 PM
As for both sides of the argument being faiths I agree. And the are both completely blind to the other.

devonte_da_drummer
06-30-2005, 09:12 PM
^Did you think that possibly the morning and evening can be seen as symbolic, the begining of that stage and the end.
I agree, that is a possibility, but again, you have to look back to the fact that the Hewbrew word used means literal 24-hour day.

HNLzero
06-30-2005, 10:04 PM
Removing all religious biases now, let's think logically.

Sue Johanson
06-30-2005, 10:31 PM
Removing all religious biases now, let's think logically.


Likewise should you remove all scientific bias. Let's think logically shall we?

SoleFactionBassist
06-30-2005, 11:45 PM
^Good point, science is a religion in a way.

Sue Johanson
06-30-2005, 11:55 PM
They didn't have that **** years ago, enter the dinosaur.

Seriously, do any of you have more than a grade 8 education? Because I find it hard that there are this many naive people in this world, let alone concentrated on this board


I agree.

Why did they make up aliens? Santa Claus? easter bunny? Same story, different product.


Very right Fenwood.


And why don't they let you touch the alleged bones? Because they're fake.

SoleFactionBassist
07-01-2005, 12:01 AM
I agree, that is a possibility, but again, you have to look back to the fact that the Hewbrew word used means literal 24-hour day.

I concede, that is also a good point.

SoleFactionBassist
07-01-2005, 12:02 AM
And why don't they let you touch the alleged bones? Because they're fake.

Why don't they let you touch paintings in galleries. Because they're fake. Think about it.

Sue Johanson
07-01-2005, 12:04 AM
Why don't they let you touch paintings. Because they're fake. Think about it.


Are you mocking me? Regardless, they can make reproductions. And non-organic based existances usually can't be faked under the pretext of life.

SoleFactionBassist
07-01-2005, 12:08 AM
Ok, truce and yes, I was mocking you.

devonte_da_drummer
07-01-2005, 12:24 AM
The bones aren't bones. This is very true. They are fossils. As has been stated earlier, fossils are silt and similar material that form around the bones very quickly and are then sealed and become petrified(I believe that is the correct term). The bones either dissolve away or are locked into place inside the fossil, I'm not sure exactly how that part works. The point that SoleFactionBassist was trying to make is that they don't let you touch dinosaur bones for the same reason they don't let you touch famous old paintings. They are extremely fragile and the slightest wrong touch could damage them. In fact, museums are not the only ones with no touch policies. I've seen things as trivial as Christmas trees be put on display and not allowed to be touched. It's simply a matter of preservation.

Berserker!
07-01-2005, 12:24 AM
Likewise should you remove all scientific bias. Let's think logically shall we?

Science is logic.

Sue Johanson
07-01-2005, 12:30 AM
Science is logic.



Suggesting we evolved from monkeys isn't logical.

The bones aren't bones. This is very true. They are fossils. As has been stated earlier, fossils are silt and similar material that form around the bones very quickly and are then sealed and become petrified(I believe that is the correct term). The bones either dissolve away or are locked into place inside the fossil, I'm not sure exactly how that part works. The point that SoleFactionBassist was trying to make is that they don't let you touch dinosaur bones for the same reason they don't let you touch famous old paintings. They are extremely fragile and the slightest wrong touch could damage them. In fact, museums are not the only ones with no touch policies. I've seen things as trivial as Christmas trees be put on display and not allowed to be touched. It's simply a matter of preservation.


Thanks for the input. Well said.

HNLzero
07-01-2005, 12:31 AM
Suggesting we evolved from monkeys isn't logical.
lol
I fell from the sky

Sue Johanson
07-01-2005, 12:32 AM
lol
I fell from the sky


And hit your head on the way down eh?

HNLzero
07-01-2005, 12:35 AM
And hit your head on the way down eh?
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/flash/flashloops-fatdick.html

Merkaba
07-01-2005, 02:32 AM
Too cold...to start my fire I'm burning diesel burning dinosaur bones....

Is the petrified tree really a tree?

Its funny to actually see people argue the existence of giant animals from a long time ago. And its equally as funny to see people not understand the basics of fossilization. Jesus, google at least.

chimp_spanner
07-01-2005, 07:15 AM
:lol: I can't believe this thread is still going. Okay...this is a long post, so bear with me. A free cookie to anyone that reads all of this.

Are the 7 days of Genesis, actual days?

From Youngs Literal Translation

1In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
3and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.
4And God seeth the light that [it is] good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness,
5and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one.

6And God saith, `Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.'
7And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so.
8And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second.

9And God saith, `Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so.
10And God calleth to the dry land `Earth,' and to the collection of the waters He hath called `Seas;' and God seeth that [it is] good.
11And God saith, `Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so.
12And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed [is] in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that [it is] good;
13and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day third.

14And God saith, `Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years,
15and they have been for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth:' and it is so.
.......

Obviously you people should know all this...but I figured I'd post it for the benefit of those who don't. Now apart from this being a ludicrously Earthcentric view on the creation of the Universe (i.e. the "luminaries"/stars were created AFTER the Earth, to serve as markers/indicators of seasons for humans) it also proves that the Bible does indeed imply that the 7 days, are literal days. God defines the rotation of the Earth over 24 hours as a "day", on the first day itself. This day has a morning, and an evening. There is no other way to interpret this. After this, he then sets about creating an atmosphere, mountains, oceans, lakes, rivers all within two literal days, as defined by the Bible itself (these days have "evenings" and "mornings". Any other interpretation of a day, such as...a century, millenia, or an eon, would not have evening nor morning). Anyone with a GCSE in Science knows that these processes take thousands, even millions of years. There is no disputing that. If the word of the Bible is absolute truth, you shouldn't need to twist its words and redefine something as simple as the concept of a single day. If they meant a million/billion/trillion years, why didn't they just say it? The fact is, it asks us to believe that these processes which occur over thousands/millions of years actually took a couple or three days...because no-one knew better at the time.

Regarding fossilisation? I shouldn't even need to explain this (although I already have...no-one addressed my comment...a few people echoed it) as most people with a primary school education know the process of fossilisation. What do you think coal is made of? Can you imagine a tree or a plant in your back yard being compressed into lumps of black, powdery fossil fuel? Oooh ahhh, behold the wonders of science! By the way, much of the coal we use (or have used) was formed during the Carboniferous era...which took place around 300 million years ago...so much for Earth being 6000 years old.

Is coal...fake? Is it a hoax? You wanna hope not because it's probably one of the most abundant and common providers of electricy in the world lol. So if plants can be compacted and compressed over millions of years into small black lumps of combustable sedimentary rock...is it too much of a stretch to believe that skeletal material (say from Dinosaurs) can be compacted into the soil; the cavity left behind as a result of their decay is filled with minerals, casts/moulds are made of the original bones, etc. Or sometimes, the bones themselves are preserved in tar/pitch/ice. But hey even if these "original" bones were faked - and they're not btw - that still doesn't account for the thousands of specimens found deep within layers of rock that have been covered up and compressed over millions of years.

Evolution? Well...think about this...you're going on the word of a book written at a time when, say, earthquakes were often attributed to an act of God, when it's actually the friction caused by the collision of tectonic plates. When the stars were regarded as "luminaries" to aid human navigation, and assist in the keeping of time when they're actually balls of burning gas, like our own sun, billions of miles away...some with planets also perhaps like ours. When animals were considered as being placed on the Earth soley for food. And, when man was thought to have been created instantly in his current form, in a garden of pure bliss...rather than evolving along with every other living creature on this planet, from a common biological descendant.

Had primitive man had access to information such as the fact that genetically, we are only a 1.2% divergence from chimpanzees, and that all life on Earth is based on the same 20 amino acids which are translated into genetic code by proteins, the Bible might have said something like:

"God planted the seed (meaning DNA) from which all life diverged and propagated, in many forms, changing over millions of years"

Which has a nice ring to it. Hey...I'd buy that. But that's not what the Bible says, or implies, because no-one knew that this might be a possibility.

Unless of course you're going to call the field of genetics and the study of DNA into question; the same science that has been locking murderers and rapists away, proving paternity of children, and finding/curing many diseases that otherwise would be killing millions. Are the geneticists lying too?

Is this all making sense?

Or...is it more likely that the Earth was created in 7, 24 hour days, is 6000 years old and NOT 4.6 billion, even though all geological evidence suggests otherwise, man just appeared in a single inexplicable almost "magical" event, dinosaurs are fake and NOT in any way direct descendants of modern day lizards, crocodiles and alligators...I could go on.

But I'll leave people with at least a rudimentary education and a mind of their own to decide.

I've done enough typing, reading, researching, etc. At the end of the day it's nothing to me if people choose to live life with their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to reason. But I'm dying to hear the responses, if any, to my post. If they're reasonable, logical, and well thought out, I'll humbly accept defeat, or at least reach some sort of...middle ground.

Berserker!
07-01-2005, 09:09 AM
Suggesting we evolved from monkeys isn't logical.

Yeah dude, fuck scientific evidence! A man in the clouds made us all!

siva_chair
07-01-2005, 11:38 AM
Yeah dude, fuck scientific evidence! A man in the clouds made us all!


How much science have you studied?

(*The Noonward Race*)
07-01-2005, 01:10 PM
MattSharp up above states that dinosaur fossils "hundreds of millions of years old" and a "6000 year old" Earth is a mystery. Think about it. If I keep the time the same way God did in the first few books of the Bible, then someone's lying. Maybe the scientists and their carbon-dating. I think the scientists are the culprits here. The godless bastards. It was a hoax started by Satan and continued on by the scientists. Dinosaurs never existed.
I was raised in a religious family, so when I was 6 I thought about that.
If god didn't exist, humanity would create it.
My view is that science and religion are both credible in different minds, but I'd rather order pizza and play videogames :thumb: :)

Iskandar
07-01-2005, 01:11 PM
Suggesting we evolved from monkeys isn't logical.

It's not logical at all. We share 98% of the same DNA as chimpanzees - it's just a coincidence.

Berserker!
07-01-2005, 01:32 PM
How much science have you studied?

Enough to know that evolution is a very tangible theory compared to creationalism.

devonte_da_drummer
07-01-2005, 02:00 PM
Chimp Spanner, that was a good post, and I want my cookie now. :lol:
However, just as different books by the same author can use the same characters, or even more often, the same writing style, it is also possilbe that different creations by the same creator can use some of the same genetic material and the same amino acids. Again, this comes down to individual point of view. Very few people that read this thread are going to change their opinion no matter how much information is posted on either side. However, it is still fun to debate I suppose. :)

Sue Johanson
07-01-2005, 02:03 PM
It's not logical at all. We share 98% of the same DNA as chimpanzees - it's just a coincidence.


That doessn't prove any logic. Isn't it just as logical that all animals were created on the same day and that none had to evolve?

Iskandar
07-01-2005, 03:47 PM
That doessn't prove any logic. Isn't it just as logical that all animals were created on the same day and that none had to evolve?

Look carefully at what I've written.

Humans share 98% of the same DNA as chimpanzees.

Logically, it would follow that humans and chimpanzees are related.

So humans haven't evolved? I was at an excellent museum in Boston not too long ago, the Museum of Fine Arts. While perusing an ancient-Egypt exhibit, my friends and I commented on how small the sarcophagi were. The ancient Egyptians were built quite differently than we were. That was several thousand years ago. Today, we are much taller than the Egyptians! We've evolved. We have different cranial structure than ancient people, different bone structure. Observe an ancient (5000+ BCE) skeleton, such as "Lucy". Quite different from the modern human.

siva_chair
07-01-2005, 05:27 PM
Enough to know that evolution is a very tangible theory compared to creationalism.

How in depth have you personally studied evolution?

siva_chair
07-01-2005, 05:32 PM
Look carefully at what I've written.

Humans share 98% of the same DNA as chimpanzees.

Logically, it would follow that humans and chimpanzees are related.

No, that wouldn't really be very logical.

That is like saying that because a bridge is made out of concrete, and a statue in my backyard is made of concrete, it would follow that they are related, but in actuality they are not. Logically, the only thing you can say when presented with the information that "Chimps and humans have 98% of the same DNA" is that they hold 98% of the same DNA. Any other assumption past that is just that, an assumption.

Nra4ever_17
07-01-2005, 05:36 PM
To quote one of my favorite sites:

In fact, Creationism is the opposite of science. In a nutshell, science observes, then explains. Creationism starts with a rigid conclusion and then looks around for natural phenomena that might support this conclusion. This is the same thing as shooting an arrow into a wall and then painting a bullís eye around it.

chimp_spanner
07-01-2005, 06:54 PM
^ Good quotage :thumb:

Devonte - thanks for managing to read my post ;) your free cookie has been dispatched via airmail!

Like I said man, if the Bible even remotely hinted at God being responsible for the genetic code from which all life branched, that'd be fine by me. If anything it would be more..."impressive", as it would mean that a 2000+ year old book corroborates what we now know to be true.

But that's not the case. It tries to tell us that life was created in one instant, within a 24 hour cycle (I've already put forward my reasoning as to why the 7 days are literal, no-one has addressed this). Even if God is responsible for creating the base code from which all life is derived, the typical Christian stance on the age of the Earth doesn't give an adequate time frame for life to evolve from the single cell organisms which would have dominated primitive Earth, up to the various types of life we see today.

And Siva Chair - what exactly does the many uses of concrete have to do with the genetic makeup of life on Earth? And why didn't you address the rest of The_Dropper's post? If man was created in a single instant in our current form, why then do human skeletal remains more closely resemble primates the further back in time you go? This is not speculation. It's just the facts. Combine that with our 98.8% genetic relationship to Chimpanzees, and what you have there is more than coincidence, or mere speculation.

I know you can't change peoples minds, Devonte. It's just..interesting I guess, to see how people deal with questions they don't want to answer, and how far you can go with this before you eventually reach a logical impasse, at which point you either accept fact, or refuse it in favour of blind faith.

That's not to say one has to abandon faith in order to be a realist. There can be a middle ground. But so far, all I'm seeing is people with their eyes and ears covered, pretending that the evidence just isn't there, simply because they don't want it to be. Oh well. All this typing has got to be good practice for my English degree course :-\ Har.

Surtr
07-01-2005, 07:03 PM
It's kinda funny..All these Christian's trying to back up god with all this proof, yet really, if they have all the proof some claim they have, then there's no need for faith is there? Without faith, there's really nothing left to religion.

Sue Johanson
07-01-2005, 07:06 PM
It's kinda funny..All these Christian's trying to back up god with all this proof, yet really, if they have all the proof some claim they have, then there's no need for faith is there? Without faith, there's really nothing left to religion.


Congrats on your first post in this thread. So far we've covered that science in some cases is not but a faith. And neither have substantial evidence to prove ALL their claims. Not much to work with there, but neither did you leave me much to work with in your post.

devonte_da_drummer
07-01-2005, 07:10 PM
^^^
actually, faith is still needed. Theories of origin cannot be proven, therefore to believe in them, faith is required. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". However, just because you need faith to believe in a theory of origin, doesn't mean that you shouldn't do research and find evidence (evidence and proof are two different things) to help you determine wether or not you're faith is well placed. In the end, it is a decision you have to make in your heart and in your mind.

Surtr
07-01-2005, 07:12 PM
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruthless Reviews-"**** Creationism"
In fact, Creationism is the opposite of science. In a nutshell, science observes, then explains. Creationism starts with a rigid conclusion and then looks around for natural phenomena that might support this conclusion. This is the same thing as shooting an arrow into a wall and then painting a bullís eye around it.

that is a really good qoute actually..I agree with it 100%.

chimp_spanner
07-01-2005, 07:16 PM
Congrats on your first post in this thread. So far we've covered that science in some cases is not but a faith. And neither have substantial evidence to prove ALL their claims. Not much to work with there, but neither did you leave me much to work with in your post.

I haven't really seen where Science has been proven entirely wrong in this thread...or have I missed something? The thread set out to disprove the existence of Dinosaurs; it's failed to do so.

Science may not have all the answers. I will agree there. But it has more than blind faith can ever offer. I like to be informed. I like to know why things happen. Helps me feel more in control of my life. But that's just me.

Surtr
07-01-2005, 07:24 PM
I'm gonna finish this thread..'tis getting rather boring.
You want proof dinosaurs do or don't exist? Well they do. Have you ever heard of fossils? Let's go with creationism hear and say god created us, and dinosaurs at the same time. Do you not think at some time we would have written about these creatures? You can't say they didn't exist because there is physical evidence to proove it.

If we go with evolution there is still proof to show that dinosaurs did exist.

Point Proven, I do beleive I win..

Sue Johanson
07-01-2005, 07:29 PM
I haven't really seen where Science has been proven entirely wrong in this thread...or have I missed something? The thread set out to disprove the existence of Dinosaurs; it's failed to do so.


Dinosaurs are intricately involved with existance origins. They can't be proven or disproven because one way or the other, they cause controversy. Scientifically, Christianity is void when dinosaurs are introduced. By Christianity, science is void when dinosaurs are introduced. Something so controversial cannot be proven or disproven. It is a matter for God. We simply have faith in dinosaurs existance or nonexistance.

I'm gonna finish this thread..'tis getting rather boring.
You want proof dinosaurs do or don't exist? Well they do. Have you ever heard of fossils? Let's go with creationism hear and say god created us, and dinosaurs at the same time. Do you not think at some time we would have written about these creatures? You can't say they didn't exist because there is physical evidence to proove it.

If we go with evolution there is still proof to show that dinosaurs did exist.

Point Proven, I do beleive I win..


As long as I get the point and we aren't playing golf. :thumb:

Iskandar
07-01-2005, 10:00 PM
No, that wouldn't really be very logical.

That is like saying that because a bridge is made out of concrete, and a statue in my backyard is made of concrete, it would follow that they are related, but in actuality they are not. Logically, the only thing you can say when presented with the information that "Chimps and humans have 98% of the same DNA" is that they hold 98% of the same DNA. Any other assumption past that is just that, an assumption.

It's not like that. A bridge and statue are inanimate objects. I'm talking about living organisms.

devonte_da_drummer
07-01-2005, 10:18 PM
Science may not have all the answers. I will agree there. But it has more than blind faith can ever offer. I like to be informed. I like to know why things happen. Helps me feel more in control of my life. But that's just me.

Just because we believe in God doesn't mean we're condemned to the dark ages. We like to know why things happen too, we just look at things with a different worldview.

Sue Johanson
07-01-2005, 10:21 PM
Just because we believe in God doesn't mean we're condemned to the dark ages. We like to know why things happen too, we just look at things with a different worldview.


What church are you from? I go to non-denominational Christianity.

BassRevelation1029
07-01-2005, 10:25 PM
What church are you from? I go to non-denominational Christianity.
same(even though you're not asking me). I wouldnt last in a catholic church.

Sue Johanson
07-01-2005, 10:27 PM
same(even though you're not asking me). I wouldnt last in a catholic church.


You don't like Catholicism? I would fit fine I imagine in a Baptist. The worship and preaching I like better than the contemporary music and takes on the Bible.

BassRevelation1029
07-01-2005, 10:31 PM
You don't like Catholicism? I would fit fine I imagine in a Baptist. The worship and preaching I like better than the contemporary music and takes on the Bible.
i dont believe in church rituals. And i dont even think baptist would do...unless it was an all black southern baptist church :cool:

SoleFactionBassist
07-01-2005, 11:11 PM
:lol: I can't believe this thread is still going. Okay...this is a long post, so bear with me. A free cookie to anyone that reads all of this.

Are the 7 days of Genesis, actual days?

From Youngs Literal Translation

1In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
3and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.
4And God seeth the light that [it is] good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness,
5and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one.

6And God saith, `Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.'
7And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so.
8And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second.

9And God saith, `Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so.
10And God calleth to the dry land `Earth,' and to the collection of the waters He hath called `Seas;' and God seeth that [it is] good.
11And God saith, `Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so.
12And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed [is] in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that [it is] good;
13and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day third.

14And God saith, `Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years,
15and they have been for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth:' and it is so.
.......

Obviously you people should know all this...but I figured I'd post it for the benefit of those who don't. Now apart from this being a ludicrously Earthcentric view on the creation of the Universe (i.e. the "luminaries"/stars were created AFTER the Earth, to serve as markers/indicators of seasons for humans) it also proves that the Bible does indeed imply that the 7 days, are literal days. God defines the rotation of the Earth over 24 hours as a "day", on the first day itself. This day has a morning, and an evening. There is no other way to interpret this. After this, he then sets about creating an atmosphere, mountains, oceans, lakes, rivers all within two literal days, as defined by the Bible itself (these days have "evenings" and "mornings". Any other interpretation of a day, such as...a century, millenia, or an eon, would not have evening nor morning). Anyone with a GCSE in Science knows that these processes take thousands, even millions of years. There is no disputing that. If the word of the Bible is absolute truth, you shouldn't need to twist its words and redefine something as simple as the concept of a single day. If they meant a million/billion/trillion years, why didn't they just say it? The fact is, it asks us to believe that these processes which occur over thousands/millions of years actually took a couple or three days...because no-one knew better at the time.

Regarding fossilisation? I shouldn't even need to explain this (although I already have...no-one addressed my comment...a few people echoed it) as most people with a primary school education know the process of fossilisation. What do you think coal is made of? Can you imagine a tree or a plant in your back yard being compressed into lumps of black, powdery fossil fuel? Oooh ahhh, behold the wonders of science! By the way, much of the coal we use (or have used) was formed during the Carboniferous era...which took place around 300 million years ago...so much for Earth being 6000 years old.

Is coal...fake? Is it a hoax? You wanna hope not because it's probably one of the most abundant and common providers of electricy in the world lol. So if plants can be compacted and compressed over millions of years into small black lumps of combustable sedimentary rock...is it too much of a stretch to believe that skeletal material (say from Dinosaurs) can be compacted into the soil; the cavity left behind as a result of their decay is filled with minerals, casts/moulds are made of the original bones, etc. Or sometimes, the bones themselves are preserved in tar/pitch/ice. But hey even if these "original" bones were faked - and they're not btw - that still doesn't account for the thousands of specimens found deep within layers of rock that have been covered up and compressed over millions of years.

Evolution? Well...think about this...you're going on the word of a book written at a time when, say, earthquakes were often attributed to an act of God, when it's actually the friction caused by the collision of tectonic plates. When the stars were regarded as "luminaries" to aid human navigation, and assist in the keeping of time when they're actually balls of burning gas, like our own sun, billions of miles away...some with planets also perhaps like ours. When animals were considered as being placed on the Earth soley for food. And, when man was thought to have been created instantly in his current form, in a garden of pure bliss...rather than evolving along with every other living creature on this planet, from a common biological descendant.

Had primitive man had access to information such as the fact that genetically, we are only a 1.2% divergence from chimpanzees, and that all life on Earth is based on the same 20 amino acids which are translated into genetic code by proteins, the Bible might have said something like:

"God planted the seed (meaning DNA) from which all life diverged and propagated, in many forms, changing over millions of years"

Which has a nice ring to it. Hey...I'd buy that. But that's not what the Bible says, or implies, because no-one knew that this might be a possibility.

Unless of course you're going to call the field of genetics and the study of DNA into question; the same science that has been locking murderers and rapists away, proving paternity of children, and finding/curing many diseases that otherwise would be killing millions. Are the geneticists lying too?

Is this all making sense?

Or...is it more likely that the Earth was created in 7, 24 hour days, is 6000 years old and NOT 4.6 billion, even though all geological evidence suggests otherwise, man just appeared in a single inexplicable almost "magical" event, dinosaurs are fake and NOT in any way direct descendants of modern day lizards, crocodiles and alligators...I could go on.

But I'll leave people with at least a rudimentary education and a mind of their own to decide.

I've done enough typing, reading, researching, etc. At the end of the day it's nothing to me if people choose to live life with their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to reason. But I'm dying to hear the responses, if any, to my post. If they're reasonable, logical, and well thought out, I'll humbly accept defeat, or at least reach some sort of...middle ground.

I read it and agree. Now, wheres my cookie. :naughty:

SoleFactionBassist
07-01-2005, 11:15 PM
It's kinda funny..All these Christian's trying to back up god with all this proof, yet really, if they have all the proof some claim they have, then there's no need for faith is there? Without faith, there's really nothing left to religion.

Yeah thats what religion is faith, but sometimes faith can be questioned, especially in this day and age.

Berserker!
07-02-2005, 02:46 AM
Faith should always be questioned.

the_uber_penguin
07-02-2005, 04:29 AM
ALL knowledge should always be questioned.

This includes scientific evidence.

Remember that when dinosaurs were first proposed, everyone thought the guy who found them was a complete nutjob and told him he was stupid. So he told them to prove him wrong, tried to, and failed. And thus the general scientific community believes dinosaurs existed.

I'm not so bothered by the debate here: all debate is good.

I do find the perhaps more extreme creationist view that evolution shouldn't be studies very disturbing, however. Surely it is in the interests of the creationists that people should be taught about evolution, if only so that they can argue fluently with regard to it.
After all, many secular schools will teach the Biblical story of creation.

devonte_da_drummer
07-02-2005, 04:52 AM
What church are you from? I go to non-denominational Christianity.
Well, actually I go to two churches. One is non-denominational, the other is Church of God. But most of my opinions are influenced by the Bible teachers at my school, which is a private, non-denominational Christian school.

Sue Johanson
07-02-2005, 01:26 PM
I do find the perhaps more extreme creationist view that evolution shouldn't be studies very disturbing, however. Surely it is in the interests of the creationists that people should be taught about evolution, if only so that they can argue fluently with regard to it.
After all, many secular schools will teach the Biblical story of creation.

I don't think evolution souldn't be studied.

Well, actually I go to two churches. One is non-denominational, the other is Church of God. But most of my opinions are influenced by the Bible teachers at my school, which is a private, non-denominational Christian school.

:thumb: :amaze: <---- New smiley I guess

the_uber_penguin
07-02-2005, 05:46 PM
I don't think evolution souldn't be studied.

I'm refferring to the court cases in America, there, where some schools are trying to argue that they shouldn't have to teach evolutionary theory because it contradicts the Bible. Not to anyone on this board. Apolagies to anyone who took that the wrong way.

SoleFactionBassist
07-03-2005, 07:35 AM
I'm refferring to the court cases in America, there, where some schools are trying to argue that they shouldn't have to teach evolutionary theory because it contradicts the Bible. Not to anyone on this board. Apolagies to anyone who took that the wrong way.

Well they kind of have a point, you shouldn't teach kids in schools two things that totally contradict each other.

siva_chair
07-03-2005, 08:37 AM
It's not like that. A bridge and statue are inanimate objects. I'm talking about living organisms.

Yet you are still making the same assumption. Granted, it is probably a correct assumption, but you are still taking a leap of faith in making it and you certainly cannot say for certain. Until we experience and witness the event happening, we can only speculate.

siva_chair
07-03-2005, 08:38 AM
Faith should always be questioned.


You never answered my question, how in depth have you studied science? More specifically, evolutionary biology.

the_uber_penguin
07-03-2005, 09:55 AM
Well they kind of have a point, you shouldn't teach kids in schools two things that totally contradict each other.

Why not?

Berserker!
07-03-2005, 10:41 AM
:lol: I can't believe this thread is still going. Okay...this is a long post, so bear with me. A free cookie to anyone that reads all of this.

Are the 7 days of Genesis, actual days?

From Youngs Literal Translation

1In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
3and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.
4And God seeth the light that [it is] good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness,
5and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one.

6And God saith, `Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.'
7And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so.
8And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second.

9And God saith, `Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so.
10And God calleth to the dry land `Earth,' and to the collection of the waters He hath called `Seas;' and God seeth that [it is] good.
11And God saith, `Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so.
12And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed [is] in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that [it is] good;
13and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day third.

14And God saith, `Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years,
15and they have been for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth:' and it is so.
.......

Obviously you people should know all this...but I figured I'd post it for the benefit of those who don't. Now apart from this being a ludicrously Earthcentric view on the creation of the Universe (i.e. the "luminaries"/stars were created AFTER the Earth, to serve as markers/indicators of seasons for humans) it also proves that the Bible does indeed imply that the 7 days, are literal days. God defines the rotation of the Earth over 24 hours as a "day", on the first day itself. This day has a morning, and an evening. There is no other way to interpret this. After this, he then sets about creating an atmosphere, mountains, oceans, lakes, rivers all within two literal days, as defined by the Bible itself (these days have "evenings" and "mornings". Any other interpretation of a day, such as...a century, millenia, or an eon, would not have evening nor morning). Anyone with a GCSE in Science knows that these processes take thousands, even millions of years. There is no disputing that. If the word of the Bible is absolute truth, you shouldn't need to twist its words and redefine something as simple as the concept of a single day. If they meant a million/billion/trillion years, why didn't they just say it? The fact is, it asks us to believe that these processes which occur over thousands/millions of years actually took a couple or three days...because no-one knew better at the time.

Regarding fossilisation? I shouldn't even need to explain this (although I already have...no-one addressed my comment...a few people echoed it) as most people with a primary school education know the process of fossilisation. What do you think coal is made of? Can you imagine a tree or a plant in your back yard being compressed into lumps of black, powdery fossil fuel? Oooh ahhh, behold the wonders of science! By the way, much of the coal we use (or have used) was formed during the Carboniferous era...which took place around 300 million years ago...so much for Earth being 6000 years old.

Is coal...fake? Is it a hoax? You wanna hope not because it's probably one of the most abundant and common providers of electricy in the world lol. So if plants can be compacted and compressed over millions of years into small black lumps of combustable sedimentary rock...is it too much of a stretch to believe that skeletal material (say from Dinosaurs) can be compacted into the soil; the cavity left behind as a result of their decay is filled with minerals, casts/moulds are made of the original bones, etc. Or sometimes, the bones themselves are preserved in tar/pitch/ice. But hey even if these "original" bones were faked - and they're not btw - that still doesn't account for the thousands of specimens found deep within layers of rock that have been covered up and compressed over millions of years.

Evolution? Well...think about this...you're going on the word of a book written at a time when, say, earthquakes were often attributed to an act of God, when it's actually the friction caused by the collision of tectonic plates. When the stars were regarded as "luminaries" to aid human navigation, and assist in the keeping of time when they're actually balls of burning gas, like our own sun, billions of miles away...some with planets also perhaps like ours. When animals were considered as being placed on the Earth soley for food. And, when man was thought to have been created instantly in his current form, in a garden of pure bliss...rather than evolving along with every other living creature on this planet, from a common biological descendant.

Had primitive man had access to information such as the fact that genetically, we are only a 1.2% divergence from chimpanzees, and that all life on Earth is based on the same 20 amino acids which are translated into genetic code by proteins, the Bible might have said something like:

"God planted the seed (meaning DNA) from which all life diverged and propagated, in many forms, changing over millions of years"

Which has a nice ring to it. Hey...I'd buy that. But that's not what the Bible says, or implies, because no-one knew that this might be a possibility.

Unless of course you're going to call the field of genetics and the study of DNA into question; the same science that has been locking murderers and rapists away, proving paternity of children, and finding/curing many diseases that otherwise would be killing millions. Are the geneticists lying too?

Is this all making sense?

Or...is it more likely that the Earth was created in 7, 24 hour days, is 6000 years old and NOT 4.6 billion, even though all geological evidence suggests otherwise, man just appeared in a single inexplicable almost "magical" event, dinosaurs are fake and NOT in any way direct descendants of modern day lizards, crocodiles and alligators...I could go on.

But I'll leave people with at least a rudimentary education and a mind of their own to decide.

I've done enough typing, reading, researching, etc. At the end of the day it's nothing to me if people choose to live life with their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to reason. But I'm dying to hear the responses, if any, to my post. If they're reasonable, logical, and well thought out, I'll humbly accept defeat, or at least reach some sort of...middle ground.


End of thread. It's irrefutable, so just stop arguing and go home. Excellent post btw Chimp.

Iskandar
07-03-2005, 01:51 PM
Yet you are still making the same assumption. Granted, it is probably a correct assumption, but you are still taking a leap of faith in making it and you certainly cannot say for certain. Until we experience and witness the event happening, we can only speculate.

There's faith involved in both religion and science, to some extent.

I agree with that post you made.

siva_chair
07-03-2005, 02:18 PM
There's faith involved in both religion and science, to some extent.

I agree with that post you made.

Exactly, so what makes an assumption more valid than another assumption?

chimp_spanner
07-03-2005, 02:43 PM
Thank you for reading it Berserker - nice to see my post didn't get completely lost ;)

You're right, Siva Chair, that even some aspects of science require a certain degree of "faith" where the evidence to support a theory is not not present, or 100% sound. But the difference is that this faith has a basis in reality/fact, even though occasionally it's slightly shaky. It's based on whatever information is at hand, no matter how minimal - but that information is there for scrutiny at least. If new information comes to light that either corroborates or disproves that theory, then the theory is changed, until it reaches the point where it is not theory at all, but scientific fact. So yes, technically, that means there is the possibility that what is regarded as science fact, later turns out to be a fallacy, but it is the nature of science to strive to reach that point of ultimate truth and knowledge. Religion is not flexible or dynamic like that, and it never will be or else it will invalidate itself. Which is my major problem with something like the Bible. If it is the word of God, and God is absolute, ultimate truth, then it should not date. What was written then, should hold true now. And in terms of the morals it preaches, sure - decency and good human nature are timeless values. I don't have a problem with that...just in case you all think I do ;) But in terms of explaining some of the more profound questions about our origins, and our existence...I think that the "classical" Christian version of events is wrong. I honestly haven't seen any post so far that has convinced me otherwise. Which is not to say I think I'm 110% right, but it's the best I can offer after alot of thought, and reasoning. All I see in response, is people redefining and reinterpreting what is supposed to be absolute truth, or alternatively...just ignoring what I consider to be valid points, until eventually we reach a logical impasse and the debate is stopped dead in its tracks because it becomes a matter of faith.

I know that this is probably nothing I could ever hope to convince anyone of, and it's probably best to just agree to disagree. But if I had to have a last word on this, I'd say - as I think I already have in this thread - that blind faith and willful ignorance are a terrible waste of the amazing, inquisitive mind that you say God gave you. He'd want you to ask the difficult questions, to seek your OWN answers. Not just conform, and go with the "status quo" (which IMHO is what most organised religion originally sought to have people do anyway). You can still do all this, and not be "evil" or anything ;) or, you could not. *shrugs* Whatever!

Think I've contributed all I can to this thread for now. And I have a neckache.

- P

desertcircus
07-03-2005, 02:47 PM
Evidence. Assumptions aren't made in a vacuum; we make them based on what we already know. I assume, if I hear about a terrorist attack in the US, that the perpetrators are Muslim. I might also assume that the name "siva_chair" represents a large chair sitting in the centre of Vesuvius. One of these assumptions is a valid one, and one is not. A leap of faith is not notable merely for its existence; it's also notable for the length of that leap.

If I drink a cup of coffee every day and it wakes me up, then I take a leap of faith each morning that it's going to do that. However, that leap of faith becomes smaller as the evidence mounts up.

There's a leap of faith inherent in evolutionary theory, and it's comparatively small. We're not quite sure of the process of irreducible complexity, for example. However, that small leap of faith is miniscule compared to the leap of faith involved in creation science. It requires faith at an invisible being who refuses to prove his or her existence can bend the laws of the universe to his or her will.

My leap of faith is that I have faith in the validity of an emprically tested and proven theory of evolution. A creationist's leap of faith is that he or she believes that the laws of science can be ignored by a supernatural being despite all amassed scientific evidence to the contrary. I make a small leap; another person makes an enormous one.

This is what separates our assumptions.

chimp_spanner
07-03-2005, 02:52 PM
^ Good post.

So much for me leaving. But my neck still hurts :(

Iskandar
07-03-2005, 05:12 PM
Exactly, so what makes an assumption more valid than another assumption?

The above posts answer that question very well.

As for my personal opinion, well ... The religious viewpoint on creation has the Bible and Christian dogma to back it up. Personally, I don't think either should be considered at all in questions about the origin of the universe, moral codes, etc. For example, look at the separation of church and state. The teachings of the Church are not factored into law or judgement not only because they fail to represent all people, but because they colour opinions.

Before you argue that science can colour opinion equally, remember that science can represent any person regardless of religion, race, nationality etc. Your religious views are only of real significance to persons like yourself who are actually religious.

That is why my government didn't bring religion into the debate over homosexual marriage, and rightly so. Religion colours opinions, and it only represents one group (its followers) anyway.

siva_chair
07-03-2005, 05:49 PM
You're right, Siva Chair, that even some aspects of science require a certain degree of "faith" where the evidence to support a theory is not not present, or 100% sound. But the difference is that this faith has a basis in reality/fact, even though occasionally it's slightly shaky.

No, it's faith has a basis in collectively observable experiences. Think about it this way, we all experience things a little differently. Each person's senses are more attuned to a particular "reality wavelink" if you will. Now, what we call scientific theory/fact, is really just something that, collectively, we can all experience and therefore collectively "prove." I have experienced the holy ghost, are you saying that that is not a fact and is not really reality for me?

If reality/fact only consists of collectively observable things (i.e. scientific evidence), then you would be implying that the universe did not exist before beings consciously experienced it and you would also be implying that if there were no conscious beings left, then the universe would cease to exist.

When it comes down to it, they are all faith based assumptions.

I don't know if that was entirely clear. If it wasn't, I will try to clarify it.

It's based on whatever information is at hand, no matter how minimal - but that information is there for scrutiny at least. If new information comes to light that either corroborates or disproves that theory, then the theory is changed, until it reaches the point where it is not theory at all, but scientific fact.

The only way something can be deemed a "scientific fact" is when every variable is accounted for. Now, to know that every variable is accounted for, one must know everything (i.e. be God).

So yes, technically, that means there is the possibility that what is regarded as science fact, later turns out to be a fallacy, but it is the nature of science to strive to reach that point of ultimate truth and knowledge.

If it turns out to be a fallacy, then it was never a fact. Until it is prove to be a fact, it should never be considered a fact.

It can never know ultimate truth and knowledge because the concept of science is self limiting.

Religion is not flexible or dynamic like that, and it never will be or else it will invalidate itself.

I beg to differ.

Which is my major problem with something like the Bible. If it is the word of God, and God is absolute, ultimate truth, then it should not date. What was written then, should hold true now. And in terms of the morals it preaches, sure - decency and good human nature are timeless values. I don't have a problem with that...just in case you all think I do ;) But in terms of explaining some of the more profound questions about our origins, and our existence...I think that the "classical" Christian version of events is wrong. I honestly haven't seen any post so far that has convinced me otherwise. Which is not to say I think I'm 110% right, but it's the best I can offer after alot of thought, and reasoning. All I see in response, is people redefining and reinterpreting what is supposed to be absolute truth, or alternatively...just ignoring what I consider to be valid points, until eventually we reach a logical impasse and the debate is stopped dead in its tracks because it becomes a matter of faith.

Have you ever taken into consideration that the absolute truth is really there and has always been there, but we as flawed mortal humans cannot possibly have the mental/comprehensive abilities to see it as it is: total and absolute truth? The truth is, what is written in the Bible has always been there, but our way of looking at it has changed. This does not mean the Bible has changed, but events have caused humankind to look at it in a new and different light. Do I believe in a literal interpretation of all the Bible? No, I don't. I don't for several reasons, but I still believe in every word of the Bible (also, for several reasons).

I know that this is probably nothing I could ever hope to convince anyone of, and it's probably best to just agree to disagree.

Learning wouldn't progress if everyone just agreed to disagree though.

But if I had to have a last word on this, I'd say - as I think I already have in this thread - that blind faith and willful ignorance are a terrible waste of the amazing, inquisitive mind that you say God gave you.

But the thing is, only the person who holds the blind faith can rightfully say they have blind faith. There are many people on here that probably have blind faith in science and science alone. The reason it is no one's place to say what is blind faith except for the person that holds said blind faith is because they are the only person that knows what experiences they have been through and why they believe the way they do.

He'd want you to ask the difficult questions, to seek your OWN answers.

He does. He says this. But He also says that the truth is right in front of everyone. The answer is right in front of you if you would just open your eyes.

Not just conform, and go with the "status quo" (which IMHO is what most organised religion originally sought to have people do anyway). You can still do all this, and not be "evil" or anything ;) or, you could not. *shrugs* Whatever!

I wouldn't say that is what organized religion originally sought out to do, but that is my opinion.

chimp_spanner
07-03-2005, 07:22 PM
Hm, a good post, and I suppose I can see where you're coming from in some ways.

I'm not going to doubt what you have or haven't experienced Siva, not for a second. And different layers, or "wavelengths" of reality is something I've considered a possibility for a long time. I personally envisage this to be something more firmly grounded in science, as opposed to having spiritual connotations. It just exists outside of our perception, and beyond our current level of understanding. Which, I guess is not far off what you're saying...hmm.

I may have overstated the whole "what can be seen, exists" side of my argument. Do I think things only exist that are collectively observable? No, of course not. That would be assuming that we are in any way vital to the existence of the Universe; that it exists purely for us. The Universe would be here, even if we weren't, as it was for a very long time before we showed up anyways.

I also think I've mis-used the term "fact". What I should have said, is that what most science-fact boils down to, is a plausible consensus that given all the information at hand, and all the possible explanations, "x" is the best theory at the time. So if something new comes to light, the theory can be bought into line with that new information. Which is what I meant when I said that religion generally isn't that flexible or adaptable, because to change any aspect of the core of any given religion (even when new information comes to light, (see: evolution, dinosaurs, etc.) implies that what was initially believed to be true, wasn't. So science can move on freely, in leaps and bounds...while religion is stuck at the starting post, so to speak.

So...I dunno. I mean, I'm generally pretty open minded. I'm just very grounded in reality at this point in my life. On a more personal note, I don't know what constitutes opening my eyes, but my personal experience (which, afterall, is what most of this comes down to) is that when I was at my lowest, and needed..."something" the most, I saw/heard/felt nothing. And God knows (poor choice of words) I was wide open, I wanted to feel something. So, for the time being at least, my view on life is a little cold and clinical, sure. I can still find meaning in it though. I'd just prefer not to have someone to be mad at, because I could spend my whole life asking why this, why that, and never get a response. Could drive a man crazy ya know. Life is odds, chance, numbers, figures. The better I know them, the better I can "play" them.

But I guess that's what I meant by agreeing to disagree; just that I can't expect people to understand my reasons any more than I understand yours, I can see that.

siva_chair
07-03-2005, 08:19 PM
Hm, a good post, and I suppose I can see where you're coming from in some ways.

This is a good thing.

I'm not going to doubt what you have or haven't experienced Siva, not for a second. And different layers, or "wavelengths" of reality is something I've considered a possibility for a long time. I personally envisage this to be something more firmly grounded in science, as opposed to having spiritual connotations. It just exists outside of our perception, and beyond our current level of understanding. Which, I guess is not far off what you're saying...hmm.

No, it really isn't far off from what I am saying. But my question is, how can it be "firmly grounded in science" if that is in fact outside the realm science encompasses (which is observable experiences/events)?

I may have overstated the whole "what can be seen, exists" side of my argument. Do I think things only exist that are collectively observable? No, of course not. That would be assuming that we are in any way vital to the existence of the Universe; that it exists purely for us. The Universe would be here, even if we weren't, as it was for a very long time before we showed up anyways.

Keeping with this thought process, what is to say that there is not something outside of our "outwardly observable" universe? I mean, we can't see, hear, touch, taste, or smell our thoughts, but we are aware of their existance. That is similar to people who have experienced God. I cannot really prove that I am a free thinking entity that isn't just a programmed machine to anyone and me trying to prove that I have experienced God and the Holy Spirit would be like me proving I have thoughts and think. It would also be like describing the color brown to someone who has never seen color. It is certainly a personal experience. The fact that so many people have described similar experiences (as best as they can, of course) is revealing in of itself. So many people have "observed" a personal spiritual experience with "something."

I also think I've mis-used the term "fact". What I should have said, is that what most science-fact boils down to, is a plausible consensus that given all the information at hand, and all the possible explanations, "x" is the best theory at the time.

That would be a more correct definition.

So if something new comes to light, the theory can be bought into line with that new information. Which is what I meant when I said that religion generally isn't that flexible or adaptable, because to change any aspect of the core of any given religion (even when new information comes to light, (see: evolution, dinosaurs, etc.) implies that what was initially believed to be true, wasn't.So science can move on freely, in leaps and bounds...while religion is stuck at the starting post, so to speak.

I think you are mistaken here. The scientific community at times can be just as stubborn in accepting things as many religious figureheads are sometimes. The thing is, evolution, dinosaurs, ect. hasn't contradicted the Bible in any way shape or form if read in the right context. These findings do not blemish what the Bible says historically or morally, they simply show how the observable evidence does not fit well with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

*Noteon the subject of dinosaurs-the findings of dinosaurs seem to help the Bible in the fact that the Bible mentions a few creatures that very accurately describe a few dinosaurs. Of course, they weren't called dinosaurs back then because the word 'dinosaur' was coined about 200 or so years ago.


So...I dunno. I mean, I'm generally pretty open minded. I'm just very grounded in reality at this point in my life.

Grounded in shared observable reality, perhaps?

On a more personal note, I don't know what constitutes opening my eyes, but my personal experience (which, afterall, is what most of this comes down to) is that when I was at my lowest, and needed..."something" the most, I saw/heard/felt nothing. And God knows (poor choice of words) I was wide open, I wanted to feel something. So, for the time being at least, my view on life is a little cold and clinical, sure. I can still find meaning in it though. I'd just prefer not to have someone to be mad at, because I could spend my whole life asking why this, why that, and never get a response. Could drive a man crazy ya know. Life is odds, chance, numbers, figures. The better I know them, the better I can "play" them.

Of course it is difficult. Tests of faith. The only thing I can say to you is "seek and you shall find." It may take a while and it may be a long and difficult road, but if you hang in there and keep seeking, you will see.

But I guess that's what I meant by agreeing to disagree; just that I can't expect people to understand my reasons any more than I understand yours, I can see that.

Communication is a great thing, though. Discussing beliefs help us find and secure our own.

spitfirejunky
07-03-2005, 09:42 PM
I think you are mistaken here. The scientific community at times can be just as stubborn in accepting things as many religious figureheads are sometimes. The thing is, evolution, dinosaurs, ect. hasn't contradicted the Bible in any way shape or form if read in the right context. These findings do not blemish what the Bible says historically or morally, they simply show how the observable evidence does not fit well with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Yep. Pathological science and the fallacy of "universal, unchanging theory" continue to plague the science community. Both religion and science are heavily affected by human flaw.

the_uber_penguin
07-04-2005, 10:22 AM
Science is looking to describe the world, and make predictions about the future. For example:

g=GMm/d^2.

This may or may not be the exact equation that nature uses when gravity comes into play, but it tells us exactly how things behave under the influence of gravity.

Regarding dinosaurs: the simplest explanation, and the one which fits in with other accepted theories best as to the origin of fossils and their authenticity is exactly the same. Maybe they didn't get there the way we think they did, but the way we think they got there describes our findings perfectly, and successfully predicts new finds, so what's the problem?

Trivium
07-04-2005, 01:23 PM
christian terrorists

also known as creationists

if you believe the bible word for word, as a history, you are just civil terrorists

you have extreme views that lead to only bad things, not like 9/11, or death, but you are an extremist

hitchface2001
07-04-2005, 05:45 PM
christian terrorists

also known as creationists

if you believe the bible word for word, as a history, you are just civil terrorists

you have extreme views that lead to only bad things, not like 9/11, or death, but you are an extremist

So what exactly does that have to do with dinosaurs and Christianity? I quite frankly haven't paid a whole bunch of attention to the verses in the Bible pertaining to 'beasts' and 'dragons', but nonetheless the verses do exist. A huge part of the controversy comes from the fact that these beasts are not really mentioned too much. Don't you think that might be because they are not that important to the teachings of the Bible?

Trivium
07-04-2005, 10:08 PM
you obvously havnt read this whole thread, I was making a point to the post above mine

and what you said Ive gone over a few hundred times in really **** long posts which I dont want to repeat or copy and paste

GimmeSlack12
07-05-2005, 10:32 PM
you obvously havnt read this whole thread,


Hahaa, yea its 24 pages long!











I have though ;)

the_uber_penguin
07-07-2005, 12:01 PM
Here is something I got today (I've only bothered with the important bits):


No Contest
It will take more then thinly disguised creationism to defeat Darwin

[Outlines creationist arguments]

Crucially, intelligent design (ID) cannot be tested in any meaningful way and so cannot qualify as science. If ID ever came to be accepted, it would stifle research. Molecular biolagists would call a halt whenever they came across a biological structure that cannot be explained and hence must be the work of the "designer". Science as an open-ended pursuit would come to an end, halted y an impenatrable barrier labelled "the designer did it".

[Argument for teaching ID in schools]

We don't teach half-baked challenges to other scientific theories that have not run the gauntlet of scientific scrutiny, so why should ID be any different? Evolution by natural selection has survived 146 years on scientific scrutiny...

Evolution explains some spectacular examples of mal-design, such as cave-dwelling species with functional eyes that are covered by skin flaps. Natural selection has even been harnessed by the biotechnology industry to create new drugs. By contrast, ID has produced not one prediction of value. Evidence against it is mounting from many branches of science, while supporting evidence comes only from a small group of committed ID advocates.

There is no scientific controversy between ID and evolution. The case for teaching them as valid alternatives is no stronger then the case for teaching students about some controversy between astrology [horoscopes] and astronomy [how stars work/form, galaxies, etc...]

Lurking beneath this debate is the issue of whether religion should make an appearance in science classes - as the creationist movement has long wanted it to...ID may qualify as a religious belief, but it is not science. Teach it in philosophy or sociology [or Religious Studies, or Theory of Knowledge] by all means. It's proper resting place, however, will be in history.

How does that stir things up.

Theres more on page 8...I'll post any interesting quotes from that later.

StruckEverywhere
07-07-2005, 05:37 PM
It scares me that people like this threadstarter actually exist. Probably not as much as the idea of hell scares him though.

/Did not read every single page of this God-fearing fest.

Der ‹bermensch
07-08-2005, 10:19 AM
hahahahahaha

Futue te Ipsum
07-08-2005, 10:22 AM
So I was thinking. And I have came to a roadblock in my thoughts. Biblically, man first appeared on the Earth in roughly 4004 B.C. That is if you take the Bible literally. Now it could have been around any amount of time before that. In the seven day period God created the planet though, it was 4004 B.C.

So where do dinosaurs come in? Were dinosaurs alive during the time of man? That is/was my guess. As I thought more though, I decided that dinosaurs may well not have even existed. It may in fact be one of the most elaborate hoaxes, or sinister, known to man.

Here's a thought: Assuming you believe in God, did Pangaea exist? What is the similarity between the shorelines of all the continents? Did God have a hand in this 'Pangaea' or was it by coincidence?

On with the dinosaurs though, where did they come from? Was it a creation of God, or did Satan have an influence? I'd like to add in at this point that the fallen angels, the Nephilim, who spawned most of the Earth's inhabitants, may have had a more sinister plan for the Earth. When God destroyed the population in the Great Flood (minus Noah and his), it was a sort of cleansing for the population. If Pangaea was real, it may have seperated during this great catastrophe. All the dinosaurs may have been destroyed, too.

In retrospect, I have a hard time straying away from the idea that dinosaurs never existed. I think it may have been a hoax. I have no reason to believe God sat them here, and if they did exist, I wouldn't be surprised if He didn't.

Comments?

Whilst we're at it... does the Earth REALLY travel around the sun?

GimmeSlack12
07-08-2005, 03:06 PM
Whilst we're at it... does the Earth REALLY travel around the sun?


Good one.

Oh, and what about conciousness, I think its a hoax.

Futue te Ipsum
07-08-2005, 04:31 PM
I think I'll make a thread about the evidence for the flat earth theory.

Volumnius Flush
07-08-2005, 06:14 PM
Whilst we're at it... does the Earth REALLY travel around the sun?


It does in fact. Novice.

chimp_spanner
07-08-2005, 06:31 PM
I think...




































...he was being sarcastic :)

Captain Obvious to the rescue!

Volumnius Flush
07-08-2005, 06:37 PM
You really are mystified by this thread aren't you? You missed the point. In my introduction, I said nothing of actually believing this. But when the thread went on, I had to take on that belief to argue it effectively. You have no business here Chimp, so why don't you leave and let the evolved forms of existance solve the world's problems.

chimp_spanner
07-08-2005, 06:43 PM
lol And who are you to tell me where I have business being? In case you didn't notice, there was nothing particularly mean spirited about my post. No need to be quite such a berk about it.

Added to that, I don't think I'm the only one that got the impression you had some degree of conviction in your ludicrous little theory. Otherwise...why the hell did you bother posting it...*squints*

Volumnius Flush
07-08-2005, 06:46 PM
lol And who are you to tell me where I have business being? In case you didn't notice, there was nothing particularly mean spirited about my post. No need to be quite such a berk about it.

Added to that, I don't think I'm the only one that got the impression you had some degree of conviction in your ludicrous little theory. Otherwise...why the hell did you bother posting it...*squints*


Did you like my play on words? The chimp and evolution joke. :lol: ****, I'm funny. I still am not convinced of dinosaurs.

chimp_spanner
07-08-2005, 06:51 PM
...Okay, the chimp/evolution thing slipped right past me. It's nearly 2am here so I'm allowed to be slow :-\

Are you not convinced of Dinosaurs because you've read everything myself and others have had to say and find it to be...flawed reasoning? Or just, not convinced. In general. And don't really want to be?

Just curious.

Volumnius Flush
07-08-2005, 07:00 PM
...Okay, the chimp/evolution thing slipped right past me. It's nearly 2am here so I'm allowed to be slow :-\

Are you not convinced of Dinosaurs because you've read everything myself and others have had to say and find it to be...flawed reasoning? Or just, not convinced. In general. And don't really want to be?

Just curious.


I just imagine dinosaurs as these horrible and vile creatures and wonder why God would ever want to make them. And then I just can't see how it could be possible for them to exist with my current beliefs(example being the literal 7-day interpretation). And a worthy option is that it is a hoax and God truly wouldn't create such a vile creature.

Where are you at anyway? England?

StruckEverywhere
07-09-2005, 02:00 AM
hahahahahaha

/Bows.

Futue te Ipsum
07-09-2005, 02:41 AM
It does in fact. Novice.

Pfft, I r mor vet den yew.

Volumnius Flush
07-09-2005, 02:42 AM
Pfft, I r mor vet den yew.


What are you talking about?

chimp_spanner
07-09-2005, 05:21 AM
Yeah I'm from England. *shrugs* well man, I guess...after 26 pages...there's not much more to do than leave people to their opinions. Along with some explanations of fossilisation, I made some long *** posts on why I, personally, believe that the Bibles description of the 7 days of creation is literal and therefore, why it is logically flawed. It's back on page 23 :-\ If you care to read, go ahead.

Regarding them being too "horrible and vile" to be created by God...life can come in many forms man. What you see in every day life is by no means an indication of what life on this planet looks like, in general. Ever seen the "monsters" that inhabit the deep sea - Gulper fish, Angler fish, Lampreys? They're not pretty, but they exist. Aesthetics don't really factor in the development of life (discounting where it's incorporated into the evolutionary process for the purpose of attracting mates, for example). It takes the shapes and forms it does because it needs to. Heck, even we are pretty disgusting on the inside ;)

adriansmith454
07-09-2005, 05:30 AM
Dinosaurs Compatible With windows 95?

nope 98 min.

DuncMaster
07-09-2005, 06:00 AM
So I was thinking. And I have came to a roadblock in my thoughts. Biblically, man first appeared on the Earth in roughly 4004 B.C. That is if you take the Bible literally. Now it could have been around any amount of time before that. In the seven day period God created the planet though, it was 4004 B.C.

So where do dinosaurs come in? Were dinosaurs alive during the time of man? That is/was my guess. As I thought more though, I decided that dinosaurs may well not have even existed. It may in fact be one of the most elaborate hoaxes, or sinister, known to man.

Here's a thought: Assuming you believe in God, did Pangaea exist? What is the similarity between the shorelines of all the continents? Did God have a hand in this 'Pangaea' or was it by coincidence?

On with the dinosaurs though, where did they come from? Was it a creation of God, or did Satan have an influence? I'd like to add in at this point that the fallen angels, the Nephilim, who spawned most of the Earth's inhabitants, may have had a more sinister plan for the Earth. When God destroyed the population in the Great Flood (minus Noah and his), it was a sort of cleansing for the population. If Pangaea was real, it may have seperated during this great catastrophe. All the dinosaurs may have been destroyed, too.

In retrospect, I have a hard time straying away from the idea that dinosaurs never existed. I think it may have been a hoax. I have no reason to believe God sat them here, and if they did exist, I wouldn't be surprised if He didn't.

Comments?

You believe in the Bible and God, which is dodgy enough...And you think Dinosaurs (which has hard evidence) was a complete Hoax.

Just another example of the mind being warped by religon.

Liberi Fatali
07-09-2005, 06:04 AM
I just imagine dinosaurs as these horrible and vile creatures and wonder why God would ever want to make them. And then I just can't see how it could be possible for them to exist with my current beliefs(example being the literal 7-day interpretation). And a worthy option is that it is a hoax and God truly wouldn't create such a vile creature.

Where are you at anyway? England?
Why are they so vile. Most Dinosaurs are comparable to modern day animals. They fight to survive and feed themselves and their family. Many Dinosaurs were infact plant eaters that would are hardly vile creatures. Much like modern day animals they would defend themselves from harm.

If you are talking about creatures like the T-Rex, they are also not vile. They fight to survive, just like animals like the Great White Shark or Lion or other creatures like that. Infact there is now evidence to prove that the T-Rex was actually a scavanger, not a vile beast that attacked defenseless creatures.

So if God would not make vile creatures like the Dinosaurs, why has he made animals like the Great White Shark, Lion, Tiger or even plant eaters that defend themselves. Just like the dinosaurs did!

Or are you going to try and prove to me that animals don't exist because god wouldn't create something as vile as them either. >_> It's all a conspiracy man, there are no such things as animals! They're just images that the devil puts in our head!

hitchface2001
07-09-2005, 10:41 AM
You believe in the Bible and God, which is dodgy enough...And you think Dinosaurs (which has hard evidence) was a complete Hoax.

Just another example of the mind being warped by religon.

The last arguement that will work against any Christian is telling them that the Bible isn't to be trusted and there is no God. Here is your Christian standpoint:

The Bible is Truth, God exists and our salvation can only come through Jesus.

This is such basic truth that is learned from the day that one is saved. You writing off the Bible as a falsehood is like me trying to tell you that 2+2 does not in fact equal 4, and that the equation was written thousands of years ago.

Now, this dude has a valid standpoint, in that there is a possibility that dinosaurs are a hoax. He is leaning in his faith that God can do anything, and it is far more admirable than completely denouncing the possiblity that what he says is right.

Somewhat unrelated yet interesting note:

Creature- something created www.dictionary.com

Futue te Ipsum
07-09-2005, 11:37 AM
Now, this dude has a valid standpoint, in that there is a possibility that dinosaurs are a hoax. He is leaning in his faith that God can do anything, and it is far more admirable than completely denouncing the possiblity that what he says is right.

Does he? The logical jump required to suggest that so many are in on this conspiracy is, for a start, utterly absurd. I'm incredulous at the mere prospect of anybody thinking such wide scale deceit is even possible from people who don't have a vested interest in the lie.

If he touches on the idea that god can do anything, then fine. An all powerful god can, by definition, do anything. I don't fully understand the relevance of this bit though, tbh. Unless it is god that is doing the hoaxing.

hitchface2001
07-09-2005, 11:50 AM
Does he? The logical jump required to suggest that so many are in on this conspiracy is, for a start, utterly absurd. I'm incredulous at the mere prospect of anybody thinking such wide scale deceit is even possible from people who don't have a vested interest in the lie.

If he touches on the idea that god can do anything, then fine. An all powerful god can, by definition, do anything. I don't fully understand the relevance of this bit though, tbh. Unless it is god that is doing the hoaxing.

There are many things that are of this world that are meant to lead us astray from the Truth. Now I cannot honestly tell you what my opinion on the validity of dinosaurs is, simply because I have not yet delved into the contrversial verses that describe such beings, though the time is coming when I will do just that. I am only stating that all of these arguements are equally valid until one is proven over another. It really boils down to the faith in your own system.

chimp_spanner
07-09-2005, 11:57 AM
Hey there. Geez I'm just drawn in by this thread every...single...time. Ha.

I think one has already been proven over the other. We have two theories up for scrutiny here: one which has no basis in any kind of factual and/or physical evidence whatsoever, and one that does. Again, I'll refer you to my long post+free cookie offer on page 23 ;) although many others have said much the same as me already, and perhaps better!

Futue te Ipsum
07-09-2005, 12:06 PM
I'd say the existence of dinosaurs is somewhat more proven than their inexistence. I admit that most of the fossilised dinosaurs we see are made up of fibre glass and plaster, but that's because they're very rare. The point is, is that these fossils exist and we can construct complex anatomical reconstructions from them. If people want to believe that this is down to chance, hoax or any other bunk ideas, then I see no reason as to why anybody should take them seriously.

Volumnius Flush
07-09-2005, 05:58 PM
So if God would not make vile creatures like the Dinosaurs, why has he made animals like the Great White Shark, Lion, Tiger or even plant eaters that defend themselves. Just like the dinosaurs did!

The lion, tiger, and shark are beautiful creatures. I believe in them.

Now, this dude has a valid standpoint, in that there is a possibility that dinosaurs are a hoax. He is leaning in his faith that God can do anything, and it is far more admirable than completely denouncing the possiblity that what he says is right.

I totally agree. Though I don't understand what you mean by thie definition of creature.

Again, I'll refer you to my long post+free cookie offer on page 23 ;) although many others have said much the same as me already, and perhaps better!

Did you give anyone a cookie? I think I read it all but the Bible verses which I read just a couple days ago.

Liberi Fatali
07-09-2005, 06:08 PM
The lion, tiger, and shark are beautiful creatures. I believe in them.

Then by that logic Dinosaurs are beautiful creatures too. Unless you're saying reptiles are ugly, which is basically the only difference between the Lion, Tiger, Shark and Dinosaurs like the T-Rex.

So if you're saying reptiles are ugly, then are creatures like the lizard, snakes, crocodiles all hoaxes? Some of those creatures are even descendents of dinosaurs and pre-dinosaur creatures.

Volumnius Flush
07-09-2005, 06:25 PM
So if you're saying reptiles are ugly, then are creatures like the lizard, snakes, crocodiles all hoaxes? Some of those creatures are even descendents of dinosaurs and pre-dinosaur creatures.

You are misinformed. I've seen all you've listed. And you're last statement is a lie. Can you not accept that the dinosaur and lizard co-existed? Why do you ask me if I believe in things you've most likely seen for your own eyes and not say, an oak tree sized sloth? Is it because you fear that your own misplaced trust in the unseen surpasses your ability to argue effectively?

Liberi Fatali
07-09-2005, 06:34 PM
You are misinformed. I've seen all you've listed. And you're last statement is a lie. Can you not accept that the dinosaur and lizard co-existed? Why do you ask me if I believe in things you've most likely seen for your own eyes and not say, an oak tree sized sloth? Is it because you fear that your own misplaced trust in the unseen surpasses your ability to argue effectively?
I don't think you understand, lizards are dinosaurs. Crocodiles were around during that time period, and ancestors of them who are so genetically similar that it is not funny have even out dated the dinosaurs. One lizard the Tuatara (native to New Zealanad) is a Dinosaur that still survives today, and yes I have seen one with my own eyes. It is not a lizard that co-existed with Dinosaurs, it is a Dinosaur.

Futue te Ipsum
07-09-2005, 06:36 PM
You are misinformed. I've seen all you've listed. And you're last statement is a lie. Can you not accept that the dinosaur and lizard co-existed? Why do you ask me if I believe in things you've most likely seen for your own eyes and not say, an oak tree sized sloth? Is it because you fear that your own misplaced trust in the unseen surpasses your ability to argue effectively?

Did his post go over your head or did it merely take out too many brain cells on its journey through?

chimp_spanner
07-09-2005, 08:02 PM
Dinosaur, literally means, Terrible Lizard. As has already been said, there are living relatives of them today. Whether or not they're "nice" to look at is irrelevant. Animal life doesn't exist to please us, or look pretty. It's just...there. Sometimes it's beautiful, majestic, whatever. Other times it's plain vile. Just the way it is.

"you fear that your own misplaced trust in the unseen surpasses your ability to argue effectively"

Now you know what WE (proponants of evolution) are up against when arguing with hard-core creationists ;)

And no. No-one as of yet has got a free cookie *hangs head in shame* It was all a lie.

A horrible, filthy lie.

Volumnius Flush
07-09-2005, 08:24 PM
Dinosaur, literally means, Terrible Lizard. As has already been said, there are living relatives of them today. Whether or not they're "nice" to look at is irrelevant. Animal life doesn't exist to please us, or look pretty. It's just...there. Sometimes it's beautiful, majestic, whatever. Other times it's plain vile. Just the way it is.

"you fear that your own misplaced trust in the unseen surpasses your ability to argue effectively"

Now you know what WE (proponants of evolution) are up against when arguing with hard-core creationists ;)

And no. No-one as of yet has got a free cookie *hangs head in shame* It was all a lie.

A horrible, filthy lie.

It was a lie eh? Kind of like the dinosaurs? I was simply suggesting that Liberi not question my faith in things which I have seen, but say the Great Auk which I haven't. We know it existed but I still haven't seen it. She(she right?) questions my belief in lions? Maybe a joke, but my response definately wasn't. A joke? Then she wasn't arguing effectively as stated.

"As has already been said, there are living relatives of them today."

Correct or not: Wouldn't I have to believe in evolution to accept this statement?

"Animal life doesn't exist to please us, or look pretty. It's just...there."

I was talking to this black girl once and she was up in my face, and I said, "Stand the **** down. I don't want your ugly up in my face." She said that she wasn't here to please me and she had the right to stand where she liked. I proceeded to assault her with my lunchbag. Nevermind that though.

Trivium
07-09-2005, 10:39 PM
I really do hate you, being a creationist, you are no different than thoes who flew planes into the world trade center

you are an extremist of a religion, christianity is fine, creationism is not

and im not saying that by any of my standards, or societys, your just ignorant

Volumnius Flush
07-09-2005, 10:56 PM
I'm no different than the terrorists who flew into the WTC.


I hope someone sees something wrong with this. I do. Trivium compares me to terrorists. By that rite, I am up there with mass murderers and people who cause billions of dollars in damages. /Pats self on back/

Someone please ban Trivium. He's proved his ignorance one too many times. He has no place in here. I don't troll threads and tell people how stupid they are.

Trivium
07-09-2005, 11:32 PM
you are stupid, really really stupid

and I have every right and reason to compare you to them, they are religious extremists, you are a religios extremist


im not getting banned, kids were like "omgorz make trivium a mod" after I made that **** long post attacking you, im not going anywhere

and your the last person to call me ignorant

gregulus
07-10-2005, 12:11 AM
I'm no different than the terrorists who flew into the WTC.


I hope someone sees something wrong with this. I do. Trivium compares me to terrorists. By that rite, I am up there with mass murderers and people who cause billions of dollars in damages. /Pats self on back/

Someone please ban Trivium. He's proved his ignorance one too many times. He has no place in here. I don't troll threads and tell people how stupid they are.
He compared you to the terrorists because like them, you ARE an extremist. Atrocities have been commited in the name of God too. I'm NOT saying that you are one of them, but there have been people who killed thousands of people in the name of your Jesus Christ. He's simply arguing your point he sees as false, there is no harm in that.

Volumnius Flush
07-10-2005, 12:15 AM
He compared you to the terrorists because like them, you ARE an extremist. Atrocities have been commited in the name of God too. I'm NOT saying that you are one of them, but there have been people who killed thousands of people in the name of your Jesus Christ. He's simply arguing your point he sees as false, there is no harm in that.

And I quote Trivium
"I really do hate you, being a creationist, you are no different than thoes who flew planes into the world trade center you are an extremist of a religion, christianity is fine, creationism is not and im not saying that by any of my standards, or societys, your just ignorant"


He isn't arguing me. He's flaming me for being a creationist or Christian or whatever it is he doesn't like. This is nothing but flame posting and has no place in Politics.

Did I kill anyone? No, so stop giving me **** about extremists who did.

And for the record, he logged in and posted, and then a couple minutes later logged out. Pretty stupid. All that shows is he's antagonizing me.

Mekkalayakay
07-10-2005, 01:40 AM
your just ignorant A quote by you directed at Trivium.

Sorry to butt in here, but didn't you just claim that dinosaurs never existed?

Volumnius Flush
07-10-2005, 01:42 AM
A quote by you directed at Trivium.

Sorry to butt in here, but didn't you just claim that dinosaurs never existed?


I missed something here. Reword your statement because I'm not making sense of it.

Futue te Ipsum
07-10-2005, 04:07 AM
I hope someone sees something wrong with this. I do. Trivium compares me to terrorists. By that rite, I am up there with mass murderers and people who cause billions of dollars in damages. /Pats self on back

Indirectly I would actually say that was true of the collective creationist mind. I dread to think of the damage it has done to biological science.

That said; his comment was ridiculous. Whilst banning is a bit excessive, I believe his opinion can and should be ignored in this matter.

I missed something here. Reword your statement because I'm not making sense of it.

He's suggesting that you are ignorant for your disbelief in dinosaurs. As somebody who has seen an extensive quantity of dinosaur fossils, I think he is justified in doing it.

chimp_spanner
07-10-2005, 06:31 AM
"I was talking to this black girl once and she was up in my face, and I said, "Stand the **** down. I don't want your ugly up in my face." She said that she wasn't here to please me and she had the right to stand where she liked. I proceeded to assault her with my lunchbag. Nevermind that though."

What...does that have to do with anything? Apart from the fact that going by some of your other posts you dislike blacks :-\ If they're "ugly" in your eyes (and ugliness is subjective btw) I suppose they shouldn't exist either, because God wouldn't make something ugly? Maybe they're a hoax too! White people all blacked up :rolleyes: Or how about people born with deformities; do you see the beauty in a person born with their heart on the outside, or their face disfigured, or no arms/legs? Or do you think they shouldn't exist because they don't please you? The whole "God wouldn't make something so vile" argument is silly. As some of my argument requires you to believe in evolution, so too does all of yours require me to believe in God - or rather your definition of God. The problem there is, evolution is a theory open to scrutiny, with evidence to support it. Belief in the Christian interpretation of God and creationism requires almost complete abandonment of logic, free thought and common sense. And I'd rather not do that thanks.

[I'd also like to know how old you are if you still carry a lunch bag to school]

You said you read my post, yet you've said nothing that disproves/discredits it. You try to tell us something isn't so because you just don't want to believe it. That does nothing to further your argument, it makes you look closed minded and afraid, and tells me that you're not really worth debating with. I think after 27 pages we can all now safely say that your theory, was wrong. You are wrong. Creationists, at least in my eyes, are wrong. And until someone addresses the points presented by myself and others without resorting to matters of faith, then I shall continue to assume that I am right.

siva_chair
07-10-2005, 08:30 AM
I really do hate you, being a creationist, you are no different than thoes who flew planes into the world trade center

you are an extremist of a religion, christianity is fine, creationism is not

and im not saying that by any of my standards, or societys, your just ignorant

You realize extremists are not tied to only religion, right? You realize extremists all share one thing in common: hatred. Now, you opened that post with a statement that puts YOU one step closer to being like those extremists. You showed a dislike for someone based off of their beliefs.

Now, I don't agree with him. I believe dinosaurs existed, ect, ect, but I am a Christian, and I don't believe hating someone solves anything. Hatred is hatred, and it usually only spews forth more hatred. This is how extremists are born, out of hatred.

Toolboy
07-10-2005, 08:36 AM
It could be a hoax. It was a threat by Satan unto man to mislead you. It's a lie.

roflmao

i'm going to hell

Trivium
07-10-2005, 09:01 AM
You realize extremists are not tied to only religion, right? You realize extremists all share one thing in common: hatred. Now, you opened that post with a statement that puts YOU one step closer to being like those extremists. You showed a dislike for someone based off of their beliefs.

Now, I don't agree with him. I believe dinosaurs existed, ect, ect, but I am a Christian, and I don't believe hating someone solves anything. Hatred is hatred, and it usually only spews forth more hatred. This is how extremists are born, out of hatred.

extremists of the muslim religion believe that allah would want them to destroy enemies and threats to their religion and people.

However, that certainly does not mean attacking the us with airplanes.

Now the bible says god created the earth in 7 days.

what you are doing is saying that dinosaurs could not have existed, the earth is only 6000 years old where there is just massively insane amounts of evidence supporting otherwise, when the only source you have is the bible.

You did not take hateful actions, however you are a hateful person (velonemous flush)

You admit to being racist, you have told me im going to hell, your saying every non christian is going to hell because they dont believe in god.

Thats hateful

Plus, if someone has a different religion, then they could go to the heaven of their religion, not all people are gods people, many cultures believe in multiple gods.

Futue te Ipsum
07-10-2005, 09:21 AM
You realize extremists are not tied to only religion, right? You realize extremists all share one thing in common: hatred. Now, you opened that post with a statement that puts YOU one step closer to being like those extremists. You showed a dislike for someone based off of their beliefs.

I disagree. The only thing the share is their extremism. Hatred is not an extreme in such quantities; it's the norm. Such ignorance as that of Flush is far more extreme.

Cain
07-10-2005, 10:11 AM
Science > you, Flush.

Look, why on God's green earth can't it be said that maybe God is responsible for evolution, that he did things differently than we at first supposed? The number of times that one detail in Genesis about how the world was created 4,000 years ago in seven days has become a sticking point on Christian debate of scientific issues is utterly ridiculous. We've been dead wrong before.

We used to think that the stars were perfect spheres, and that they were all placed in immovable tranquility. Furthermore, we also believed that all the planets and all the stars were stuck in a sort of circular cosmic sheet that held them in their places around the earth. If you stick a tennis ball halfway through a piece of plastic wrap, that's sort of like what they thought, except it was with planets. When Galileo came along and said, you guys are idiots, look through my telescope, fearful clergymen the world over said that it contradicted what the Bible said. They tried to foolishly reconcile Galileo's views with their own (one man actually attempted to say that the moon had no craters, but that it was covered by an amorphous smooth mass underneath which craters were visible), and many denounced Galileo's findings without even having read any of his work. He was put on trial during the Inquisition and had to swear to the Catholic church that he would never repeat his "lie" about space in his lifetime, and he died never seeing his view become widely accepted.

This is exactly what is happening with you now, although I should think that you're a hundred years behind. For instance, there ARE no dinosaurs today, yet we have hundreds of bones to prove that they once existed. When they were first found, everyone believed that they must be giant versions of current species because God would never allow one of his creations to die. After a while this too became contradicted by the facts that we can see rather than the beliefs we put our faith in.

Let's face it, there is no possible way that you can argue your case successfully. The only thing you can do is believe it yourself, remain willfully ignorant of the facts. You are a person who is the type responsible for every hindrance of social and scientific progress since the dawn of Christianity: a person who gives his belief about the truth more credence than the naked truth itself.

Trivium
07-10-2005, 10:50 AM
Yes, he cannot argue his case sucesfully

He cannot prove god exists as much as we can prove he dosnt

HOWEVER, creationism is bull****, My minister knows it, my bishop knows it (and actually gave a sermon on it)

Now if your saying your better or more intelligent then the bishop of a few hundred churches, then Ill listen to you. (no I wont, but its a nice thought)

siva_chair
07-10-2005, 02:57 PM
extremists of the muslim religion believe that allah would want them to destroy enemies and threats to their religion and people.

Yup, and that is an example of a religious extremist group. I am not one of those.

However, that certainly does not mean attacking the us with airplanes.

It did in their eyes.

Now the bible says god created the earth in 7 days.

What is unknown is what is meant by the word 'day.'

what you are doing is saying that dinosaurs could not have existed, the earth is only 6000 years old where there is just massively insane amounts of evidence supporting otherwise, when the only source you have is the bible.

No, I never once said that.

You did not take hateful actions, however you are a hateful person (velonemous flush)

And you started a post out saying you hated him, for his beliefs, basically. It sounds to me like you are closer to Islamic extremist groups than you think.

You admit to being racist, you have told me im going to hell, your saying every non christian is going to hell because they dont believe in god.

I haven't. He may have, but I haven't. Also, you've displayed intolerance in hatred outright as well.

Thats hateful

So is saying you hate someone for their beliefs. It is on par with hating someone because of the color of their skin.

Plus, if someone has a different religion, then they could go to the heaven of their religion, not all people are gods people, many cultures believe in multiple gods.

No, really?

siva_chair
07-10-2005, 02:59 PM
I disagree. The only thing the share is their extremism. Hatred is not an extreme in such quantities; it's the norm. Such ignorance as that of Flush is far more extreme.

Extremists would not be a problem if they did not hold hatred. Him believing in a literal 7 day creation isn't hurting anyone. Going and blowing someone up because they don't agree with what you believe and you hate them for it, on the other hand, does hurt people.

Futue te Ipsum
07-10-2005, 03:05 PM
Extremists would not be a problem if they did not hold hatred. Him believing in a literal 7 day creation isn't hurting anyone. Going and blowing someone up because they don't agree with what you believe and you hate them for it, on the other hand, does hurt people.

I'm not too sure about that. The extremists pushing the idea of ID into the school syllabus whilst not filled with hate, are going to cause a lot of damage to science. Some scientists would go so far as to say that introducing the supernatural will destroy it; and I agree with them.

Of course, I also agree with you that Voluminous or whatever is not a kin to a terrorist. I was merely playing devils advocate.

siva_chair
07-10-2005, 03:13 PM
I'm not too sure about that. The extremists pushing the idea of ID into the school syllabus whilst not filled with hate, are going to cause a lot of damage to science. Some scientists would go so far as to say that introducing the supernatural will destroy it; and I agree with them.

I don't think ID should be implemented in science classes until it has been studied more. It is unfortunate that people try to force things like that into a school curriculum when they don't really understand ID or evolution. Most of them don't realize that ID is compatible with evolution, it just is not compatible with NeoDarwinist evolution (which is really a faith based system and is like a naturalist religion in of itself).

Of course, I also agree with you that Voluminous or whatever is not a kin to a terrorist. I was merely playing devils advocate.

I understand. And I wasn't agreeing with Voluminous or anything, I was just trying to point out to Trivium that his intolerance for Voluminous' views put him closer to a extremist than he may think.

braindoctor
07-10-2005, 03:16 PM
um yeah i think maybe some dinosaurs could be god worshippers i think

++

hitchface2001
07-10-2005, 03:16 PM
Now the bible says god created the earth in 7 days.

what you are doing is saying that dinosaurs could not have existed, the earth is only 6000 years old where there is just massively insane amounts of evidence supporting otherwise, when the only source you have is the bible.

I have posted with regard to this a few times now, and it is a point worth considering. If God can create man in his mature form, what is to stop Him from creating the universe and earth the same way? It is still possible that dinosaurs lived, though I, being a creationist, have a hard time (and I mean really hard time) believeing that our earth is 65 billion+ years old. Either way, you have to think that our dating principles could be easily fooled by this viewpoint. We age things by certain signs of their maturity. If those signs were to be implemented, there would be no way for us to discern the true age of anything.

every non christian is going to hell because they dont believe in god.

Thats hateful

You make it seem like we want you to go to Hell. It is definitely more of a hard fact than a Christian desire. The people of this world that are not saved are not despised (or at very least should not be) but rather cared for and prayed for. Christian doctrine states a very common-sensical rule in that we must love one another and never excercise discrimination. This includes what religion you are from. I may refuse to believe what you do, but that still doesn't stop me from caring about you.

Plus, if someone has a different religion, then they could go to the heaven of their religion, not all people are gods people, many cultures believe in multiple gods.

Each religion (for the most part) is THE way. In Christianity, the only way to get to Heaven and to have a relationship with God is through Christ. You state fact (obvious, yet necessary) in that many cultures believe in more than one god. Let me pose this. What other religion aside from Christianity is in constant praise and joy because their Lord is so great? Where else does it occur where people dance and sing and proclaim mercy and grace? Our God is a good God, and is THE God.

With relation to introducing ID into the classroom, I'd be willing to wait until it became a studious endeavor (sp?) rather than a mere arguement. It indeed would do damage to some areas of science, though conversely science can and has done damage to certain areas of religion in general. Its a nasty game of give and take, isn't it?

Volumnius Flush
07-10-2005, 03:27 PM
In the spirit of extremism, if I ever come face to face with Trivium, I will be sure to kill him.

/sarcasm/

Volumnius Flush
07-10-2005, 03:28 PM
You realize extremists are not tied to only religion, right? You realize extremists all share one thing in common: hatred. Now, you opened that post with a statement that puts YOU one step closer to being like those extremists. You showed a dislike for someone based off of their beliefs.

Now, I don't agree with him. I believe dinosaurs existed, ect, ect, but I am a Christian, and I don't believe hating someone solves anything. Hatred is hatred, and it usually only spews forth more hatred. This is how extremists are born, out of hatred.


I agree with you completely Siva. I think the answer here is to ban him. This is for serious discussion and I'm not sure this noob can handle it.

Futue te Ipsum
07-10-2005, 03:32 PM
I don't think ID should be implemented in science classes until it has been studied more. It is unfortunate that people try to force things like that into a school curriculum when they don't really understand ID or evolution. Most of them don't realize that ID is compatible with evolution, it just is not compatible with NeoDarwinist evolution (which is really a faith based system and is like a naturalist religion in of itself).

It can be studied as much as it likes. It is essentially unscientific, and so not really deserving of a place.

You're going to have to explain why you think neo darwinism is faith based. From my understanding it merely adds DNA and genetics to the idea of natural selection.

siva_chair
07-10-2005, 03:41 PM
I agree with you completely Siva. I think the answer here is to ban him. This is for serious discussion and I'm not sure this noob can handle it.

I think you should quit while you are behind. Don't drag me in on your petty squabble.

It can be studied as much as it likes. It is essentially unscientific, and so not really deserving of a place.

It is unscientific because we have not studied it enough. ID as a theory is very well formulated and has much potential. A good book to read on the subject of ID is Intelligent Design, by William Dembski. It explains what ID is and what it is not. Many people (on both sides of the argument) have big misconceptions of what actually ID is.

You're going to have to explain why you think neo darwinism is faith based. From my understanding it merely adds DNA and genetics to the idea of natural selection.

Neo Darwinism is the belief that nature is blind and that everything can be explained through naturalist explanations. It is faith based because it claims to know how life started, and it claims to know many things it cannot explain. It is naturalism in religion (almost dogmatic) form. It is as much science as Christianity/Buddhism/ect. are.

Drumaholic
07-10-2005, 03:45 PM
I really think volumnus wants to ban triv because triv made such a good case against volumnus's. And now he (vol) realizes hes wrong, or has given up fighting everyone, and figures if triv is banned he can quietly walk away, or win the fight becuz his strongest opponent is gone

I see this whole thread as a fight now, I really would like to see who wins

go triv!


Honestly though, there are bones proving dinosaurs existed! and you keep using the bible as your only support.. a book which has been translated from lost languages to modern ones, so many times that, who even knows what was really written?

Trivium
07-10-2005, 03:46 PM
siva_chair

sorry to confuse you on my last post, that was mostly targeted to other people

siva_chair
07-10-2005, 03:50 PM
siva_chair

sorry to confuse you on my last post, that was mostly targeted to other people

I figured as much, but still, please think about your hatred for someone based on their personal beliefs.

siva_chair
07-10-2005, 03:52 PM
Honestly though, there are bones proving dinosaurs existed! and you keep using the bible as your only support.. a book which has been translated from lost languages to modern ones, so many times that, who even knows what was really written?

Dinosaurs do not contradict the Bible.

The Bible is now translated from the earliest copies available (which are extremely close to the timeperiod when the originals were written). It is also one of the most accurate historical referrences we have.

Trivium
07-10-2005, 03:52 PM
In the spirit of extremism, if I ever come face to face with Trivium, I will be sure to kill him.

/sarcasm/

Extremists are not people who kill others necessarily, they are ones who take things to far, creationists are ones who take christianity to far. Terrorists are ones who take their religion to far.

Its the same thing, only difference being the actions you take. And by the way, god wants everyone to accept everyone else, while you are an open racist.


I agree with you completely Siva. I think the answer here is to ban him. This is for serious discussion and I'm not sure this noob can handle it.

I dont even need to say anything here, I think your immaturity speaks for itself. If you have nothing to say in the form of argument, you dont need to use 12 year old terms such as "noob" to describe me.

Its slightly sad that you cant stick up for yourself, and you have to call in internet moderators to get rid of me. Guess you cant handle what im saying, because I cant think of another reason youd ask for me to be banned.

Unless I start a massive spam attack, i will never be banned

A real question: Why on earth did you decide to become a creationist?

A massive majority of christian bishops and priests are not creationists. Probably a bad childhood or something that you had

I figured as much, but still, please think about your hatred for someone based on their personal beliefs.

Oh I dont hate him for his beliefs, i have respect for you and your views are the same as his.

Its his pathetic attitude, racism, and unablitity to have a serious argument.

Futue te Ipsum
07-10-2005, 03:55 PM
It is unscientific because we have not studied it enough. ID as a theory is very well formulated and has much potential. A good book to read on the subject of ID is Intelligent Design, by William Dembski. It explains what ID is and what it is not. Many people (on both sides of the argument) have big misconceptions of what actually ID is.

It is unscientific because it adopts the supernatural as a central concept, and is not falsifiable as a result. Whilst this makes it a sound philosophical theory, it tears to pieces its right to be called a theory of science.


Neo Darwinism is the belief that nature is blind and that everything can be explained through naturalist explanations. It is faith based because it claims to know how life started, and it claims to know many things it cannot explain. It is naturalism in religion (almost dogmatic) form. It is as much science as Christianity/Buddhism/ect. are.

You're going to have to back this up. None of the papers I've read on neo darwinism agree with your definition of what it is. I would, however, agree that faith is required in the structure you describe.

Here are two interesting pieces for you:

siva_chair
07-10-2005, 04:37 PM
Oh I dont hate him for his beliefs, i have respect for you and your views are the same as his.

I don't have the same views as him. Please don't assume that because I am a Christian, I hold the same views as he does. I don't

Its his pathetic attitude, racism, and unablitity to have a serious argument.

You opened the post off with you saying you hated him and people who are fundamentalists/extremists. You said you hated him for his beliefs, basically.

siva_chair
07-10-2005, 04:43 PM
It is unscientific because it adopts the supernatural as a central concept, and is not falsifiable as a result. Whilst this makes it a sound philosophical theory, it tears to pieces its right to be called a theory of science.

No it doesn't. That is a common misconception of ID. If you are interested, you should read Intelligent Design, by William Dembski. It is a bit heavy on the philosophy and mathematics, but nonetheless, you should be able to understand it well. I mean, I did, so it can't be too hard. :p



You're going to have to back this up. None of the papers I've read on neo darwinism agree with your definition of what it is. I would, however, agree that faith is required in the structure you describe.

Well, it has been called many things. Naturalism, Athiestic Naturalism, Neo-Darwinist Naturalism, or Neo-Darwinism, ect. Perhaps just Neo-Darwinism would be kind of innaccurate, but it is still referred to it as such.


Here are two interesting pieces for you:

Thank you. I will look into them when I have some more time.

Volumnius Flush
07-10-2005, 05:08 PM
I think you should quit while you are behind. Don't drag me in on your petty squabble.

I'm not dragging you in. I highly suggest you take heed of my warnings though. I can see through the manifestations of Satan. And who's to say I'm behind? I actually think I am far ahead of my competitors. I have much to teach you Siva.

Trivium
07-10-2005, 05:13 PM
I think your dilusional, either that or this has all been a joke

I mean, that post

the one above me

READ IT

siva_chair
07-10-2005, 05:16 PM
I'm not dragging you in. I highly suggest you take heed of my warnings though. I can see through the manifestations of Satan. And who's to say I'm behind? I actually think I am far ahead of my competitors. I have much to teach you Siva.

Well, teach me then. Provide me with information I can believe. So far, you haven't made a very good attempt.

Volumnius Flush
07-10-2005, 05:21 PM
Well, teach me then. Provide me with information I can believe. So far, you haven't made a very good attempt.


How much longer you have? I am about to post a thread within maybe 15 minutes. You will like it. We're having a storm right now so the cable modem might stop working in a minute. It cut out for a minute or two but came back on. I am typing it up right now.

Trivium
07-10-2005, 05:23 PM
You are dilusional

you think god will help you

you must have a very tramatized life.

Liberi Fatali
07-10-2005, 05:30 PM
How much longer you have? I am about to post a thread within maybe 15 minutes. You will like it. We're having a storm right now so the cable modem might stop working in a minute. It cut out for a minute or two but came back on. I am typing it up right now.
Bring enlightenment to us Volumnius! Show us the light! Show us how the devil blinds us from God's beautiful truth.

Trivium
07-10-2005, 05:49 PM
I really really hope that was a sarcastic post

Liberi Fatali
07-10-2005, 05:53 PM
I really really hope that was a sarcastic post
In order to get an amusing reply from Volumnius I'm going to say no it wasn't. >_>

Cain
07-10-2005, 05:56 PM
Everything can be traced back to terrorism in the Politics forum. :rolleyes:

Volumnius Flush
07-10-2005, 06:13 PM
In order to get an amusing reply from Volumnius I'm going to say no it wasn't. >_>


Read my thread about clothes.

hitchface2001
07-10-2005, 07:13 PM
Trivium, stop making assumptions about people's lives and how they have played out. I am a Christian and haven't had many traumatizing times in my life. Does this make me weak for believing in a God? Besides, you still haven't replied to my post. I am curious as to what you have to say...

Volumnius Flush
07-10-2005, 07:17 PM
Trivium, stop making assumptions about people's lives and how they have played out. I am a Christian and haven't had many traumatizing times in my life. Does this make me weak for believing in a God? Besides, you still haven't replied to my post. I am curious as to what you have to say...


I am curious too. But see, I see through Trivium and his ignorance. He can't even post in proper English! All he has are putdowns and insults, which have no place in here.

Cain
07-10-2005, 07:41 PM
I am curious too. But see, I see through Trivium and his ignorance. He can't even post in proper English! All he has are putdowns and insults, which have no place in here.

Trivium is just rather bluntly insisting on the facts. He may be less eloquent than you but on the other hand somehow manages to be less ignorant, which is why no one has banned him.

Let's face it. You made a thread about dinosaurs not existing. No one is going to ban anyone that says "shut up, idiot, yes they did." It's a simple fact. I wish we could suspend our knowledge to rationally discuss this long-gone possibility, but we can't.

Volumnius Flush
07-10-2005, 07:47 PM
Trivium is just rather bluntly insisting on the facts. He may be less eloquent than you but on the other hand somehow manages to be less ignorant, which is why no one has banned him.

Let's face it. You made a thread about dinosaurs not existing. No one is going to ban anyone that says "shut up, idiot, yes they did." It's a simple fact. I wish we could suspend our knowledge to rationally discuss this long-gone possibility, but we can't.


Let's discuss it now Cain. I would like to talk with you about this. What are your concerns? Your confusions? Your misguided efforts?

Trivium
07-10-2005, 09:26 PM
I cant speak proper english, hmm, give me an example

gregulus
07-10-2005, 10:07 PM
I cant speak proper english, hmm, give me an example
Man, he's not worth it. Let it be.

Volumnius Flush
07-10-2005, 10:12 PM
Man, he's not worth it. Let it be.


Trivium's not worth it. I will let it be.

Trivium
07-10-2005, 10:32 PM
thanks greg, and its not me that has extreme views that everyone is against, that would be you Volumnius Flush

Cain
07-10-2005, 10:59 PM
Let's discuss it now Cain. I would like to talk with you about this. What are your concerns? Your confusions? Your misguided efforts?

I have no concerns about anything, nor am I confused. The skeletons are there in the Museums of Natural History and the bones that they came from have been carbon dated and that's good enough for me.

I don't need to make a misguided effort to convince people of the truth, since it is self-evident. You are embarking on a misguided effort to convince people of your belief about the truth, which is nowhere supported by any science except for that of religion.

Besides, I was only attempting to explain why Trivium wasn't going to be banned. :p There's nothing to discuss about this issue that you want to discuss.

I understand that you're bristling at me right now for a number of reasons, not least among them the Trilemma debacle, but if you please I would prefer to not be dragged into these types of circular quagmires again.

Volumnius Flush
07-10-2005, 11:17 PM
I understand that you're bristling at me right now for a number of reasons, not least among them the Trilemma debacle, but if you please I would prefer to not be dragged into these types of circular quagmires again.


Yet you post in the circular quagmire and jest, "Doest thou not drag me but of my own free will shall discuss with the!" And you still post and claim you have nothing to say but yet you post.

Cain
07-10-2005, 11:19 PM
Yet you post in the circular quagmire and jest, "Doest thou not drag me but of my own free will shall discuss with the!" And you still post and claim you have nothing to say but yet you post.

You know, with the way you post, I have a really hard time believing you mean it. :p

I mean, Christ, you tend to be so pretentious.

It's not that I have nothing to post. It's just that I've said what I have to say and I'm in no mood to debate or repeat. I've given up on convincing you of anything, so I'll be happy to let my post stand on its own and let it convince OTHER people that you're wrong instead of wasting my time trying to convince YOU that you're wrong.

Volumnius Flush
07-10-2005, 11:27 PM
You know, with the way you post, I have a really hard time believing you mean it. :p

I mean, Christ, you tend to be so pretentious.

It's not that I have nothing to post. It's just that I've said what I have to say and I'm in no mood to debate or repeat. I've given up on convincing you of anything, so I'll be happy to let my post stand on its own and let it convince OTHER people that you're wrong instead of wasting my time trying to convince YOU that you're wrong.


Pretentious. A word I had to look up two weeks ago and ended up looking it up again tonight. I have the Sarcasm Syndrome. My dad tells me I need to pray a different prayer before we eat dinner, I always flashback to Meet the Parents when the Jew is asked to give the blessing. And I crack up in the middle of prayer. :upset:

Simon__Thats_All
07-11-2005, 03:12 AM
To threadstarter:

I made a post the other day with biblical quotes and everything telling you how if you don't take the bible 100% literally it DOES mention the existence of dinosaurs. My computer died near the end of it and I could never be bothered re-typing so I will give it again in short.

Read Genesis. This time, take in to account that each "day" could actually represent millions of years, just different phases in history. We're currently in the 7th day I think.
The first creatures God put on the earth included "sea monsters." These, in my opinion, represent the initial stages of earthly life, the dinosaurs in the ocean. The next day, God made land creatures. I think this represents when the sea creatures evolved to walk on land. Hence, the land-walking dinosaurs. And the next day, God made man. Going on my theory, this took place over millions and millions of years, and represents the evolution of the world. Starting with the dinosaur.

Looking at it from that perspective it becomes obvious that you are indeed a tit.

Volumnius Flush
07-11-2005, 03:19 AM
Looking at it from that perspective it becomes obvious that you are indeed a tit.

Goin on through your post, I followed well your logic. Then you end abruptly with a stinging conclusion. I am a tit. :rolleyes:

Who's titty but to question God's Authority? "But Lord, a day can equal millions of years. I thought it was metaphorical."

It is you who is the tit. How dare the question the absolute authority of the Bible with your new age propaganda? Justifing science, evolution, Satanic belief structures by claiming the Bible literally lies. Which is it? Does the Bible literally tell the truth in the day interpretation or is it as you'd believe a lie?

Condemnation surrounds the.

desertcircus
07-11-2005, 03:34 AM
RULE: People with poor spelling abilities should avoid trying to sound grand.
ILLUSTRATION: Volumnius Flush spelling "thee" as "the", and thus creating a borderline nonsensical post. Condemnation surrounds the what? The condemnation tree?

RULE: In a debate, claiming absolute authority for a source is usually a bad move.
ILLUSTRATION: Again Volumnius Flush had shown his civic-mindedness. By cunningly replacing any actual argument with a declaration that the Bible is absolute authority, he has shown just how ridiculous a post can get.

RULE: If two arguments clash, the one yelling about "satanic belief structures" is usually the loser.
ILLUSTRATION: Volumnius Flush's selflessness knows no bounds. Abandoning any pretence at reasoned argument and setting himself up as a laughingstock, he bravely shows that Christian fundamentalism is a nearly completely useless arguing tool, as its proponents resort to name-calling to make their nonexistent points.

Simon__Thats_All
07-11-2005, 03:36 AM
:lol: I'm sorry, I just wanted to use the word "tit" in a post. Seriously though, I've debated this several times and I stand by my opinion that the bible doesn't "lie," it speaks in metaphor. Metaphors are used to give people greater understandings and make it easier for them to believe, even if they have to take it literally to do so. It's parable. Religious "stories" used to explain how their "God" works. Thinking about it, if Genesis said "One day, God created the earth, blah blah etc., and saw that it was good... 5 Million years later he decided it was time to throw some animals in the water..." it doesn't have the same religious feel, which is what people craved in the times of the bible, when people were God-fearing.

OK, that'll do... That's a lot of ramble... Hope it makes sense.

Volumnius Flush
07-11-2005, 03:41 AM
RULE: People with poor spelling abilities should avoid trying to sound grand.
ILLUSTRATION: Volumnius Flush spelling "thee" as "the", and thus creating a borderline nonsensical post. Condemnation surrounds the what? The condemnation tree?

Believe it or not, some modern day texts have replace "thee" with "the" as a more direct, an substitutable option to the archaic "thee". I prefer a more abbreviated and common word, such as "the", to be multi-purpose.

RULE: In a debate, claiming absolute authority for a source is usually a bad move.
ILLUSTRATION: Again Volumnius Flush had shown his civic-mindedness. By cunningly replacing any actual argument with a declaration that the Bible is absolute authority, he has shown just how ridiculous a post can get.


Who said it was a debate? Even so, if you believe in the authenticity of a text, you shouldn't try to reword it to satisfy your own belief.

RULE: If two arguments clash, the one yelling about "satanic belief structures" is usually the loser.
ILLUSTRATION: Volumnius Flush's selflessness knows no bounds. Abandoning any pretence at reasoned argument and setting himself up as a laughingstock, he bravely shows that Christian fundamentalism is a nearly completely useless arguing tool, as its proponents resort to name-calling to make their nonexistent points.

In bold, an interesting point, because I've spoken with a lot of atheists who think they're proving something by name-calling unto me. If I was remotely serious, I could make a good argument. I've been here 9 hours so far, I'm tired. You want to argue? Post again. And if it appeases you, I will use thee, maybe I'll sound a little more intelligent. Even the Circle of Fifths is in the works of being replaced by Circle of Fourths.

Volumnius Flush
07-11-2005, 03:46 AM
:lol: I'm sorry, I just wanted to use the word "tit" in a post. Seriously though, I've debated this several times and I stand by my opinion that the bible doesn't "lie," it speaks in metaphor. Metaphors are used to give people greater understandings and make it easier for them to believe, even if they have to take it literally to do so. It's parable. Religious "stories" used to explain how their "God" works. Thinking about it, if Genesis said "One day, God created the earth, blah blah etc., and saw that it was good... 5 Million years later he decided it was time to throw some animals in the water..." it doesn't have the same religious feel, which is what people craved in the times of the bible, when people were God-fearing.

OK, that'll do... That's a lot of ramble... Hope it makes sense.

I don't need any god metaphorizing to me. I don't need any writer trying to dumb down a verse because "I might can't understand it". This is where wackos like me come in, take this stuff seriously, and then are shot down by equally wacky scientists who want suggest otherwise. As it is, I believe I have the reading comprehension to understand that an all-knowing GOd wouldn't have me believe anything but the truth, and I believe what it says. A day is a day.

Futue te Ipsum
07-11-2005, 03:48 AM
RULE: People with poor spelling abilities should avoid trying to sound grand.
ILLUSTRATION: Volumnius Flush spelling "thee" as "the", and thus creating a borderline nonsensical post. Condemnation surrounds the what? The condemnation tree?

RULE: In a debate, claiming absolute authority for a source is usually a bad move.
ILLUSTRATION: Again Volumnius Flush had shown his civic-mindedness. By cunningly replacing any actual argument with a declaration that the Bible is absolute authority, he has shown just how ridiculous a post can get.

RULE: If two arguments clash, the one yelling about "satanic belief structures" is usually the loser.
ILLUSTRATION: Volumnius Flush's selflessness knows no bounds. Abandoning any pretence at reasoned argument and setting himself up as a laughingstock, he bravely shows that Christian fundamentalism is a nearly completely useless arguing tool, as its proponents resort to name-calling to make their nonexistent points.

I wish I could still + rep. Bravo.

Volumnius Flush
07-11-2005, 03:49 AM
I wish I could still + rep. Bravo.


The feeling is mutual. I would derep you.

denboy
07-11-2005, 03:50 AM
The feeling is mutual. I would derep you.

Why would you derep him for repping someone else?

Futue te Ipsum
07-11-2005, 03:51 AM
why? For disagreeing with you? How very asinine.

Simon__Thats_All
07-11-2005, 03:52 AM
In literal terms a day is a day. In metaphoric terms a "day" could be any amount of time.
Your all-knowing God gave you free will. That is, he gave you the option to choose. If you choose to take it 100% literally, that's your perogative and you can't blame God. Consider for a moment that my original statement might be right... Doesn't that seem to make more sense than you saying creature whom we have irrefutable evidence of the existence of never actually existed?

Volumnius Flush
07-11-2005, 03:52 AM
why? For disagreeing with you? How very asinine.


If you want to play dirty, I'll bring the mud.



Why would you derep him for repping someone else?


Because, build up the enemy, tear them back down.

Smokey D
07-11-2005, 03:54 AM
Believe it or not, some modern day texts have replace "thee" with "the" as a more direct, an substitutable option to the archaic "thee". I prefer a more abbreviated and common word, such as "the", to be multi-purpose.


It's not.

Volumnius Flush
07-11-2005, 03:55 AM
Doesn't that seem to make more sense than you saying creature whom we have irrefutable evidence of the existence of never actually existed?

Irrefutable? I've yet to see a fossil. I've yet to trust carbon-dating. The only way I see dinosaurs existing is that they were created on the 6th day and they became extinct sometime between then and now. That's the only way.

Simon__Thats_All
07-11-2005, 04:01 AM
Irrefutable? I've yet to see a fossil. I've yet to trust carbon-dating. The only way I see dinosaurs existing is that they were created on the 6th day and they became extinct sometime between then and now. That's the only way.
You've never been to a museum with a dinosaur skeleton? They're amazing. Also, if you follow my logic, and they (the land-walkers) were created on the 5th day actually if I remember correctly, the gives them millions of years in which to live and die before human life begins on the 6th day.

Volumnius Flush
07-11-2005, 04:04 AM
You've never been to a museum with a dinosaur skeleton? They're amazing. Also, if you follow my logic, and they (the land-walkers) were created on the 5th day actually if I remember correctly, the gives them millions of years in which to live and die before human life begins on the 6th day.

Wrong. Humans and dinosaurs were created on the 6th day. If what you say is right, it may be that dinosaurs were created at the beginning of the day, and humans at the end. But I don't like your reasoning.

King
07-11-2005, 04:08 AM
MattSharp up above states that dinosaur fossils "hundreds of millions of years old" and a "6000 year old" Earth is a mystery. Think about it. If I keep the time the same way God did in the first few books of the Bible, then someone's lying. Maybe the scientists and their carbon-dating. I think the scientists are the culprits here. The godless bastards. It was a hoax started by Satan and continued on by the scientists. Dinosaurs never existed.

oh, shut up you fucking bible-thumping bastard. Dinosaurs existed, and you know it. For christ sakes, do you have any claim as to why trusted scientists would participate in such a rediculous hoax such as digging up fake bones to make people believe there were dinosaurs, because they are involved in a little escapade with "Satan". Seriously, keep this shit up and no one will take you seriously.

Volumnius Flush
07-11-2005, 04:10 AM
oh, shut up you fucking bible-thumping bastard. Dinosaurs existed, and you know it. For christ sakes, do you have any claim as to why trusted scientists would participate in such a rediculous hoax such as digging up fake bones to make people believe there were dinosaurs, because they are involved in a little escapade with "Satan". Seriously, keep this shit up and no one will take you seriously.


What page did you find that on? Like 20? You're a little late.

King
07-11-2005, 04:12 AM
What page did you find that on? Like 20? You're a little late.

So? I'm just responding to your idiocy. Nice comeback.

Simon__Thats_All
07-11-2005, 04:16 AM
Wrong. Humans and dinosaurs were created on the 6th day. If what you say is right, it may be that dinosaurs were created at the beginning of the day, and humans at the end. But I don't like your reasoning.
Fine *gets bible* Fair enough. Land-walking dinosaurs and humans were created on the same "day," the 6th, while the "sea monsters" were created on the 5th. Like I said, in my opinion these "days" covered millions of years. And whether or not you like my reasoning I think it makes much more sense than yours.

Volumnius Flush
07-11-2005, 04:17 AM
Fine *gets bible* Fair enough. Land-walking dinosaurs and humans were created on the same "day," the 6th, while the "sea monsters" were created on the 5th. Like I said, in my opinion these "days" covered millions of years. And whether or not you like my reasoning I think it makes much more sense than yours.


Because everyone knows we must take the Bible with a grain of salt. :rolleyes:

Simon__Thats_All
07-11-2005, 04:19 AM
Because everyone knows we must take the Bible with a grain of salt. :rolleyes:
Um... a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down? I don't know what you're implying.

Edit: Actually... "A spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down"... That's not a bad way of explaining my theory of the bible using parables to make sense of tragic events (eg, Noah's Ark, Sodom & Gammorah etc.) :)

Volumnius Flush
07-11-2005, 04:21 AM
Um... a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down? I don't know what you're implying.

No. I'm saying if you can't read the Bible without getting confused, what can you trust? Science? I don't want it to end up that way.

Simon__Thats_All
07-11-2005, 04:24 AM
No. I'm saying if you can't read the Bible without getting confused, what can you trust? Science? I don't want it to end up that way.
The bible is meant to be at least a little mysterious. It's meant to leave us asking questions. You have to be very strong in faith to not ask questions after reading the bible.
But anyway, my initial point was directly from the bible anyway, not science... Science simply supports my argument.

chimp_spanner
07-11-2005, 04:53 AM
If you will, take a look at this picture.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/9462/imageone3qh.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

That, is one very tiny patch of the night sky. The telescope used was set to view the most distant objects possible, at the time. Most of the brighter disc shaped objects in that picture are galaxies. Even at the universally constant speed of light, their "image" has taken millions and millions of years to reach us, and they had likely been in existence even longer than that.

Your "young Earth" theory is wrong. According to the literal translation of the Bible, God created stars ("luminaries") after he had created mountains, oceans, an atmosphere in the space of a few days (which in itself is absurd, as there are geological structures on Earth that can be proven without doubt to be older than you say the Earth itself is!). Which causes a problem. For you that is. How can the light from these stars and galaxies take longer to reach us than they have been in existence for?

I know this is not related to Dinosaurs. But it doesn't have to be. It just serves to highlight my point that the "classical" version of events as told by the Bible, is incompatible with what we know to be the truth.

I'm not attacking anyone's faith here. I'm not even disputing the existence of God. That is another matter entirely. I'm saying that there is no way you can accept the word of a book written by primitive man as any sort of accurate account of the creation of the Earth, or the Universe.

Seeing how it appears to be a favourite past time of yours, lets abandon common sense for a moment. Had you given Moses (assuming you believe he wrote Genesis), oh I dunno, an orbiting space telescope, land based radio telescope dishes, space probes, and the equipment to interpret the resulting data, Genesis would have been written alot differently. But you'd still believe it to be the word of God. That is my fundamental problem with it all. The word of God, whether supposedly direct, or written by someone under the influence of the holy spirit, should be absolute. It should not change depending on the knowledge available at the time. God's knowledge should be THE knowledge.

This applies to other "hot topics" in this thread; Dinosaurs, evolution, etc. etc.

I'm not saying God was wrong. I'm saying people were, in certain cases, wrong. And people, ultimately, wrote the Bible.

Trivium
07-11-2005, 08:13 AM
amazing post, however what they will respond with is:

"If god could create man in a mature form, he can create a universe in a mature form"

I think any sensible person would think that was a great post and had really good points, however the few creationists here are to blind to accept that.

If I could give you rep's I would, that was well put together

Cain
07-11-2005, 08:18 AM
Irrefutable? I've yet to see a fossil. I've yet to trust carbon-dating. The only way I see dinosaurs existing is that they were created on the 6th day and they became extinct sometime between then and now. That's the only way.

Someone should have a division in government to make people like you see reason by taking you to see and examine for yourself everything in which you do not "trust."

EDIT: Chimp_spanner, great job. I'll put in a request in the rep request thread that you be repped for that post. :)

Trivium
07-11-2005, 08:23 AM
Or he could just go to a museum, there are thousands of them around the country, all employing thousands of people more intelligent than you and I who will undoubtedly claim that the earth is roughly 3000,000,000 years old.

There are so many things that dont take 6000 years. Plate tectonics, species becoming extinct, THE ICE AGE 20,000 years ago (what do you have to say to that), Dinosaurs, Wolly mammoths, Coal which is just the remains of plants that are tens of thousands if not more years old, Oil, Written history according to man has been dated farther than you say.

There are references to the number Pi around 4000-5000 B.C by an egyptian scribe. That takes a pretty advanced civilization.

Im sure with research, I could name thousands if not millions of natural occurances that contradict your statements.

Der ‹bermensch
07-11-2005, 08:40 AM
Irrefutable? I've yet to see a fossil. I've yet to trust carbon-dating. The only way I see dinosaurs existing is that they were created on the 6th day and they became extinct sometime between then and now. That's the only way.

Then go to a museum maybe.... They have fossils there. Hell, I own a few fossils - a small rock with some tribolites (or what ever they are called - little horseshoe crab like things).

As for carbon dating, I thought I already established that Carbon dating is ineffective past 20,000 years or so, so is pointless when it comes to this debate.

chimp_spanner
07-11-2005, 09:03 AM
Much obliged Trivium, Cain. Didn't know this board had a rep system. Well not any more! Neat :thumb:

NoFX - Trilobites :) I have one of those spiral Nautilus fossils (not really the same, but...kinda) in a display case. It's been cut wafer thin, and buffed/polished up real good. Looks awesome.

Cain
07-11-2005, 09:59 AM
Then go to a museum maybe.... They have fossils there. Hell, I own a few fossils - a small rock with some tribolites (or what ever they are called - little horseshoe crab like things).

As for carbon dating, I thought I already established that Carbon dating is ineffective past 20,000 years or so, so is pointless when it comes to this debate.

That's actually true, my mistake. For dinosaur fossils they discover how old they are by the layer of rock they find them in, right?

hitchface2001
07-11-2005, 10:12 AM
amazing post, however what they will respond with is:

"If god could create man in a mature form, he can create a universe in a mature form"

I think any sensible person would think that was a great post and had really good points, however the few creationists here are to blind to accept that.

If I could give you rep's I would, that was well put together

Funny how you referenced that post, though you never responded to it. I will agree that his post had amazing points to it, though if indeed our God is omnipotent (which I obviously believe to be true), what is to stop Him from doing these things? I want you to answer that one question. A part of debating an isssue is seeing the other side to at very least some degree.

I personally have come to the conclusion that dinosaurs did at one point exist, though as to their time period and importance to the Bible in any way, it deserves questioning.

GimmeSlack12
07-11-2005, 10:37 AM
As for carbon dating, I thought I already established that Carbon dating is ineffective past 20,000 years or so, so is pointless when it comes to this debate.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Potassium_argon_dating

Ok, to set this straight once and for all. Yes, Carbon Dating becomes inaccurate after a certain amount of time. Yet, Potassium-Argon Dating picks up from there. Objects that span from 100,000 to 4.5 billion years ago can be dated using the inert gas of Argon. So the question of "when" is still answered by a very accurate degree of measurement.

Dino's existed. Fossils exist today. And the reasoning that man had 2,000 years ago is ultimately flawed when compared to our knowledge today.

Der ‹bermensch
07-11-2005, 12:07 PM
That's actually true, my mistake. For dinosaur fossils they discover how old they are by the layer of rock they find them in, right?

ja, or K-Argon dating as gimmieslack mentioned.

Carbon dating is only for human remains and artifacts.

the_uber_penguin
07-11-2005, 03:35 PM
I just imagine dinosaurs as these horrible and vile creatures and wonder why God would ever want to make them. And then I just can't see how it could be possible for them to exist with my current beliefs(example being the literal 7-day interpretation). And a worthy option is that it is a hoax and God truly wouldn't create such a vile creature.

Where are you at anyway? England?

Sorry to dig a point several pages old...I think it came up recantly anyway...

I'm trying to remember who the taxonimist (person who classifies animals into genus, species, etc...) was famously quoted as answering something along the lines of "He [God] had an inordinate interest in beatles" when asked something along the lines of "What do you make of God's creation?".

The point here is that beatles, earwigs, cockroaches, etc... are not beautiful creatures either: they are by human accounts pretty vile and horrible, just like you describe dinosaurs. I'm sure you can't deny their existance, I'm sure you've seen them, they're common as muck.

By your logic here, God wouldn't make these creatures either, unless he had different perceptions as to what is beautiful. If you choose to accept that, however, you would also have to accept that God could find dinosaurs beautiful.

Just to prove that different things are beautiful to different entities (and God counts here):

I love the music of Iron Maiden, I think its very melodic and beautiful. My band think it is overblown wankery.

Many people in R&M would proclaim one song another by Opeth as the most beautiful thing ever written: all I hear is noise.

Simon__Thats_All
07-11-2005, 06:05 PM
Volumnius Flush, I'm sorry, but your arrogance annoys me. How can you still debate the existence of dinosaurs with everything that has been said against your theory? FACTS to back up the oposition in fact that you've simply turned a blind eye to, when you have nothing what so ever except your decision to take the creation literally that at all backs up your argument? Open your eyes man! The proof is here. Try re-reading this thread with an open mind, instead of the stubborn way you have been. I've tried to see your point of view, but to me it seems like it is impossible to actually believe what you claim to believe and the only reason this thread would be started is to see how long the argument could go on for. I really hope you're not serious in this 30 pages of ramble.

Volumnius Flush
07-11-2005, 06:24 PM
Volumnius Flush, I'm sorry, but your arrogance annoys me. How can you still debate the existence of dinosaurs with everything that has been said against your theory? FACTS to back up the oposition in fact that you've simply turned a blind eye to, when you have nothing what so ever except your decision to take the creation literally that at all backs up your argument? Open your eyes man! The proof is here. Try re-reading this thread with an open mind, instead of the stubborn way you have been. I've tried to see your point of view, but to me it seems like it is impossible to actually believe what you claim to believe and the only reason this thread would be started is to see how long the argument could go on for. I really hope you're not serious in this 30 pages of ramble.


I'm going to talk to a pastor about it. I have a hard time not taking Genesis as a literal text. If my pastor, who I very highly respect, was open to dinosaurs being around millions of years ago as opposed to 6000 years ago, I would give it a little thought. I know I've said some pretty far out things, but if my pastor was convinced of a non-literal interpretation, I would give it a second thought.

The point here is that beatles, earwigs, cockroaches, etc... are not beautiful creatures either: they are by human accounts pretty vile and horrible, just like you describe dinosaurs. I'm sure you can't deny their existance, I'm sure you've seen them, they're common as muck.


Earwig? Yeah. That just sounds nasty to me. It sounds like a piece of hair lodged in your ear. Sounds nasty. That is a good point though. I strongly dislike cockroaches.

Simon__Thats_All
07-11-2005, 06:29 PM
I'm going to talk to a pastor about it. I have a hard time not taking Genesis as a literal text. If my pastor, who I very highly respect, was open to dinosaurs being around millions of years ago as opposed to 6000 years ago, I would give it a little thought. I know I've said some pretty far out things, but if my pastor was convinced of a non-literal interpretation, I would give it a second thought.
I feel obliged to tell you it was a priest whom I highly respect who first got me on to thinking that parts of the bible aren't meant to be taken literally.

hitchface2001
07-11-2005, 06:47 PM
There are parts that aren't meant to be taken literally. As to which ones they are, I am not sure, but there are a ton of scriptures that do indeed warrant a literal a translation. As a very basic example, the Ten Commandments.

"You shall not murder." 'Hey, that must be like...a metaphor...for like....not disposing of another life...or something...'

There are very many stories in the Bible that Jesus spoke that of course are metaphorical or use similie. The basic words behind reaping what you sow is given metaphorically in terms of a farmer sowing his fields, where that could easily be interpereted into investing or being kind to people. Either way, it isn't fully literal or fully metaphorical.

Simon__Thats_All
07-11-2005, 06:53 PM
There are parts that aren't meant to be taken literally. As to which ones they are, I am not sure, but there are a ton of scriptures that do indeed warrant a literal a translation. As a very basic example, the Ten Commandments.

"You shall not murder." 'Hey, that must be like...a metaphor...for like....not disposing of another life...or something...'

There are very many stoaries in the Bible that Jesus spoke that of course are metaphorical or use similie. The basic words behind reaping what you sow is given metaphorically in terms of a farmer sowing his fields, where that could easily be interpereted into investing or being kind to people. Either way, it isn't fully literal or fully metaphorical.
Exactly.
I think that most of the metaphorical aspects of the bible, save for the paraples that Jesus tells which are obviously metaphorical stories, are found in the Old Testament. Written well before the time of Jesus, and even longer before the writing of the New Testament, when people used religious analagys all the time to accept bad things that happen. But, again, just my opinion.