Draenor. Reptiles don't have gills. The Acanthostega had a fishlike tail and gills. And it had two sizeable limbs with eight fingers and seven toes.
Your answers are always defensive. Instead of bringing out your points you try to take down the weak spots in science. Those are being worked on by EMPIRICAL scientists. Astronomy is still quite speculative since the information we can get from space is quite limited. You can tell me all you want about your theory being better than someone else's after revealing their theories aren't bulletproof, but guess what? Your pseudo-science is full of holes to begin with. Just by saying your answer is better after revealing certain holes in other's theories doesn't make yours true. This is not EMPIRICAL science. You are not right just because someone else is wrong.
And creationists don't love the fact fossilization happens fast, since fossils can be found in different layers of sediment - also overlapping each other. Stop exaggerating just to convince yourself.
Your major arguement seems to be that speculative theoretical science is similar to theism. I will admit they share all too many similarities. However, intelligent design, neo-creationism, whatever you want to call your belief, is not EMPIRICAL.
Originally posted by Babbuun Draenor. Reptiles don't have gills. The Acanthostega had a fishlike tail and gills. And it had two sizeable limbs with eight fingers and seven toes.
Which changes nothing that I have said about transitional forms.
Your answers are always defensive. Instead of bringing out your points you try to take down the weak spots in science. Those are being worked on by EMPIRICAL scientists. Astronomy is still quite speculative since the information we can get from space is quite limited. You can tell me all you want about your theory being better than someone else's after revealing their theories aren't bulletproof, but guess what? Your pseudo-science is full of holes to begin with. Just by saying your answer is better after revealing certain holes in other's theories doesn't make yours true. This is not EMPIRICAL science. You are not right just because someone else is wrong.
My answers aren't always defensive, my answers are always follow-up questions to things that evolutionists take for granted, such as the Earth being billions of years old. And if this is your only answer to that wealth of information that I have just imparted on you about what you say you believe in, then I believe there is no need to continue this, you are clearly too closed minded about your beliefs to conduct any real scientific thought to the way evolutionists look at the universe. I just dropped a ton of information down into one post and all you give me is "well it's speculative and your science is full of holes too" ? shamefull
I should add, since you edited your post...that yes, I do believe that Christianity is no more a religion(if you want to call it a religion, some purists will say that it's simply a philosophy, I don't want to argue semantics) than evolution is. Because both require as much faith as the other, and I would argue that evolution requires even more, because it relies on discoveries that havn't even been made yet(reliable transition fossils and additional information being added to DNA, a blaring fact that evolutionists like to ignore because it completely dashes their theories to shreds)
Also, my list of evidence regarding planetary creationism in asteroids etc is not simply defensive banter trying to disprove evolution, because if you actually examine the evidence, it not only helps to disprove a theory of a billion(s) year old universe, but also it helps to prove a young universe. I don't seek to simply disprove evolution, I seek to open people's eyes about the evidence that exists regarding creation, evidence that many people seem intent on ignoring and calling "bias" when in fact the real bias is when psuedo science attempts to explain things under the assumption that the universe is billions of years old, apparently because we "know" that the universe is billions of years old...well I have news for you, we don't KNOW anything.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I didn't say your science is full of holes too. Your science was never science since it was never empirical to begin with. Your attempts at disproving of science are all good, but what you claim as information afterwards is just pure bollocks.
By believing in neo-creationsim, intelligent design you are ignoring the next facts:
The importance of trial and error in convincing people something's correct. Critique inside scientific communities. Policing of scientific communities (religious communities are beyond difficult to police).
If I decide, as a basis for my logic, to believe that the earth is ancient (by this I'm not saying it has to be 4,5 billion years old, but that it does have to be old enough to have supported the multitude of life and sediment layers that have accumulated on it's surface) and has housed a huge variety of different flora and fauna I'm ignoring one extremely abstract concept:
Originally posted by Babbuun Draenor. Reptiles don't have gills. The Acanthostega had a fishlike tail and gills. And it had two sizeable limbs with eight fingers and seven toes.
this means nothing, friend. find real evidence.
Your answers are always defensive. Instead of bringing out your points you try to take down the weak spots in science. Those are being worked on by EMPIRICAL scientists. Astronomy is still quite speculative since the information we can get from space is quite limited. You can tell me all you want about your theory being better than someone else's after revealing their theories aren't bulletproof, but guess what? Your pseudo-science is full of holes to begin with. Just by saying your answer is better after revealing certain holes in other's theories doesn't make yours true. This is not EMPIRICAL science. You are not right just because someone else is wrong.
see highlighted material, if it were fact, there wouldnt be holes or speculation.
And creationists don't love the fact fossilization happens fast, since fossils can be found in different layers of sediment - also overlapping each other. Stop exaggerating just to convince yourself.
we dont have to convince ourselves of truth, its all spelled out for us, your religion is the only one with "holes" in it, btw, you said it yourself.
Your major arguement seems to be that speculative theoretical science is similar to theism. I will admit they share all too many similarities. However, intelligent design, neo-creationism, whatever you want to call your belief, is not EMPIRICAL.
highlighted text is a contradiction in terms. if its speculative, then its not science.
If Creationism was as well proven and well supported as Evolution, Creationists wouldn't have to lie about fossil layers and how carbon dating is "wrong".
Tell me exactly where creationists "lie" about fossil layers...if anything, it's the evolutionists lying about the fossil layers
Creationists insist that humans and dinosaurs lived together (funny). As "evidence" of this they pointed to human footsprints found in the same Texas rock layers as dinosaur footprints as "proof" that the two co-existed.
There was just one problem with that...the dinosaur footprints were real but the human footprints were just chisled into the rocks during the Depression in the 1930s as a popular carnival game.
Creationists actually pointed to that as proof that the two co-existed (which would be true if the Bible was correct).
Oh, and just because something can't be fully explained dosen't mean God did it.
Oh, and Draenor on your myspace it says something about how you "defy the second law of Thermodynamics", hehe i'll break that one down for you later.
Originally posted by Babbuun I didn't say your science is full of holes too. Your science was never science since it was never empirical to begin with. Your attempts at disproving of science are all good, but what you claim as information afterwards is just pure bollocks.
"Your pseudo-science is full of holes to begin with"-Babbuun
My science isn't science? Why? Because my science operates under the notion that the universe isn't billions of years old? How can you say that the evidence that I offer aren't scientific? I just offered you scientific reasons that put your beliefs into question, not faith based questions, but scientific questions. Bollocks huh? I would say that the facts that I have presented regarding Mercury's density, asteroids, Mars' atmosphere, Saturns' rings, and the sun are all scientific reasons to question a universe that is billions of years old. Not many in the science community would reject what I have stated either and pass it off as "bollocks", they simply don't have the answers to my questions, I call this faith.
By believing in neo-creationsim, intelligent design you are ignoring the next facts:
The importance of trial and error in convincing people something's correct.
No, I'm not ignoring the basis of trial and error. I'm saying that trial and error can go on indefinitely, you're never going to prove anything with trial and error, because with evolution, you'll always run into the error, without the solution.
Critique inside scientific communities. Policing of scientific communities (religious communities are beyond difficult to police).
I am fully aware of the policing of scientific communities, because creationists do a great deal of it. Religious communities aren't impervious to such scrutiny, ever read any magazines about science? Many of them continually editorialize questions about creationism, I would call this policing, because in order to maintain credability, we must also retool our theories. I'm not saying that creationists don't ever change secondary theories. I'm saying that our basis of faith never changes, we will always believe that God created all things, whereas evolutionists can continually change doctrine and beliefs about the origins of the universe to suit their needs...I would be interested in hearing what you believe are the most major holes of creationism.
If I decide, as a basis for my logic, to believe that the earth is ancient and has housed a huge variety of different flora and fauna I'm ignoring one extremely abstract concept:
Faith in a government-imposed holybook God.
Not a tough choice for me.
And if you believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old you are ignoring extremely objective concepts, such as the brightness of the sun, the existence of comets, and the number of dying stars that have been observed. I'm not asking you to go out and read the Bible, I'm asking you to examine what you believe with an objective eye, and then take a look at what creationists believe, and then ask yourself which seems more plausable to you.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Nierro If Creationism was as well proven and well supported as Evolution, Creationists wouldn't have to lie about fossil layers and how carbon dating is "wrong". Tell me exactly where creationists "lie" about fossil layers...if anything, it's the evolutionists lying about the fossil layers Creationists insist that humans and dinosaurs lived together (funny). As "evidence" of this they pointed to human footsprints found in the same Texas rock layers as dinosaur footprints as "proof" that the two co-existed.
There was just one problem with that...the dinosaur footprints were real but the human footprints were just chisled into the rocks during the Depression in the 1930s as a popular carnival game.
Creationists actually pointed to that as proof that the two co-existed (which would be true if the Bible was correct).
Oh, and just because something can't be fully explained dosen't mean God did it.
If a human footprint alongside a T-Rex one was our only basis for believing what we do, then I would agree that our faith is a weak one indeed.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
When you have 4,000 pieces of evidence that say something didnt happen and only one piece of evidence that says something did happen its a safe bet that the something in question didnt happen. but again, the "evidence" in question is not evidence at all. Lets take another look at Noah right quick. What is there that says it didnt happen and it did happen. Against: Geological records showing a local flood around Kuwait about 2,500 years before Noah. No geologic record of a mass worldwide flood around the time of Noah. Story of a Sumerian Merchant and tribal leader that went through a flood in the region of Kuwait that coincides with the time of the local flood. Gilgamesh putting the story in his Epics. In the temple where the story of Noah was written Gilgamesh's same story of the flood found. explain clam fossils on top of Mt. Everestt For: The Bible. you never listed anything for the Bible, bias much? This is just a small list of the against side. There is alot more. But I just woke up and dont feel like going through everything.
Now on to Moses. A year ago the evidence for or against that story wasnt there. Ramses had no record of a mass exodus. According to heiroglyphs of the time Ramses didnt have a problem with jewish people. In fact they werent slaves. There was even a city built where Jews and Egyptians lived together as equals. Ramses' first born didnt die mysteriously as a young boy one night. In fact he was murdered at the age of 45 if I remember correctly. Hit in the back of the head.
Now a year ago I wouldnt have said it didnt happen. I would have said there is nothing to say it did happen. Unlike Noah where there is clear evidence that it didnt happen. With Moses there wasnt anything on either side. But scholars started looking and finally found a series of events that matched the things in the exodus quite well. All because the name of Ramses was used when it should have been Ahmose. But we can understand the translation error there since the story was written a thousand years after the fact. Its quite possible the Hebrew Priests wanted a name that would carry some weight and decided Ramses would work because he had weight. We humans are finding out more and more about ourselves and our history. From the Bible on up. But we also have to accept that some of the things we are learning is going to go against what we believe. Some people cant accept this. But a realist can. A realist doesnt want too anymore then anyone else but they can.
a true realist doesnt base any of their beliefs on faith, in order to believe in evolution, you have to have faith, or an incredibly good imagination. That is a matter of perception especially when the story was written over a thousand years after the event and you yourself even admitted that men are fallible. If the writers of the Bible can get the name of the Egyptian ruler wrong or see an insane man as possessed then they can also misinterpret a thousand year old story.
If science can get things wrong because men are fallible then so can the Bible because it was written by men. Basically this boils down to a "compromise in beliefs" Which is more credible to each individual. For you its the Bible and nothing else. For me its a mix of the two. There will come a time (probably not in our lifetimes) where science hits that perfect note and everything falls into place. People of that time will be able to know about everything that happened right down to the smallest detail. for me its the track record. youll have to forgive me, but the "sciences" havent always been the most accurate, unbias, or even truthful. look back at all the "evidences" that have come forth in the last 20 years or so that were nothing more than people wanting to prove evolution so badly that they made stuff up, going so far as to paste parts of one animal onto another. is that science? to me knowledge, nothing, stess NOTHING has been definitively disproved in the Bible. despite your "evidences", even those are subject to perception. and there is plenty of evidence to support the creationist POV. and as long as men are conducting the science, it will never hit that "perfect" note. I mean look at what we "knew" a thousand years ago and compare it to what we "know" now. Eventually we will nail it all down.
Incidently if you havent tried it I suggest you take it up. There is something awe inspiring about diving on a reef and being able to hear whale song from hundreds of miles away. Diving with Whale Sharks. Wow I cant ever express just how amazing that is. Or sitting in the middle of a barracuda tornado watching them. You truly see just how miniscule humans are at that point.
i would so love to dive, but i live to far inland/sigh but it does sound amazing.
Just a joke from Hitchiker's Guide. But wouldnt we all look like fools if it was true huh? heh
yeah, i got it, and had a pretty good laugh about it. that would be something.
But we can take a small piece of time in an event and mathmetically figure out just how long it would have took. but the destruction and amount of change that it causes should tell you that some of the changes that science dictates has to take millions of years to do may not have taken that long.
Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by Nierro Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by NierroIf Creationism was as well proven and well supported as Evolution, Creationists wouldn't have to lie about fossil layers and how carbon dating is "wrong". Tell me exactly where creationists "lie" about fossil layers.
If a human footprint alongside a T-Rex one was our only basis for believing what we do, then I would agree that our faith is a weak one indeed.
Originally posted by PlanoMM Originally posted by Babbuun Draenor. Reptiles don't have gills. The Acanthostega had a fishlike tail and gills. And it had two sizeable limbs with eight fingers and seven toes.this means nothing, friend. find real evidence.
Your answers are always defensive. Instead of bringing out your points you try to take down the weak spots in science. Those are being worked on by EMPIRICAL scientists. Astronomy is still quite speculative since the information we can get from space is quite limited. You can tell me all you want about your theory being better than someone else's after revealing their theories aren't bulletproof, but guess what? Your pseudo-science is full of holes to begin with. Just by saying your answer is better after revealing certain holes in other's theories doesn't make yours true. This is not EMPIRICAL science. You are not right just because someone else is wrong.see highlighted material, if it were fact, there wouldnt be holes or speculation.
And creationists don't love the fact fossilization happens fast, since fossils can be found in different layers of sediment - also overlapping each other. Stop exaggerating just to convince yourself.we dont have to convince ourselves of truth, its all spelled out for us, your religion is the only one with "holes" in it, btw, you said it yourself.
Your major arguement seems to be that speculative theoretical science is similar to theism. I will admit they share all too many similarities. However, intelligent design, neo-creationism, whatever you want to call your belief, is not EMPIRICAL.highlighted text is a contradiction in terms. if its speculative, then its not science.
You guys are pointing out holes in theories. My logic lies in the physical, chemical and biological basics. Sediment layers, polar caps, geological changes, biological systems are easily explained by these. I'm not trying to prove evolution or astronomy theories. I'm trying to tell you your methods are completely flawed. You go about telling others they're wrong and then try to introduce a whole lot of bs in it's place.
History is an extremely difficult thing to prove. However we can try to understand how things happen and attempt to see how things would go from there by trial and error. Astronomy and evolution are speculative theoretical science. Science because they are a depiction of what could have happened when current empirical scientific fact is used to calculate what happened to make things as they are now. Of course there will be a lot of differentiating theories and controversy, but the end product is what we have now. Generally agreed upon models that follow empirical fact. The models will change or be fortified once new empirical research methods and new fact is discovered. If you don't like it, you don't have to believe it, just don't introduce your faith-based garbage in it's stead.
Religion does not use fact to prove anything but what benefits it. This is based on history that can be somewhat proven by empirical methods. I can't completely prove I exist even now, explaining history and the composition of objects millions of kilometers away is even trickier.
Originally posted by Nierro If Creationism was as well proven and well supported as Evolution, Creationists wouldn't have to lie about fossil layers and how carbon dating is "wrong". Tell me exactly where creationists "lie" about fossil layers.
If a human footprint alongside a T-Rex one was our only basis for believing what we do, then I would agree that our faith is a weak one indeed.
I just named one because it proved you wrong. :P
Note that I never refered to the footprints to which you were refering. I don't need human footprints in the fossil layer to know that dinosaurs existed with man, they are in the Bible ...and since man didn't discover dinosaur fossils until fairly recently...hmmm
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Babbuun Draenor. Reptiles don't have gills. The Acanthostega had a fishlike tail and gills. And it had two sizeable limbs with eight fingers and seven toes. this means nothing, friend. find real evidence.
Your answers are always defensive. Instead of bringing out your points you try to take down the weak spots in science. Those are being worked on by EMPIRICAL scientists. Astronomy is still quite speculative since the information we can get from space is quite limited. You can tell me all you want about your theory being better than someone else's after revealing their theories aren't bulletproof, but guess what? Your pseudo-science is full of holes to begin with. Just by saying your answer is better after revealing certain holes in other's theories doesn't make yours true. This is not EMPIRICAL science. You are not right just because someone else is wrong. see highlighted material, if it were fact, there wouldnt be holes or speculation.
And creationists don't love the fact fossilization happens fast, since fossils can be found in different layers of sediment - also overlapping each other. Stop exaggerating just to convince yourself. we dont have to convince ourselves of truth, its all spelled out for us, your religion is the only one with "holes" in it, btw, you said it yourself.
Your major arguement seems to be that speculative theoretical science is similar to theism. I will admit they share all too many similarities. However, intelligent design, neo-creationism, whatever you want to call your belief, is not EMPIRICAL. highlighted text is a contradiction in terms. if its speculative, then its not science.
You guys are pointing out holes in theories. My logic lies in the physical, chemical and biological basics. Sediment layers, polar caps, geological changes, biological systems are easily explained by these. I'm not trying to prove evolution or astronomy theories. I'm trying to tell you your methods are completely flawed. You go about telling others they're wrong and then try to introduce a whole lot of bs in it's place.
History is an extremely difficult thing to prove. However we can try to understand how things happen and attempt to see how things would go from there by trial and error. Astronomy and evolution are speculative theoretical science. Science because they are a depiction of what could have happened when current empirical scientific fact is used to calculate what happened to make things as they are now. Of course there will be a lot of differentiating theories and controversy, but the end product is what we have now. Generally agreed upon models that follow empirical fact. The models will change or be fortified once new empirical research methods and new fact is discovered. If you don't like it, you don't have to believe it, just don't introduce your faith-based garbage in it's stead.
Religion does not use fact to prove anything but what benefits it. This is based on history that can be somewhat proven by empirical methods. I can't completely prove I exist even now, explaining history and the composition of objects millions of kilometers away is even trickier.
You've done nothing but ignore the factual evidence that I have presented to you, until you address my concerns contained in my previous post, I don't see any reason to take the things that you say as anything but the opinions of a hardcore evolutionist who ignores anything that doesn't suit his needs(much as you have accused creationists of doing in your own post)
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Note that I never refered to the footprints to which you were refering. I don't need human footprints in the fossil layer to know that dinosaurs existed with man, they are in the Bible ...and since man didn't discover dinosaur fossils until fairly recently...hmmm You're crafty.
Note that I never refered to the footprints to which you were refering. I don't need human footprints in the fossil layer to know that dinosaurs existed with man, they are in the Bible ...and since man didn't discover dinosaur fossils until fairly recently...hmmm
You're crafty.
Read the book of Job
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by Nierro
Note that I never refered to the footprints to which you were refering. I don't need human footprints in the fossil layer to know that dinosaurs existed with man, they are in the Bible ...and since man didn't discover dinosaur fossils until fairly recently...hmmm You're crafty. Read the book of Job Why can't more religeous people be like you?
You've done nothing but ignore the factual evidence that I have presented to you, until you address my concerns contained in my previous post, I don't see any reason to take the things that you say as anything but the opinions of a hardcore evolutionist who ignores anything that doesn't suit his needs(much as you have accused creationists of doing in your own post) If you haven't realized I'm an agnostic in all matters of belief yet, do so now.
The theory of evolution has not been fully backed, and might never be fully backed. I recognize this. It's a model created by scientists that have delved into the vast branches of empirical science behind history.
What doesn't suit my own needs? What empirical evidence do you think is so important it'll blow my mind? Please link it because I'd love to find out. All I've seen is partially countered theories.
Note that I never refered to the footprints to which you were refering. I don't need human footprints in the fossil layer to know that dinosaurs existed with man, they are in the Bible ...and since man didn't discover dinosaur fossils until fairly recently...hmmm
You're crafty.
Read the book of Job
Why can't more religeous people be like you?
thats more like it.
now lets address this BS:
You guys are pointing out holes in theories. My logic lies in the physical, chemical and biological basics. Sediment layers, polar caps, geological changes, biological systems are easily explained by these. only if you ignore fact. I'm not trying to prove evolution or astronomy theories. I'm trying to tell you your methods are completely flawed. You go about telling others they're wrong and then try to introduce a whole lot of bs in it's place. youre basicly saying, "youre religion doesnt work for me, try mine." because thats all it is if its speculative.
History is an extremely difficult thing to prove. However we can try to understand how things happen and attempt to see how things would go from there by trial and error. Astronomy and evolution are speculative theoretical science. Science because they are a depiction of what could have happened when current empirical scientific fact is used to calculate what happened to make things as they are now. but see, this is the point, evolution is the science of assumption. not facts. Of course there will be a lot of differentiating theories and controversy, but the end product is what we have now. Generally agreed upon models that follow empirical fact. but you just admitted that its a speculative science, eh? fact now. hmmmm..... The models will change or be fortified once new empirical research methods and new fact is discovered. totally assuming that evolution is correct, lol. how can you not see that. If you don't like it, you don't have to believe it, just don't introduce your faith-based garbage in it's stead. you mean like introducing evolution to explain what we dont understand about creation? btw, creationism has been around for 1000s of years, how long has evolution been around?
Religion does not use fact to prove anything but what benefits it. This is based on history that can be somewhat proven by empirical methods. I can't completely prove I exist even now, explaining history and the composition of objects millions of kilometers away is even trickier. but what we dont understand (as evolutionists) well just speculate and make stuff up that might explain it. how do you even take yourself seriously?
You've done nothing but ignore the factual evidence that I have presented to you, until you address my concerns contained in my previous post, I don't see any reason to take the things that you say as anything but the opinions of a hardcore evolutionist who ignores anything that doesn't suit his needs(much as you have accused creationists of doing in your own post)
If you haven't realized I'm an agnostic in all matters of belief yet, do so now.
The theory of evolution has not been fully backed, and might never be fully backed. I recognize this. It's a model created by scientists that have delved into the vast branches of empirical science behind history.
What doesn't suit my own needs? What empirical evidence do you think is so important it'll blow my mind? Please link it because I'd love to find out. All I've seen is partially countered theories.
/sigh
Was it you that rejected answersingenesis.org or was that Kai? In either case, you'll find good reference points there, obviously it's a christian based site...I don't remember who is was that thinks that websites are not a valid reference point for proving your points on a forum...I'm not sure what that person expects from us though, I suppose we could mail you a book O_O
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You've done nothing but ignore the factual evidence that I have presented to you, until you address my concerns contained in my previous post, I don't see any reason to take the things that you say as anything but the opinions of a hardcore evolutionist who ignores anything that doesn't suit his needs(much as you have accused creationists of doing in your own post)
If you haven't realized I'm an agnostic in all matters of belief yet, do so now.
The theory of evolution has not been fully backed, and might never be fully backed. I recognize this. It's a model created by scientists that have delved into the vast branches of empirical science behind history.
What doesn't suit my own needs? What empirical evidence do you think is so important it'll blow my mind? Please link it because I'd love to find out. All I've seen is partially countered theories.
the links have already been posted several times. /sigh
go back and look for them, i dont feel like bringing them all back up, besides, you just wanna argue for arguements sake. you havent been following this discussion, we know this (all of us involved) because youve used alot of the same material that some of us already have addressed. if you wanna be convinced, go find the links, we dont need to convince YOU of anything. no offense, but walking in on the buttend of a discussion and demanding proof of....well....anything is kinda dumb.
Note that I never refered to the footprints to which you were refering. I don't need human footprints in the fossil layer to know that dinosaurs existed with man, they are in the Bible ...and since man didn't discover dinosaur fossils until fairly recently...hmmm
You're crafty.
Read the book of Job
Why can't more religeous people be like you?
I dunno, a lot more than you think are though. As my "about me" on my myspace says, I'm not some 'in your face believe this of go to hell' Bible thumper. Because I realize that it doesn't work with anyone, so why waste my time?
I think the fact that I wasn't always a Christian has helped me to be able to talk about evolution vs creationism like this...because that conversion was what got me interested in the sciences of the two faiths, and intellectuals aren't into the whole 'blind faith' thing, and I myself am somewhat of an intellectual, so I know where they are coming from with their doubts.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Was it you that rejected answersingenesis.org or was that Kai? In either case, you'll find good reference points there, obviously it's a christian based site...I don't remember who is was that thinks that websites are not a valid reference point for proving your points on a forum...I'm not sure what that person expects from us though, I suppose we could mail you a book O_O
no, Draenor, they want us to pull up solid evidence of creationism. they want us to quote the highest lvl scientists stating that creationism is the truth. they want us to do what they cant do, bring forth solid evidence of our viewpoints. and ironicly, even if we did, they wouldnt believe it. lol. btw, Babbuun, you still havent answered any of the astronomy questions that Draenor has put forth. if evolution is the truth, im sure that there is a solid explanation of those issues, eh?
Note that I never refered to the footprints to which you were refering. I don't need human footprints in the fossil layer to know that dinosaurs existed with man, they are in the Bible ...and since man didn't discover dinosaur fossils until fairly recently...hmmm
You're crafty.
Read the book of Job
Why can't more religeous people be like you?
I dunno, a lot more than you think are though. As my "about me" on my myspace says, I'm not some 'in your face believe this of go to hell' Bible thumper. Because I realize that it doesn't work with anyone, so why waste my time?
I think the fact that I wasn't always a Christian has helped me to be able to talk about evolution vs creationism like this...because that conversion was what got me interested in the sciences of the two faiths, and intellectuals aren't into the whole 'blind faith' thing, and I myself am somewhat of an intellectual, so I know where they are coming from with their doubts.
Creationism has existed in it's current state for a few decades and the people running it are making $$$. How are sediment layers, the settling of polar ice caps and the functioning of biological organisms ignoring facts?
When the bible was the only book in print, did things get better? No. It was called the dark ages.
When other releases were allowed, did things get better? Yes.
Read basic science books, you'll learn things that happen in practice. Read a holy book, you'll learn about things are sort of practical from time to time.
Ok. I'm not an agnostic, I'm a pragmatist. I was wrong.
And the sites you've linked: All I've seen is ambigously incitive and commercial stuff with little fact to go on apart from biblical reference and scientific reference where needed. Mixing the two just makes me sick.
I'm no expert in astronomy. But the facts put forth by draenor could be just incitive bs. Also how the rings formed on distant planets is a distant issue. How things that are just at the edge of our comprehension formed is also a distant issue. I'm talking practical in your face use: Empirical science > religion. Hands down. Practicality. Think about it.
Originally posted by Babbuun Creationism has existed in it's current state for a few decades and the people running it are making $$$. How are sediment layers, the settling of polar ice caps and the functioning of biological organisms ignoring facts?
lol, ok, so now, sediment layers, polar ice caps, and biology is proof of evolution? youll be interested to note that creationism does explain every one of those, lol, quite adquately. in fact, evolution doesnt.
When the bible was the only book in print, did things get better? No. It was called the dark ages.
lmao, so the Bible was the only book in print during the dark ages, omg, that is funny. and the best part here is the fact that during the dark ages, the church (catholic) decided that the layman couldnt understand the Bible, so they werent allowed to read it, kinda the arguement against your theory, eh?
When other releases were allowed, did things get better? Yes.
you mean like, oO i dont know, Protestants, Methodists, and the like, lol, science has been around for as long as the church (catholic) if not longer. science in and of itself doesnt make anything better.
Read basic science books, you'll learn things that happen in practice. Read a holy book, you'll learn about things are sort of practical from time to time.
read basic science books? you mean like the ones that teach evolution as scientific fact to our children? ironic, isnt it? that a theory is being taught to our very impressionable young children at the youngest age allowed. but creationism isnt even considered in the public schools. propraganda maybe? hit em when theyre young and theyll defend it when theyre old. btw, thats Bible. just like one person said that he only goes to a catholic church because thats what he was taught when he was young. is it starting to come into focus for you yet?
Ok. I'm not an agnostic, I'm a pragmatist. I was wrong.
Comments
Draenor. Reptiles don't have gills. The Acanthostega had a fishlike tail and gills. And it had two sizeable limbs with eight fingers and seven toes.
Your answers are always defensive. Instead of bringing out your points you try to take down the weak spots in science. Those are being worked on by EMPIRICAL scientists. Astronomy is still quite speculative since the information we can get from space is quite limited. You can tell me all you want about your theory being better than someone else's after revealing their theories aren't bulletproof, but guess what? Your pseudo-science is full of holes to begin with. Just by saying your answer is better after revealing certain holes in other's theories doesn't make yours true. This is not EMPIRICAL science. You are not right just because someone else is wrong.
And creationists don't love the fact fossilization happens fast, since fossils can be found in different layers of sediment - also overlapping each other. Stop exaggerating just to convince yourself.
Your major arguement seems to be that speculative theoretical science is similar to theism. I will admit they share all too many similarities. However, intelligent design, neo-creationism, whatever you want to call your belief, is not EMPIRICAL.
I should add, since you edited your post...that yes, I do believe that Christianity is no more a religion(if you want to call it a religion, some purists will say that it's simply a philosophy, I don't want to argue semantics) than evolution is. Because both require as much faith as the other, and I would argue that evolution requires even more, because it relies on discoveries that havn't even been made yet(reliable transition fossils and additional information being added to DNA, a blaring fact that evolutionists like to ignore because it completely dashes their theories to shreds)
Also, my list of evidence regarding planetary creationism in asteroids etc is not simply defensive banter trying to disprove evolution, because if you actually examine the evidence, it not only helps to disprove a theory of a billion(s) year old universe, but also it helps to prove a young universe. I don't seek to simply disprove evolution, I seek to open people's eyes about the evidence that exists regarding creation, evidence that many people seem intent on ignoring and calling "bias" when in fact the real bias is when psuedo science attempts to explain things under the assumption that the universe is billions of years old, apparently because we "know" that the universe is billions of years old...well I have news for you, we don't KNOW anything.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I didn't say your science is full of holes too. Your science was never science since it was never empirical to begin with. Your attempts at disproving of science are all good, but what you claim as information afterwards is just pure bollocks.
By believing in neo-creationsim, intelligent design you are ignoring the next facts:
The importance of trial and error in convincing people something's correct.
Critique inside scientific communities.
Policing of scientific communities (religious communities are beyond difficult to police).
If I decide, as a basis for my logic, to believe that the earth is ancient (by this I'm not saying it has to be 4,5 billion years old, but that it does have to be old enough to have supported the multitude of life and sediment layers that have accumulated on it's surface) and has housed a huge variety of different flora and fauna I'm ignoring one extremely abstract concept:
Faith in a government-imposed holybook God.
Not a tough choice for me.
______________________________
Oh, and Draenor on your myspace it says something about how you "defy the second law of Thermodynamics", hehe i'll break that one down for you later.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Oh, and just because something can't be fully explained dosen't mean God did it.
If a human footprint alongside a T-Rex one was our only basis for believing what we do, then I would agree that our faith is a weak one indeed.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
also Nierro, the one instance that you are refering to is not the only case of human footprints being found with Dinosaur ones...
http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q3_bible_dinosaurs.html
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
______________________________
If a human footprint alongside a T-Rex one was our only basis for believing what we do, then I would agree that our faith is a weak one indeed.
I just named one because it proved you wrong. :P
You guys are pointing out holes in theories. My logic lies in the physical, chemical and biological basics. Sediment layers, polar caps, geological changes, biological systems are easily explained by these. I'm not trying to prove evolution or astronomy theories. I'm trying to tell you your methods are completely flawed. You go about telling others they're wrong and then try to introduce a whole lot of bs in it's place.
History is an extremely difficult thing to prove. However we can try to understand how things happen and attempt to see how things would go from there by trial and error. Astronomy and evolution are speculative theoretical science. Science because they are a depiction of what could have happened when current empirical scientific fact is used to calculate what happened to make things as they are now. Of course there will be a lot of differentiating theories and controversy, but the end product is what we have now. Generally agreed upon models that follow empirical fact. The models will change or be fortified once new empirical research methods and new fact is discovered. If you don't like it, you don't have to believe it, just don't introduce your faith-based garbage in it's stead.
Religion does not use fact to prove anything but what benefits it. This is based on history that can be somewhat proven by empirical methods. I can't completely prove I exist even now, explaining history and the composition of objects millions of kilometers away is even trickier.
If a human footprint alongside a T-Rex one was our only basis for believing what we do, then I would agree that our faith is a weak one indeed.
I just named one because it proved you wrong. :P
Note that I never refered to the footprints to which you were refering. I don't need human footprints in the fossil layer to know that dinosaurs existed with man, they are in the Bible
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You guys are pointing out holes in theories. My logic lies in the physical, chemical and biological basics. Sediment layers, polar caps, geological changes, biological systems are easily explained by these. I'm not trying to prove evolution or astronomy theories. I'm trying to tell you your methods are completely flawed. You go about telling others they're wrong and then try to introduce a whole lot of bs in it's place.
History is an extremely difficult thing to prove. However we can try to understand how things happen and attempt to see how things would go from there by trial and error. Astronomy and evolution are speculative theoretical science. Science because they are a depiction of what could have happened when current empirical scientific fact is used to calculate what happened to make things as they are now. Of course there will be a lot of differentiating theories and controversy, but the end product is what we have now. Generally agreed upon models that follow empirical fact. The models will change or be fortified once new empirical research methods and new fact is discovered. If you don't like it, you don't have to believe it, just don't introduce your faith-based garbage in it's stead.
Religion does not use fact to prove anything but what benefits it. This is based on history that can be somewhat proven by empirical methods. I can't completely prove I exist even now, explaining history and the composition of objects millions of kilometers away is even trickier.
You've done nothing but ignore the factual evidence that I have presented to you, until you address my concerns contained in my previous post, I don't see any reason to take the things that you say as anything but the opinions of a hardcore evolutionist who ignores anything that doesn't suit his needs(much as you have accused creationists of doing in your own post)
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You're crafty.
You're crafty.
Read the book of Job
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You're crafty.
Read the book of Job
Why can't more religeous people be like you?
If you haven't realized I'm an agnostic in all matters of belief yet, do so now.
The theory of evolution has not been fully backed, and might never be fully backed. I recognize this. It's a model created by scientists that have delved into the vast branches of empirical science behind history.
What doesn't suit my own needs? What empirical evidence do you think is so important it'll blow my mind? Please link it because I'd love to find out. All I've seen is partially countered theories.
You're crafty.
Read the book of Job
Why can't more religeous people be like you?
thats more like it.
now lets address this BS:
You guys are pointing out holes in theories. My logic lies in the physical, chemical and biological basics. Sediment layers, polar caps, geological changes, biological systems are easily explained by these. only if you ignore fact. I'm not trying to prove evolution or astronomy theories. I'm trying to tell you your methods are completely flawed. You go about telling others they're wrong and then try to introduce a whole lot of bs in it's place. youre basicly saying, "youre religion doesnt work for me, try mine." because thats all it is if its speculative.
History is an extremely difficult thing to prove. However we can try to understand how things happen and attempt to see how things would go from there by trial and error. Astronomy and evolution are speculative theoretical science. Science because they are a depiction of what could have happened when current empirical scientific fact is used to calculate what happened to make things as they are now. but see, this is the point, evolution is the science of assumption. not facts. Of course there will be a lot of differentiating theories and controversy, but the end product is what we have now. Generally agreed upon models that follow empirical fact. but you just admitted that its a speculative science, eh? fact now. hmmmm..... The models will change or be fortified once new empirical research methods and new fact is discovered. totally assuming that evolution is correct, lol. how can you not see that. If you don't like it, you don't have to believe it, just don't introduce your faith-based garbage in it's stead. you mean like introducing evolution to explain what we dont understand about creation? btw, creationism has been around for 1000s of years, how long has evolution been around?
Religion does not use fact to prove anything but what benefits it. This is based on history that can be somewhat proven by empirical methods. I can't completely prove I exist even now, explaining history and the composition of objects millions of kilometers away is even trickier. but what we dont understand (as evolutionists) well just speculate and make stuff up that might explain it. how do you even take yourself seriously?
______________________________
If you haven't realized I'm an agnostic in all matters of belief yet, do so now.
The theory of evolution has not been fully backed, and might never be fully backed. I recognize this. It's a model created by scientists that have delved into the vast branches of empirical science behind history.
What doesn't suit my own needs? What empirical evidence do you think is so important it'll blow my mind? Please link it because I'd love to find out. All I've seen is partially countered theories.
/sigh
Was it you that rejected answersingenesis.org or was that Kai? In either case, you'll find good reference points there, obviously it's a christian based site...I don't remember who is was that thinks that websites are not a valid reference point for proving your points on a forum...I'm not sure what that person expects from us though, I suppose we could mail you a book O_O
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
If you haven't realized I'm an agnostic in all matters of belief yet, do so now.
The theory of evolution has not been fully backed, and might never be fully backed. I recognize this. It's a model created by scientists that have delved into the vast branches of empirical science behind history.
What doesn't suit my own needs? What empirical evidence do you think is so important it'll blow my mind? Please link it because I'd love to find out. All I've seen is partially countered theories.
the links have already been posted several times. /sigh
go back and look for them, i dont feel like bringing them all back up, besides, you just wanna argue for arguements sake. you havent been following this discussion, we know this (all of us involved) because youve used alot of the same material that some of us already have addressed. if you wanna be convinced, go find the links, we dont need to convince YOU of anything. no offense, but walking in on the buttend of a discussion and demanding proof of....well....anything is kinda dumb.
______________________________
You're crafty.
Read the book of Job
Why can't more religeous people be like you?
I dunno, a lot more than you think are though. As my "about me" on my myspace says, I'm not some 'in your face believe this of go to hell' Bible thumper. Because I realize that it doesn't work with anyone, so why waste my time?
I think the fact that I wasn't always a Christian has helped me to be able to talk about evolution vs creationism like this...because that conversion was what got me interested in the sciences of the two faiths, and intellectuals aren't into the whole 'blind faith' thing, and I myself am somewhat of an intellectual, so I know where they are coming from with their doubts.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
/sigh
Was it you that rejected answersingenesis.org or was that Kai? In either case, you'll find good reference points there, obviously it's a christian based site...I don't remember who is was that thinks that websites are not a valid reference point for proving your points on a forum...I'm not sure what that person expects from us though, I suppose we could mail you a book O_O
no, Draenor, they want us to pull up solid evidence of creationism. they want us to quote the highest lvl scientists stating that creationism is the truth. they want us to do what they cant do, bring forth solid evidence of our viewpoints. and ironicly, even if we did, they wouldnt believe it. lol. btw, Babbuun, you still havent answered any of the astronomy questions that Draenor has put forth. if evolution is the truth, im sure that there is a solid explanation of those issues, eh?
______________________________
You're crafty.
Read the book of Job
Why can't more religeous people be like you?
I dunno, a lot more than you think are though. As my "about me" on my myspace says, I'm not some 'in your face believe this of go to hell' Bible thumper. Because I realize that it doesn't work with anyone, so why waste my time?
I think the fact that I wasn't always a Christian has helped me to be able to talk about evolution vs creationism like this...because that conversion was what got me interested in the sciences of the two faiths, and intellectuals aren't into the whole 'blind faith' thing, and I myself am somewhat of an intellectual, so I know where they are coming from with their doubts.
/agrees
same
______________________________
Creationism has existed in it's current state for a few decades and the people running it are making $$$. How are sediment layers, the settling of polar ice caps and the functioning of biological organisms ignoring facts?
When the bible was the only book in print, did things get better? No. It was called the dark ages.
When other releases were allowed, did things get better? Yes.
Read basic science books, you'll learn things that happen in practice. Read a holy book, you'll learn about things are sort of practical from time to time.
Ok. I'm not an agnostic, I'm a pragmatist. I was wrong.
And the sites you've linked: All I've seen is ambigously incitive and commercial stuff with little fact to go on apart from biblical reference and scientific reference where needed. Mixing the two just makes me sick.
I'm no expert in astronomy. But the facts put forth by draenor could be just incitive bs. Also how the rings formed on distant planets is a distant issue. How things that are just at the edge of our comprehension formed is also a distant issue. I'm talking practical in your face use: Empirical science > religion. Hands down. Practicality. Think about it.
______________________________
