I bet that kid is popular in class
“Note: Just to let you it is not that we don’t believe in things like that, it is just misleading when you talk about it being billions of years old, when we all know that the world is only about 6,000 years old. So why would I pay so that you can misslead my children, your world is just a revolving(?), ours has a start and an end. God created the world. He created animals and man all in the same week. It was also Adam who named all the animals, they will do the essay ‘Rock and Minerals’ but it might not be 5 pages long, and about billions of years, it will be according to the Bible.”
Picture by: dunno source Submitted by: dunno source via Fail Uploader
Add this to your blog:
(Copy & paste code)
You May Like:
Granite be real?
Of quartz it can
Andesite the bible here…..
That was very igneous of you. I actually had to look it up.
I Sodalite being a geology buff!
It shows. I’m kind of obsidian when it comes to this stuff.
…Not your basalt, I just like the pretty colours!
what the rock?
No. You ruined it. This ISN’T THE FLINTSTONES!!!
Ahh Schist I screwed up
I always thought the class was a painite in the amosite. But then again I had a lousy Professor
Ah carbon, he sounds like a diamond!
No. just like pyrite, he was nothing but a fool’s gold.
Wow he just gypsum!
We all had to sulpher through his classes.
correction, sulfer.
Rhyolite mine still!
We had a feeling he wasn’t someone who scorzalite. maybe that was his problem.
Sedimentary my dear Watson.
*searches internet for more geology ‘word play’ sites* but K’s already been to all the good ones
I Mica said that was true, but it isn’t, these are the ones I remember.
Feldspar *does jazz hands*
If you seduce someone geologically, you’ll be cummingtonite!
This is a siliconversation.
I Pumice I will behave.
*pouts*
omg u ppl r insane. INSANE! *boggle*
Tuff schist, kid. Tuff schist.
Play Gneiss now.
Ugh geologist jokes.
They must be stoned to make so many jokes.
ccccccombo breaaakker
It doesn’t matter how much we talc about this subject, we can never start off with a clean slate.
This made me lose my apatite.
oh shist these comments are win
Too bad Adam and Eve took the apple from the Serpentine.
Compared to science, creationism is just fool’s gold.
Srsly now people, rock it off This is just getting silica!
Man, you guys are making lose my apatite.
Seriously, though, this conversation is pretty colemanite.
OH!! A bio major just went rare mineral on your topaz…es.
smirkitty: No they are not insane, they are morain!
LOL You guys beryl me over ‘=)
alright geysers time to lay off the hot source….meh best I could do
What a couple of igneous his parents are. I mean, total isodopes. I’ll bet they can’t even work a radiolarian. The kid’ll grow up to have a really tuff life. Won’t even be able to afford a cheap ore for a pretend subduction.
c’mon, you coal do better than that
you guys are wacke!
Do a beryl roll!
is this too late, but i just found u. ive never metamorphic person than u.
All these puns are so Gneiss.
I was afraid to try my hands at a pun, but now I’m a little boulder.
&”k@ the custard fairy & IgnoreButton™” & guybo1 – I love you!
We should really quit making such a sphene.
You should never take other people’s intelligence for granite, it just goes to show.
this conglomerate of jokes is epic
i would like to strike that dip schist where it lherzolite. them parents are just two mohos
this thread rocks
Total zeolites, these parents.
This whole thing is making me sulfurious.
Poor children… The parents have Norite to do these things. These kids are in Aplite. It must be Tuff for these kids.
I can just sense that this whole subject has ALREADY started a flame war. It was just waiting to Lignite.
you geokids and your puns made me smile! The creationists, though, make me cry for that poor child’s future. 6000 years old? REALLY?? Come on people, wake up and smell the sulfur, the bible’s all metaphoric, and anyone who takes it literally is a tard.
evolution is a philosophy, not science and nowhere near proven fact. You need to look at both sides of the argument and see where the evidence points to and make your decision. Time is the enemy of evolution. If the universe was millions of years old, it would no longer exist because it is proven that the universe is slowing down, i.e. the sun is dying out, the speed of light is slowing down. One question: where are all of the fossils of the creatures in the evolutionary chain and why are we not seeing any obvious signs of evolution today? And before anyone goes and bashes the Bible, maybe you should try reading through it with an impartial attitude. I’m sorry, but most of it is not metaphorical.
One side being full of evidence and fact, and one side being stipulation and postulation. I love the standard argument. “Why haven’t I seen an evolution!”
It’s a philosophy! Just like gravity was!
as an ex-science major, you get to see all the holes is the theory of evolution. and carbon dating is very inaccurate since you have to first date the rocks and soil around the fossil to get the date of the fossil. so you need to put a number in there to get the final number. so where did that first number come from?
Yes…an “Ex” science major. Wonder why you washed out? Hmm, because anyone with a smattering of real science education thinks differently.
Well, actually, that’s kind of arrogant. In all honesty, there are VERY highly educated people found on both sides of most all debates. That’s usually why they’re not settled so quickly.
I am sorry. but that some highly educated people believe in a myth, does not make it true. Creation IS a myth. The bible is one of many many fairy tale books.
And I have seen evolution. Sometimes it takes only a few years and not millenia.
Ok. You’re saying that highly educated people believing a myth does not make it true. Which is it? That no people with brains believe creation or people with brains can still be wrong? It’ sall ad hominem and does NOT belong in a science debate. A homeless man could tell me Obama is the President of the USA. Highly questionable source, but true nonetheless.
It’s great that you’ve seen evolution. I’ve seen the hand of God. Where might you ask? Evolution. Two ways of looking at the same set of facts. You say natural causes, I say God worked through natural causes. Your statement is science. Mine is non-falsifiable since it is a spiritual matter only.
ah, I see, now that you have the hand of nature (biology) you start to mystify it by calling it God (theology). Either you do not understand nature or you do what people do for millenia (If I can’t explain it, then there must be a god). Yeah that works for you and this is a personal believe but not science.
I don’t think you quite understand where I’m trying to go with that one at all. I’m not trying to mystify empirical data at all. I’m just saying that what somebody believes about the spirituality of certain phenomenon does not affect the status of the objective empirical data itself. I can believe that a ceramic jar has a soul. That doesn’t affect that the jar is still ceramic, and I can still recognize that despite having a spiritual belief about it. Whether or not is has a soul is not a scientific matter, but a spiritual one. I don’t set about using the laws of science to prove it has a soul. It is a matter of my own personal faith. And if one jar has a soul and another does but their both ceramic, odds are they will both still break when thrown against a brick wall.
If something is not understood, by all means, try harder to understand it. Utilize the scientific method to it’s utmost power, and do not pull the God card to explain your own ignorance. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t believe as a matter of faith that any of the findings of science that you discover are the way that they are precisely because God has made it that way, even if through the natural causes of evolution.
Everyone on here needs to read “Tornado in a Junkyard” (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0966816005), and watch the RATE Conference (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=events&action=view&ID=84) if you are looking for real science.
Well, if we were still in the sixteenth century, people would think earth is flat, only because Church had said so …
Galile True Story…
I really don’t get the debate, just like if the world would have matched evolution theory, then people could not believe in God…
well, I have no problem with you be3lieving in a god, as long as you keep him out of science, which includes the so called creation of this world. And saying that there is a god who invented evolution is exactly that.
Nature invented evolution by trial and error. No god needed.
No problem as long as you use a god for spiriitual guidance, but keep this belief out of science.
And soul, soul is a music style. nothing more.
Nice try to explain one myth with another myth.
“But that doesn’t mean that you can’t believe as a matter of faith that any of the findings of science that you discover are the way that they are precisely because God has made it that way, even if through the natural causes of evolution.”
Of course you can believe that. But that is still religion not science. And do not mix science and religion as if both were true.
Freki:
First, FWIW, I’m an atheist.
Second, Columbus had already discovered a route to “India” by the fifteenth century.
Third, even before that, most educated people believed the Earth was round. Columbus’ contribution was in his miscalculation that the circumference was smaller than was generally thought. Therefore, he was confident he could make it to “India” by ship. Luckily for him and his crew, the Americas were conveniently about where he expected “India” to be. (Also, “India” didn’t mean the same thing then that it does now.)
I too believe in a type of God (a supreme intelligence that is), but I agree with Bylle; I keep my belief out of Science. And yes, the existance of God is not falsifiable, neither is the idea that the multiversal representation of the universe is shaped like a donut; as no evidence can ever be gathered to support EITHER theory (you cannot scientifically test God nor leave the Universe)
Actually, jgt, evidence can be gathered to support (or falsify) the theory that the universe is torus (donut) shaped, as different topologies yield different predictions for the nature of the cosmic background radiation. The evidence so far collected, alas, tends towards the falsification of such a theory. (Whether or not the universe is shaped like a donut does not prove the existence or lack of a God or gods, but if it were shaped like a donut, it would strongly suggest that God said “D’oh!” after creating the platypus.)
Thank you Nebton, but I was exagerating. And I would like to point out that current theories regarding the configuration of the universal membrane are themselves based on theories which are baced on theories and so on and so forth. Unlike easily observable biological theories (evolution: for an example, see H1N1) theories of quantum physics are usually supported mathmatically and indirectly rather then through direct observation, therefore these will most likely change or be totally disproven by the end of this century. When it comes to quantum physics, our science is only on its infancy.
“Ok. You’re saying that highly educated people believing a myth does not make it true. Which is it? ”
Nothing makes a fairy tale true.
Exactly. So then what is the point of bringing their educational/level of intelligence even into the discussion? That was my only point. Ad hominem is NOT a logical point for debate.
the problem with this entire argument is that any argument in favor of creationism from a biblical standpoint is the argumentative fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam as there is no way to refute the “expert” who in this case is the bible itself.
Personally I would have absolutely no problem with the theory of creationism being taught along side of evolutionism as long as the creationism being taught was holistic in its curricula. Being a Non-Christian, and a Druid Priest, I would prefer it if creationism were to be forced upon our youth for it to have equal representation from the world’s other religions including the Hindu, Norse, Greco-Roman, Aztec/Mayan, Polynesian, Celtic, Etc… traditions. I say this simply from the standpoint that there is absolutely no way for any mortal to know from a concrete & factual basis what part, if any, the divine had in the genesis of our universe, we can Only have a faith based belief. and before I get a lot of flack for that last statement, I am referencing a very old philosophy that states that the divine came into being out of our needs and desires for that kind of force in the universe and not because they decided to create us (not that I actually subscribe to this philosophy myself, I’m merely open to all possibilities having potential truth in them). Again, yet another mystery we will never know the answer to until we cease to exist in the mortal coil.
you brought their education level into discussion not me.
Just as a reminder:
“Well, actually, that’s kind of arrogant. In all honesty, there are VERY highly educated people found on both sides of most all debates. That’s usually why they’re not settled so quickly.”
Sorry, Bylle, but that is just untrue. I did NOT bring it into the discussion as I am adamantly against ad hominem because it is a logical fallacy. I merely addressed it to prove that “how smart you are” does necessarily mean “whatever you say must therefore be automatically true” in response to bigdaddywill saying that anybody with a smattering of scientific education would see things from his perspective.
To Miguel
“Miguel says:
January 6, 2010 at 10:32 am
Well, actually, that’s kind of arrogant. In all honesty, there are VERY highly educated people found on both sides of most all debates. That’s usually why they’re not settled so quickly.”
But I can agree with you, that how smart you has nothing to do with what you are saying is true.
Did you not read the post immediately above the one which you quoted to which I was responding?
While I don’t believe in God, I am happy to see someone of faith saying that science could be the how and not the why, instead of just saying its all made up and the bible knows all.
It is an indisputable fact, however, that the world is billions of years old, and that Creationism is a myth.
I’m a devout Catholic, and a medical student who has learned all about evolution and whatnot (which is pretty close to a science student, but whatever
).
I’ve always been taught by the Church that Adam and Eve and the world being created in 7 days was “Hebrew Poetic Myth”. It’s not necessarily true – rather, it’s an allegory. Furthermore, I’ve been taught that God directed evolution and caused the series of events leading up to the Big Bang, which explains to people of faith how something came out of nothing. Basically yeah, Creationism is a myth. The world is billions of years old. And I happen to believe that God directed those events.
People like the author of the handwritten note above harm the cause of Christianity by their ignorance :S
As also a devout Christian working in biology, I must note my relief that there are other Christians that understand the difference between the physical and the metaphysical and why they can exist in harmony without being mutually exclusive.
People that don’t have the ability to learn things without being scared that it would threaten their religion’s validity, don’t have any real faith in God.
Now then, I’ve got to go do something about my apatite!
Nope I’m sorry, but just changing the meaning of stuff in the bible to fit in with what we now know to be true just isn’t allowed. Either it is a work of fiction or as it is portrayed the “word of god”.
You can’t pick and choose, if you do you are not a Christian you are a heretic!
It makes the church and religious people look even more ridiculous every time they decide another passage of the bible is allegorical as it can now be show to be absolutely untrue.
My dad always explained it to me like this: “God-time is not the same as human time. It’s still the 7th day, He’s still resting. It’s been the 7th day now for thousands, if not millions of years.”
If God explains how something came out of nothing (Big Bang), Then what explains God (who would Have to be bigger and much more complex) coming out of nothing????
To Tray
“As also a devout Christian working in biology, I must note my relief that there are other Christians that understand the difference between the physical and the metaphysical and why they can exist in harmony without being mutually exclusive.
People that don’t have the ability to learn things without being scared that it would threaten their religion’s validity, don’t have any real faith in God.
Now then, I’ve got to go do something about my apatite!”
I can perfectly live with that!!
Bon appetit!!
Glad to see someone else had typed what I was going to.
@Pook: We have a Church Father on our side of the argument, you know. What do you have?
How do you know that the creation of the universe is “Hebrew Poetic Myth”? Just because that’s what a group of people out of the billions of people on earth told you that’s what creation really is; that doesn’t mean it’s true. Did God say it was an Allegory? “I’ve been taught that… blah blah blah” doesn’t mean that it is right. Some children who are girls were taught that they were really in fact boys, while some boys were taught that they were really in fact girls. Which was a lie. The girls really are girls, and the boys really are boys. And now they live a confused life because of deception. Get it? Just like Satan wants you to believe that God is not capable of anything. We have been deceived. I used to believe that God created evolution. Is the part in the Bible where it numerously states that “with God, anything is possible” an allegory or something?? For your sake, please think about this.
@Mariel: Two questions.
1: How, exactly, is saying that God could have used this process or that saying that He can’t do something?
2: Is the Bible to be taken literally from cover to cover?
pook”Nope I’m sorry, but just changing the meaning of stuff in the bible to fit in with what we now know to be true just isn’t allowed. Either it is a work of fiction or as it is portrayed the “word of god”.
I’m assuming from your post that you’re a Christian. I am to and I’d just loke to point out that for centuries the church thought that when God made the sun stand still in Joshua 10 it meant that the sun must cirlce the earth. Something we all know now is not true. So isn’t it possible that we’re wrong about what is meant by the creation story?
How do you know that the world is billions of years old? how do you know creationism is a myth? What makes you smarter than all of the debaters out there?
Also, how is it an indisputable fact? You think it’s crazy that we believe in Creationism, we think you’re crazy for believing in Evolution.
What is your evidence? Don’t say carbon dating.
Only an idiot would say carbon dating, someone that actually bothers to read up would be more inclined to say potassium/argon dating
BTW the Genesis account of creation IS in the genre of poetry and that is why it shouldn’t be taken literally. Even translated into English it still maintains some form, rhythm, and repetition. Poetry uses figurative language. If you insist on taking all figurative language literally then your may quickly become a comedy.
How do you pick and choose which to take literally?
From the Bible? Well, from the strictest sense, none of it. A right understanding of it must be rooted in literary practices that would be applied to any book. Sound fair? Poetry is simply that. Historical narratives are NOT present imperatives: Leviticus is a historical account of the laws given to the Jews by Moses (or God, depending on POV), but they are NOT prescriptive for non-Jews or Christians today. Even the gospels are of the genre of historical narrative (fiction or not, decide for yourself), and so Jesus’s comments need to be understood within their cultural and linguistic context, which a strict literal reading could never give you. If there was a part of the Bible to be taken literally, I suppose it would be the epistles of the New Testament, because they kind of give instructions about how the Church should operate and stuff like that. But even then I perceive it to be more descriptive than prescriptive (“it should look something like this” rather than “do it exactly this way”). Just approach it like you would any other book. Take it with a grain of salt, feel free to disagree, or find an understanding of it that suits you. That’s what everyone does anyways.
So which parts do you believe?
Ok… mostly, the parts about God is good, man has sinned, Jesus bridges the gap, and God desires all of us to be restored to right relationship with Him through Christ.
But, ultimately, as much as it communicates that, I believe the whole book. Lotsa violence in there, I know. I don’t believe in perpetuating that behavior, but hey, if it really happened, or if it didn’t, object lessons can be learned, brutal history (or historical fiction) doesn’t have to be censored from the book.
So I’d say that I believe the whole book, but only from a certain understanding of it. I know this is about as clear as mud, but I could try to provide an example of that if you have particular passages that you find completely unworthy of belief from any perspective. I don’t want to sound like a cafeteria style believer, but I believe that ultimately the book only has one message.
It doesn’t bother you that parts are missing, parts are changed, and parts have been added over the years by men?
Honestly, it does cause me to wonder. But I don’t know that it has caused the central message to be drastically altered. I don’t deny variations exist out there, but try not to underestimate the depth of research and study that translators put into those manuscripts. We’ve used the best of modern research, advancement in cultural, linguistical, and archaelogical studies to actually improve the reliability of our current translations over those done a couple hundred years back when our sciences were less developed. Perfect verbatim dictation from above? That’s silly. Technically, that hasn’t ever been considered a Christian view of scripture untill recently. That approach is more Islamic than anything else. It wouldn’t kill me to find out that Noah actually had four sons. A comparison of many different translations doesn’t tend to reveal such vast theological differences that it completely undermines the reliability of the main point (although I wouldn’t claim it never happens).
But the idea that the divinity of Christ was a concoction by the fourth century Catholic church in an effort to suppress and controll the masses…?
I’ll admit stuff like that tends to go hand and hand with religion, but in that specific case, I don’t think it’s likely.
Possible, maybe, but at this point it’s just a conspiracy theory. First century martyrs died for this belief and we still have their writings.
How do you know that the world is a few thousand years old? how do you know evolution is a myth? What makes you smarter than all of the debaters out there?
Also, how is it an indisputable fact? You think it’s crazy that we believe in Evolution, we think you’re crazy for believing in Creationism.
What is your evidence? Don’t say the Bible.
Yeowza! I’m not your guy, dude!
If you read some of my other comments on this post you’ll find out that I’m not a young earth creationists. I accept all findings of science as authoritative.
How do I know the world is young? I don’t. It’s billions of years I’m sure. Still a Christian though.
I don’t think anybody’s crazy to believe in anything.
Craziness comes when you are unwilling to discuss and reexamine whatever it is you claim to believe. Not offering up evidence here. Scientists are doing a fantastic job of that without my help
I actually was replying to Mariel (hence the pastiche).
Why don’t you name some names, Miguel?
Can you name any *biologists* besides Michael Behe, who does no research and is shunned by all of his peers?
Crackpots with engineering degrees (or the like) might be “highly educated”, but they don’t know anything about biology.
Names of scientists who hold to religious faith? How about Charles Darwin? Kidding… kidding… put down the knife already! Seriously though, I don’t know any published authors and I will be the first to point much of the ridiculousity of many young earth creationists such as Kent Hovind, Answers in Genesis, and “banana man”. But I know many highly educated adults who are professors that hold to religious belief and do NOT see a conflict with their scientific profession.
The lead singer of Bad Religion did his doctoral dissertation this. I think you will discover his findings to reveal that Christian faith is fairly common among scientific communities, and many of them also are ok with evolution. Especially if they are Catholic. None of my friends are published authors so their names would mean nothing to you.
“But I know many highly educated adults who are professors that hold to religious belief and do NOT see a conflict with their scientific profession”
That wasn’t the question. We’re not talking about believing in God, we’re talking about believing the earth is only a few thousand years old and evolution never happened.
My mistake Dave. Not arguing with that point! That’s what happens when you join a conversation in the middle: I missed that pretty crucial point up above.
A book that was written when people believed firmly… that the earth was flat… Transmitted over 2000 years, and since printing was invented only in 1444 (Guttenberg), transcribed manually by monks for about 2/3 of it’s history. I’m not really highly educated here, but I see a bit of “this could be all wrong” painted all over the pages.
For the moment, just for the sheer stupidity of the parents in the letter (come on, 6000 years ? we observed stars much older than that, and even if the “light” slows down somehow, it’s still amounts to much more than 6000 years)… I’ll just go walk to the end of the earth and fall off. Oh wait, they weren’t right about this… so maybe…
Actually, people never really believed the Earth was flat, because of the curved horizon, even back then they had logic. Since about 400BC, they believed it was round, pretty much.
And the Bible, while full of good advice, is no longer meant to be taken literally. Maybe back when it was written, there was a big problem with coveting neighbour’s animals, but it’s not a problem now, is it?
to Indralla
you left out the time when the bible (old testament) was handed down orally for generations. And at the time it was written first the hebrew alphabet had no vowels.
“I’ve seen the hand of God. Where might you ask?”
In your pants?
Please don’t ruin an intelligent conversation with your immature remarks, Cait
An intelligent discussion with creotards? That will be the day.
“Touched by an Angel” gets a whole new meaning =) and don’t mind the asshole who just dissed you.
It’s still smarter than what I’m doing, which is reading industrial doses of stupid comments.
@ Miguel – you’ve seen the “hand of god” ??? Was it all noodley and pasta like?
Holy S*** epic win
Anyways, I am very proud of all of you for not letting this degenerate into “religitards R ghey”
and keeping it a legitimate debate
I definitely agree there are both smart and stupid people on both sides. I am an atheist, but I probably have more in common with you than I do with most other atheists. Not very many people have a firm handle on the concept of falsifiability, or even know what it is at all. There are plenty of stupid atheists and evolutionists out there. For example, a high school girl told me she didn’t believe in God because she went to Catholic school and saw how they were like…
Let me guess… she felt the hand of God somewhere it shouldn’t be, and decided to quit?
I’m far from an educated man, but the problem with your statement is that saying god used evolution to create what we are today is not only implying but also directly stating that god could not create something that is perfect and he needed nature (which he created) to help him
No, because saying that would be making nature into an intelligent force of its own. God doesn’t need any sort of help. Evolution and nature are not “forces” in any sense of the word, and any good biologist will tell you that.
Say you want to cook something, for which you happen to have already all the ingredients you need. Would you use what you have, or would you go out and buy a completely new set of cookware and all the ingredients again in order to use them just this once? You COULD do either, and depending on what you’re going to make, you might even be as likely to do either. But which would you do? Probably the first one.
That is, of course, unless saying you used the ingredients in your refrigerator to cook what you’re serving today is not only implying but also directly stating that you could not cook something that is delicious and you needed the refrigerator (which you stocked) to help you.
why is a ‘homeless man’ a questionable source.?
Well, Jesus was homeless. That’s a questionable source.
Maybe you should clean out your refrigerator more often…
hahaha! Awesome!
and what makes evolution not a myth???????? how is the bible not true??? i could sit here typing hundreds of reasons of how evolution is flawed, but i dont think you’ll listen, andd honsetly i dont care what you think becuse the bible is right and science is wrong on this one!
To Truthteller
“and what makes evolution not a myth???????? ”
Scientific evidence
“how is the bible not true??? ”
coz it is a fairy tale book how this world was created by a god.
“andd honsetly i dont care what you think becuse the bible is right and science is wrong on this one!”
The why are you writing here ???
Unfortunately for their children, the author of the note could not be considered even marginally intelligent in any forum.
I’ll make sure to warn them to stay away from such sites.
Indeed there are two sides to debates. This, however isn’t a debate. Do you believe your watch will tell you the correct time? Does the bible tell you that your watch will tell you the correct time? What has more evidence to present on the subject? Science which explains the quantum states of electrons in transistors which allow for digital watches or the bible which makes no reference to watches nor any measurement of time at the scale of a watch because it was written thousands of years before the watch?
The problem, Miguel, is that the “highly educated” people didn’t get their education in biology. They are chemists. Or physicists. Or engineers. They are no more an authority on evolution than Richard Dawkins is an authority on quantum mechanics.
Evolution is a fact of the natural world. Just as gravity is. There is no scientific debate as to whether or not it happens. The disagreement occurs on the internet. Or in Creationist pamphlets. It does not occur in peer reviewed journals or an academic setting.
Agreed. Please don’t assume I’m arguing for young earth creationism hook line and sinker. Read my other comments. I accept most of what is written in peer reviewed journals as authoritative on science. There is a huge spectrum of perspectives on this issue from atheistic naturalism to theistic evolution to young earth creationism. Most all sides have highly intelligent and educated people on them. That has absolutely no bearing on who is right, and need have no place in the debate. That’s why internet debates go downhill so quickly: It becomes all about who’s ignorant as opposed to what do the empirical facts show us. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy and it disturbs me to see even some people who should be more professional stooping to that level. I think that young earth creationism is ridiculous and I’m a Southern Baptist. If there is any way that the existence of some God can fit in without having to alter the findings of the scientific community, then that’s what I would find a reasonable belief.
Yeah, but only one side has Kent Hovind.
“where are all of the fossils of the creatures in the evolutionary chain and why are we not seeing any obvious signs of evolution today?”
Everywhere, and we are.
You utter utter freak.
lolamericans.
You keep saying that evolution is fact and that evidence is everywhere, but you have nothing to back it up. Everything that evolutionists have come up with is fabricated lies. The fact that you are using ad hominen attacks shows the laughable weakness of your argument. I think the biggest question is this: How did the universe begin? The Big Bang Theory has plausibility, but there is one problem, where did the matter and explosion come from. That can only be answered by GOD. The world and everything in it points to Intelligent Design. If you take an honest, unbiased look at the evidence, you will see it. But maybe you are too caught up in hollow and deceptive philosophy and are blind to it. I dare all of you to read the Bible from cover to cover. You might be shocked to see that the Bible is as relevant now as when it was written. Or maybe your to afraid to find out what affect the Bible will have on you. God exists. period. His existence does not rely on what you believe or think. At the end of your life you will have to answer to him.
see the pic on this website, it is German, but maybe you can understand the core
http://www.g-o.de/index.php?cmd=focus_detail2_bild&f_id=189&rang=5&pid=3941
That is evolution!!
God exists. period. His existence does not rely on what you believe or think. At the end of your life you will have to answer to him.
Lol I already know my answers, if that case should ever happen
Perhaps you are confused about definitions here. Evolution is different than abiogenesis, which is different than big bang theory. “Evolutionists,” like you, don’t spend much time doing theoretical physics.
>> where did the matter and explosion come from. That can only be answered by GOD. <<
No.. it can also be answered by "The Great Googly Moogly from the planet ZOK" or "A Super Intelligent Shade of the color Blue" or "We dont know yet, and, we may NEVER know, but we are researching into it"
Of those four answers, one makes a little more sense, and requires a few less assumptions.. Can you guess which? (I'll bet you guess wrong…)
I’m gonna guess that you *haven’t* read the Bible from cover to cover. I have. And I was shocked: shocked that it had so many justifications for violence (chopping up women, slaughtering villages), that it had so many contradictions, that it wasn’t even remotely historically accurate, that it had a lot of rules people these days pretend don’t matter (it’s a heavily cherry-picked book).
Oh, and that long tracts of it are painfully dull.
————-
You keep saying that evolution is fact and that evidence is everywhere, but you have nothing to back it up. Everything that evolutionists have come up with is fabricated lies. The fact that you are using ad hominen attacks shows the laughable weakness of your argument. I think the biggest question is this: How did the universe begin? The Big Bang Theory has plausibility, but there is one problem, where did the matter and explosion come from. That can only be answered by GOD. The world and everything in it points to Intelligent Design. If you take an honest, unbiased look at the evidence, you will see it. But maybe you are too caught up in hollow and deceptive philosophy and are blind to it. I dare all of you to read the Bible from cover to cover. You might be shocked to see that the Bible is as relevant now as when it was written. Or maybe your to afraid to find out what affect the Bible will have on you. God exists. period. His existence does not rely on what you believe or think. At the end of your life you will have to answer to him.
—————
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. And there is modern evidence that evolution happens and is an ongoing process, otherwise how do you explain antibiotic resistant bacteria?
I have read the Bible, cover to cover, 3 times. I have also read the Quoran, the Vedas, the Tao-te-ching and the Five Classics….have you? Until you have read all the holy books of all the religions how can you say yours is the right one and superior to all others?
Try educating yourself first before judging other’s education.
Actually as a former Christian who has read the Bible twice I’m shocked at how little in the Bible is relevant . Through the arachic codes of laws ( Duet. , etc. ) to the shifting ideal of an Old Testament God who demands genocide , slavery , and sexism vs. the New Testament God ( Your fluffy Personal Jesus ) , the Bible is a book full of crazy . As a reflection of how a society grew and codes of law were passed down it makes sense . As a standard for modern living … not so much so . Remember kids the same book that gave you the Ten Commandments also banishes women into caves during their “bleeding time” and declares anything they touch to be burned . Good times .
“You keep saying that evolution is fact and that evidence is everywhere, but you have nothing to back it up.” Actually we do have evidence to back it up. It’s called the FOSSIL RECORD.
As for reading the Bible cover to cover, most colleges require students to take a course that reads different religious books. So having read the Bible then, plus in Catholic sunday school, plus in attendance to church, I can honestly say the Bible is NOT relevant today. It’s not meant to be taken literally. Jesus even says in the Bible that he speaks in parables meant to be interpretted.
I believe in God, but as a geologist I don’t believe in creationism. I don’t think God has a place in science, because science is based on evidence. We make our interpretations on what the Earth is showing us. If God decides to come down and say “Oh yeah, I did this, let me demonstrate how I create people”, then science could incorporate him. But since it’s based on what we observe, God doesn’t really fit.
And the Earth is 4.6 billion years old for crying out loud-those parents need a smack on the head!
fruitflies. now fly away you fruit.
“You keep saying that evolution is fact and that evidence is everywhere, but you have nothing to back it up. Everything that evolutionists have come up with is fabricated lies. The fact that you are using ad hominen attacks shows the laughable weakness of your argument.”
Interesting defence: no matter what evidence anyone might offer, all you need to say is that it’s a “fabricated lie” and ignore it, allowing you to continue to say that there’s no evidence to back it up. Basically you stick your fingers in your ears and loudly sing “Lalalala I don’t believe you lalalala”.
As for the ad hominem attack – I’m not the one who’s claiming that people who present evidence for evolution are all liars.
“But there is one problem, where did the matter and explosion come from.” Well, apart from the old quantum fluctuation hypothesis (supported by the observation that the net energy content of the Universe appears to be very close to if not exactly zero), there’s Linde’s hypothesis that the Big Bang that left all that cosmic radiation spread across the sky was just one incident in a perpetually ongoing process. Yet another suggestion is the so-called “no boundary” hypothesis which suggests that the singularity at t=0 is because we’re dividing by t when laying out our coordinate system (we’re so used to time being real-valued, when it has turned out that many other dimensions – such as position – make more sense when complex-valued). Oh, there you go again: “Lalalalala…”
“I dare all of you to read the Bible from cover to cover.” I did. Chronicles was probably the most boring part.
I’ve read the Bible cover to cover. Five times. Couldn’t tell you the number of times I’ve read a few chapters here and there. And let me tell you, I’ve seen evolution with my own eyes. I use evolution to turn one kind of flower into another kind of flower. We call it “horticulture”. Seems to me your belief that there’s no evidence for evolution is that whenever you’re confronted with the evidence you close your eyes, plug your ears, and hum to yourself until it goes away.
I’m going to admit upfront that I am simply being a skeptic, so please do not be offended, anyone.
You speak of gravity as if it were a fact, when truthfully, we cannot prove even that. In order to prove its factual merit, we would have to exhaust the universe of all possible scenarios involving gravity. Even in a simplified case of Earth’s gravity, to completely test all possible scenarios is physically impossible. As such we cannot with 100% certainty prove that gravity exists.
Let me illustrate my objection: if gravity, or any part of it, were simply a coincidence (e.g. the direction of the force were random, and it simply happens that every observation follows the pattern we attribute to the law), we would perceive it the same as if it were a universal law.
In this way, even proof that evolution *did* happen is not proof that it is a law. I have no beef with evolution as a description of history, nor do I have a problem with a young Earth creationism. To claim special knowledge of the formation of the universe is absurd, and I recognize that such knowledge is essentially inconsequential.
Hence, my personal understanding of the formation of the universe consists simply in this: it had a divine Creator, a First Mover that set the world in place at the beginning of time; it has a great Sustainer, by whom all things remain in existence; it has a grand Conductor, by whose leave all things act; and these three are one being, the God of Israel, who descended to Earth as the man Jesus of Nazareth for the salvation of all men.
I know that this God will reveal Himself one day to everyone, and no one will doubt. But I also know that today we remain without proof for the specific purpose that it requires faith. I cannot see with my eyes, nor feel with my hands, the truth I know in my soul, and this is the most astounding thing to me: my faith yet waxes in return.
Believe what you will, but I agree with Miguel’s statements on science only explaining HOW, and leaving the WHY to God. No God can possibly defy truth. Rather, God defines truth.
Ok now there’s skepticism and over-skepticism…
Not accepting gravity as a fact falls in the second category in my opinion. I agree that NOTHING is ever 100% sure, but science works with probabilities, and when some theory is confirmed by experiments every single time (and with extreme accuracy), then it’s reasonable to assume it will always be.
Otherwise how do you know that The Matrix isn’t a documentary? What reasons would anyone have to not pay attention to the Matrixologists’ explanation for the universe? Why not put that in the national curriculum?
Besides, contrary to creationsim, evolution does not claim to explain the formation of the universe, or even the apparition of life on Earth. It explains how simple forms of life evolved into the more complex forms of life that exist today.
I think the big difference here is that where scientists have the humility to say “we don’t know (yet)”, people of faith claim their god did it… then when scientists find out a bit more, the role of this god will change a bit so it still fits.
A good way to distinguish a scientific theory from a non-scientific one is that if a scientific theory has to be changed to accomodate new findings, then it is wrong.
Well, not really.
The purpose of the scientific method is not to PROVE hypotheses, it is to TEST them. Even from an extensively repeated test with consistently positive results, a hypothesis can never be proven to be true, however, as in the case of evolution, it can be supported by overwhelming evidence. This is the definition of a scientific theory. Furthermore, scientific *hypotheses* are regularly changed, in response to an experiment’s results. No experiment conclusively proves anything; they all leave more questions to be investigated. The same can apply to theories. Although most of the findings to date fit the parameters of the theory, there may one day be a result which doesn’t, and will cause scientists to review their thinking on the matter. For a perfect evolution example, read about the human skulls found in Palau in recent years. http://anthropology.net/2008/03/10/3000-year-old-small-body-humans-in-palau-micronesia/
I generally find that it is the non-scientific claims that are unbudging. Any new development can simply be explained by the claim that “God wanted it that way, and He placed that evidence there so we could find out”.
Yes I thought I was saying the same thing, so maybe I didn’t express myself clearly.
Your Skepticism is a bit extreme. It’s like saying that you’re unsure of your own hair colour, because everyone you’ve met says it’s brown, but one day you might meet one of the 6 and a half billion of us who says it’s ginger, or that you have 3 feet, or eight eyes.
Do you have three feet, eight eyes or ginger hair? “I don’t know” sounds like a pretty foolish answer, though the ‘correct’ answer according to your skeptic theories.
———
In this way, even proof that evolution *did* happen is not proof that it is a law. I have no beef with evolution as a description of history, nor do I have a problem with a young Earth creationism. To claim special knowledge of the formation of the universe is absurd, and I recognize that such knowledge is essentially inconsequential.
—————-
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe and if you would educate yourself instead of regurgitating the fundy party line you would know that.
And anyone who does not believe gravity has not been proven because it has not been tested throughout the universe needs to refit their tin foil hat.
The idea that a magical man in the sky who sees everything created the world and all that other nonsense is simply an excuse for intellectual laziness. “God did it” is the most unscientific answer ever. Besides, you claim that there’s a lack of evidence for evolution, when you have no evidence whatsoever that a god even exists.
By the way, in the bible jesus prettymuch says I shouldn’t have to prove I’m god, you’re just supposed to believe I am, but what do you want to bet that if some guy showed up claiming to be Jesus, YOU wouldn’t believe him unless he presented you with some sort of proof?
yessss. kerchiiing. nice goal pal.
Though that was the most elegant phrase I have ever seen from the mind of a fanatic, you did contradict yourself. “Hence, my personal understanding of the formation of the universe consists simply in this: it had a divine Creator, a First Mover that set the world in place at the beginning of time; it has a great Sustainer, by whom all things remain in existence; it has a grand Conductor, by whose leave all things act; and these three are one being, the God of Israel, who descended to Earth as the man Jesus of Nazareth for the salvation of all men.”
though you claim to be objective, in the above statement you nearly subscribe yourself to creationism. Plus, you ended your comment with a more elegant form of ‘and one day you’ll see, YOU’LL ALL SEE!’
That’s beyond scepticism and well into the realm of solipsism. I don’t even know why I’m bothering replying to you, since I have no proof that you exist.
Actually there are highly educated people on one side and many, many not-highly educated people on the other side. Thats why. Its a lot easier to believe than understand.
what’s funny is that a good bit of well smattered educated scientist were in fact, religious people who (as far as their Faith) understood the “who and why” part of existence. they just wanted to see the ‘how’. i.e Gregor Johann Mendel was an Augustinian priest and scientist. is widely considered to be the father of genetics http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312650/mendel.htm
so what? newton believed in alchemy. its called being a man of your times and culture.
Carbon dating has nothing to do with objects around it. It’s based on the decay of 14C, and the ratio between 12C and 14C. In addition, had you finished your degree, you would know that evolution is a fact, natural selection and other mechanisms are theories.
FTW!!!!!!! thank god someone said that i was crying over here
yay he got it.. i was laughing when the ex science major was talking about carbon dating
So close… Carbon dating is only accurate for shorter time scales. Much to short for the time it typically takes for speciation to occur. However, when dating fossils, carbon dating is not used. Rather various forms of radiometric dating can be utilized, depending on the time scale one is looking at.
Wot r u talking about?
Carbon dating does not require any analysis of the soil etc. The inaccuracy in its results – which any scientist will admit to- are due to the necessary assumption that the fractional abundance of carbon-14 has remained constant over the last geological epoch. learn some science, please.
Reminds me of the idiots who “carbon dated” the ROCKS at Stonehenge (not to be confused with real scientists who carbon dated *organic remains* at that site).
They got the default value for inorganic material — namely, that it is very old (18,000 years? 30,000? Don’t recall) — and started ranting about how this “proves” Stonehenge was by some “deep past Atlantean civilization” or something.
Of course, if the rock was thirty thousand years old, all that would prove is that Stonehenge had to have been built LATER than that!
sediment layer dating and carbon dating are two different things.
You didn’t pay attention in class. Carbon dating is not used to date rocks or fossils. Fail.
Bunnyrut. Why talk about Carbon dating in reference to evolution? Carbon dating is useless for anything older than about 60,000 years. Thats what, about 0.14 % of Hominid evolutionary history? 0.0015 % of the total fossil record? A Word of warning… when anyone mentions the inaccuracy of Carbon Dating in an evolution argument, that’s a huge red Flag that they don’t know what they are talking about, and are regurgitating Creationis Talking points.
Just curious–then what is used to date things older than 60 000 years?
Radiometric dating…Hmmmm I like dating…eating dates on a date, even better!
Am I becoming a troll? I really really think there should be a ‘your mom’ comment here.
*leaves entire debate in shame*
Nope, I think we could use some comic relief
so tell me
Do you like fish sticks?
@George.
There are various radiometric dating methods. Many of them don’t have the flaw of Carbon dating (assuming a certain starting inventory of one of the compared isotopes) but all have their own quirks. I listed them in another comment that seems to have not made it past Moderation.
Some examples: Potassium/Argon dating. Argon-39/Argon-40 dating. Uranium-Lead dating.
Also, Paleomagnetic dating (which isn’t radio isotope based at all) can be used to age the strata that fossils exist in.
Also, it’s good technique to do dating with several isotopes so that your mother/daughter ratios aren’t messed up by pre-existing concentrations of the latter, or the same daughter nuclide by a different decay chain.
Sheesh. You don’t date rocks and fossilized rocks with carbon dating.
It’s a good thing you are an EX science major, because you would be doing very poorly if you were still one.
Just another example of someone pretending to know science to dispute science. They might eventually learn that you can’t debate a point accurately without actually learning about it.
While there may be “holes” in the ToE, carbon dating does not work the way you represent it here. Please go back to your science books, or Google radioisotopic dating, and, this time, choose a site that represents science, not one person’s attempt to support a faith-based concept in a scientific discussion. Please study how the carbon-14 undergoes radioactive decay at a specific rate, and how, by measuring the nitrogen-14 (the “daughter” product) and the carbon-14, you can calculate a ratio of source-to-daughter atoms, and, from the half-life, you can then calculate the last time that organism took in carbon.
QED.
One side being full of evidence and fact? Just like global warming right??? Ask Al Gore the “debate is over”. FACT is we are in a 10 year cooling trend and here in the states we are seeing one of the coldest winters in history (history of course being modern day “recorded” history). Not to mention the e-mails of top IPCC influential “scientist” talking about ways to manipulate data in a way to show that global warming is real. However, it isn’t, and why would the name “global warming” have to be changed to “climate change” if these liberal wacko’s weren’t aware that this “science” was on there side. Science by definition is a theory, think about these so cold “facts” before you make up your mind, and yes I do realize there are many things in “science” that are not disputed and indeed are true, but there are fair, fair too many things that you liberal “science” wacko’s claim to be true or are to ignorant to look a little deeper into the “science” than what you are told.
This comment alone would have convinced me to register as a Democrat.
Listen up republicans! its people like this that cause you to lose majorities in congress, and lose elections. you should find ways to get rid of them.
And global warming is the ONLY reason I don’t register as a Democrat. Admittedly, Republicans are typically f*cked in the ethical AND intellectual department, but I can’t join a party that doesn’t understand the scientific method, particularly how to interpret empirical data.
I want you and everyone else that believes in “global warming” or “climate change” i.e. the premise that human activities are significantly influencing the world climate to read and study the sentence below. If you actually understand it, it will go a long way towards improving your life in general (and mine too):
CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION
The world’s climate changes people. We went through a scare like this in the 50′s because the earth was getting colder (and of course, we blamed ourselves). It’s extremely narcissistic to believe that everything that happens on this planet is caused by human beings. And please: don’t believe everything you’re told! Thanks!
“I can’t join a party that doesn’t understand the scientific method”
So you’re registered independent, right?
Few North American politicians are trained in science. That’s a fact, and I theorize that it causes us lots of problems.
As for your skepticism towards global warming, well, you might want to read up on the science there rather than relying on journalists (few of whom have any scientific training).
not this retarded argument again. 1998 was an exceptionally warm year. so if you use that as a starting point, oooh look, cooling, im a retard! if you werent a retard youd know the 100 year trend, the important one, is one of increasing temperatures. cherry picking a 10 year period i can make it seem like temperature is rising way faster than it is and be just as dishonest and stupid as you.
also, short term, regional WEATHER is fundamentally different than long term, global CLIMATE. you cant even grasp the basic facts of the debate so why am i even bothering.
and science isnt liberal or conservative, its science. although facts are liberally biased.
(sigh) even though many parts of your post are correct, I still think you need to read my above post.
In response to your final remark: although I advocate the majority of liberal social policies, facts (in terms of repeated positive results in well-formed trials abiding by the scientific method) are never liberally biased. That’s why I only advocate their social reforms because their “facts” are always biased towards their goals. Indeed, most “scientific facts” seem to have a liberal bias because most liberals can’t distinguish between fact and fiction.
Republicans are guilty of the same thing, but you tried to pretend your post wasn’t political. Too bad your spoiled it in the last sentence.
I’ve been through one of the coldest winters in history where I’m from but also through one of the warmest winters in history. what does it prove: nothing. You have to look at the overall climate to see if there’s been a change
“FACT is we are in a 10 year cooling trend and here in the states we are seeing one of the coldest winters in history”
Which doesn’t refute anything with regards to climate change or even global warming; models of heat transfer between Arctic ice and ocean currents suggest that it’s possible for warming to trigger an instant ice age – “instant” in this context being on the order of a few decades. Basically, enough of the Arctic ice cap melts quickly enough to chill the North Atlantic and hence the air above it, causing a sharp drop in temperatures across the northern hemisphere, causing widespread snowfalls in winter persistent frosts and weaker summers. As the weather wobbles away from its equilibrium, the increased albedo from the increased cloud cover and all the white stuff on the ground increasing the albedo and reducing energy uptake may be enough to trip the climate into a new stable state where a blanket of white is the norm.
Anyway, that’s one model. Since you’re determined to look deeper into the science, I cite work by Ronald Stouffer and Alex Hall, “An abrupt climate event in a coupled ocean–atmosphere simulation without external forcing” (Nature 409, 171-175 (11 January 2001).
I hope this is a joke. You cannot seriously be this ignorant.
It certainly reads like a sarcastic impression of the dismally ignorant.
You’re joking right? Evolution exists. There is proof of it. The finches on the Galapogos islands were Darwins proof. What do you mean where are all the fossils? We have so many its ridiculous. We have fossils of Neandertals, andd even though we didn’t evolve from them it does show that separate species of primates evolved from a more primitive species. You, my friend are an idiot. You may email me to debate these points anytime you like, bible thumper. my handle @yahoo.com
the finches are proof of micro-evolution, within a species. Not proof of macro-evolution, one species evolving into another. Most of the fossils of “neaderthals” have been proven to be fabricated. Some were pig bones, some were different animals, others were men who had bone diseases. Debate doesn’t involve name calling, it involves facts and conversation. If you’d like to put aside names like “idiot” and “bible thumper” and have an intellectual conversation, feel free to reply.
You cannot have an intellectual conversation. You believe that a magic man created, causes and watches over everything.
and we can’t have an intellectual conversation either if you simply shove the “there is no God” idea in our faces. it is logically impossible to prove there is no God, and true science cannot explain evolution. no lab experiment can dictate history, especially when the supernatural is involved.
Of course it’s logically impossible to prove there is no god. That’s why the onus is on believers to prove there is one, not on non-believers to proof that there isn’t one.
On the subject of logic, the very idea of a perfect god refutes itself. I’d like to cite a common argument:
If God can do everything, he should be able to create a boulder so large that He cannot lift it. However, at the same time, He should be able to lift any boulder put before Him. He cannot feasibly do both. Therefore, He cannot do everything.
Unfortunately, this is often met with the counter-argument, “God works in mysterious ways,” an obvious and frustrating cop-out commonly used by those of faith.
Based on your logical statement. The answer is that there is no boulder that can be created that he can’t lift. To say that God can do EVERYTHING is a misleading statement. God cannot do evil if he is the standard for good. Thus, God can’t do everything if you strictly follow your standard logic. Where did you get the idea that God can do everything?
I guess he got those ideas from the fact that the Bible states that the God is omnipotent?
God needs viagra?!? Poor man… oh wait… ahhh all powerful gotcha ;D
According to the bible, God can do some pretty evil stuff. Just read the Book of Job.
What created the universe? Either it is an allusion, it created itself, it’s eternal, or God created it. If it’s allusion then nothing matters not even this conversation because the conversation itself is an allusion. If the universe created itself you violate the law of causality because nothing can’t create something. It can’t be eternal because of the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. So we are left with God creating it. Is there another reasonable option? If God can create the universe then I am sure He can handle creating the Earth.
if god created the earth then nothing would matter either
I call B.S.
God never did anything evil in Job, anything bad that happened to Job was strictly the work of Satan. God just allowed it to happen, which still isn’t evil. Maybe it would help if you actually _read_ the book of Job. Just sayin.
@ NoGodReally?:
There are other options. One is the never ending circle (Big Bang, inflation, deflation, big crush, Big Bang). Another one is the multiverse theory. Both don’t need a starting point, therefore no creator or unexplainable beginning.
Few things for a few people: NoGodReally?, why would the world be an illusion (I expect that you made a typo and meant an illusion)? I think that the fact that we feel pain and no person has yet woken up from the “illusion” is a good enough fact, and we have no memories of the actual universe if this is an illusion. It did create itself, at least that’s the theory accepted by many, many scientist whose expertise this stuff is. Why would it be eternal? Things that are actually eternal are yet to be seen, so why would our world be? In case you did mean allusion, an allusion of what? Myself below explained about it creating itself a bit and others have also in these comments, I won’t again as I don’t even really know what the theory EXACTLY is. And why the only option left is that God created it? The real answer could be a theory that is yet to come. And no one can prove that God exists. And those options you said, like it being an allusion, aren’t reasonable. Zibeb, it’s considered a crime to not do something to for example save another human. And I’m quite sure that somewhere in religious texts there is a mention about this, I’m not entirely sure though. And if I followed your ideology, if I for some reason met a baby, (a baby because somehow people think it’s more cruel when done to babies or kittens or such) that was outdoors in the winter, abandoned, with not much clothing on him, and I would have a nice, warm hope nearby and an extra quilt on my hands, and I still would for example just watch him freeze to death, according to what you have said here, I wouldn’t be an evil person, as I did nothing, I just allowed the baby to die.
If you actually read the book of Job you would see that it was Satan that did those horrible things to Job, not God. God only allowed Satan to test Job’s faith because He knew that Job would not crack under the pressure.
Aaron, please read the comment I made above.
God created Lucifer and look at all the good that came from that.
“NoGodReally?” You have a rather warped view of the Universe. First, Inflation theory shows that there was a time before our current physical laws existed. The Universe can create itself, because the law of Causality didn’t come into effect until the Universe had already been created.
If the Universe was created by intelligence, what proof do you have that it was your God, and not Many, if not something else we can’t even comprehend? Everything including Size and Scale are relative, for all we know our entire universe is just the nucleus of an atom inside the balls of a guy in another universe which happens to be the center of an atom, etc, etc.
But you have to claim everyhting came from “The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker” because you are a human, and it’s part of the human condition to make things for specific purposes, and to view things as being made for specific purposes.
This is actually in reply to Humm. above…
The problem with your logic is that, by demanding that God not allow evil to happen, you’re demanding that God take away freewill. You’re demanding that God stop you (or anyone else) from neglecting the homeless, from murdering, stealing, etc. The irony is that God does condemn these actions – but He leaves it up to humans to choose their own course. Which would you prefer: To be a mindless drone or to put up with morons who put themselves & their desires above all others, at all costs…?
You know what I would answer, and that what you stated is also a thing that fails in the heaven concept, Brice Reddell. People can’t be happy all the time if there are millions of people in the same place, if they’re themselves. People annoy each other, causing hatred. And yet heaven should be a place with no pain or hatred. That doesn’t work. And isn’t the ideal of many people, like Christians, that there would be only good “mindless drones”, as you said. People not actually showing their true selves as that causes people to argue over matters and such stuff. Which aren’t a good thing, for example in the Bible.
Ah Fuzz, you make a claim that God cannot do everything (i.e. be omnipotent) using the age-old boulder paradox. However, upon further scrutiny, your classic example falls flat on its face.
The answer depends on two possible definitions of “omnipotent”:
René Descartes thought of omnipotence as the ability to do absolutely *anything*. According to Descartes, God can do the logically impossible; he can make square circles, he can make water flow upstream, and he can make 2 + 2 = 7.
If Descartes’ conception of omnipotence is correct, then any attempt to disprove God’s existence using logic is hopeless. If God can do the logically impossible, then he can both create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, and lift it, and so can do all things. Yes, there’s a contradiction in this, but so what? God can, on this understanding of omnipotence, make contradictions true.
“But no,” you say, “I meant anything logically possible, not illogical.” Okay then, let us look at the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Aquinas had a narrower conception of omnipotence. According to Aquinas, God is able to do anything *possible*. A stone that is so heavy that God cannot lift it is logically impossible and therefore not subject as a determinant of omnipotence.
Either way, your paradox is bunk, Fuzz, and not due to some *mysterious ways* response. Simple analysis throws this argument out with the trash.
I’ve never heard that argument before, but surely, as an intellectual, you don’t believe that to be the “end all, be all” of the debate? If God is all-powerful by nature, then what you’re suggesting is that He should be able to make Himself cease to be all-powerful. That has nothing to do with perfection or legitimacy. That has to do with violating the concept of self. You have to cease being who you are in order to be who you are… That’s like saying there’s no such thing as a perfect day because perfect to me might be on the ski slopes while perfect to you might be at the beach, therefore perfection does not exist. To say that this kind of reasoning discredits the existence of a perfect day is ludicrous. Just as saying that God cannot exist because of your perception of perfect. In the Christian understanding of God, even God has boundaries, rules, standards. So while cyclical arguments may daze & confuse your opponents, you fool yourself if you believe that to end the debate. But whatever floats your boat…
Your argument is fallible because you first have to understand the nature and characteristics of God. Doing something like that is contrary to His nature. He has no reason to do such a thing. This a straw man argument. It doesn’t work.You should do your own research instead of just spitting out what has been indoctrinated into your brain. Do the honest research, compile the honest evidence, and make an honest decision.
why did god have to rest for a day after creating everything?
The answer to your question is not “why” did He have to rest but what does the word “rest” mean in it’s original Hebrew. That answer is “God stopped the work of creating” – literally, “on the 7th day God ceased the work He had been doing.” Exodus 31:17 takes it even further & emphasizes that God stopped working & was refreshed (literally translated “satisfied”) by the work that He had done… so it had nothing to do with sleep or rejuvenation – but it had everything to taking delight in the wonder of the heavens & the earth.
The term day is due to English translation of the original Hebrew. The original Hebrew used a term that translates roughly to a period of time.
Basically from the original Hebrew translation God created earth, day, animals, etc during one undefined period of time. On the 7th period of time he rested. For all intents and purposes we could still be in the 7th period of time and therefore God is not dead, but merely resting.
Jason, are you saying that the word used in the original Genesis didn’t mean a day?
…and if god is as ‘mighty’ as u say he is….why did it take him soooo long to create the world. with his ‘divine’ powes i could have done it in about 3 days max..allowin for ‘redos’. also by the ‘world’ do you include the universe.?
Hi Aaron,
“Your argument is fallible because you first have to understand the nature and characteristics of God.”
I think evgen you would admit, that your god is a higher being than yourself. So tell me, how can you (as a lesser being) understand the nature and characteristics of God??
God has revealed himself through nature (general revelation) and through special revelation (the Bible). So therefore, everyone has no excuse for not seeing that God exists. That is how I know.
Aaron, we can explain how evolution has been revealed through nature and through ‘special revelation’ (medical texts, physics texts, genetics texts, biology texts, math texts). Could you explain how your god has revealed his or herself through these things?
Hello Aaron,
“God has revealed himself through nature (general revelation) and through special revelation (the Bible). So therefore, everyone has no excuse for not seeing that God exists.”
Sorry, I have all excuse of the world for not seeing, that god not exists. “Oh there is a stone, thus god has to exist” Do not work.
Squirrels exists, so they must be gods!
same goes for you.
Oh come on, ANDing complements always equals a false. That’s just boring.
Now a ferric allergy, that’s just downright hilarious.
I’m sorry Fuzz, but the rock argument does little to disprove the existence of God. Technically it is a paradox, and a flawed one at that. The question that is actually posed by your arguement is one that contrasts two of God’s abilities. On the one hand you have his creative ability: The rock. On the other hand you have his ability to modify creation: Moving the rock.
Therefore your question would more accurately read:
“Which of God’s abilities is greater, his ability to create something or his ability to modify that creation?”
The answer is NEITHER! Because both are infinite, and therefore one infinite cannot be greater than another.
“true science cannot explain evolution”? I only hope you meant ‘cannot explain the process 100% at this moment time’ or you’re almost as bad as the fundamentalist nuts. Because large parts of the evolutionary process _are_ understood, our understanding continues to grow, and it’s scientific fact that it has happened and is why there are diversity of species.
A couple of hundred years ago the average height for people was 5’4″ and nowdays it’s closer to 5’8″. We’re getting taller on average. What say you?
Thats just because for the first time in history we don’t think brown things floating in water makes the water more nutritious. We now know how minerals work, effective exercises and we tend to live past puberty.
…And why couldn’t we do that before?
Uh, lack of proper hygienic techniques and modern medicine?
Science, man!
And why didn’t we have thoser earlier?
And why didn’t we have those earlier?
Bah, corrected a typo and it posted the (basically) same thing twise. Anyway…
Damn these typos…
It’s a nice point you’re trying to make (& please don’t take this as me agreeing with the “only 6000 years old crowd”) but unfortunately your working under a false premise. A couple hundred year ago the average hight in the European areas was 5’4″, however if you take to time to look at some of the other ethnicity you’d find that that is far from uniform, For instance the average hight for people with a Norse heritage used to be close to 6’6″-6’8″ but now is closer to 6’2″, not to even go into Pygmies. So by your logic saying that Europeans are evolving by getting taller, is also making the statement that the Celt’s are devolving by getting shorter, in actuality neither is true. It’s simply the co-mingling of genes caused by what is now common place travel & cross breeding. I suspect that if you were able to truly figure out a world wide average for both now & then they’d be roughly the same.
Actually, that’s because the people of the Victorian age were starved. Their bodies shrunk accordingly. Around the year 1000, man was about as tall as we are today, if a little shorter.
That said, evolution is fact and it pains me that this argument still goes on.
Mike, if you go to a castle or abbey that was built a 1000 years ago you will discover that man was much shorter then than now. I am considerably shorter than average and even I have to duck as I go through the doorways.
Over the past 1000 years there have been many reasons why the average height of man has increased. This includes both better diet, exercise and also sexual selection (i.e. women have a preference for taller men).
Where do you get that idea? I’ve looked down at original medieval suits of armor that were on a foot high pedestal. Counting off for the height added by the helm, the big warriors of the day were around 5′ tall.
The Vikings were three feet tall?
Ok so for just one moment lets believe god has created everything. What created god? According to believers EVERYTHING is created so according to your logic god was created and his god was created and his god was created…goes on forever. That is illogical. Creationism is fake, religion is fake, everything you believe in is fake. All it is, is one HUGE money making business taking advantage of fools. as our ever evolving minds evolve more and more are becoming non believers. Religion and everything you believe is dieing you can’t save it.
Stuff exists: indisputable. Therefore, it came from somewhere. Either it always existed, or else it was created by something (or else it created itself, but as you already pointed out, that’s nonsensical). It doesn’t matter though for your argument, because in either case, something eternal has to exist. Christians believe that something is God, atheists believe it is nature.
That was awfully philosophical for a fellow rotter.
You have a point…. Maybe this is proof that zombies are evolving?
GRAH.
Actually pagans believe it was nature. Atheists, and science (independently) believe that there does not in fact have to be anything existing before the universe, because such a hypothesis is not falsifiable, and science is only concerned with ideas that can be tested and proved wrong.
Adding an intelligent being who is interested in a certain bronze age tribe in the middle east doesn’t really work because the existence of said deity is far more complicated than assuming it was nothing, or a bubble in some multiverse, etc.
Furthermore, even if said intelligent being did exist, it still wouldn’t prove that the creator was the Christian god. It might be the unknowable Brahma for instance, or some other being that we simple haven’t discovered yet. Nor would it mean that said creator was able to intervene in our affairs.
By ‘nature’ I meant the apersonal system of cause and effect and forces and masses and such that constitute ‘nature’ as we understand it today. The way pagans conceived of ‘nature’ was wholly different, with a plethora of ‘natural’ gods existing within the system and generally being the personal cause for every effect. They run into the same problem though because their gods existed within nature as opposed to without, and so they could not have been that first cause. In fact, even in their creation myths something existed before the creator–Norse mythology, for instance, had the original god encase in a giant block of salt, and then freed by the licks of a random cosmic space cow or some such absurdity.
Also, the point I am attempting to put forward here is not one of science in the first place, as you point out. It is simply a matter of logic. Just because science itself cannot speak on the matter due to lack of data or the ability to run experiments does not mean that the method itself is useless. Don’t forget, the scientific method was originally formally put forth by the philosopher Descartes.
Your next point is practically meaningless, and could only be considered by not examining the views you are attacking–a little aside here, I would just like to point out that discounting the opposing viewpoint entirely happens by most people on both sides of most debates, and is a strong reason why most debates devolve so horribly into name-calling and drivel. KNOW WHAT YOU’RE ARGUING AGAINST, PEOPLE.
Anyway, if you examine the Christian idea of God you will find him to be infinite. An infinite God must have an infinite capacity for interest. He must therefor be interested in everything which has the slightest inclination to be interesting, and in fact be interested in all these things infinitely. It is no leap of logic to assume that God would be interested in “a certain bronze-age tribe in the middle east.” He would be interested infinitely in them. As he would be in the fate of an 18th-century village in northern Asia, or the effects of space debris a thousand light-years away a thousand years ago.
Next, you say the existence of some creator is unlikely because it is more complex than the lack of one. Three things here. First, you are making an appeal fallacy–in this case, an appeal to simplicity. The simplicity or complexity of an idea does not make it any more or less likely to be true. the simple marbles of Newtonian atoms would be much preferable in this regard to the sub-and-sub-and-further-sub-atomic particles with which we are now confronted. This gives us no reason (besides a wistful kind of desire, of course), however, to forgo everything we have learned about atoms in the last two-hundred years in favor of the simple solution. It is in-fact, no solution at all. Second, assuming something came from nothing seems to me a horribly complex assertion anyway. Third, a multi-verse doesn’t solve the problem, it simply pushes the problem one step back. If our universe emerged from a greater multi-verse, from where did that greater multi-verse emerge? In this case, you are left with an infinite regression of multi-verses, some ‘final’ multi-verse with an infinite timeline, or else a creator *of some kind* at the helm of that first multi-verse.
And finally, leading in from that, yes: it is impossible to prove that the God I spoke of is in fact the God Isaac, Jesus, or (possibly) Muhammad. However, that doesn’t really phase me much because that was not the point of my argument. I was countering Timmy’s assertion that the idea of a creator is ridiculous because that creator needs a creator itself.
“Three things here. First, you are making an appeal fallacy–in this case, an appeal to simplicity. The simplicity or complexity of an idea does not make it any more or less likely to be true.”
I thought it was an appeal to Occam’s Razor.
But the point stands: this intelligent creator is posited in order to explain the complexity of the universe (i.e., the existence of living organisms, the universe itself, etc.). But since the creator itself is supposed to be complex, as an explanation it’s a total non-starter. As you put it yourself: it simply pushes the problem one step back.
I’m sorry, maybe you don’t get the point. I agree with your logic 100%, meaning that yes, there has to be an end to the chain. No matter where you start or how far back you go, every cause-effect chain leads to 2 choices: eternity of time extending in the positive and negative direction or an eternal being existing before anything that was before (i.e. he existed without time). Sure, you could argue that the universe has no beginning, and that time is simply a perception of an extra dimension, expressed through its effects in the 3 spatial dimensions, meaning God does not exist, but isn’t the fact that you can ask that question proof that something supernatural exists? “I think; therefore I am.”
Look at it this way: consider our brains as computers, and your thoughts and perceptions happen inside this computer. Does a computer have a sense of self? Does it need a sense of self? Have we not gotten computers to perform almost every task imaginable, yet even the most complex supercomputer has no sense of self.
You can easily see that this would be a terrible trait to evolve. I can see it now: a tribe of cavemen lead an attack on a mammoth. All are highly efficient killers. But one has developed this sentience. He selfishly decides he doesn’t want to participate, and without his help, half of the other hunters (with no idea of selfishness) are wiped out.
Or consider an office scenario. As a manager, would you like to employ a man who likes to take credit, takes days off, wants to leave early, and puts himself above the company? Or would you rather have a mindless drone who will stay late when asked, and performs his tasks with the sterile efficiency of a computer?
My point is this: if you have a sense of self, where did you get it?
And back to your anti-God argument, let’s consider this: you cannot comprehend how God could possibly be the first cause, if everything has a cause before it. Okay, I’ll buy that. I don’t get it either. But I don’t have a problem with that. In fact, I think it’s much more plausible that I don’t understand God than that I do.
Here you are claiming that the first mover is god. Scientists say that the first mover was the big bang. Why move a step back, when there’s no need.
“You can easily see that this would be a terrible trait to evolve. I can see it now: a tribe of cavemen lead an attack on a mammoth. All are highly efficient killers. But one has developed this sentience. He selfishly decides he doesn’t want to participate, and without his help, half of the other hunters (with no idea of selfishness) are wiped out.”
Your argument is so wrong it was hard for me to formulate a counter-argument. Evolution is a gradual process. Each one of those cavemen have roughly the same amount of sentience. If altruism was also evolved, it’s not really a problem, and the cognitive abilities simply offer better range of adaptation.
I can easily say that the human brain is is simply a far more complex computer than our silicon-based ones, and that we don’t fully understand what we’d have to program a computer to do in order to make it sentient.
george, this is the sort of simplistic, irrelevant, unbelievably nonsensical BS that holds the human species prisoner. Do you have any idea what you just said?
I’m not even going to argue with you. You’re arguing with yourself; you just don’t know it yet. I’m going to repeat what you said, but show you the correct deductive process:
“You can easily see that this would be a terrible trait to evolve. I can see it now: a tribe of cavemen lead an attack on a mammoth. All are highly efficient killers. But one has developed this sentience. He selfishly decides he doesn’t want to participate, and without his help, half of the other hunters (with no idea of selfishness) are wiped out. Therefore, the person with the sentience trait lives and those who don’t have sentience die. I just proved that natural selection would have preserved sentience, albeit with a bizarre example.”
Thanks for the support george! Also, as someone who understands computers very well, you have no idea what you are talking about. The human brain is orders of magnitude more powerful than the most powerful supercomputer in certain respects. There is no doubt we will eventually surpass the human brain with technology.
To george
“You can easily see that this would be a terrible trait to evolve. I can see it now: a tribe of cavemen lead an attack on a mammoth. All are highly efficient killers. But one has developed this sentience. He selfishly decides he doesn’t want to participate, and without his help, half of the other hunters (with no idea of selfishness) are wiped out.”
Why will they be wiped out, coz just you want it? That is no proof. That is a nice fantasy story.
Why is it fantasy? I like it! As I said in my previous post, he’s proving our point
Genesis 1:1 states, “In the beginning God…”. God has always been, is, and will always be here. God was not created. He just is. Religion might be dying, but Christianity is growing more than you obviously know. Emperors, kings, armies, etc, have tried to stop Christianity but all have failed. Go ahead and persecute us. The church spreads like wildfire when that happens.
Atheists don’t persecute, we mock. After the amount of innocents the people that represent your religion have burned, tortured and drowned i think your getting it pretty easy.
To Aaron
“Emperors, kings, armies, etc, have tried to stop Christianity but all have failed.”
Well if that is your crterion, judaism is the “truer” religion, coz it is older and still extist, even so more people tried to stop it.
Following your logic, why can’t I just say the matter before the Big Bang “just was”?
Sorry, “True Science”???? what kind of science is that???
Science that is backed up by facts and can be tested as true or false. Creationism has failed every test put to it, and therefore is not science.
For instance, if all the creatures were put on this planet at the same time, then we should find bones all mixed up in the fossil record. We don’t. Never have we found a rabbit in the stomach of a dinosaur. If the flood happened, then we should expect to find a kangaroo skeleton somewhere along the route that it took from Ararat to Australia. But we don’t. Any test that passes creationism is better explained by evolution, simply because it fits the existing data better.
To Joel
I agree with you, but
I was replying to scurvybill’s
“and we can’t have an intellectual conversation either if you simply shove the “there is no God” idea in our faces. it is logically impossible to prove there is no God, and true science cannot explain evolution. no lab experiment can dictate history, especially when the supernatural is involved.”
Evolution has been proven many times, but if you tend to ignore facts and prefer some mysterious mythical being, please do not claim that it is my fault I cannot prove its non-existence. Prove its existence to me.
Sorry!! “True Science” ??? What kind of science is that??
There is no God.
You misspelled spoon.
That comment is made of win.
I may have to steal that.
Wow, my name spells both right!
“Not proof of macro-evolution, one species evolving into another.”
Type “observed instances of speciation” into google, you git. Nylon digesting bacteria, HeLa cells, etc… Not to mention all the things that prove common decent like ERVs and the fused chromosome #2.
“Debate doesn’t involve name calling, it involves facts and conversation.”
Then please bring some facts to the table that disprove evolution. If you really think that evolution hinges on a few hoaxes THAT WERE PROVEN TO BE HOAXES BY SCIENTISTS, then you’re just full of fail.
Not only that, but even if you were to disprove evolution, that still doesn’t mean your deity is real. You still have to prove that yours is the right one as opposed to the thousands of other religions in the world.
“we can’t have an intellectual conversation either if you simply shove the “there is no God” idea in our faces.”
Belief in evolution has nothing to do with religion. It is about observed fact. I’m sorry that you know so little that you can’t see the difference.
“it is logically impossible to prove there is no God”
First, this has no bearing on the validity of evolution.
Second, it doesn’t matter what you CAN’T prove. It matters what you CAN prove. Why don’t you believe in all other deities? Unicorns? Sasquatch? Do you believe in all of those just because you can’t disprove their existence, or do you not believe because you haven’t been shown sufficient evidence of their existence?
“no lab experiment can dictate history, especially when the supernatural is involved.”
It’s not about dictating history. You can say whatever you want about your deity and how awesome he is, but when people make a falsifiable claim like “the universe is 6000 years old” that IS something science can and has proven wrong over and over again though dendrochronology, ice cores, radiometric dating (all two dozen or so types prove the earth is much older), red shift and other calculations proves the universe is 13.72 BILLION years old…
Your education is blinding you from the simple truth
What an argument! You proved every single word of Kemanorel to be wrong. Scientific and well formulated!
Hi Aaron,
this argument applies more to you, I would say.
People who look into the sky always are bound to tumble on earth.
Lift your gaze from the book and a have a look at the real world.
Bylle, I have not yet seen one logical comment from you. I’m trying not to be rude, but if you cannot simply bring any evidence to the table without resorting to immature ranting then please stop posting. People here are actually bringing evidence and debating but you are just adding pointless comments and insulting people.
If you cannot address people’s arguments, then that’s fine. If you can, you are not showing it. So debate or don’t, but stop being the immature one in the background taking up space on the page with your posts. We have enough of them already.
I’ve seen multiple posts from bylle describing evolution and even a link for those of us who are too lazy to look for ourselves. It seems silly that your saying she hasn’t brought evidence to the table when that’s exactly what she’s done. She’s also addressed many peoples arguments here. I don’t know if you have some kind of beef with her, no doubt she’s flawed just like the rest of us, but you really should point out the flaws that exist rather than expecting people to read your post and believe it without checking.
To Tac
Dear Sir,
referring to your comment
“but you are just adding pointless comments and insulting people.”
would you be so kind to show me an example, please?
To Bylle:
I would love to.
“ignore facts and prefer some mysterious mythical being,
That is a nice fantasy story.
coz it is a fairy tale book how this world was created by a god.
Nothing makes a fairy tale true.
I am sorry, where do you live? Plane 9 in Outere Space?
What did you win?? The “I ignore facts-lottery”??”
And that was only a few. Try to be a little more respectful, please. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t give you the right to behave this way. As it turns out, some people have differing opinions.
To Miles:
Really? I haven’t found any. It is possible that I missed a few, true. I didn’t look at every single comment. I apologize, that should have said “most” of Bylle’s comments, not all.
You can agree with Bylle all you want, but you have to admit that the majority of her comments are insulting in nature.
To Tac
> ““ignore facts and prefer some mysterious mythical being,
That is a nice fantasy story.
coz it is a fairy tale book how this world was created by a god.”
What is insulting here??
> “Nothing makes a fairy tale true.”
What is insulting here??
> “What did you win?? The “I ignore facts-lottery”??””
It was a comment to a statement that religion would win over science here. Sorry so far I have seen some people here ignoring evolution and claiming their god did it. And such a comment about the winning of religion over evolution can only be written by ignoring facts
> “I am sorry, where do you live? Plane 9 in Outere Space?”
This was a reply to “Neither Science nor Religion is fact, they are both just theories.” And science is a fact and not just a theory. We use theories to explain why some things happen, but that they happen is still a fact. And religion is not about theories but about beliefs. Thus to state that science is just a theory and on the same level a religion states the lack of objectivity. Thus my question.
To Bylle:
Bylle, those were all presented in an insulting way. Calling someones religion a “fantasy” or a “fairy tale book” is insulting, I hope you understand that.
“What did you win?? The “I ignore facts-lottery”??”
This could have been presented much better. Putting it in this context you are being condescending, and, much like the outer space comment that follows it, you are insulting their intelligence.
This is not how to have a civilized debate. If you disagree with someone, bring up points as to why they are wrong. Don’t just make snide remarks.
To Tac,
“Bylle, those were all presented in an insulting way. Calling someones religion a “fantasy” or a “fairy tale book” is insulting, I hope you understand that.”
No, it is not insulting, it is just a fact. I hope you understand that.
“This is not how to have a civilized debate. If you disagree with someone, bring up points as to why they are wrong. Don’t just make snide remarks.”
I very try to behave civilized, not only here, but as much as I can. But stating, that a written text (by whatever religion) has the same quality as a science source is something I cannot agree with. None of the many creating myths is anything else than a fairy tale.
I have no problem with people who use any religious text or any god(dess) or whatever as a spiritual guide. But spiritual texts have not the quality of scientific proof.
“This could have been presented much better.”
Of course this could have been presented better, I never claimed to be on a level with Shakespeare.
To Bylle:
“No, it is not insulting, it is just a fact. I hope you understand that.”
Sorry Bylle. It’s insulting, and I know you know that. You can disagree with people all you want, but using the term “fairy tale” among others is insulting to their religion. I know that, you know that, let’s stop playing games and be respectful of each other.
“I very try to behave civilized, not only here, but as much as I can.”
I’m finding that hard to believe, Bylle. Even your reply to me suggests otherwise.
“But stating, that a written text (by whatever religion) has the same quality as a science source is something I cannot agree with.”
So disagree with it. I disagree with you, but I’m not talking down to your beliefs or saying your living in la la land or things like that. If I disagree with someone, I bring points and evidence to back up my stance in a respectful manner. I’m waiting for you to do the same.
To tac: Would you argue this adamantly if you were defending the last thursday-ists?
The fact IS that these people believe in a fairy tale, whether they like the wording or not their beliefs are no different to the other fairy tales that abound. If they’re insulted by a FACT, then they should reconsider their position. If intelligent people were insulted so easily then every scientist in the world would be appalled whenever evolution was referred to as a ‘theory’ in the derogatory sense it usually is.
Stop expecting is to respect people that ignore evidence and spread fallacies amongst adults and children alike. If you want to believe in fairy tales then fine, but don’t expect me to RESPECT you for it. That’s just ridiculous.
To Tac,
“Sorry Bylle. It’s insulting, and I know you know that. You can disagree with people all you want, but using the term “fairy tale” among others is insulting to their religion. I know that, you know that, let’s stop playing games and be respectful of each other.”
well, I don’t know what you think you know about me.
For me stating the fact, that the bible is a spiritual fairy tale book has nothing insulting to me. It is just the truth. And I am not playing games, I am stating my opinion.
““But stating, that a written text (by whatever religion) has the same quality as a science source is something I cannot agree with.”
So disagree with it. I disagree with you, but I’m not talking down to your beliefs or saying your living in la la land or things like that.”
It seems you have a different concept of reality. Disagreeing with the statement that the bible is not a scientific book is disagreeing with real world.
I do respect any belief, as long as this belief is kept out of science. I have already discussed that in length with Miguel and we found a base we could agree on.
To Miles:
“The fact IS that these people believe in a fairy tale,”
I don’t think so. This is a highly debated topic.
“If they’re insulted by a FACT, then they should reconsider their position.”
Like I said. It is not a FACT that the Bible is a fairy tale. You obviously think it is, and that’s fine. But accept that there are people who disagree with you. Instead of talking down to people’s beliefs, why don’t you just rationally debate it and show them they are wrong? Why do you feel the need to belittle people who, at best, are simply mistaken on a very highly debated topic? I think both sides deserve the common decency of rational, polite debate. I’m sorry to see that you don’t feel this way.
“If intelligent people were insulted so easily then every scientist in the world would be appalled whenever evolution was referred to as a ‘theory’”
I see nothing insulting about calling evolution a theory. Are you saying it’s the same as calling the Bible a “fairy-tale book”? It’s not, Miles. Let’s try to be mature, please.
“Stop expecting is to respect people that ignore evidence and spread fallacies amongst adults and children alike.”
I haven’t ignored any evidence. Nor have I spread any fallacies. You cannot lump ever person into groups like that Miles. Many atheists can be accused of doing the same thing. I wouldn’t lump all atheists into a group like that just because I disagree with them.
“If you want to believe in fairy tales then fine, but don’t expect me to RESPECT you for it.”
I don’t know why you are being so hostile. I’m trying to be polite, is it so much for me to want the same in return?
To Bylle:
“For me stating the fact, that the bible is a spiritual fairy tale book has nothing insulting to me.”
While I find it hard to believe you could honestly not see how that isn’t insulting, I accept that perhaps you were just mistaken. However, let me tell you. As someone who DOES believe in the Bible, having it called a fairy tale book is insulting. A polite debate does not see one side calling the others ideas “fairy tales”.
“Disagreeing with the statement that the bible is not a scientific book is disagreeing with real world. ”
That’s irrelevant. So maybe they are wrong. That doesn’t give you a right to talk down to them or insult their beliefs. I think you’re wrong as far as the Bible being a “fairy tale Book”, as you put it, but I didn’t call you an idiot or say you’re stupid. I calmly try to point out why you’re wrong. That’s being respectful of other people’s beliefs.
‘i don’t think so…’
Pure and simple. Your wrong.
‘It is not a FACT that the bible is a fairytale’
Again, your wrong.
I wasn’t referring to calling evolution a theory in the scientific sense of the word. I assumed this was obvious. I was referring to the creotards that use the term theory as some kind of fall back argument, for example ‘evolution is ONLY A THEORY’. No it isn’t he same as calling the bible a fairytale book, because the bible happens to be a fairy tale book. Unless you happen to take it literally? Theirs nothing immature about my comparison, if your going to find a flaw with what i’m saying let it be real.
‘I haven’t ignored any evidence. Nor have I spread any fallacies.’
This wasn’t a specific reference to you. But the people that claim the bible as truth DO ignore evidence and spread fallacies, again i would have thought this obvious.
‘I don’t know why you are being so hostile. I’m trying to be polite, is it so much for me to want the same in return?’
How hostile would you be if you were a dentist debating the tooth fairy to IDiots?
To Tac
so you take the bible literally like a science book?
To Miles:
“Pure and simple. Your wrong.”
Oh, I didn’t know it worked like that. Here, my turn. YOU are wrong. How long shall we keep this one up? Simply making that claim isn’t enough.
“because the bible happens to be a fairy tale book. ”
I don’t think so. And as I have said, this is a highly debated topic. Of course, you obviously aren’t interested in debating. You seem more interested in insulting and belittling the opposite side. I stopped doing that around the 5th grade. It’s a shame that you are incapable of rational, polite debate. I would continue, but is there honestly a point? You obviously aren’t here to debate with me. It’s just a waste of time.
You have brought no arguments to the discussion, nor have you responded to any of mine other than to childishly name call and insult. If that is the extent of your debating abilities then we should just end this here. I am not interested to get into a verbal battle with you. If you cannot muster the self control necessary to actually debate the points with evidence and reasoning then this ends here. Contact me when you are actually ready to defend your stance with more than immature insults.
To Bylle:
“so you take the bible literally like a science book?”
Some things are metaphorical and some are literal. The Garden of Eden, for example, I think, is metaphorical. The life of Jesus, is not.
To Tac
“Some things are metaphorical and some are literal. The Garden of Eden, for example, I think, is metaphorical. The life of Jesus, is not.”
And when you agree that the creation is metaphorical too, then we will come closer
To Bylle:
“And when you agree that the creation is metaphorical too, then we will come closer”
Bylle, I have agreed that the creation story is likely metaphorical. Not that God created humans, but the story of the Garden of Eden and creation of the world in 6 days, yes.
To Tac
“Bylle, I have agreed that the creation story is likely metaphorical. Not that God created humans, but the story of the Garden of Eden and creation of the world in 6 days, yes.”
Nahh, what I said, was that the whole creation story is a metaphor, not just Adam, Eve, the Garden Eden and the 6 days. No one created the universe.
To Bylle:
“Nahh, what I said, was that the whole creation story is a metaphor, not just Adam, Eve, the Garden Eden and the 6 days. No one created the universe.”
Well then on that point I disagree. I’ve already talked about the KCA.
To Miles670
Thank you for your support.
I appreciate it very much
Just supporting the evidence to be honest i’m no fan of people spreading fallacies.
Tis all good
Tac, you mentioned several times that Miles670 and Bylle were insulting you. In fact you even mentioned the words idiot and stupid.
“…but I didn’t call you an idiot or say you’re stupid. I calmly try to point out why you’re wrong. That’s being respectful of other people’s beliefs.”
Not only did they not once did they use those words to describe you, but your sarcastic tone is VERY much conveying disrespect. When you told Miles that he is incapable of a polite, rational debate, it struck a chord. He was being extremely polite considering you are telling him he’s rude…it’s also hard to have a rational debate with someone who believes in completely irrational things like God and the Bible.
Not to mention that this whole argument between you, Miles and Bylle started when you accused Bylle of only posting insults which was completely untrue. I found that her debate with Miguel was really intruguing and they both brought to the table some extremely valid and interesting points. Miguel has even made me understand how Religion CAN fit in with Science…in certain aspects.
All in all, Tac, just STFU, you’re annoying and hypocritacal and I can’t stand reading your posts. Thanks.
As Kemanorel said, proof plox.
Only if by “intellectual” you mean rampant empiricalistic reductionism, well then yes, maybe. Faith and science do NOT conflict, most of the great scientists of history have NOT been atheists regardless of how enlightened they were.
Faith and science do not conflict? Wow that is new to me! When did that happen? Maybe I have misinterpreted the history for about several hundred years at least. Or do I interpret that parent’s comment wrongly???
Well, you can believe in anything Hathor, Wishnu or whatever. It only does not conflict with science when you do not let your beliefs interfer with scientific results.
Agreed! Perhaps I should rephrase my comment to state: Faith and science SHOULD not conflict. That may probably fit better within your interpretation of history however accurate that may be. I’ll be the first to admit that the church has stood in the way of science on several momentous occasions. However, the untold story is how much the Church has done down through the ages for the advancement of science.
“However, the untold story is how much the Church has done down through the ages for the advancement of science.”
Well, maybe that story is untold, coz there is no such story.
And I agree with you:
“Faith and science SHOULD not conflict.”
So keep faith out of science.
“Keep faith out of science.” You think commonsense would be a little less blindingly obvious. I apologies if my previous comments failed to communicate that I understand and accept that maxim. I’m not saying that creationism is scientific. I’m just saying you can believe God created without having to disbelieve in evolution as science has discovered it to be.
About the love/hate relationship between the “church” and science: Never forget that anything that happens under a theocracy may not necessarily reflect the dogmatic beliefs of the clergy so much as the institutional power they so desperately grasp to maintain. I’ll say it again: When the Christian church has impeded the open and free study of science it was acting CONTRARY to it’s own doctrine, in it’s purest form. Consider this: Many times the church has been the patron of scientists. The church has been at the bedrock of educational institutions from the beginning. Even now the Catholic church runs and operates more schools worldwide than any other non-profit institution in history. AND they teach SCIENTIFIC evolution. In science class. Creation comes in theology class. Where it belongs.
Many great scientists of the past were Christians by confession and not just culture: their writings have revealed that their faith was deeply personal and a deep part of the inspiration that drove them to such depths of discoveries. Think about it: Copernicus defied the church, but did he defy God? Did he EVER make the conclusion: “The world is round, therefore God cannot exist?” I think he was able to delineate between the faith itself and the hierarchy which perpetuates it’s teachings. The modern university system, though it owes much to Islam, was developed primarily in Christian Europe. For years any competent sociologists had no qualms with referring to the west as “Christiandom” because of it’s widespread acceptance and practice. And it is in this environment that the scientific method was discovered, the many fields of science were developed, the university system exploded, and and the enlightenment occurred. Christianity makes it OK to be a thinking person because: “THE Truth will set you free”. Where as other religions systematically root out and kill dissenters that hold their tomes up to scientific scrutiny, the Christian doctrine encourages the study and mastery of what God has created and entrusted us with, where as the more highly dogmatic eastern religions would suppress a discipline that required the dissection of a “sacred cow” (or a literal one, for that matter). I’m not saying that the Church should receive credit for all developments of science, but it didn’t spring up in Hindu countries, and that says something.
To Miguel
““Keep faith out of science.” You think commonsense would be a little less blindingly obvious. I apologies if my previous comments failed to communicate that I understand and accept that maxim. I’m not saying that creationism is scientific. I’m just saying you can believe God created without having to disbelieve in evolution as science has discovered it to be.”
I am fine with that for you
.
First, I like the discussion.
Second, the discussion is completely pointless.
I’ll tell you why I think this is the case. Scientific experiments (for lack of a better word) don’t really prove things, they disproof things and leaves the stuff that can’t be disproved as the most logical “truth”. Therefore I agree evolution is a theory. But a very very strong theory indeed. We know the earth is round because we can see it is indeed not flat, which strengthens the idea we had before we could go into space. There is no way we can either prove, or in my logic disproof, there is a God. Therefore it is no use, to try and convince someone of either standpoint. Same thing for the origin of the universe. But it is very entertaining to see how people think about this subject.
Because I think a deity can’t be proved, or ruled out, there is absolutely no reason to teach creationism in science class, as science is by definition a subject on the matter of something that you can rule out (or proof).
“Faith and science do NOT conflict, most of the great scientists of history have NOT been atheists regardless of how enlightened they were.”
First, faith and science DO conflict where faith based claims are scientifically falsifiable… for example, claiming the universe is 6000 years old has been proven wrong over and over again, so in that instance they do conflict.
Second, the religion of the scientist doesn’t matter. I agree there, but the thing to note is that all progress in science is made by doing science. It doesn’t come from divine revelation… ever. No progress in science comes from religion. Usually, it is in spite of religion… see Galileo.
Something else to note, that long ago, atheism would have been punishable by *death*. A lot of those scientists were speculated to be that religion in name only.
In addition, studies show that with the higher the education, the more likely someone is to be non-religious. This is especially true for people who have studied biology. This is because most religious belief stems on the idea that life must have come from somewhere. The advances in abiogenesis and evolution coupled with the complete lack of evidence for actual existence of a deity (probably caused by the lack of “miracles” now that science is advanced enough to explain what would have been odd occurrences so long ago) is a HUGE force in allowing people to come to the position of most atheists. i.e. You shouldn’t believe in things without evidence.
First. Ok. Yes there is a conflict when faith claims something that is scientifically falsifiable. Well put. However, in many circumstances the falsifiable claims made by religious people are NOT essential doctrines of their faith. Case in point: a belief that the earth is only 6000 years old has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the core beliefs of Christianity, it never has, and it never should. There are too many today who would like it to be, but it just isn’t so. Consult an expert in Christian doctrine.
Second, you’re using a schizophrenic argument. On the one hand you say that the religion of great historic scientists is irrelevant or questionable, on the other hand you point out the tendency of modern biologists to be non-religious. Why bring it up if their faith doesn’t matter? It’s just another ad hominem waste of time. I think you can rationally see that it doesn’t determine the veracity of one’s statement. It is commonly recognized as flawed logic to attack the person using an argument as opposed to the argument they used.
Lastly… no evidence for God? NO EVIDENCE for GOD? Are you insane? What exactly are you looking for? A voice from heaven to boom at you “I AM REAL!”? You’d believe if that happened? I think not. You’d check yourself in to a psychiatric hospital. If a God DID exist who set in motion all the laws of the physical universe and created everything that exists from nothing, then he would by definitive nature HAVE to be outside the physical realm and therefore not subject to the laws of science. It is empirical reductionism to suggest that what is in the physical/scientific realm is all that exists. Few experts in the area of philosophy would assent to that, and it is not the realm of a scientist to decide any more than the age of the earth is decided by a cleric. Lack of miracles… Honestly, you want to take all the stories of the Bible and explain them as natural occurrences? Or you want to reconstruct the whole book as a conglomeration of myths? Which is it? Let’s be consistent. You shouldn’t believe things without evidence? Isn’t that just a circular argument for reductionism? What about things for which it is not possible to have evidence, like spiritual things?
There are perfectly rational people in all areas of all fields of expertise that differ on spiritual/religious/philosophical views. I’d like to know what “studies” you are referring to that show that biology experts tend to be less religious. Because most statistics show that if this is the case then nobody is listening to them because religious adherence continues to grow strongly worldwide.
Lastly… no evidence for God? NO EVIDENCE for GOD? Are you insane?
I would say, that makes him completely sane.
Can you give me any scientific evidence for god?
Did you not read my entire response? The answer is NO! You cannot prove a SUPERNATURAL being scientifically. Not with scientific evidence.
You cannot prove a supernatural being at all, with anything. All evidence is scientific, what kind of evidence isn’t?
Bingo. The existence of God is non-falsifiable. Therefore it must be accepted on grounds of faith alone. Asking for evidence for God is absurd, unless you can answer the questions: What do you expect this so called “evidence” to actually look like? Is this a criteria that could reasonably be applied to anything else?
‘The existence of God is non-falsifiable. Therefore it must be accepted on grounds of faith alone’
Your serious? The evidence for giant teddybears ruling the universe using evil custard pies is scientifically non-falsifiable, but with your reasoning this MUST be accepted on faith alone. You can’t have thought that through.
To Miguel,
OK, your god is a supernatural being and you belief in him
)?
(or should I say her
But belief includes not knowing. So you do not know if your god exists.
I am sure no god exists, coz I have seen no evidence.
Can we leave it at that?
Wish I could. I’m not gonna be so arrogant as to claim that I can epistemologically prove the existence of God. Therefore, in the technical sense, I cannot say that I personally “know” that God exists, as if I’ve got conclusive proof. I would say that I “believe” that God exists. A matter of faith.
I would NOT say that you “know” god does not exist. My previous argument is two-sided. I would say that you refuse to accept that anything could exist that cannot be shown through empirical evidences. Not that nothing does exist that is unproven, but nothing can exist that is physically unprovable. That is called reductionism, an unpopular philosophical belief.
To Miguel
“Wish I could. I’m not gonna be so arrogant as to claim that I can epistemologically prove the existence of God. Therefore, in the technical sense, I cannot say that I personally “know” that God exists, as if I’ve got conclusive proof. I would say that I “believe” that God exists. A matter of faith.
I would NOT say that you “know” god does not exist”
Can we agree on
you assume that god does exist
I assume that godf does not exist
?
That sounds rather fair. Nicely put, I think. The existence of a deity is a presupposition and not the domain of science. Unless you make detailed, specific, verifiable, falsifiable physical claims about that deity. In which case, by all means, they SHOULD be tested!
Miguel is right, you cannot use scientific evidence, but you can use logic. Just look at the Kalam Cosmological argument.
Whether God exists or not is a philosophical argument, as I believe Miguel states somewhere in this vast sea of posts.
You can use logic and reasoning to show God exists.
How is the kalam cosmological argument logic exactly? It pre-supposes that everything has cause or some kind of fate. There is no evidence suggesting this. Explain how logic and reasoning can be used to show god exists please, if you actually know how, i have no doubt that i’d learn something from it.
Also @tac you state that whether god exists or not is a philosophical argument, does this mean that rational thinkers are not allowed to discuss it with an open and freethinking mind?
It isn’t even about whether god exists or not, of course every bit of evidence we have points to the opposite but the real argument is just how much power should the people that believe in god, fairies, unicorns and all the other things books have ever been written about, actually have. The answer is none, belief certainly shouldn’t be a pre-requisite to running for office, the catholic faith certainly shouldn’t be running tax free or allowed to spread the lie that condoms spread aids, and the fact that it is religion that leads people to thinking that upon suicide bombing you will be taken to a better place and ‘rewarded’ should be recognised as a serious threat. This parent is another example of how to indoctrinate a child, keep him/her away from truth and as the person she trusts the most tell him/her lies every day.
There is nothing ‘sacred’ about religious ideas, they should be tested like every other idea, and they have, every time they have failed. Philosophical or not, if a hypothesis consistently fails at every turn then it’s time to find a better explanation. In evolution we did, not only did it explain the past but it predicted the future, THATS a real idea.
To Tac
“You can use logic and reasoning to show God exists.”
Would you mind to enlighten me with an example.
Miles, when you say:
“belief certainly shouldn’t be a pre-requisite to running for office, …just how much power should the people that believe in god, fairies, unicorns and all the other things books have ever been written about, actually have. The answer is none, …religion that leads people to thinking that upon suicide bombing you will be taken to a better place and ‘rewarded’ should be recognised as a serious threat…There is nothing ’sacred’ about religious ideas, they should be tested like every other idea…
and that kind of stuff. I couldn’t agree more.
I just don’t think the solution is no religion. Atheist institutions and communities aren’t necessarily the epitome of perfection. I believe that’s where we differ. I think religions can be improved.
Will they? Not fast enough, obviously, but probably easier then convincing everyone to just drop them immediately. Case in point: Christianity is not nearly as dangerous today as it was in the “dark ages.” Maybe Islam is going through it’s own “dark age” as most of it’s people are still under the burden of theocracy. Hopefully it will come out of it’s dark age before it blows us all up…
Anyways, about the Cosmological argument..
I strongly believe that the existence of God is not a scientific issue, but philosophical one. I think that’s how any modern university would classify the idea. Science deals with facts. Inherently obvious, utterly indisputable facts. Philosophy is a much more abstract and theoretical field where nothing is ever decisively proven. God is an abstract idea. And so I think at best the cosmological argument can show not that God does exist, but that God is a possibility. It is rational to suppose there is something out there beyond the physical realm, but it is irrational to treat it like a scientific fact, which it is not. It is merely a spiritual belief.
My apologies for the numerous times spiritual beliefs have made unwarranted intrusions into scientific matters. I personally would condemn those actions as “heresy”. Such as the handwritten note above. It’s not just un-scientific, it’s even bad theology, IMO.
To Miles:
I would love to go over the kalam cosmological argument with you. I take it you’re familiar with it from your post. summarized for anyone else its:
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The Universe began to exist.
C: The universe has a cause.
I take it you disagree with P1. It is not unreasonable to see that it something doesn’t exist and then it does there is a reason for that. Something had to have changed from one point to the next, right? Since if everything kept going on as it did, there wouldn’t be the object in question. But if there isn’t any cause needed for something to come into existence, why is there ever any time when it isn’t in existence? Just like a spark comes into being when all the requirements for a spark to happen come together. Is it truly reasonable to believe that objects appear out of thin air for no reason whatsoever? That doesn’t sound very scientific, Miles. That sounds more like fairy tail than the Bible if you ask me. I think the world would be a whole lot more chaotic if there were no requirements for things to come into existence. But we haven’t seen anything like that take place. At least I haven’t.
You also said something about Christians given too much power or something. I apologize, I was unaware that was what the discussion was about. I thought it was about the existence of God and evolution. Personally, I believe the two can coexist. What part of evolution discredits the Bible? The part about the world being made in 6 days? I believe Miguel already told you that was not meant to be taken literally.
Also Miles:
“Also @tac you state that whether god exists or not is a philosophical argument, does this mean that rational thinkers are not allowed to discuss it with an open and freethinking mind?”
No, why did you draw that conclusion from my post?
To Bylle:
“Would you mind to enlighten me with an example.”
I’m talking about that very subject with Miles.
To Miles:
“And so I think at best the cosmological argument can show not that God does exist, but that God is a possibility. It is rational to suppose there is something out there beyond the physical realm, but it is irrational to treat it like a scientific fact, which it is not. It is merely a spiritual belief.”
Like I have been saying. You cannot prove God 100% without a doubt. You can use logic and reasoning, which is what Philosophy is all about, to look at the evidence that science provides and draw a conclusion based off that evidence. In this case, I would say that God, while He cannot be proven 100%, can be shown to be the most logical, rational conclusion to the data provided us.
To Miguel and Miles:
My apologies for that last post. I mixed the two of you up.
@Tac
“Miguel is right, you cannot use scientific evidence, but you can use logic. Just look at the Kalam Cosmological argument. ”
What do you think science uses?
Logic is totally (and logically) incapable of proving anything about the real world without first providing it with assumptions about the nature of the real world for it to work on. It doesn’t matter what conclusions you reach by application of logic if the assumptions are wrong. As Miles670 pointed out, your example of the Kalam Cosmological argument needed to make assumptions about the real world before it could begin to apply logic to those assumptions. Those assumptions need validating before their logical conclusions can be accepted.
In other words. No: you can’t use logic and reason to prove the existence of God.
To Hapqy:
That’s not quite true. The Kalam Cosmological argument is not simply assumptions. For example, the point about the universe having a beginning is not an assumption. That comes from cosmology. Logic simply uses the facts that we know to answer the question of “why”. So, you can’t prove the existence of God 100%, no (though you can’t prove anything 100%). But you can show it to be the most logic explanation of what we know.
P1 and P2 are both assumptions; there’s also a fallacy that if every element of a set has a certain property then the set itself must possess that property. If the Universe is the set of all possible events (i.e., everything throughout all time) then the fact that every event has a cause doesn’t necesssarily imply that the Universe itself has a cause.
But okay. Here’s what really happened.
A sufficiently advanced civilisation (in Clarke’s sense of the term) tuned the Big Bang to yield a customised Universe that optimised their own evolution twenty billion years later. Yes, that does involve time travel. So what?
To Hapqy:
“P1 and P2 are both assumptions;”
That is not true. P2 is based off of cosmology. It is not an assumption at all.
“If the Universe is the set of all possible events (i.e., everything throughout all time) then the fact that every event has a cause doesn’t necesssarily imply that the Universe itself has a cause.”
What? I don’t see how that logically follows at all. You will need to be a little more clear. What do you mean the universe is the set of every possible event, and how does it then logically follow that the universe doesn’t need a cause? What do you mean by “possibility” here, do you mean broad logical possibility?
It is an assumption: a statement made without prior logical justification (technically I should call it a “premise” but a premise is an assumption).
“how does it then logically follow that the universe doesn’t need a cause? ”
Who said it did follow?
I’m not sure why I wrote “possible” there – narrow text boxes aren’t the best for editing, and the fact that this text box is halfway up the page from what I’m replying to doesn’t help – but my understanding is that the Universe consists of everything throughout history.
But just because everything throughout history had a cause, it does not logically follow that the Universe itself must have had a cause.
To Hapqy:
“but my understanding is that the Universe consists of everything throughout history.”
Hapqy, that doesn’t make much sense. The universe is a thing, not a set of events. And just like every other thing, it needs a cause if it came into existence. Something changed from the point causally prior to its existence up to it’s existence. Otherwise you would have to make the claim that it came from nothing, for nothing, and by nothing. And that just doesn’t make logical sense.
You’re just repeating the premises again without any logical justification for them.
To Hapqy:
“You’re just repeating the premises again without any logical justification for them.”
That’s not true. As I said, believing that something simply came from nothing for nothing and by nothing is illogical. Thus, the logical alternative is that if something comes into existence, it needs a cause.
You also tried to combat my argument with some sort of “universe is a set of events” argument, which I responded to as well.
You seem to have a problem with P1, but it’s still unclear to me what your argument against it is.
You haven’t yet justified it, merely claimed that denying it is illogical. Which would mean that you have to have a logical argument somewhere that proves that the denial is false.
To Hapqy:
“You haven’t yet justified it, merely claimed that denying it is illogical.”
What do you mean I haven’t justified it? If I have shown that the alternative is illogical, then I have justified it. If you have a problem with the argument, you should be able to bring some points against it, but you have not done so. You have yet to bring any points against it, unless you do so, the argument stands.
“What do you mean I haven’t justified it? If I have shown that the alternative is illogical, then I have justified it.”
“IF” being the operative word here. You haven’t shown that the denial of P1 (specifically: “Not everything that begins to exist has a cause”) is illogical, merely assumed that P1 is true as a premise. If your only justification is that denying it would be in contradiction with premise P1 then you’re merely begging the question.
——————————————————————
If and when we’ve dealt with P1, we can go on to discuss P2. And some other assumptions you’ve admitting to making without explicitly listing them (e.g., you claim the universe does not consist of everything throughout history), and then we can look at seeing whether the implications hold up. For one thing, I’m a bit vague about what you’d consider a “cause”….
To Hapqy:
“merely assumed that P1 is true as a premise.”
No, I defended it. If you deny P1, then you must hold to something coming into existence “from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.” Nothing doesn’t make something, Hapqy. Nothing can only produce nothing.
Still begging the question. All “nothing doesn’t come from nothing” is merely the converse of “something comes from something”. Which is just a looser statement of P1.
“Nothing can only produce nothing.” So you keep asserting. Where’s your logical justification (you must have one, because you said that denying it was illogical)? Oh, and contemplate the concept of the “quantum vaccum”.
To Hapqy:
““Nothing can only produce nothing.” So you keep asserting. Where’s your logical justification (you must have one, because you said that denying it was illogical)?”
Do I really need to go further than this? Nothing isn’t a thing. It cannot DO anything, let alone produce something from itself. Nothing is literally the absence of anything.
Now if you want to claim that it is not only possible, but more probable that something can come from nothing for nothing and by nothing then it is YOU that needs the logical justification, not I.
No; you’re the one making the assertions, you’re the one arguing that e.g., the Kalman Cosmological Argument provides a logical proof of the existence of a Cause of the Universe. I haven’t been making any claims, nor have I been claiming that it’s provably false. But the practical upshot of all this is that you’ve taken certain premises as axiomatic. Like I said a long time ago, you cannot prove by logic anything about the real world without making logically unjustified assertions about the real world first. One of your axiomatic assertions is premise P1 of the Kalman Cosmological argument.
So as for me having to prove my position: I’m not the one here with anything to prove.
To Hapqy:
This is getting old Hapqy. A child’s argument is the one that just keeps repeating “Why? Why? Why?”
You cannot prove ANYTHING 100%. The only thing two things you can know for 100% are truth exists and you exist. Every single other thing is just “assertions” as you put it.
Science can’t prove anything about the wold either any more than I can prove my hand is there. It gets us absolutely NO where if we sit around and just continuously ask for justifications upon justifications.
Now, as far as we know. Nothing, since it is the absence of anything, cannot produce something. That just doesn’t make any logical sense. THAT is a logical assertion, even though we cannot prove 100%, just like we cannot prove 100% that there was a big bang, or that anyone other than myself exists.
Now, if you think it IS logical that nothing can magically produce something, then you must make an argument for that, otherwise my point stands.
I have already shown why nothing cannot produce something. If you have a problem with that assessment, then you must bring reasons why you have a problem with it.
Now, I will say it one more time just for good measure.
Nothing cannot produce something because it is the absence of anything. That goes beyond matter, we are talking no causes, no possibilities. Absolutely nothing. So, what do we have that can bring that thing into existence? We obviously don’t have the actual thing yet, so it cannot be by it’s own accord that it comes into existence. Do we have anything than can bring about the existence of anything? No, we still have nothing. Well, do we even have the possibility that something can come into existence? No, we don’t even have that. What do we have that can bring about the existance of something?
That’s the question you must answer. What do we have that can produce anything? The problem is, that if you DID give an answer, you would be listing SOMETHING. Thus, we don’t have nothing, now we have SOMETHING, or a CAUSE.
Now, I have MORE than adequately shown why nothing cannot produce something, even though I should not have had to explain it this far. If you want to combat this point, you MUST find something above that you disagree with and then show why it is wrong, otherwise the point stands.
If you cannot, then we can move on to the next point. Otherwise, at this point you are just wasting my time and yours.
“Now, if you think it IS logical that nothing can magically produce something, then you must make an argument for that, otherwise my point stands.”
And I will say it one more time: I never denied the premise, merely pointed out that you have not provided any justification for it despite claiming it and despite my repeatedly asking for it – apparently because you have no such justification for it without any basis.
You’ve claimed proof for these things and you have been totally unable to provide it.
As for the accuracy of your assertion: like I said, consider the quantum vacuum.
The next point would be whether or not the universe qualifies as a thing that began to exist. But you’re right, this is old.
Or I could accept premises P1 and P2, and even agree that the implication can be filled in. How do you manage to get from that to the existence of God?
To Hapqy:
“merely pointed out that you have not provided any justification for it”
How can you say that? The entire ending of my last post was absolutely nothing but logical justification for it. Instead of responding to the justification I have provided, you simply hold to me not providing any.
As long as you continue to do that, we will get no where. So instead, let’s try something else.
Hapqy, do you think science exists?
To Hapqy:
“Or I could accept premises P1 and P2, and even agree that the implication can be filled in. How do you manage to get from that to the existence of God?”
That’s the next part. Once we have established the universe has a cause, we have to ask what that cause is. There are only 2 options.
1. An being with a will of its own with the ability to create a universe.
or
2. An eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of the universe.
But it cannot be 2, since the universe was a temporal effect, and a set of conditions cannot choose to create something or not. Therefore, if we say that it was 2, we would have to hold to the idea that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of the universe existed causally prior to the existence of the universe. In other words, you would have to admit that the conditions existed without the creation of the universe, which is logically impossible.
The only other option is a being with a will of its own that can choose to create the universe.
Summarized it basically goes like this.
P1: Either God or not God (set of conditions)
P2: Not not God (For reasons above)
C: God
“Now, I have MORE than adequately shown why nothing cannot produce something, even though I should not have had to explain it this far.”
Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam doesn’t count.
“There are only 2 options.
1. An being with a will of its own with the ability to create a universe.
or
2. An eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of the universe.”
OR:
3. An eternal set of conditions that continually change and sometimes, though not necessarily always, are appropriate for creating universes. (A possibility which I have already raised elsewhere in this thread.)
OR:
4. A part of the universe itself with the ability to create the universe itself (a possibility I raised here in this argument which you haven’t commented on).
OR: ….. Feel free to come up with other hypotheses.
Bylle where are you from? I must know because your female and intelligent as hell, tis beyond attractive
About teddy-bears: An excellent illustration! Glad you brought it up. The claims of religious dogmas are typically of comparable ridiculous natures. I think that, however, is scientifically falsifiable: Literal custard pies exert little directional control on surrounding objects. Try this one out: Everything that exists, in all realms of existence, at one point had a beginning. Something caused that. We call it God for lack of a better term.
To Miles670
“Bylle where are you from? I must know because your female and intelligent as hell, tis beyond attractive
”
Thank you very much!! I am from Germany.
To Miguel,
“That sounds rather fair. Nicely put, I think. The existence of a deity is a presupposition and not the domain of science. Unless you make detailed, specific, verifiable, falsifiable physical claims about that deity. In which case, by all means, they SHOULD be tested!”
I can agree on that
!!!
@Miguel: “Everything that exists, in all realms of existence, at one point had a beginning. Something caused that.”
Every human being is less than two hundred years old. Therefore the human race is less than two hundred years old.
All natural numbers are finite. Therefore the set of natural numbers is finite.
Every molecule of water is V-shaped. Therefore water is V-shaped.
Everything in the universe has a cause. Therefore the universe has a cause.
Simply having something made up entirely of parts that share a common property is insufficient reason alone to assume that the something itself also has that property.
“We call it God for lack of a better term.”
Maybe YOU do…
Germany’s so far away from England! I can hardly brave that distance to simply take you to dinner
When i’m back in Amsterdam for the summer, be expecting a post 
lol
nice try
I appreciate it
To Tac
Does it mean that you consider the kalam cosmological argument an example for “You can use logic and reasoning to show God exists.”??
If this is the case, I am sorry, I fail to see that.
To Bylle:
“Does it mean that you consider the kalam cosmological argument an example for “You can use logic and reasoning to show God exists.”??
If this is the case, I am sorry, I fail to see that.”
I do. What part are you having trouble with? If you accept that the universe must have a cause, then there are only two things that it could possibly be.
1. An eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of the universe.
or
2. A being powerful enough to create the universe with a will of it’s own.
But it simply cannot be 1. Since if you have all the necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of anything, it will come into being no matter what. But there was a point causally prior to the universe’s beginning that it did not exist. Thus, you would have to say that there was a point that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe’s existence where there, but did not create the universe, which is impossible. So the only other option we have is 2. A being with a will of it’s own that is powerful enough to create a universe.
To Tac,
I see the problem. But there are more than just these two possibilities. Thus this is no logical proof of the existence of any god.
And to answer the question:
For example. a single spontaneous moment of the conditions met to create a Big Bang and thus an universe.
To tac: I wrote quite a bit pointing you towards studies that show why your argument is flawed but unfortunately the moderators have seen fit to start deleting my comments and i’m getting tired of it. I don’t wanna write the entire thing ou again so i’ll say this: Getting something from nothing is not ‘un-scientific’, if you had any knowledge of quantum physics you’d understand this and you’d also know that atoms have been observed coming into existence in empty space without cause. It’s very interesting you should look into it.
Also i wrote something referring you to one of the main scientific arguments for the cause of the big bang, it’s widely thought that the big bang was either the result of another universe collapsing or this universe being formed in a black hole. It in fact thought to be infinite, without the beginning you referred to.
This better post -_-
To Miles670,
I have missed you
And I agree with you. There are more options then the two Tac mentioned, one of the possibilities I skipped to mention was the collapsing universe. I hadn’t considered the possibility of a black hole. Thank you.
Good to be missed!
I’ve posted a few times and its shown up ‘post waiting to be approved by moderators’ then it just hasn’t posted >.< Tis maddening when you'v researched and then typed something up and it just doesn't show! If i miss anything good email me under this name at hotmail.com
To Miles670
I understand you
To Bylle:
“I see the problem. But there are more than just these two possibilities. Thus this is no logical proof of the existence of any god.”
Actually Bylle, that’s incorrect. Those are literally the only two options available to us.
“For example. a single spontaneous moment of the conditions met to create a Big Bang and thus an universe.”
Impossible. Since time came into existence at the Big Bang, whatever created the universe had to be outside of time I.E. eternal. Thus, we have to conclude that the conditions for the creation of the universe would have to be outside of time as well, thus eternal, thus there could be no “spontaneous appearance” of them.
“Getting something from nothing is not ‘un-scientific’, if you had any knowledge of quantum physics you’d understand this and you’d also know that atoms have been observed coming into existence in empty space without cause. It’s very interesting you should look into it.”
I have never heard of this. I’ll look into it and see what I can find, if you still have that link or a place to start it would help.
“It in fact thought to be infinite, without the beginning you referred to.”
On this point I cannot debate with you. I am no cosmologist, so I cannot debate the existence of the universe. All I can tell you is that modern cosmology has already determined that the universe is not eternal. The Bord Guth Vilenkin proof states:
“It is said that evidence is what it takes to convince a reasonable man and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, modern cosmologists can no longer hide behind the idea of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they must accept the idea of a cosmic beginning.”
That may not be 100% word for word, I don’t have the quote in front of me but I remember it pretty well.
To tac: Yeah sure i’ll give you a good starting point:
google
These studies are very easy to find, you just have to look.
‘On this point I cannot debate with you. I am no cosmologist, so I cannot debate the existence of the universe’
Earlier in the thread you were quoting the kalam cosmological argument at us and now your saying that you can’t debate the same point because your ‘no cosmologist?’ Then where did you pick up the KCA? Were you just google random quotes or do you actually understand what it is your talking about? If you understand then you should have knowledge enough to debate just fine.
‘the Bord Guth Vilenkin proof states’
This last paragraph of yours really does convince me that you don’t understand what your talking about. The above proof does not apply to the theory i mentioned as i was talking about black holes. In fact the only reason to bring such a quote into this thread would be in defence of the KCA, which leads me to believe that that is exactly what you typed into google then you just cut and paste.
Do you understand the subject or not?
I posted twice because it came up with the moderation thing again >.<
To Tac
(referring to the kalam cosmological argument )
“Actually Bylle, that’s incorrect. Those are literally the only two options available to us.”
I see you would like it to be so, for faking a proof. But unfortunately this is not true, there are several options, even if you do not like that.
The kalam cosmological argument is far from being the proof for any deity.
““For example. a single spontaneous moment of the conditions met to create a Big Bang and thus an universe.”
Impossible. Since time came into existence at the Big Bang, whatever created the universe had to be outside of time I.E. eternal.”
It is not impossible. even considering this argument, coz the things that happened to create the single spontaneous moment of the conditions met to create a Big Bang were obviously before the Big Bang. Thus no “eternal being” needed. Sorry.
To Miles:
“Earlier in the thread you were quoting the kalam cosmological argument at us and now your saying that you can’t debate the same point because your ‘no cosmologist?’”
I can’t debate how the universe was formed. All I know is it’s not eternal. I don’t need to be able to debate cosmology in order to accept the Kalam Cosmological Argument. So what I meant is I can’t debate with you about other theories of the universe being eternal.
“Were you just google random quotes or do you actually understand what it is your talking about?”
No, I’m fairly well versed in the kalam cosmological argument as well as others. Not as well versed as actual philosophers I’m sure, but I didn’t google it.
“The above proof does not apply to the theory i mentioned as i was talking about black holes.”
I’m sorry, I thought when you said:
“It in fact thought to be infinite, without the beginning you referred to.”
You were trying to claim the universe would not have a beginning. Thus, I brought the Bord Guth Vilenkin proof. If that didn’t apply, then I apologize. A simple misunderstanding.
“Do you understand the subject or not?”
I believe I do. I brought up the kalam cosmological argument as evidence for a creator, and the Bord Guth Vilenkin proof to back it up when, I thought, you suggested the idea the universe was eternal. If I have misunderstood somewhere, then my mistake.
I was about to point out flaws in what your saying but if your going to ‘misunderstand’ everything i say then theirs no point. I really thought i was talking in laymans as well. My mistake.
To Bylle:
“I see you would like it to be so, for faking a proof. But unfortunately this is not true, there are several options, even if you do not like that.”
No, I’m sorry. “necessary and sufficient conditions for creation of a universe” translates basically to “anything else except God.” So, no, those are the only two options. It’s either God, or “not God”. There is no third option. But I’ve already shown how an eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions (not God) cannot logically be the answer.
“It is not impossible. even considering this argument, coz the things that happened to create the single spontaneous moment of the conditions met to create a Big Bang were obviously before the Big Bang. Thus no “eternal being” needed. Sorry.”
What? I didn’t understand that last part. As I said, the conditions for the creation of the universe MUST be eternal, as time came into existence at the Big Bang. Thus, the conditions cannot have existed in time, since it was not created yet. BUT, the conditions CANNOT be eternal, as I have already shown. So the only other option is the creator.
To Miles:
“I was about to point out flaws in what your saying but if your going to ‘misunderstand’ everything i say then theirs no point.”
I believe I have only misunderstood once, if at all. Forgive me, but it sounds to me like you have simply run out of arguments. If not, then you can address the Kalam cosmological argument, since that’s what we were talking about. Everything I have said has been in defense of that, when did we change topics and why?
To tac:
How could i run out of arguments when your yet to address anything anyone here has said with evidence? You’ve already made it clear that you don’t understand what your talking about, at one point using the KCA to back yourself up and then at another refraining from debate because your understanding of philosophy is too limited! You don’t get it both ways, you don’t get to claim that this is purely a philosophical argument and then throw in other philosophers arguments in like you understand them, whilst a post or two later stating that in actual fact you don’t know enough about philosophy to argue even the simplest points that i made myself. How can you debate the creation of the universe with anyone if you have no understanding of physics AND no understanding of philosophy?
You didn’t make it clear at all that you were defending the KCA when you brought up the ‘bord guth vilenkin proof’, in fact that was most likely only made clear to people reading these posts when i stated that your argument was useless for anything but. If you are now trying to cover up your ignorance by claiming that ‘Everything I have said has been in defense of that’ then you should really read through your posts because it seems a lot more like everything you’ve said is in defence of a book of hypothetical situations based around hypothetical men based on MYTHICAL BEINGS!
Stupidity annoys me little more than when it’s so blatantly lost.
To Tac
!No, I’m sorry. “necessary and sufficient conditions for creation of a universe” translates basically to “anything else except God.””
I can agree to that, when you agree, that this includes several completely different options.
“But I’ve already shown how an eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions (not God) cannot logically be the answer. ”
eternal is not a necessary condition.
Thus there are several not eternal conditions that fulfill the possibilities of forming a galaxy. Thus the KCA is no proof at all. It is a verbal trick.
““It is not impossible. even considering this argument, coz the things that happened to create the single spontaneous moment of the conditions met to create a Big Bang were obviously before the Big Bang. Thus no “eternal being” needed. Sorry.”
What? I didn’t understand that last part. As I said, the conditions for the creation of the universe MUST be eternal, as time came into existence at the Big Bang. Thus, the conditions cannot have existed in time, since it was not created yet. BUT, the conditions CANNOT be eternal, as I have already shown. So the only other option is the creator.”
Things that happen before the Big Bang are necessarily out of the time frame of the coming universe. The conditions do not need to be eternal, they just need to happen. And of course they can happen spontaneously.
To Miles:
“How could i run out of arguments when your yet to address anything anyone here has said with evidence?”
Respond to what? I have made the argument earlier that evolution can coexist with the Bible. And in this particular area I was talking about the Kalam Cosmological argument as evidence for the existence of God. That’s what we’ve been talking about. You have not responded to the Kalam Cosmological argument at all, so tell me. What more should I be saying? I presented the evidence for the cosmological argument, and now I’m waiting for you, or anyone else, to bring up any points against it, but you have yet to do so. Instead you result back to what I’ve come to expect from you. Insults and name calling. I am beginning to believe this is what you result to when you cannot respond to an argument.
“You’ve already made it clear that you don’t understand what your talking about, at one point using the KCA to back yourself up”
Miles, forgive me, but it seems it is YOU who is confused as to what we are talking about here. I presented the Kalam Cosmological argument as evidence for God. I was not at all using it to back up any other point. What do you think we are talking about here? Of course I brought in the Bord Guth Vilenkin proof. It was directly related to the KCA, which is what I am in the middle of discussing. Why would anyone be confused about what the was supposed to support? Look back up the posts and you’ll see that Bylle asked me to show why the KCA is evidence for God, so I started going over it. THAT’S what we are talking about here. I have stayed right on that subject.
“You didn’t make it clear at all that you were defending the KCA when you brought up the ‘bord guth vilenkin proof’,”
As I said, the KCA argument is what this string of posts is all about. What ELSE would it be supporting? You have obviously mixed this debate with another.
“Everything I have said has been in defense of that’”
I’ll say it one more time. This debate has been about absolutely nothing but the KCA. Look back up your posts. It starts with Bylle saying:
“To Tac
Does it mean that you consider the kalam cosmological argument an example for “You can use logic and reasoning to show God exists.”??
If this is the case, I am sorry, I fail to see that.”
Then I started talking about the KCA and have not stopped talking about the KCA at all in this particular string of posts. YOU are confused. Please make sure your facts are straight before you call someone ignorant.
“said is in defence of a book of hypothetical situations based around hypothetical men based on MYTHICAL BEINGS!”
What? When? There is another place on this page that I have been defending the Bible, but not here. I am growing tired of you childish, illogical rantings. Your posts aren’t even making sense anymore.
Let’s try to start over. I already brought the points for the KCA. Now, which premise do you have a problem with and why?
To Bylle:
“Things that happen before the Big Bang are necessarily out of the time frame of the coming universe. The conditions do not need to be eternal, they just need to happen. And of course they can happen spontaneously.”
Bylle, you completely ignored my points. The conditions must be eternal because before the universe, time did not exist. So they could not have been anything BUT eternal because they would need to be outside of time. That means eternal. As I have said, this means they could not happen spontaneously.
To Tac
“Bylle, you completely ignored my points. The conditions must be eternal because before the universe, time did not exist. So they could not have been anything BUT eternal because they would need to be outside of time. That means eternal. As I have said, this means they could not happen spontaneously.”
You are missing the point, these things can happen spontaneously especially out of time
Eternal is a mystical word.
To Bylle:
“You are missing the point, these things can happen spontaneously especially out of time”
Bylle, that is simply incorrect. If the necessary and sufficient conditions for something come about, it will always happen, no matter what. Take, for example, a spark. For a spark to take place, there are certain conditions that need to be met. Once these conditions are met, a spark will happen, no matter what. The universe is the same way. If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of anything, the universe included, are met, then that thing will come into existence. You are making the claim that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of a universe can be met without the creation of the universe. This is impossible, Bylle. Plain and simple.
To Tac
“You are making the claim that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of a universe can be met without the creation of the universe. This is impossible, Bylle. Plain and simple.”
I never made that claim! I said, that these conditions can exist spontaneously which mean in a single instant and thus create a universe. There is absolutely no need for them to exist forever and to wait until a mystical creator walks into the room and ignites them. The universe needs no creator. Only some people seem to need such a entity.
To Bylle:
“There is absolutely no need for them to exist forever and to wait until a mystical creator walks into the room and ignites them.”
But Bylle, I already told you WHY they must be eternal. Since time came into existence at the big bang, whatever created the universe, be it a set of conditions or God, had to be outside of time. That means it had to be eternal, Bylle. You are going to have to deal with this. How can something exist in time when time itself didn’t exist? It can’t obviously, so the conditions for the creation of the universe, since they simply could not be in time, must be outside of time, I.E. eternal.
And since they had to be eternal, and I have already shown that an eternal set of conditions cannot be the creator of the universe, we are left with the only logical conclusion. The creator of the universe is a being with the ability to create a universe and a will of it’s own.
QED.
the basis of faith is believing in nonsense, like all powerful sky dudes, virgin births, sons of gods, miracles, resurrections, and unique to the christian faith – dying on crosses for peoples sins, which really makes no sense at all since jesus came back to life 3 days later and went to live in heaven. whatta sacrifice!
but anyway, all these beliefs are fundamentally anti-scientific and non-testable and i would say not true in the least. the stuff science believes in is testable and is used to improve the world and achieve things based on those tests. there is no compatibility between faith and science.
So… if we can’t prove that this god (or really any OTHER supernatural all-powerful entities) exist… neither can we prove that they don’t exist at all…
Where is the argument?
Seems to me that both sides are holding true to their ‘beliefs’… whatever they might be. The god kids say that god made everything… some even think it happened at the beginning of the bible… ‘literalists’, or some such term.
Then on the other side, the scientists believe that creationism is full of fail and that evolution is the key to understanding where we as a lifeform came from.
The only fact that is irrefutable… (and here the god kids will jump and shout until they drown out everyone else) the fact is that they can’t provide proof that creationism is a viable ‘beginning-of-the-universe’ story… whereas the ‘evolution’ kids can provide scientific proof that (although doubted highly by the god kids) can’t be DISproven.
Meh. I don’t need to believe in a deity to validate my life and actions… but that’s just me. Some people feel they are more complete with their belief comforting them like a nice blanket. Good on ya.
The bible is a good read.
Any Americans want to come up to Canada and become the slaves to a benevolent ruler? I’d like to own some Americans… any volunteers? The bible says I’m allowed to have slaves… but only those from nations around me…
From the King James Version:
“Lev 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. From the New International Verson:
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.”
Ahh literalism… where would the world be without you… remember! You can’t spell the word ‘fundamentalist’ without FUN!
And… anyone ever wonder about the whole cross thing? I mean… “He’s a heretic! String him up until he starves to death! He’s taking too long to die… stab him in the side!”
Whether or not religion is valid, that’s a pretty brutal thing to do to the apparent scion of your pantheonic deity.
Apparently this Jesus died for the sins of the world… I wonder what he’d think of what some people of faith have done with his ‘sacrifice’…
Random string of thoughts for Blade:
Are you from Canada??
Your post made me laugh histerically.
You’re absolutely right and it’s refreshing. Since creationalism HAS been disproven, many, many, maaaaaaaaannnnnyyyyyy times, why do people still insist it’s true? It boggles my mind.
I also agree with you on the fact that one does not need a diety to be a “good” person or lead a truly fulfilling life. I have no god yet my moral compass points strongly north. (I hope
) Yet there are many counts of people doing trully, deeply aweful things in the name of their religion. And yes, alot of non-believers have also done some truly terrible things, but at least they don’t blame it on some “laws” laid out in ancient texts that have been translated and changed countless times, or on a revelation from the lord telling them to sacrifice their son on the top of a mountain. Absolutely.Mind.Boggling.
“To Bylle:
“Things that happen before the Big Bang are necessarily out of the time frame of the coming universe. The conditions do not need to be eternal, they just need to happen. And of course they can happen spontaneously.” (this was from Bylle)
Bylle, you completely ignored my points. The conditions must be eternal because before the universe, time did not exist. So they could not have been anything BUT eternal because they would need to be outside of time. That means eternal. As I have said, this means they could not happen spontaneously.” (this was from Tac)
Tac, she did not ignore your points at all. She adressed them dead on. You are the one who does the whole “lalala I’m not listening” thing when someone says something you don’t agree with, or have no rebut for. It’s like you have selective reading or something. I don’t think you grasp how annoying and frustrating you are to read. At all! And let me guess what you will think of this. That I’m being childish and it’s useless to argue with childish people. And I am being childish! I guess you just bring that out in me. But you know what? It’s more pointless arguing with someone who believes that God created the universe, because at least a child can understand and accept when he’s being told something by someone who is wiser and knows more than them. You, evidently, cannot.
And why, might I ask, do you say that time did not exist before the creation of the universe?
“To Bylle:
“There is absolutely no need for them to exist forever and to wait until a mystical creator walks into the room and ignites them.” (this was from Bylle, who, btw I pretty much agree with everything you say, and how you say it. lol)
But Bylle, I already told you WHY they must be eternal. Since time came into existence at the big bang, whatever created the universe, be it a set of conditions or God, had to be outside of time. That means it had to be eternal, Bylle. You are going to have to deal with this. How can something exist in time when time itself didn’t exist? It can’t obviously, so the conditions for the creation of the universe, since they simply could not be in time, must be outside of time, I.E. eternal.
And since they had to be eternal, and I have already shown that an eternal set of conditions cannot be the creator of the universe, we are left with the only logical conclusion. The creator of the universe is a being with the ability to create a universe and a will of it’s own.” (This was from Tac)
Tac, what in God’s name (pun intended) makes you such an expert as you what has to be and what does not have to be eternal? Whyyyyy exactly can the Big Bang NOT have been completely spontaneous? Your arguments (actually, it seems like the same argument rephrased time and time again, and never gaining more credibility) about the only “logical” option for the creation of the universe being “a being powerful enough to create the universe with a will of it’s own”, is, to use your oh-so-condesending words, “simply incorrect”.
Your playing with words does nothing, absolutely nothing, for the credibility of your arguments. Just because you say that something is or isn’t impossible, does not make that an irrefutable fact. You are just absolutely the most infuriating person to argue with. And I haven’t even been the one arguing with you this whole time!!
Hi Me,
I follow your comments for a while now and I like them.
.
Especially the one that agree with me
But as you can see here, stupidity (or narrow-mindness) is limitless.
Hugs
I guess that it could be proven that some supernatural or a yet unknown factor exists if the modern science can’t explain something, in some test made in a laboratory I mean. Though that test should be able to be done several times with the same results.
Okay, I know you people are very frusted debating creationists but seriously, you guys should skip the name calling. Not only does it come off as unintelligent but also very arrongant to say, “You believe in God, I don’t, therefore you’re an idiot and I refuse to talk to you”.
I’ve seen many points brought up by creationists that can possibly be easily refuted, but you people are simply insulting them and running away. Even if you’ve been through this thousands of times, at least have the maturity to debate & discuss the facts with people who obviously been epically misinformed.
There is no hope of having an intellectual conversation with someone who’s answer to everything is “God did it.”
Yes there is. You simply have to ask them the question “How?” and then the focus is taken away from spiritual matters and back to science again. Religious faith is not the complete antithesis of intellectual progress. Sociological fundamentalism is, and you are showing just a little there.
To explain “How God did it.” IS on the other end of science. The real questions is “How did nature it?”.
For many many centuries in many many religions religious faith has been the complete antithesis of intellectual progress. (On a second thought maybe not, when you consider the bible the only science book you read).
How God did it vs. How nature did it: The content is exactly the same. Whether you think the atom evolved or God created it, or you think the atom evolved AND God created it through directing that process by sovereignly ordained natural causes, it shouldn’t effect how you view what an atom is. If your view is God doesn’t exist, then you will explain with scientific terms. If your view is that he does, then you should still explain in scientific terms. Whether or not God is the instigator/director/overseer of the process does not affect the content of the process itself. That is the domain of science.
The bible is not the only science book I read, I strongly resent that comment and that is a very unfair thing to say about somebody you do not even know. THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE BOOK and I do NOT see it that way. You can’t simply stereotype everyone who is a deist as your most despised form of evangelical sociological fundamentalism. Another freaking ad hominem attack. Let’s keep this discussion focused on reason and not personal attacks please.
Miguel is right, religion and science shouldn’t conflict. If physics can prove that the universe is 13.7 billion years old with a fair amount of accuracy then its fair to say that the Torah/Old Testament’s account of the earth being created in 6 days is allegorical. At least that’s how much of Judaism treats it.
Fundamentalists on both sides, whether it is Sir Richard Dawkins or the Institute for Creation Research, don’t really care which answer really is the right one, instead they fight each other for the right to tell the rest of us how to think of the universe and our place in it. The only difference in their message is one side tells us to use logic the other says use faith.
You said it. There are idiots and fundamentalists on all sides around here. Fundamentalism is the opposite of progress, because it says that I shouldn’t have to listen to somebody who disagrees with me because I have to be right. The modern university was build on the free exchange of ideas and I believe very strongly that needs to still happen. Even bad ideas, because if they are exchanged more freely, then people would see them shot down more and be less gullible. Imagine if Kent Hovind were actually asked to debate a cutting edge researcher in front of doctoral students… Ok maybe that would be a waste of time… But there should be some forum where bad ideas can show their true color so more people can be freed from delusion. That would be progress, and it is the only way past fundamentalism.
I wholly agree that there are idiots and fundementalist on every side. Which proves nothing, except some people are idiot and/or fundementalists.
“How God did it vs. How nature did it: The content is exactly the same. ”
Nope, that is not exactly the same, again you mix science and belief.
Oh and btw the world is flat, rests on four giant elephants that stand on en even bigger turtle. That is true. I personally saw it in a movie.
Great comment! Many people are so quick to judge those who’s views are different from their own that they lose sight of the fact that both sides, religious/spiritual and scientific, are searching for the truth. They shouldn’t conflict, and often could learn a thing or two from each other. I’ve always thought that if you are truly religious, you should be able to accept science and question God and the world around you, because in the long run it would strengthen your beliefs. And if you believe in science, then you should not be trying to disprove the existence of a deity, but gathering the evidence and seeing what conclusions you can draw from it. Both sides could be strengthened by a good discussion… but then again both sides competing and conversing might just be another example of social evolution = )
ackkk….. whose not who’s
Despite not believing in God and being of the opinion that the bible is just a story I see no reason the bible and evolution are incompatible. See, on the first day god created light, well, how do you measure a day when there is no light? The early Jews called a day the time between sundown and sundown, but with no light, no sun, there’s no way to count a day. So, we can assume the ‘day’ does not necessarily mean a 24 hour period. So taking the word day out of the bible the story of Genesis goes something like this “First God created light (scientifically, the Big Bang occurred and eventually the forming of our sun and solar system).Next, separating the air into the different layers, troposphere, stratosphere, ozone layer etc.. Third, god separated the land from the water (the cooling of the planet and the creation of oceans, and Pangaea, the first continent which eventually separated out into the 7 continents of the modern world). Fourth, God created seasons, months, years (earths climate began to stabilize into seasons, periods of warm and cold). Fifth, god brought the sea creatures and birds onto existence(life began to evolve, starting in the sea and moving onto land and air) Sixth, he created Mammals and Man. (Mammals and then Humans evolved). Then of course Eve comes by with an apple and Humans evolve from being mindless animals to being sentient beings able to form complex societies and the rest is history! (sorry, couldn’t pass up the cheesy ending)
to “default name”
“Despite not believing in God and being of the opinion that the bible is just a story I see no reason the bible and evolution are incompatible. See, on the first day god created light”
Does that sentence make any sense to you??
It doesn’t for me.
Omigawd thar is a maj0r contrdction in da beibl!111!1!! sez burds wer her bfor mammlz!1!111!
(Please don’t judge me based on that comment, just wanted to do it like that since I don’t consider it to be important at all.)
Actually birds and mammals got here about the same time. It does however, say that the earth was here before the heavens (which was divided from the water in Genesis 1:3ish), before light (on the first day) and before the sun and stars (on the third day). These would seem to directly contradict everything we know about science now.
Good one, Joel. But note that it doesn’t matter that they mammals and birds appeared at pretty much the same time, the order is still a contradiction.
it’s not allegorical…it’s bullshit.
Unless you have some way of testing which claims are allegorical and which claims are literal stop using this argument.
All it comes down to is that whenever you have a belief which someone proves to be incorrect you run around claiming allegory as if you knew it were allegorical all the time and it would be foolish to accept it as literal.
The problem is people do accept it as literal.
(This isn’t even mentioning that allegory is a method of communicating through the medium of symbolic references and how you can extract symbolic references from that book is beyond me.)
“Unless you have some way of testing which claims are allegorical and which claims are literal stop using this argument.”
And please please please, once you’ve all agreed on which bits are which, please please please publish a corrected edition of the Bible that’s properly written and edited so that the difference is clear to the rest of us, instead of the turgid jumble it is now.
Miguel, I like you. lol. Your arguments are consistent and intelligent, and even though I would normally disagree with most of the points you make, I somehow find myself not. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but I find it harder to refute them because I honestly don’t have answers as to WHY other than the fact that I plain and simply don’t believe in God. (And let me just point out that I was raised by an entirely Catholic family and went to a catholic elementary school and a catholic highschool.)
I’m not quite sure how to explain it. Maybe it’s because your arguments are well-rounded, and actually adress the question at hand with plausible reasons as to how believing in both evolution and god is very possible. I think you are a very intelligent person, and reading your posts is very enlightening.
Indeed, discussion does involve facts. Where are yours?
One can not have an intelligent conversation with someone, like you, who simply refuses to see the facts and gets all his information from a preacher and a book of fairy tales.
Debate involves provable facts, not fairy tales.
Your statement “Most of the fossils of “neaderthals” have been proven to be fabricated” is an outright lie. I can only assume you heard that where you have heard the rest of your lies, church.
You know, mindlessly insulting people is not the way to make your point seem more valid. It just makes you look like an arrogant ass. He asked for an rational, polite debate. Something you are obviously incapable of. As you said, debate involves facts, not just insulting the other person in an attempt to make yourself look good.
I don’t see a mindless insult. I see a simple statement of fact.
C’mon now Tac, you’re doing exactly what you told EvilDave not to do… You’ve insulted him as an ‘arrogant ass’ and ‘obviously incapable of’ a rational, polite debate. Practice what you preach.
Well, in my defense I never said I was interested in debating, so that wouldn’t really apply to me. Still, you’re right, I should have worded that a little nicer. I apologize.
Amen to that brotha
Pun DEFINATELY intended!
Please show where I was “mindlessly insulting people”.
Telling someone their beliefs are a bunch of fairy tales is rather insulting and not the way to foster a rational debate. Especially as you didn’t provide any proof that their beliefs are false.
Demanding that everyone accept one’s beliefs as raw truth when the source of those beliefs is consistent with neither history nor itself is insulting to everyone else and is not the way to foster rational debate.
It seems to me your idea of “fostering rational debate” is to start with the idea that the GPP is correct. Well, he and you are both making an extraordinary claim and that requires extraordinary proof.
As for my providing proof that “their” beliefs are false, all I have to do is point to the gospels. They disagree on who, when, and where Jesus was supposedly born, and most damning, the behavior of Jesus while crucified.
In one gospel, Jesus is sullen and silent, only speaking to say “Father, why have you forsaken me?” just before dying. In another gospel, Jesus allegedly chats with those crucified with him and converts one of them. Both can not be right, therefore the bible is not a trustworthy source.
You see? You’re just turning back to insults again.
Even if you disagree, you have to admit that this particular subject is highly debated amongst many highly intelligent people on both sides. So if you want to debate about it, that’s fine. But don’t just sit there and insult the other side. It just shows that you don’t have a valid argument.
As for your point about the gospels, you can’t expect it to be written word for word the same. It was written by different people, who decided to put in different points.
That is hardly valid evidence against the Bible.
Yeah… those weren’t insults in anyway. Settle down, Tac.
We’re having a debate. Him asking for proof of creationist claims is hardly insulting. And his claim IS evidence against the bible as an unreliable source. How could it not be?
I suppose you’ll call this response “insulting” too. It is, in some respects, an ad hominem argument. But sometimes I think that people who are absolutely incapable of rational thought will never understand this so we simply need to work around them and not through them.
I would never ask you to believe what I’m saying at face value. I would hope you would always ask me for proof of your arguments, just as I’m doing to you.
I don’t expect them to be word for word the same. But, I expect them to be at least similar and they are not.
Having Two mutually exclusive descriptions of the same event is not evidence against the truth of the bible? If a book said something is white on one page and then said the exact same thing was black would you not consider that evidence that the information contained in the book is suspect?
To EvilDave: It’s not giving me the option to respond to you, so I hope you find this message regardless.
I don’t think the two descriptions are as different as black and white. Furthermore, they were written a while after the events. It is not such a big deal if they mixed up weather Jesus talked to someone or not. It’s not the same as mixing up something like Jesus ascending into heaven or something important like that. It may also be that the writer simply decided the information wasn’t important enough to be placed in the story.
So when I tell you that evolution is real, are you going to insult me by contradicting me?
To Tac,
“That is hardly valid evidence against the Bible.”
of course there is a book called bible. I think no one will deny that
.
Oh OK, I believe that some giant squirrel that live behind the moon (thus invisible to us) reign the world. And they have told me, god does not exist. So, I know it from the best source!
Live with it!!!
Now that’s just unhelpfully flippant. I believe in God because:
1) We exist, and are rational, and I find the idea of a rational creator more likely than the possibility that we are the accidental byproduct of an infinite system of nature.
2) When I dig around in Christianity (core Christianity, mind, not so much what people have added over the centuries) I find it to be internally consistent.
3) When I look at the world around me, I find pretty much what I would expect to find after digging around in Christian theology.
4) Pascal’s Gamble (although admittedly that’s more of an argument against atheism and agnosticism than for any particular religion)
Regarding Pascal’s Wager:
1) It’s made on the assumptions that (a) Heaven exists, (b) Hell exists, (c) that you definitely go to one or the other when you die, (d) that it’s infinitely better to go to Heaven. So as far as not being for any particular religion it’s heavily biased towards those religions in which those four assumptions hold.
2) It’s only worthwhile if believing on the basis of Pascal’s Wager is sufficiently sincere to qualify as “belief”. As Terry Pratchett put it in Small Gods: “Upon his death, the philosopher in question found himself surrounded by a group of angry gods with clubs. The last thing he heard was ‘We’re going to show you how we deal with Mister Clever Dick around here…’”
3) And that’s only if belief is rewarded any way.
4) It only works if the cost of belief is negligible in comparison to the reward of Heaven or the cost of Hell (hence the use of the infinite in quantifying them).
5) I have yet to encounter anyone who reckons Pascal’s Wager as valid who (a) already believed beforehand, and (b) would still believe even if the wager was invalidated; making the wager irrelevant. ‘Course, you might be the first exception to that.
Odd, a couple of negatives in point (5) seem to have fallen out. “didn’t already believe” and “wouldn’t still believe”, obviously.
To GoneZombie
“Now that’s just unhelpfully flippant. I believe in God because:
1) We exist, and are rational, and I find the idea of a rational creator more likely than the possibility that we are the accidental byproduct of an infinite system of nature.”
Yeah, that is why many people invented a god and even more believe in one. They feel insulted being the accidental byproduct of nature. But that is the pure truth. Live with it.
“2) When I dig around in Christianity (core Christianity, mind, not so much what people have added over the centuries) I find it to be internally consistent.”
Whatever you call cor Christianity. My religion of the Holy SQUIRREL is internally consistant too. So convert!
“3) When I look at the world around me, I find pretty much what I would expect to find after digging around in Christian theology.”
That is easy, Christianity was founed after the world around you came into existence.
“4) Pascal’s Gamble (although admittedly that’s more of an argument against atheism and agnosticism than for any particular religion)”
Well to me Pascal’s Gambit is more a reason to insurance than to any deity.
Have fun.
I’m confused as to what an arrogant ass is, if it’s not an insult.
Hmmm…more hypocrisy from Tac? *insert eye-rolling here*
have you read the Bible…?
Yes, I have. Have you?
yes. you obviously completely misinterpreted it.
Hi Aaron,
ever thought of that YOU misinterpret it??
Haha, hey Tac! Come over here! Aaron is using an ad hominem argument! harass him too!
Really? I like harassing people.
Nonsense. I have read it and taken what it says and compared it to itself and to history. No interpretation necessary.
When do you know what way to use to interpret it, when to think of what is in it being a metaphore and when to take it literally?
If you’re going to argue the problems with fossils being proof of evolution, you shouldn’t start with saying “most” neanderthal bones were fake. They weren’t. Neanderthals are very well documented and their skulls are clearly different than that of homo sapiens – I have actually seen the two and had to compare them. There is no way they are simply “big.”
Now here’s a question for everyone: why does evolution denounce the Bible? I don’t think it does. The Bible is rife with metaphor – perhaps 7 days means 7 billion years? If I were God, there is no way I would hand-design every single insane detail on the Earth. Instead, I would create a mechanism to allow my world to last forever. If every detail were made from scratch, then adaptability would be lost, and so my system would be very susceptible to being wiped out – that’s a lot of wasted work for nothing.
My belief is that God initially created the Universe and then gave it the ability to improve itself. Then he could watch in fascination and enjoy.
…if you were God, Eli? Really? Quite a big step, there. Settle down, big guy.
If I were God, I’d add the book of Flava-Flav to The Bible.
Heavens no!
Hell yeah!
Evolution denounces the Bible because it has no intellectual design. The Bible states that God created all there is in 7 days, and though it is filled with metaphores, all of them aren’t considered as ones.
But some are. Many believe that the story of the creation as well as the garden of Eden were merely parables. Used to help tell a story in a way that people could better understand at the time.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that God created man and animals through evolution.
To Tac
“It is perfectly reasonable to believe that God created man and animals through evolution.”
No, it is not.
You also could claim a giant squirrel created man and animals through evolution.
To Bylle:
“No, it is not.”
You can’t just make that claim, Bylle. WHY is it not reasonable to believe that God used evolution to create man?
To Tac
You can believe that a god uses evolution.
But it is not reasonable.
gods a a fiction of religion, and thus not reasonable.
evolution is a scientific theory und thus subject to reason.
Bylle:
That is presupposing God doesn’t exist, and is a whole new debate. I was arguing that evolution doesn’t disprove the Bible, and it doesn’t. You are bringing in a whole new debate here. It wasn’t “does God exist” it’s “does evolution disprove the Bible”.
Weather you think God exists or not is completely irrelevant. Though, if you want to debate that I can. Simply look me up on Youtube, I’ve already given my name.
To Tac
“I was arguing that evolution doesn’t disprove the Bible, and it doesn’t.”
Somehow I seem to remember (
) that the bible states that the christian god created Adam and Eve.
Genesis 1:26 (American Standard Version)
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
Evolution shows her name was Lucie
.
Bylle:
“Somehow I seem to remember (
) that the bible states that the christian god created Adam and Eve.”
I’m struggling to see your point. Like I have already said. The story of creation is not meant to be taken literally.
“Evolution shows her name was Lucie”
I don’t get it…
To Tac
*You are bringing in a whole new debate here. It wasn’t “does God exist” it’s “does evolution disprove the Bible”. *
Bible
Somehow I seem to remember (
) that the bible states that the christian god created Adam and Eve.
Genesis 3:20
And Adam called his wife’s name Eve;
Evolution
Evolution shows her name was Lucie
Evolution disproves the bible.
In fairness, TRUTH.
More accurately, evolution disproves a certain particular understanding of the Bible. A fundamentalist one. Nobody takes the Bible completely literally. Ever notice how many men who run around saying they take the Bible literally still have two eyes?
But when do you know what is a metaphore and what is a literal statement?
Biblical Scholars etc study the Bible and determine which parts should be taken literally or not. If you don’t want to listen to them, you could always try and figure it out for yourself, but I’m no scholar, so I just go with what the professionals are saying.
Like I said in my other post, if you want to continue this I would recommend moving to Youtube and using PMs. It’s much better for debates.
That’s just specualtion and guessing, so there seems to be no way to know for sure what is a metaphore and what is a literal statement.
Screw YouTube.
To Humm:
“That’s just specualtion and guessing, so there seems to be no way to know for sure what is a metaphore and what is a literal statement.”
That’s completely untrue. It’s no more speculation and guessing than scientists studying black holes. Like I said, there are experts who study and interpret the Bible and show what part is parable and what part is literal. It’s not guessing at all.
Humm:
“Screw YouTube.”
If you don’t want to debate, then fine. It’s not like I can force you. You just seemed to want to is all.
I stand behind my claim: “That’s just specualtion and guessing, so there seems to be no way to know for sure what is a metaphore and what is a literal statement.”
It’s fine if you don’t want to believe in black holes. If something can’t be proven or seen, people throw guesses whether it exists, though it might be likely that it is so, there is no 100% proof of what should be considered as a metaphore and what should be considered as a literal statement. Of course, those experts probably know their expertise, I believe. But the only way to say for sure what is supposed to be literal and what is not would be asking Jesus or God I guess… I know that these things I said are a bit annoying, and maybe a bit childish, but true nevertheless.
And, I dunno, we haven’t had the chance to have a good debate yet, so I don’t think we’d lose anything if we quit now. Sure, if you want to keep on debating, then do so, but I can’t be bothered to move to YouTube and create an account, if it’s needed to post comments, I don’t know as I’ve never used it to communicate with people. Anyway, should we continue this, I’m staying here. Sorry.
To Tac
“Biblical Scholars etc study the Bible and determine which parts should be taken literally or not.”
All parts should not taken literally, then we can agree
Experts have already looked at the Hebrew (language the Old Testament was originally written in) word for ‘day’. In the context it is used in Genesis 1, it is obvious the writer meant a literal day.
I do agree that God did not create every single detail. He DID make that mechanism. We don’t believe God made every species from scratch- that would be stupid, as adaptation has been observed. Rather, we think that He created father species, of sorts, and gave them the ability to adapt to their environment.
“[...] with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8)
I’m an atheist, now but I was a faithful catholic years ago. And I thought creationism was an insult to god. Why? Because I couldn’t understand how people could think god was this simple.
JamesMuliz: That father species was a single-cell organism
God and Evolution can and do live side by side
why do you need a god, when you have nature??
I can proof evolution, can you proof god?
Prove 100%? No. But looking at the evidence, you can come to the conclusion that God is the more likely alternative.
To Tac
“But looking at the evidence, you can come to the conclusion that God is the more likely alternative.”
To evolution. You are joking. Evolution is proven, god not.
Or show me otherwise.
I can’t see God as a likely alternative to anything, as it can’t be proven in any way. Everything else that can’t be proven is just as likely, as for example that squirrel I think Bylle above used.
To Humm:
Like I said, 100% proven? No. It can have evidence provided for it. Evidence, I would argue, that out ways evidence against it.
It’s true that there could be a giant squirrel that created the universe. That’s certainly a possibility. The difference between the two is that there is no evidence supporting the giant squirrel as there is evidence for the existence of God.
It looks like we aren’t allowed to reply anymore. If you get this and still want to talk, look up LittleGoobster1920 on Youtube. We can use PMs there.
To Bylle: Evolution is hardly proven 100%. There is still a great deal of debate over it today.
Tac: “It’s true that there could be a giant squirrel that created the universe. That’s certainly a possibility. The difference between the two is that there is no evidence supporting the giant squirrel as there is evidence for the existence of God.”
Isn’t that irrational to say there is a difference between them, and that difference is that neither of them have evidence of them?
To Tac
“To Bylle: Evolution is hardly proven 100%. There is still a great deal of debate over it today.”
Evolution is proven, some details are still open to debate.
To Tac
“It’s true that there could be a giant squirrel that created the universe.”
Yeah and I am her High Priestress. So kneel before me and show your reverence!
To Bylle:
Sadly you are wrong. Evolution is still being debated. Actually, I hear there are more people who don’t believe in it than there are people who do.
At any rate, that’s not even important. I’d say it’s possible that evolution and the Bible can coexist. But then, we’ve already been talking about that.
To Humm:
“Isn’t that irrational to say there is a difference between them, and that difference is that neither of them have evidence of them?”
Yes. That would be irrational. Sadly, that’s not what I’m saying. There is evidence to support the existence of God, but no evidence supporting the idea that it is a giant squirrel.
I can share some of the evidence with you, but not on failblog. There are simply too many posts here already and it’s too hard to find my posts again after the five minutes it takes to load up the page. Find me on Youtube or don’t. If you don’t want to debate then I’m afraid our discussion will have to end here. I’ll be the bigger man and give you the opportunity to have the last word.
Tac: Ah, I’m sorry, I must’ve somehow misread your previous post. Indeed, you don’t state that anywhere. Apologies.
If the evidence for God would’ve been the Bible, then I could write a book about the squirrel that created the universe myself and it could also have been evidence for the squirrel.
Anyway, you probably won’t come back here after that post of yours, but still, I say these things: I don’t really mind it ending here, as I’ve fought over these matters for a few weeks with different people now with no breaks, on the Internet of course. Nice that you were polite, but I’m not coming to YouTube.
And just to say it, your Internet connection must suck if this page takes you five minutes to load. Anyway, have a good life.
Humm:
Five minutes was an exaggeration, but it takes more time than I’d like to spend. My computer is pretty slow.
For you maybe. But that might be because you don’t have enough background in science. Because it seems to me that a more likely alternative is one where there isn’t a mystical, magical, all-knowing and all-powerful being that created an entire universe with his hands.
Really? Where does your information come from? The studies that I have done on the original Hebrew show that the word meant roughly “an exact period of time.” Considering that the mechanism for measuring days (the earth’s rotation in relation to the sun) was not even created until the fourth “day,” the more literal translation of “a period of time” makes a lot more sense.
translation always sucks.
I will start reading bible the day i will read hebrew…and arguing Darwin when my english will be perfect to actually read what he wrote without misinterpretating it.
And since a book can be understand differently depending on the reader, i say this debate is a non-sense.
“If every detail were made from scratch, then adaptability would be lost, and so my system would be very susceptible to being wiped out – that’s a lot of wasted work for nothing.” that does not make any sense…
Am i correct in saying that from your thoughts i am correct in saying that God does not have a “plan” for us all? or he does, but has no control over it? Or that things don’t happen for a reason and God is just up there laughing at us killing off eachother!? I guess that really does seem to line up with the impression i get from the bible of God, that he is less of an inflapable, all knowing being and all loving being and really a 3 year old kid playing with “ants” and laughing at their misfortune!
that is not metaphor.
If you can multiply your number n by any random picked out of a hat fracking number then of course you can’t be wrong.
Watch i’l show you…
“Your monitor is a 1cm across.”
Now if im wrong multiply it by a conversion factor and hey presto. Im right, you just have to interpret it correctly.
kudos, Rick. People with small minds always resort to name-calling…kind of like a 10 year-old.
Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the exact same thing. One species does not suddenly turn into another species after one generation, it takes 1,000s of generations with 1000′s of mutations until you get to a point where you can say, “this is no longer the same species as X generations ago.” Think of evolution as like a grayscale; any two shades next to each other look practically the same, but you can tell that that the ends are completely different.
Alex, I love your greyscale analogy. It fits so well, and is so frikkin simple! Your permission to use it in my Biology classes?
“the finches are proof of micro-evolution, within a species.”
Except the finches have been diverging into distinct populations that don’t mate with each other. That’s speciation in action. Should the divergence continue, there will be a point where “don’t mate” turns into “can’t mate”.
“Most of the fossils of neaderthals have been proven to be fabricated.”
Name them. You don’t get to count Pilt-down Man, since that hoax was exposed by scientists, not creationist twats. Betcha can’t name a single other hoax.
“Some were pig bones, some were different animals, others were men who had bone diseases.”
Source, please.
“Debate doesn’t involve name calling, it involves facts and conversation.”
Debate requires that both sides have at least a casual knowledge of the topic to be debated. If you’re a creationist, the odds of that are slim to nil. *However*, if you can summarize the major ideas of the theory of evolution in 250 to 500 words *without* parroting any typical creationist distortions, I’ll make an exception for you.
rick:
> the finches are proof of micro-evolution, within a species
Uhm… no. The Finches in question are several different SPECIES of Finches. Since they are different species, it can’t be micro-evolution WITHIN A SPECIES.
“Most of the fossils of “neaderthals” have been proven to be fabricated. Some were pig bones, some were different animals, others were men who had bone diseases”.
That’s a lie. You really shouldn’t lie.
Yay! Now I can corner the market in faking Neanderthal skeletons!
Seriously, are you even capable of thinking for yourself? Sheesh. I can spout made up statements, too! 8 out of 10 televangeslists have slept with male prostitutes. See? Who needs pesky facts…. Oh, and in 2012, a big can of Comet cleanser will wipe out all life on Earth. I read it in the Bible or something.
Really? So I guess this is all just made up?
http://humanorigins.si.edu/ha/a_tree.html
http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm
No macro evolution huh?
Where’s your proof that the bones were fabricated?
what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter?
wow..! a new failblog!
Your comment is most ironic, sir.
Noticeable genetic similarity between humans and primates, evidence of island speciation at the Galapagos islands, fossil record evidence (yes, it exists, not every discover turned out to be a Piltdown man), nearly all responsible scientific research pointing to the same conclusion… no, no evidence for evolution at all.
Additionally, the Universe is billions (that’s Carl Sagan bill-yuns, too) of years old, as is the Earth and our sun. Life has taken numerous, varied and wildly divergent paths in just the last several hundred million years, brought on by natural selection, speciation and specialization in many areas. To compare an overwhelming mountain of scientific evidence to a book of parables, fables and moral lessons is like comparing apples to hand grenades. The Bible is a book of faith, and it should not be taken as a non-fiction guide to the universe, nor should it make you blind to the strong possibility that maybe if there is a god, he works in far more subtle and mysterious ways than people thousands of years ago could have imagined.
there you go again “he works in far more subtle and mysterious ways than people thousands of years ago could have imagined” that is not proof that is speculation that is why you cannot debate “god must have done it” is a last resort to people who have run out of valid points in an argument.
did you even bother reading his whole comment?????
If we want to debate creation versus evolution then thats one debate, that’s a factual debate, & a very interesting one in my opinion, however god does not have to play into it because whether we debate Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Atheism, or The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, it becomes a matter of faith not facts. Like it or not you have just as much faith as any Christian, you just have faith & have a belief that there is nothing, that can’t be proven, so here’s the question why is it that you don’t have to play by the same rules as the people who you criticize, in the end they might be left saying “well god just did it” which I agree is quite illogical, but your still left there saying “well it just happened”, neither can be proven therefor BOTH are faith. Saying “god worked through it” & saying “it just happened” are on about equal footing as far as logical debate, in that neither has a lag to stand on.
now can we get back to a discussion of facts?
Here’s a fact. If it can’t be proven, it’s having no effect. Therefore it doesn’t matter.
exactly my point
You cannot be serious. NO ONE can be this damned willfully stupid. You HAVE to be a troll. I couldn’t accept any other explanation.
Aaron, you are a narrow-minded fool. You are beyond help.
And you believe everything thrown at you. The earth is flat idea was completely true as well. Simple minded Spaniards…
I think you’ll find that the Christians being against Columbus’ voyage because of ‘the earth is flat idea’ has largely been proven to be a myth…
Columbus thought the world was pear shaped. The reason he sailed west instead of east is because he thought it would be a quicker was to India and the Spice Islands, going round the thinner bit of the ‘pear’.
I’d recommend the QI Book of General Ignorance.
For example, did you know that I’ve moved faster than light?
yeah, QI is amazing, funny and factual, and Stephen Fry is the best
Oh dear god… the “flat earth society” card gets pulled again! As if the Catholic church still stood their ground on that one. The problem wasn’t the existence of religious dogma so much as it was theocratic controll. The church simply should not have had the authority to dictate into the academic realm back then. Like today. That is why there are no recent examples… well…. um… never mind that last part.
Wow, I agree with you. No religion should have the authority to dictate into the academic realm. And thus science needs no god (not any of them) to explain nature.
YES YES YES YES! God is not NECESSARY to understand nature. And therefore he should not be an impediment to it either. Those who allow God to stand in the way of science are, in own very STRONG opinion, the antithesis of true religion.
Wow, There is a true religion???
Which is?? and Why???
I didn’t say there was A true religion. In all religions, there are helpful and hurtful practices. When religion provides for poor and starving people in need: true religion. When it impedes the forward progress of scientific discoveries that trump it’s dogma: not good. Who on earth could disagree with that?
Yeah, as if they still stood their ground on that one! They gave up and accepted the Earth being round already on the 18th or 19th century, not sure but leaning towards the 19th.
*cough sarcasm cough*
irony, thy name is mr. philip1209. you declare that Aaron is beyond help, after he gives a whole paragraph of scientific postulates and theories, and your entire argument is “you are a narrow-minded fool.” who’s the fool really? ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
By scientific postulates do you mean the claims that it is proven that “the universe is slowing down” and that the “speed of light is slowing down” The fact that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is invariant is the essence of Eintein’s special theory of relativity. Since the 1920s it has been known that the further away a galaxy is the faster it is moving (the larger the red-shift). Why am I not surprised that you creationists have no respect for truth evidence and science.
Of course they don’t have respect, Creationists are threatened by the theory of evolution so they make up outrageous claims that it’s flawed and that the studies and test are inaccurate or even that all the dinosaur bones are fake and have planted in the ground to fool us or something. There’s no evidence for their claims, they just don’t want to accept that their wrong.
I said it once, I’ll say it again. Ad hominen attacks show your weakness. Relativism doesn’t work. only one faith can be right. Say, your trying to call someone. That person only has one number by which they can be reached. It is impossible to dial every other number besides the right one and still get the person on the phone. So therefore, there is only one right way. On the contrary, you are beyond help. I stand confidently in the truth. Do you have something that you can put so much confidence and trust in that you are willing to die for it?
Your last sentence proves that your argument is based more in belief than knowledge. Nobody would fight or die for 2+2=4. What’s the point? It is a fact that can not be disputed or changed, no matter who dies. Faith, however, can cause people to kill and be killed. If you are willing to die for your God, far be it from me to tell you otherwise. Do not judge science and facts, however, on who is or is not willing to fight crusades for them. You do not KNOW “the truth”, and neither does anyone else, and no amount of spilled blood will change that.
Sorry bad example,
until I moved lately I had three different numbers by which you could get me
.
“Do you have something that you can put so much confidence and trust in that you are willing to die for it?”
Yes, my beloved!!!
Actually, if the person you are trying to call is at their friends house, and by chance, you dial that number, you would in fact, be able to get the person you are trying to speak to by dialing the wrong number.
No one knows if there is just one right way. No one has died and come back to tell what it was like when they died. It could be that every religion is right in a way, the people in those religions getting the kind of afterlife (if there is an afterlife in that religion) as in the religion. Naturally all atheists and people with not religions would just die. Personally I would like it if what I said would be what will happen. There is no way to prove you to be right or me to be right. And, by the way, I find it annoying that you are showing arrogance as stating that you have found truth. It is a matter of faith. No one can prove it. And that, in a way, is an attack towards other people who don’t believe as you, since that says they believe in something that is wrong or is a lie and live a lie. I don’t mind people being Christian or something as long as they keep their beliefs just for themselves and other people who believe the same way. But I can say that some people could’ve killed you for saying something like that, at least in the past. Though, that wouldn’t matter, as you say you’re willing to die for your beliefs. I know I wouldn’t, but I don’t know if that is a weakness or the exact opposite.
Not wanting to die for your beliefs must be a another manifestation of natural selection…survival of the fittest!!!!
Home phone or Mobile phone…
analogy fail.
So, Aaron, you’re basically saying that we should take the bible literally? ROFLMAO!!! Wow.
So basically your God came to earth as his own son, conceived through the metaphysical rape of a virgin, was killed for the so called “sins” of mankind, came back three days later as a zombie, expecting people to eat his zombie flesh and blood to become his mindless followers?
No wonder you all think the world was created in 6000 years… You’re all zombies!
LaRouge WIN!
The resurrection of Christ was literal. He asked us to symbolically remember his suffering and resurrection to help us have hope in this world – not literally eat his flesh and drink his blood. That’s a catholic teaching, and most christians don’t believe that.
As for the topic on hand as I don’t want to debate Christ – who says a day is what we consider a day? I have no problem believing that God created the earth in billions of years – that the rocks are billions of years old. God isn’t a magician – he’s a scientist. The earth did not “creation ex nihlio.” It was not created out of nothing. Science has already proven that dark matter is out there. Got used matter that already existed and organized it. True science is religion. He knows how scientific facts work.
I don’t think this needs to turn into a debate about Christianity – as all religions have a belief in some form of a creation or another. Scientists still cannot explain everything – and neither can religion.
WIN WIN WIN
so very true Brian thank you for haveing some REAL common since
That’s “Common Sense” clearly something you are lacking if you think Brian’s post had any…
Um, why? If you simply throw out inflammatory rhetoric without backing them up with a single reason, how are you showing your superior common sense? “Ad Hominem” is not sensible argument against somebody’s well presented defense.
However, I might remind you Brian that most Christians DO believe the Roman Catholic position on the Lord’s Supper because the HUGELY outnumber protestants worldwide.
I was just pointing out that people who believe in this nonsense generally come across as uneducated.
How is Brian’s argument sensible? His first statement is that ‘The resurrection of Christ was literal.’ He has no proof or evidence to back this up besides a single book written during the Bronze age.
Why do christians get to cite a single source to back up all their assertions and demand that this is unquestionable and infallible, but the mountains of various sources and information provided by skeptics is never enough?
How is there any common sense in that scenario at all?
If these people took some time to educate themselves they’d find many of their false assumptions, that they spout ad nauseam, about evolution and the age of the earth to be laughably ignorant.
unled – can you describe to me what salt tastes like?
In the same manner – I know his resurrection was literal. I can’t explain how it happened scientifically. I just simply know it happened. The bible is not my source for that kind of knowledge. It’s merely the tool I useto find information I need to make a decision.
I’m very educated, fyi. Please – religion does not dumb a person down.
You’ll find I’m a middle man. I see nothing wrong with God using evolution. So lay off my back. Thanks.
Yes, salt tastes like evaporated ocean water and enhances the flavors already present in the food you are eating.
In the same manner – I know his resurrection was not literal.
You can’t explain how it happened at all because it didn’t.
Basic knowledge and understanding of the physical properties present in the universe are the source of my information.
The ‘tool’ you use to find ‘information’ to make your ‘decision’ has been translated and altered throughout time and is no more useful than a copy of Archie comics as a guide to dating.
Religion certainly dumbs people down, it provides them with neat clean answers so they never have to ask the questions themselves. It quenches the inquisitive mind with fairy tales and myths.
Again, tell me why one Bronze Age book not even in it’s original language is a reliable source for 21st century man?
His resurrection is literal. and it based off of empirical data. The men that wrote the Bible said that they say him die. And three days later they say the empty tomb that he had been laid in. Jesus then appeared to them. They saw him, heard him, and touched him. That sounds like solid empirical proof to me. And the Bible has yet to be proven wrong. So take it or leave it. Your choice has eternal consequences.
Nice try Aaron,
you believe that was written about several hundred years after the time it happened. Has the thought ever occured to you that the NT was written out of a purpose??
And which eternal consequences will I face?
The midday edition of the April 13 1844 New York Sun (a much more recent publication, and still available in the newspaper’s own archives) contains a news report of the first transatlantic balloon crossing. Monck Mason piloted the “Victoria” from England intending to travel to Paris, but mechanical faults and contrary weather blew him off-course, to land near Charleston, South Carolina, seventy five hours later.
That’s the literal description of the event. It’s printed there in black and white. I do have a reason for describing this article. You might like to figure out what that reason is. “Monck Mason” looks like a good name to Google on.
Brian and Miguel, it is good to read people like you in this debate. It is sad that so many people are unable (or unwilling) to look at both sides when confronting ideas. I might not agree 100% with what you guys say it is refreshing to see people who can actually hold their ground without resorting to childish insults or name-calling. Kudos!
Also, I’d just like to add that I didn’t say you were uneducated, I said people come across as uneducated. That was more in reference to Ken’s spelling error than anything you had to say.
I see nothing wrong with god using evolution either, because if there is a creator the work they do would be indistinguishable from nature and wouldn’t appear magical at all.
If God’s actions are indistinguishable from nature what tests can we do to prove his existence? Or in more scientifically what would prove the non-existence of God. In evolution all it would only take is one fossil on the wrong rock layer to bring the edifice down. How does your theory of God stand up to such scrutiny?
There you go. Now that’s a conversation. I’m not going to defend brian’s every statement, but you bring up a fantastic point in your 2nd para. It reminds me when Colbert said “…as written in the Bible, every word of which we know is true. And we know that the Bible is true because the Bible says that the Bible is true, and if you remember from earlier in my sentence…”
If somebody uses the Bible as their go to argument, it shows that they do not have the ability to think. That is not a reflection on their faith… Many Christians are beyond that. It is a phenomenon called sociological fundamentalism. It stinks, but please don’t brand all of us Christians with it.
“If somebody uses the Bible as their go to argument, it shows that they do not have the ability to think. ”
I agree with you there. And I respect your as a christian. But your personal belief and those on many other millions makes god not real. But you still can use him as spiritual guidance.
(Which is the Hinduism kind of view).
It depends on your view of spirituality. The views I have been trying to articulate are definitively of the Christian faith and spirituality which often gets distorted in the moral therapeutic deism that passes as evangelicalism in most of america today.
“Christianity started off as a bunch of mid-eastern people who centered their lives around the life and person of Jesus Christ. Then it moved to Greece and became a philosophy, to Rome and became an institution, to Europe and became a culture, and finally to America where it became an enterprise.” -[cant remember who]
What’s so great about all this bible stuff that makes you want to believe it?
Three words. Forgiveness of sins. It’s awesome when you get it. Jesus came and lived a perfect life and died a perfect death so that you and I could be in right relationship with God. I love the Bible because it tells me this what I otherwise would probably not know. Not a science book. Not a history book. Not a supreme dissertation on ethics. It touches on all those areas lightly but that is NOT it’s purpose.
Miguel:
We must have a different idea of what constitutes perfect, because I don’t think your so-called deity lived a perfect life.
He cursed a fig tree for not having fruit for him to eat when he was hungry. This one story exposes your so-called deity for the fraud and jerk that he is.
If he had been all knowing, he would have known the tree was either out of season or dead. Heck, a mere mortal like me can tell that from quite a few feet away. He’s supposedly the humanoid manifestation of the Creator of All, so why didn’t he know that fig tree wouldn’t have fruit, up front, or not know it was dead or out of season before choosing it? Did it even occur to him that he might have the wrong tree?
Nope. Nothing of the sort. He was sure he had the right tree, that it would be in season–or wasn’t dead, so it should have fruit. But it didn’t, which sort of indicates his thinking was, well…retarded. To expect fruit from a tree that doesn’t have any is just monumental arrogance and stupidity on the part of your all-knowing deity.
Another problem: If your deity really had magical powers, he could have zapped some figs onto the tree–even another kind of tree, or–best of all, without any kind of tree involved in the least! He can make the blind see, but he can’t even zap some lousy figs into existence? Amateur. Vishnu wouldn’t have been that inept. Or was it just that Yeshua’s mojo wasn’t on that day? Zeus had bad days, too, but, then again, he didn’t claim to be perfect.
Now for what exposes your deity as the jerk he is: He cursed that tree. Why?
Mature, rational mere mortals in that situation would think, “Well, shit. No fruit. Let’s look elsewhere.” A truly humble person would have said, “Huh, maybe I’m wrong, and this tree isn’t a fig tree, or I was wrong about the season.”
But your deity couldn’t do that. Nope, he had to be a dick and curse that poor tree. How is idiocy, impatience, petulance, selfishness and sheer hubris remotely associated with perfection in any way whatsoever?
Aquaria, I just love your post, it’s really nice and shows a contradiction I bet many people will agree on, at least if they’re not tunnel visioned Christians. And Miguel, if it turned out that the Bible isn’t the real deal, and there would be no forgiveness of sins, would it really matter? As an atheist, for example, I can live happily with knowing no sins of mine are forgiven, as they don’t matter the tinyest bit. I don’t know if it is even possible to use the word sin in it’s original meaning if there is no god. But, if you don’t believe that you are a sinful person whose sins need to be forgiven, there is no reason to long for the forgiveness of sins. A Christian, for example, has to do what they do in a way that isn’t opposing to the will of God, and an atheist can do the things they do in a way that pleases them. In my opinion, atheism gives you the freedom to do what you want with no eternal cost of any kind, just the one everyone has to pay in the modern society for breaking its rules. Of course, I don’t believe I could ever get you to give up on Christianity, and that’s not really my point. Got a bit off the track I was supposed to go with my post, but anyway.
Ok my first response to this didn’t come through so I’ll restate it briefly:
Aguaria: It is good for you to hold my feet to the fire on that one. That is no trivial claim, and must be considered very carefully before acceptance. But how can you not see how petty that is? OMG HE KILLED A TREE! Compare that to the behavior of all other supposedly gods in human form: The Greek and Norse pantheons make excellent examples of God who cheat, lie, kill, and steal to get what the want. Next to them, Jesus is a saint! Aware of any others who stand on that claim as well as Christ does, with only a wilted tree to testify against Him? Assuming that the biblical account of the story is true (which is fair since it is the basis of your accusation), then how would somebody who created the entire universe out of nothing be outside of his rights to take back that which was improperly working? We burn trees all the time and think nothing of it. Does that make us evil? I believe that within the story Jesus did it specifically to teach a theological lesson, not out of spiteful and petty vengeance. He went to the tree precisely because he knew it was barren and wanted to leave an impacting illustration upon his teaching audience. Worth the price of a tree? You decide
Humm: You hit the nail on the head. If God does not exist, then you ARE free to do whatever you please without fear of eternal consequences! I wish more atheist evolutionists would speak with such candor. I believe, as a Christian, that all sin is primarily against God, and therefore if he does NOT exist, nothing could possible be sinful. Unethical, maybe, but not sin. So eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die! Of course you better be right, but I’m not about to bust out Paschall’s wager on you. Do you have a better way of explaining all the pain and suffering in the world? Try this out: God benevolently created all the world a utopia. It stayed that way as long as we acted out of submission to His perfect design. It was broken when we stepped out from underneath His authority and decided to act in self-interest instead of right relationship with God. I’m open to other explanations of the suffering of the masses, but haven’t heard one yet that I find so comprehensively convincing. Let me know!
If the Bible was not the real deal, I’m sorry but my faith does not crumble. My apologies for the arrogance and ignorance of fundamentalist evangelicals who behave that way. I could still know about the forgiveness of sins through the Christian Tradition, of which the Bible is an extension. However, you gotta think, after 2,000 years SOMEBODY might have thought: Hey, do you think that maybe we ought to write some of this down?
Miguel: Those gods don’t claim to be perfect in any way, and they’re not trying to be. We do kill trees, yes, but we’re not saying we’re perfect saints. And as Aquaria said, and I personally remember that same part of the Bible, Jesus was looking for food. Why go for a barren tree? And why would he have to leave an “impacting illustration” on his followers? If to show that he IS the son of God, hadn’t he already shown it to them by doing miracles earlier? He was hungry, looking for food, got a to barren tree and with no clear reason destroyed the tree. Aquaria really put it nicely, for this I’d like you to re-read his/her post, at least the end of it.
Pascal’s wager works for Christianity only if Christianity is the only religion that is either true or false, and all the others are false. And if Christianity, as does if you really follow everything that it teaches, prevents you from doing something you want, it isn’t worth it to believe in it if it turns out it wasn’t true.
And, I meant that if the things in the Bible were false, there being no God or Jesus who is his son and such stuff. If it could be proven to be false, the Bible AND it’s teachings, would you still believe in God?
I’m happy to see your willingness to subject this important issue to rigirous scrutiny. You are certainly right: Very few others make the claim to be perfect. That is not
a minor claim. My thesis would be that since Jesus claims that and can cash the check he write, that sets Him apart from all others. I don’t claim to be able to convince you of Jesus’s perfection in a paragraph or two,
but on this issue I feel pretty strongly that you may be missing the forrest for the trees.
Jesus was looking for food. There is no denying that. Whether or not Jesus actually found a subsequent source of sustenance is not addressed in the account written in Matthew 21:18-22 because what was more important to the gospel writer was what Jesus said about the wilting of the tree.
Why go to a barren tree? As I said, for an object illustration. The most effective teachers (and JEsus was one) use object illustrations that
impact the audience in a way that makes them remember the lesson. The point of the illustration was NOT so show that He was the son of God. You are right in saying
that if he wanted to show his divinity, that his earlier miracles should have been sufficient.
But you did not respond to my question about how the creater of the universe would be outside of his rights to destroy a tree, since apart from himself it wouldn’t exist anyways.
Not to mention: What is more significant, the fact that he killed the tree or that it INSTANTLY wilted at His command? Does that say nothing? From this story He obviously has authority over the created realm, and that is more significant than the loss of a tree. If you saw somebody destroy something in front of you by merely talking to it, you would be more impressed at his abilities than you would be angry at his actions. Especially if he destroyed something completely useless. I would like to encourage you to reread that story to see the point of the lesson:
The power of God over the created realm and his authority in judging it. It is a clear reason: An object lesson. While you say that we destroy trees all the time but we are not perfect, are you then saying that destroying trees is somehow wrong, sinful, or unethical? Be consistent, because if not, you’re quickly loosing your case here.
And I’m sorry, but despite your agreement, Aquaria did not put it nicely. I did read here comment carefully more than once, and I am reading it agian. It is full of
insult and anger which clearly shows an emotional over-involvement that is clouding clear judgement. Jesus is called: “a dick, idiocy, impatient, petulance, selfishness, sheer hubris, a jerk, a fraud, monumentally arrogant and stupid. Really? That is your strongest takeaway impression from a full reading of any of the four gospels about a man who offered forgiveness from the cross
to his crucifiers, gave one of histories greatest ethical discourses (the sermon on the mount), taught his followers to love their enemies, and whose central message was one of peace, first between man and God and then between man and his neighbor? You call stupid, arrogant, jerk, and a fruad an accurate way of discribing this man accurately? I think you have revealed how YOU feel about Jesus, not necessarily what a fair or objective opinion about Him would be. If Aquaria’s comments were fair or accurate, Jesus being the jerk that he was would leave a much larger damage trail then simply one wilted tree.
Like I said, I’m NOT going to hold you to Paschal’s wager because I think it is a weak arguement and a double edged sword. But your analysis of it is pretty poor as you compare the risk of eternal torment as equal to having to defer a few of your temporary preferences. Minor point, it’s a poor arguement for anything.
About the teachings of the Bible being proven false: Keep in mind that proof is in the scientific realm, and the bible makes many claims that are merely spiritual, not scientific. That being said, I am completely open to the reexamination of my beliefs in light of logic and reason. Indeed, it is the only reason that I am writing this now: You are doing me a favor by testing my creed with your critical analysis. When you ask if I would still believe in God, though, I’m not sure if you are referring to deism in general or the orthodox Christian faith spefically.
To Miguel
“If the Bible was not the real deal, I’m sorry but my faith does not crumble. My apologies for the arrogance and ignorance of fundamentalist evangelicals who behave that way.”
I respect that!!!
Miguel, I will reply to you soon, but not today, I’m too tired. Maybe tomorrow or so if you’re even here, since this has continued for quite a long time, this posting on this fail I mean.
Update: Miguel, I don’t think I’ll answer to you afterall. I can’t be bothered to continue these God debates for now. I’m sorry I won’t, but I just can’t muster the will to use my brain.
A Stephen Colbert reference – WIN!
Just asking, you say that the Earth wasn’t created of nothing, yet the Bible says that there was nothing but God, and then he created everything. Isn’t this a contradiction?
Genesis simply said the earth was without form. That’s all.
what does that even mean?
Genesis may say that, but doesn’t the gospel of John start with some stuff about there being nothing but the word and the word was God and something like that, that at some point he was the only thing that existed?
“The resurrection of Christ was literal.”
So, God sent himself to be sacrificed to himself to save us from himself?
Yep. Then he brought himself back to life. Does it make sense now?
no, to save us from our sins. sin requires punishment. Jesus took our place.
To Aaron
“sin requires punishment” then whoever would be the punisher would have to do lot in this world (regarding what you consider a sin).
Ah yes, punishment after death, very convenient for the sinners
.
Ah; I get it. If I accept the word of God and accept Jesus and those other things (they’re all the same thing, just phrased differently), then Jesus through his sacrifice will serve as my proxy in any punishment (dealt by whom?) that I might otherwise have faced. I won’t have to suffer – he’ll do it (he did it) for me. So he sacrificed himself to provide his followers (and me, if I join them) with a license to sin without repercussion. Is that what Peter was going on about in his letter to the Galatians?
Hinduism’s take on creation, the “Creation Hymn” of RigVeda 10.129.6-7:
6. Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world’s production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7. He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.
According to Vedic Hinduism, the Gods don’t even know from whence the universe came.
Jain tradition maintains that the universe has always existed.
Buddhist traditions typically maintain that the existence of God, far from being a matter of “faith” is a waste of time in the face of the more critical need to escape from the cycle of suffering, and creation stories, while extant, are doubly pointless. The Buddha pointedly refused to speculate on the existence of a creator, a move that is central to Buddhism’s doctrine of nontheism. (See, for example, the parable of the poisoned arrow in the Culamalunkya Sutra.)
Cross Vedic Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism off your list of religions that “have a belief in some form of a creation or another.”
Brian, so the resurrection was literal? then let me tell you that your God might have lied to you..why? well first because is physically impossible, but, since you already believe in magical conception, “physically impossible”, may not mean anything to you but also because in your bible there is at least three prophecies saying that Christ was going to die and resurrect on the third day and if you calculate from Friday evening to Sunday morning isn’t even 48 hours and third because in at least two of those prophesies say he was going to die in the middle of the week and my friend Friday is not the middle of the week..
Scientists have not, in fact, proven that there is “dark matter out there.” They *theorize* that matter they cannot detect probably exists based upon observations of gravitation effect on observable matter by… *something*… which they cannot see.
“who says a day is what we consider a day?”
Well, God did. He told the Jews that he created the world in 6 days, and they wrote it down. If he used ‘day’ to mean something other than what the Jews meant, then it was pretty deceitful of him wasn’t it?
Alternatively, they may have just, you know, made it all up.
Sadly, the bible gets it wrong. Let’s have a little bible study, shall we:
Genesis 1:1,3 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
So first the earth, then light (and presumably the sun)
Genesis 1:4-5 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Genesis 1:7-8 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
– And wait, where did all that water come from?
Genesis 1:9-10 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
O there’s land. My mistake, I thought that science showed the sun, then the earth, then rain falling on the earth.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 12-13 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Okay, now we have plants.
Genesis 14-19 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Now we finally have stars and the sun … but wait. Where did all that light come from? And we had plants for a whole day before the earth? And not just any plants, but herbs and flowering plants. In the land of reality, they don’t show up til after the animals.
For homework, you may continue reading. The rest is just as wrong.
Nice one Joel,
My opinion is that people created God, not the other way around. People did this a long time ago to answer questions that couldn’t be answered or they found it hard to accept facts. Eg, where do we go when we die? I’m quite fine with going into the ground to get eaten by worms, but lets tell our children that we go to a magical place to play golf everyday called Heaven. And make up other things to put our minds to ease. So when they’re faced with a tough question, they just spit out ‘it’s God’s way’ or ‘God did it’ or the favourite ‘God works in mystrious ways’. And they are too arrogant to look at any scientific evidence.
The stories go on. Kid’s bedtime stories. Put together to form a novel called The Bible. We all grew out of believing in Santa, but people don’t grew out of The Bible.
Ever heard of the term RATIONALIZATION???? That’s all it takes to make NOSENSICAL “RELIGION” ACCEPTABLE and you’re attempting to do a good job……….. But you’re failing miserably!
LaRouge, I love you! That is the best explaination of chirstianity that I have ever seen! F’ing brilliant.
Scurvybill, where is there a single scientific fact in anything that Aaron said? Last I heard the universe was expanding, not slowing down. So yes, some things like the speed of light are seeming a little less significant, but the speed of light is still the same as it always has been.
That is a very clever twist on the original story. I’m so stealing that
Your ignorance of science is annoying. You have been lied to by “creation scientists” if you think that science supports creation. I don’t want to start a flame war here (maybe its a little too late for that….) but everything you just said was factually wrong.
Evolution itself is not a philosophy (that is kent hovind style bullshit, would that be where you got this from?) it is a scientific theory about the diversity of life and how it changes over time. It describes how nature works. Nothing more. It says nothing about how humans should interact with one another in any kind of society no matter what people like hovind say. There is an excellent video series by someone called shanedk on youtube called “why evolution is scientific” I suggest you watch it.
“i.e. the sun is dying out, the speed of light is slowing down”
Nonsense. There is no data to support this. I bet you could quote refuted papers that are about 40 years old from creationist websites (If i remember correctly) but nothing recent and in a few billion years and the sun will go nova but that’s really it.
“where are all of the fossils of the creatures in the evolutionary chain?”
There are thousands of transitional forms that make up a rather nice “evolutionary chain”. List’s can be found simply by typing “lists of transitional fossils” into google. There is a video series on youtube by donexodus2 which is basically a massive list of transitional forms as well.
“why are we not seeing any obvious signs of evolution today?”
Speciation has been observed dozens of times (with positive mutations that have increased the size of the genome btw) both in the lab and in the wild. Again this can be found with a simple google search of “observed instances of speciation” there are also many videos on youtube.
“And before anyone goes and bashes the Bible, maybe you should try reading through it with an impartial attitude.”
I have. It’s mostly a book of bronze age myths in my opinion. Sorry guys. I’m really not trying to start a flame war but creationists just annoy me with the amount of misinformation they spread about from dishonest creationist organizations like AiG.
Just one thing, if you meant that the Sun would become a supernova, it’s too small for that. It’ll just become a red giant and swallow the Earth, not become as supernova.
That aside, I agree with your opinions. Keep up the good work of enlightening those annoying creatinists.
The sun shalt go NOVA. Not supernova.
And it will scorch the earth, maybe swallow it up, but then it’ll go white dwarf and…
KABOOM!
and by that time we’ll probably be terraforming pluto.
Have you ever thought about how much misinformation evolutionists have posted. I’m sure you can find a lot of stuff, but can you really take it at face value. Anyone can put stuff on the internet and make claims without any accountability of whether or not it’s true. that’s like saying Wikipedia is always 100% true.
So you’re suggesting that 99% of the information on the internet about science of all fields – biology, paleontology, geology, chemistry, and whatnot – was all planted by people who want to do a conspiracy to fool people? For what?
Remember: “evolutionists” aren’t emotionally attached to their theory. We wouldn’t care if it turned out evolution was wrong. Just like you wouldn’t be devastated if the theory of relativity was somehow proven wrong. Creationists, on the other hand, have emotional connections, cause their religion is linked to it.
And it’s like saying we don’t know for sure if Australia really exists, or any other country you’ve never been to. You and I don’t even have proof the earth is round, if we’ve never travelled around it ourselves. There is no reason to assume such a large group of people is lying.
Hi Aaron,
Have you ever considered how much misinformation people like you have posted??
Is that not a sin, to be punished by your god in eternity?
wow. the universe is 13 billion years old. the universe is moving at a constant speed. the sun is dying out, which will provide fuel for a new star in X amount of time. the speed of light can’t slow down, it’s a constant. we’ve found most of the fossils of the evolutionary chain. we do see evolution; consider the list of dog breeds (for a very rapid, albeit manufactured version).
Actually, the universe is spreading at an accelerating rate, due to something called dark energy (while dark matter keeps it together).
*sigh* I am dissapointed in you…
I have been told by various people that this phrase motivates people more than yelling or otherwise brow-beating the target would. Perhaps, If I say it to Aaron, he will be motivated to get his head out of the proverbial hole, and maybe look around and at least TRY to learn something. THERE IS NO TOOTH FAIRY! SANTA IS A LIE! (and so is the cake) AND FINALLY, GOD IS A FIGMENT OF JESUS’ IMAGINATION! What happened to people before 0 AD? They must have all went to hell, because Jesus hadn’t been born yet, and therefore he couldn’t have died for their sins yet. Make sense? No. Just like evry other religion.
I think these types of conversations are great!!! It does make me a little sad when an argument cannot be presented without slander or abuse towards the opposite belief.
As far as what happened to the people before the time of Jesus, 1 Peter 3:19 says that Jesus visited those who had died before him—those awaiting judgment—and witnessed to them. Grant it that you must believe in the bible to believe in the answer.
My question to all the evolution believing scholars out there is: Where the origin of matter came from? Based on the law of conservation of energy, matter cannot be created or destroyed. I look forward to hearing your responses.
You really need an explanation about the birds and the bees? A creature reproduces, a tiny egg meets a nice sperm, and using the material the mommy eats that baby will grow. Depending on the lives the mother and father lived (i.e. experienced tons of sun without shelter, lived in cold temperatures or high altitudes, etc.) the baby will have a minor change in the characteristics that adapts it to thrive in the world that it will likely live in. This is why we have different skin colors, different sized noses, different eye colors, etc. Adaptations to thrive in the environment in which our ancestors lived in thousands or millions of years ago.
As for the conservation of mass, that’s why the mom eats, to grow the child. The child grows because of his diet. Nothing is created or destroyed. You’re just trying to hope that idiots follow what you say because you’re a Christian fundamentalist who wants people to think you know what you’re talking about by referencing science.
Go to school.
Think a bit more before you respond. He was asking for the creation of the universe. Were did that matter come from?
Modern cosmology has already determined that the universe is not eternal, so then. What made the universe?
Umm, that’s not how evolution works. Mommy and Daddy survived or reproduced better if they had a trait that helped them out so the next generation will have more of Mommy and Daddy’s traits. The baby doesn’t acquire it from the environment it’s in (barring phenotypic plasticity).
What I love is the fact that every time evolution is debated it becomes a debate about the origin of the universe – and vice versa.
Like the two have anything to do with each other.
Very good point. Bout time someone brought that up.
I thought ENERGY couldn’t be created or destroyed (not matter?)
Ha, good point.
I thought E=mc²
That’s the energy stored in those things, not creating any new energy.
Black hole information paradox anyone? If black holes absorb vast amounts of energy but eventually dissolve then how is that information dispersed if nothing can escape?
“Black hole information paradox anyone? If black holes absorb vast amounts of energy but eventually dissolve then how is that information dispersed if nothing can escape?”
That’s the naive, simplistic understanding of a black hole. They actually radiate vast amounts of energy. And eventually they explode and start new celestial life cycles for planets and new stars.
I’m no scientist, so I’m not sure about this, but I think the laws of conservation of matter and energy have been merged.
Now it states that the sum of matter and energy in the universe always remains constant. Or something like that.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Something like that: and, what’s more, the net mass/energy content of the Universe seems to be pretty close to zero.
now wait … are you really quoting bible and law of conservation of energy in the same post ?
Either pick religion or science… those two are two completely different matters… And, by the way… ever heard of quantum fluctuations ? when particle and anti-particle are created out of nothing ? It happens all the time and the conservation of energy is conserved
… the resulting energy output is zero… our universe may be just a quantum flactuation in something bigger… Try reading some quantum physics … its fun (and if I have some facts wrong, to anyone with greater knowledge of quantum: feel free to correct me.
David
Just so you know. Evolution says nothing about the origin of matter or the first life on earth. It’s just a theory about how life changes over time and how random mutations can lead to new beneficial traits.
These beneficial traits may ensure better survivability and/or adaption and ultimately better conditions for reproducing in larger numbers than its parents.
Over short amounts of time, like with dogs, this leads to new breeds within the same species.
Over vast stretches of time a staggering number of changes will have happened and we will no longer recognize the organism as of the same species as it originally came from.
well people who believe in evolution dont also believe in the same way the universe came about. if you were asking what the most widely believed scientific explanation is then you should have asked that
but none the less i shall assume
the mostly widely believed explanation is that membranes collided causing all the matter to come about
if you want a more detailed explanation all you have to do is watch a science channel special about parallel universes or string theory
now repeat after me.
“evolution does not explain :abiogenisis, singularity, gravity, electromagnitism, strong force, weak force, germs, etc etc….
one theory explains one thing. TA-DA!!!
Before the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe did not “not exist.” It was all still here, packed in an EXTREMELY dense, tiny space, which, due to its constriction and heat, exploded. (That’s the “bang” part.) And this massive amount of energy and matter (and the two can phase into each other and back) spread out through space, and continues to do so today, over an inconceivably large area. (That’s the “big” part.)
So. The Big Bang did not create or destroy matter nor energy. It created the universe with matter and energy already in existence in a teeny, tiny, itty, bitty space.
One tiny point of contention — nothing existed before the big bang. Not even space. The point of the big bang theory is to explain the fact that everything is expanding away from everything else in the universe at a roughly constant rate. For a 2-d analog, think of the surface of a balloon as it’s being blown up. If you put dots on the balloon, they all move apart from each other as the balloon is being blown up.
Matter can be created from energy and vice versa. Hence nuclear physics. However, that is completely unrelated to evolution, since evolution doesn’t deal with the origin of the universe (that’s cosmology’s job) or even the origin of life on earth (abiogenesis).
And what of all the people who lived after Jesus, but happened to do so on another continent?
Please explain why you think that evolution flouts the conservation of energy law or why matter is created or destroyed by evolution. In the case of the latter offspring are made of pre-existing elements that are recycled. Evolution is consistent with the rest of science – it has to be or else it wouldn’t be accepted by the scientific community.
You’re all wrong! His great noodliness The Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything, I know he did… prove to me he didn’t!
Charmander… ’nuff said.
-with a touch of his noodly appendage.
I was so ticked when my FSM tag was ripped off my car.
LOL FAIL
You failed to laugh out loud?
commas save lives
Are you kidding?! You do see evolution happening today. Ever heard of bacteria becoming resistant to certain medicines? EVOLUTION. Mosquitos being unaffected by insect repellant? EVOLUTION. Lamb dogs resembling the actual lambs that they protect? EVOLUTION. So yeah, we see evolution occurring even today. Evolution happens so small and so slow that it takes millions of years for it to occur.
That’s mutation not evolution, for example the dog one… we breed dogs and those dogs look different. It’s not evolution.
*facepalm*
Inbreeding has made me this way! *does a dance*
If the mutation better suits it to the environment that its parent organism, technically, thats evolution. Evolution is a collection of mutations that allow an organism to out live or out compete its peers.
As you probably realized yourself, that’s exactly what evolution is.
It is not natural selection but it is artificial selection and the outcome demonstrates how evolution can take place. Random mutations are what makes evolution possible.
Evolution IS mutation. Sometimes it takes thousands or millions of years, and sometimes only a few hundred, or even less.
Take peppered moths as an example. At first, they were light-colored moths so they could blend into the light-colored trees they rested on. Then bam, the industrial revolution hit and suddenly the once light-colored trees became dark-colored trees. So what happened to the peppered moths? They got dark (their genes mutated). Thissssss is what we call evolution. More specifically industrial melanism.
The ability of all creatures big and small to genetically mutate to become better adapted to their environment (can also be known as survival of the fittest…which is why the darwin awards are so damned fantastic!)
EVOLUTION! HOORAY!!!!
Actually, how fast evolution happens is dependent on what is evolving. I mean, everything is evolving, but generation lengths are different. Humans evolve very slow because generations take decades… fruit flies and bacteria on the other hand…
We have observed nylon digesting bacteria and TNT residue digesting bacteria which digest synthetic materials only first created in the 1930s. So, these things evolved to digest a new material extremely quickly.
Main point is that it doesn’t need to take millions of years. It can happen in years, decades, or centuries depending on what you’re observing.
I don’t believe the two are mutually exclusive. Can’t it be that Evolution tells us how, and creationism tells us why?
Is it inconceivable that evolution is the invention of God?
Finally! Faith and science to NOT conflict. Two people look at the exact same picture and come to two different conclusions. One is science, the other is NOT. But the can both be true!
Hmmmm. Which religion is true?
Christanity, islam, ammon cult, bastet cult, voodoo, shintoism, druidism, buddhism, hinduism (just to name some of them)
all of them?
TPOHIG is the correct answer to your question.
It stands for, The Pantheon Of Holy Internet Gods. We are currently looking for members, and have already recruited the FSM and the Cat duo from Lolcats. The IPU representitives are still to contact me on their desicion to join. Any IPU representitives here?
We beleive that the Multiverse was created by a bunny. Who doesn’t love bunnies? Noone would fight against a bunny, except for trolls. It only smites carrots, and maybe some lettuce leaves. The bunny, tired after it’s exertion, left, leaving the FSM and Ceiling Cat (and any other dieties that may want to join,) in charge. After the great Pirate War (everyone fought everyone else) the gods decided to split THIS universe into 3 sections. The highest part, The Eternal Barbecue In The Sky, is a place of happiness, cheeseburgers, strippers, unicorns and free beer. Good forum users go there when they die. This universe, The One That Nearly Had The Chance To Get Away, is where we, with our noodley/cheesey/fluffy souls, reside. Finally, there is The Place That Costs A Buttload To Get In, But Still Sucks. Trolls, spammers and other bad people go here. It is a terrible place…
I welcome any suggestion as to how I can improve my new religion. I am also taking in aplications for saints. However, be warned that “Saint of the Yummy Cookies” and “The Saint of The Holy Furry Handcuffs.” have already been taken. Please be considerate when making yourself a saint.
I plan to have this religion survive, by EVOLVING it. It will not become Dogma and Superstition, like all other religions, but instead, will shape and flow to match the current style of the internet. Any joiners?
By that comment I’m not necessarily advocating one religion as the only true (though I do hold to one). But honestly, why bother objecting to any religion as inherently false if it doesn’t contradict science, or for that matter, government, one bit?
But in an effort to wear my true colors (and truly answer your question), I will say this: Go wherever you like, you will only find 2 religions on earth. There is the religion of man’s efforts (to reach the divine) and the religion of divine accomplishment (to redeem a broken humanity).
Religion does contradict science, it impedes science all the time. I’ll oppose it every chance i get for as long as people like the pope are spreading lies and rumours that cause the death of thousands of innocent people. Your last sentence is ambiguous bullshit that you put there to sound good. Idiocy.
Logic fail. Religion does contradict science –> I’ll oppose it every chance I get = religion must always contradict science.
Hasty generalization, simply untrue. Like I said above, religion that impedes the progress of science is the antithesis of it’s highest purpose. If the pope causes the death of thousands, than I would say those actions are contrary to his doctrine (i.e. he is not really infallible).
It seems that my last sentence really ruffled your feathers. Notice how your angry rhetoric failed to address it’s content by simply throwing angry adjectives at it. Ambiguous, sure. A little. Sound good? Maybe. But true? Show me a religion that falls outside those two categories and you have proven me wrong.
Miguel, everything you just said kinda proves what i’ve been saying ll along, none of it makes sense when put in context, it only justifies my argument more. I don’t need to reply to the answer you just gave, in fairness i’m drunk right now, yet i still know your not putting forward conclusive evidence, your just attempting to poke holes in my reliability, which is fine. In response to your second comment i have to second Harrys comment ‘that condoms spread HIV’ give me an answer thankyou plz.
There are elements of religion that contradict science. Problem is as soon as those idea’s are proved wrong the next generation see those verses as metaphorical and see them in a more poetic context.
The problem is that whilst this progress towards the most truth, and unprovable statements, as possible is good. Every generation will have slightly different views. As such if there ever comes into question a principle you believe to be true from the bible you might oppose it because of what the bible claims. It isn’t that the bible has proved that idea to be true. It’s more like science hasn’t proved that idea to be false yet.
It seems that there is always an uphill struggle to purify the bible of false information when applied literally.
A perfect example would be the trial of Galileo. You’re probably aware his idea was opposed due to contemporary scriptural interpretation. Or maybe the Darwin fiasco. again opposed to this day, by some, by literalistic scriptural interpretation.
The point I am trying to make is that religions tend to stagnate idea’s till they are questioned from an external source. When this is contrasted with science it seems minuscule in importance.
It is interesting to note that the natural response to science is that religions tend towards a more deistic view where everything becomes allegory and metaphor and certainty is replaced with doubt.
Not to mention… The pope? Really? Which lies is he spreading that causes the death of thousands? He is internationally recognized as a cleric who leads the way in striving for peace among different faiths.
That condoms spread HIV.
To be fair…he did not say it (in those words). What he said was that AIDS in Africa is “a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems” and “The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids.”
So he’s not saying that condoms spread AIDS but he IS saying that condoms don’t stop it either. Which is, or course, completely false and it saddens me that a grown man could POSSIBLY think that.
They can only both be true to someone who believes in the religious version of the “why”.
I don’t. But I can definately see how you can. It’s not inconcievable that the two can go together, but only if you first believe in God.
Who created God? Where did he/she/it come from?
If something created god, it would necessarily have to be greater than God. Then that thing would itself actually be god. Unless it had a creator. And it’s creator had a creator. And thus you have an infinite regress. Unless you finally come to a stopping point, the one thing that simply is and has no creator. The “uncaused cause”. And this would essentially be God. The great “I Am”, or the essence of existence itself.
It’s no good, it’s turtles all the way down.
Lolza I love that joke! I just didn’t want to have to explain it again…
There is no joke in that.
Was Tolkien greater than Gandalf?
How about the universe is the uncaused cause. Why move a step back?
So how come ‘God was not created by something else, but God just IS’ is more believable than the Big Band, where we actually offer an explenation as to how (underline 5 times) the universe started and how it continues to expand?
Family Guy introduced us to the concept of a super devil, so why can’t we also have a SuperGod?
My God is bigger than your God
Inconceivable? You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.
impossible: totally unlikely.
I’m asking if it’s impossible that God used evolution as a tool to create you and I.
Of course not. It’s exactly as possible as it is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster used evolution as a tool to create you and ME and direct object pronouns.
Fair point, but my girlfriend says “you and I” and I don’t argue with her. If you have a girlfriend / wife (or really have ever met a women) you’ll understand.
If your girlfriend says “you and I” in this context then she is ignorant of grammar.
That’s funny because I AM the girlfriend side of this, and it IS you and ME.
To know whether to use I or me you just take away the “you” out of the equation. So it you would just way “he created me” then you would say “he created you and me”.
It’s that simple. Show this to your girlfriend lol.
Why postulate that there is something that used evolution as a tool?
We have proven evolution. We’re years away from proving abiogenesis (life from non-life). We’ve already created self sustaining, perpetually replicating and evolving RNA in a lab by mimicking conditions of a primordial earth. If you don’t need a deity to start life, then why do you need a deity for evolution?
We’re within years of proving dark matter, virtual particles, and the ability of the universe to come from absolutely nothing…
I agree that it may not be impossible, but there is no reason to *assume* the existence of a deity for these things especially considering the complete lack of proof of one in any of these processes. Occam’s Razor… the solution with the least amount of assumptions is usually the correct one. God, at this point, is an unnecessary complication.
That’s a fair and very good point.
All I’m getting at is that science and faith need not be mutually exclusive. If people want to be atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Muslim, Catholic, protestant or any other face or any other lack of faith, why should I have a problem with that?
If people are comforted by the idea of an afterlife, who is that harming?
Even if the churches are wrong they do a lot of good. Collecting money for charities, serving food to poor or lonely people, etc etc.
If you spend your entire life being good and doing good, and it turns out there is no God, who have you hurt?
“If people want to be atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Muslim, Catholic, protestant or any other face or any other lack of faith, why should I have a problem with that? If people are comforted by the idea of an afterlife, who is that harming?”
Hypothetically I agree with you, but when the Pope does things like claim condoms spread AIDS and actively discourages their use even in Africa in areas where infection rates are 50+%, that’s what people have a problem with.
Atheists don’t care what people’s deities are or what they do. They care about what they do in his name. Religion isn’t benign. If all it was is comfort, that would be one thing, but its obviously not. People kill for these beliefs. They actively restrain science and humanity from progressing when they ban stem-cell research and denial of civil rights to homosexuals. Look at what’s happening in Uganda at the moment.
“Even if the churches are wrong they do a lot of good. Collecting money for charities, serving food to poor or lonely people, etc etc.”
And we can do the same things without the need for a church, and upwards of 60% of the donations wouldn’t be going to keeping it running. How many millions of dollars are donated because people think its going to charity, but it was really used to hide child molesting priests. If people donated to secular charities instead of church you’d see a drastic increase in care for the poor and needy because so much less is taken to keep a secular charity running than an organized religion which relishes in ornate buildings, clothing, and other unneeded luxuries. Do you think (assuming Jesus was real) that Vatican city is what he had in mind?
The bad done doesn’t outweigh the good.
“If you spend your entire life being good and doing good, and it turns out there is no God, who have you hurt?”
No one. But why do you need God to be good? I donate to charity and I do volunteer work when I can… and I do it without hope of reward or fear of punishment. And, I don’t http://failblog.org/2010/01/06/field-trip-fail/?cp=5#comment-738029get to use the excuse that I helped because I prayed. If I want to claim that I helped, I have to do something.
“Two hands working does more than 100 clasped in prayer.”
Heh… don’t know how that URL got in there. Just ignore that.
“Atheists don’t care what people’s deities are or what they do.”
Atheism is a religion, what your talking about are agnostics.
A religion is anything that you are evangelic about, and Atheism applies.
Many of things you have problems with (gay marriage, stem research, etc) seem more like conservative issues then religious issues. I think you have a problem with GOP.
“And we can do the same things without the need for a church, and upwards of 60% of the donations wouldn’t be going to keeping it running.”
I used to feel that way until I joined the parish council. I had no idea how much the church does. We only have services Sunday mornings but that building is used every day for AA, OA, NA etc, etc. You need the room to put on meals for poor people, might as well use a multi purpose building.
Atheism is not a religion, in that there is no dogma, and no common belief other than a common disbelief in any deity. We generally choose to believe in things that have been proven to our own satisfaction, but those beliefs are always under revision.
This is the exact opposite of religion, each of which has an attached dogma not open for revision. In the case of Christianity it is a selective reading of a book written in the bronze age. For Hindus, the Bhagavad-Ghita.
Joel,
What your thinking of are Agnostics. Atheism is a religion, and there are common beliefs. There are books of worship (ie, God is not great), there are radio shows (ie, Free-thought Radio on AAR), there are organizations (ie, Freedom from Religion foundation).
And by the by, I have no problem with this what so ever. But Let’s not pretend it’s not a religion. If your evangelical in your beliefs, then that is a religion.
Here is Thom Hartman’s take on it:
Sorry, Tom Hartman is simply wrong. Agnosticism is the position of not knowing whether there is a god. Atheism is not believing in any god.
Religion implies a belief in (and frequently, though not always, a worship of) some supernatural entity/entities/phenomenon/whathaveyou (taking the meaning of “supernatural” literally); it’s one of the defining characteristics of religion.
Evangelism, however, is not (whether you take the literal meaning of “evangelise” or the colloquial one).
“A religion is anything that you are evangelic about, and Atheism applies.”
First, atheism is not a religion. Religion is NOT defined by something you’re evangelic about. (And you’re usuing that term wrong either. You could say people in PETA are evangelic about animal rights, but you wouldn’t call PETA a religion…) Atheism lacks several things that are required to be considered a religion… for example rituals, tenents, dogma, something to worship. There is no leader or clergy. There is no universal belief among atheists. There is only a universal *lack of* belief. Atheism makes zero claims.
To use the common analogy. Bald is not a hair color… If atheism is a religion, then “not stamp collecting” is a hobby.
Second, agnosticism and atheism address two different things. Agnosticism/gnosticism is about what you claim to *know.* Atheism/theism is what you believe or lack belief in believe.
Most atheists are also agnostic. The way “agnostic” is used in your sense generally refers to “weak” agnostic atheists (i.e. the ones who just say “I don’t know.”) where “Strong” agnostic atheists are the ones like Richard Dawkins who say, “I don’t believe in a god because there is no evidence for one. I don’t claim to know, but I live as if he doesn’t exist because of the lack of evidence. Give me evidence and I’ll believe.” Very few atheists actually claim to *know* that there is a god because most atheists are scientifically minded and would consider such a claim intellectually dishonest.
Unfortunately, it’s the opposite with theists and most are “gnostic” and claim full knowledge of a deity’s existance… which is why religion is so divisive. If you believe you’re right, then everyone else is wrong, and the all-powerful man of their belief allows then to justify killing over it.
“Many of things you have problems with (gay marriage, stem research, etc) seem more like conservative issues then religious issues. I think you have a problem with GOP.”
No. Four of the top five reasons for continuing to deny homosexuals equal rights are religion based and the fifth’s reason is second-handedly religion based.
“I used to feel that way until I joined the parish council… might as well use a multi purpose building.”
What does that have to do with the fact that upwards of 60% of donations in some places go to pay the clergy’s salaries?
And, there are plenty of public buildings already that could take care of the needs of the AA, OA, etc.
“Atheism lacks several things that are required to be considered a religion… for example rituals, tenents, dogma, something to worship. There is no leader or clergy. There is no universal belief among atheists. ”
I promise you Atheism has all those things. The core “claim” of Atheism is that you will be set free if you stop worshiping a God or Gods.
Atheists are probably among the most Dogmatic people I’ve ever met.
“To use the common analogy. If atheism is a religion, then ‘not stamp collecting’ is a hobby.”
To use the common retort to that common analogy, it is. If you have empty books that you pull out, and show everybody all that stamps you never collected.
Not doing something passively, and actively doing the opposite are too different things.
“What does that have to do with the fact that upwards of 60% of donations in some places go to pay the clergy’s salaries?”
I don’t what places that refers to (small church with virtually no parish, or huge mega churches or what) but the Clergy does a lot more then just give speeches Sunday Mornings, they are working with the poor, providing comfort to those in distress etc.
As far as “plenty of public buildings already that could take care of the needs of the AA, OA,” I thinks that’s crap.
If there are plenty of buildings why do these groups come to the church in the first place?
lol princess bride reference…. wonderful. made me laugh for real .
if by creationism you include the idea that the world is only 6000 years old then they are incompatible.
If not you’re free to believe whatever unsupported nonsense you wish. just don’t force others to believe it too. And don’t act as if its backed by evidence or that there is some kind of controversy.
It still doesn’t make it right though.
yeah,
If you accept the 6 days as a parable, and remember that the Bible says “1 day is as a 10,000 years to God” then the two become compatible.
And I’m not trying to convert anybody, just show a different side of the story.
The moderate voices are almost always drowned out by people at the extremes.
The order is still wrong. The “beasts of the earth” come after whales. There earth comes before the sun and stars, etc.
Beast would come after whales. Life evolved in the ocean and moved to the land.
And the earth has always existed (in one form or anther).
No. Whales have leg bones, and should therefore have evolved on land. As a matter of fact, we have a reasonable set of transitional fossils from a hippo like creature to whales.
Furthermore, the earth has not “always” existed. It is ~4.54 billion years old — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth. In addition, in Genesis, the earth is created before the sky, the sun or stars. This is clearly wrong and nonsensical with even a basic understanding of our solar system.
In one form or another.
And what does “in one form or another” even mean?
It’s simple: the Earth didn’t exist, and billions of years ago it came into existence. No “one form or another” faux-logic necessary.
You lose all credibility by this “in one form or another”
If you don’t know just say i don’t know.
Read this post from NASA!
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/050921a.html
Go to Google, type ‘made of stardust’ and the first entry is from NASA.
It describes what I meant. Again, it’s NASA, it’s science.
(This is for 17R3W. Unfortunately the comment indentation has maximized.)
This makes no sense.
I mean really this makes absolutely no fracking sense.
@sean14916
The question has come up at what point in time did the world come into existence.
If your going to get technical (and everyone on this board seems to want to get technical) then the earth has existed since the big bang.
People are trying to use obscure interpretations, exact order of the things in Genesis (despite the fact they’re using a translation, and don’t know the exact order as according to the original text), etc etc.
If you want to get technical, and we’re free to use any scientific fact we wish, then I choose to use that one.
@17R3W
The earth is a structure of matter organized in a specific way. The matter and energy which created the earth did indeed exist since the big bang. But what you’re saying is similar to me saying
“this chocolate cake has existed for all time.”
The point is that just because the energy and matter to assemble items exist doesn’t mean that the assembled item itself exists.
6000 + (6 * 10000) =/= 4500000000
66000 =/= 4500000000
[bullshit age of man] + [bullshit age of creation] =/= [real answer]
check your math before you say stuff like this. You may want to be a moderate but if you’re moderate in clearly right v obviously wrong you simply end up looking like a douche.
good day
sean14916
Also i’m going to take issue at you’re claim that atheism has dogma’s. name one dogma that every atheist must necessarily accept to be considered an atheist.
Should I read through Deuteronomy with an impartial view and assume you will stone your wife to death if she is not a virgin? The bible is a fictional work of mythology like the Koran or Homer’s Odyssey or the Epic of Gilgamesh or a hundred other tales used to explain what was once unknown. To use the bible as historical evidence is to deny history itself. You need to reasearch the history OF the bible; not the “history” WITHIN the bible.
Your “time is the enemy” argument seems pulled out of thin air and any basic reasearch into astronomy will clear things up for you. The Universe is expanding, directly inferring it was contracted at one point, and it’s still being here does not disprove anything. You are jumping to rash conclusions without any facts. yes the sun is dying out, but not YET done; yes the universe is expanding, but not YET to destruction.
The Fossils of the evolutionary “chain” are within museums and universities throughout the world. I recommend trying out “The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins to explain all your evolutionary questions.
Obvious signs? How about goose bumps, your tail bone and your appendix for starters? Did a creator give us a useless organ, a bone serving no purpose without a til and skin bumps to increase body warmth and size, yet no full body hair to complete its purpose? Have we not witnesses the evolution of bacteria and viruses on a daily basis? Do we not control evolutionary forces in animal and plant breeding?
If you’re not willing to seek them out, the answers you are looking for won’t be apparent. But they ARE out there and to deny a fact with endless amounts of evidence, but accept a belief based on NO evidence is just plain illogical in my opinion.
But to each their own and life is beatiful in the way you find fit, so enjoy your beliefs!
Oh and evolution is not philosophy in any way. It’s a scientific fact and theory (try wikipedia: evolution as fact and theory) and also learn the meaning of SCIENTIFIC theory as opposed to colloquial theory: notjustatheory .com
Thou art awesome. For one thing, if evolution didn’t exist, we wouldn’t have to get a different flu shot every year. Oh, I’m sorry. God brought the flu because he’s pissed off at us. Fundy wackos, please take note of this, and know that when you get the flu (because getting the flu shot would be clearly in defiance of God’s will), know it’s because you came up short in some way.
God* gave us the flu, parasites, cancer, Alzheimer’s, etc.
*assuming he/she/it exists
A teacher said “There is no such thing as God, I know this because there is evil in the world, and God would not allow this”.
The student asked “Is there such a thing as dark?”
The teacher said “Of course”
The student replied “No, dark is the absence of light”.
The student asked “Is there such a thing as cold?”
The teacher said “Of course”
The student replied “No, cold the is absence of heat”.
The student asked “Is there such a thing as evil?”
The teacher this time less sure said “Of course”
The student replied “No, evil is the absence of God”.
And that student was not Albert Einstein but it’s a good story any way.
So your point is that god exists because the fictional student was a bit cleverer than the fictional teacher? Or is it that god exists because there are varying amounts of heat and light in the universe?
The second one.
which means…..your god owns a power supply.
Wow I just laughed really really hard. you are a win, my good man
Thanks Sparrow,
but I am a woman
Actually shouldn’t the student have replied that “evil is the absence of good” G-d is never absent. G-d allows evil because without it there can not be good. Assuming you believe in G-d of course
It’s making an argument, that God is good, and that when we turn away from God we turn away from good.
Now that’s a little far for me, I don’t personally believe that you have to accept Jesus to know that stealing is wrong, and picking someone up who has fallen is right.
I would make the argument that you can be good without believing in God, but you can’t believe in God without being good. But that’s really neither here nor there.
Hitler believed in God. (Godwin’s Law!)
No God that I pray too.
I’m an Anglican (Episcopalian) and my God is “Love”.
It may sound stupid and cliched but it’s my faith. People who gay bash, people who blow up abortion clinics, Nazis, terrorist, Klan members or anyone else with there heart does not believe in any God I worship.
Ah, so you’re a member of First Church of the True Scotsman?
I don’t believe, but despite some slips and mistakes in my life I guess I can call myself a “good” man. Your assumption that people can only be good if they follow your religion the way you do is …well, it’s the most arrogant thing I’ve heard. Ever.
Arthur Eld,
If you back and read my post, you’ll see I said that you can in fact be good without God.
I misread it. Sorry!
Story fail…
I consider is very evil of the Pope to claim that condoms spread AIDS… and he’s supposed to be able to talk to him directly.
I consider the molestation of thousands of children and using them as slave labor since at least the 1930s if not before then as outlined in the 2300 page document about the church run school/orphanage in Ireland to be the pinnacle of evil.
Yet, I’m an atheist. I am without God. Amazing how I’m not evil, and would never do these things, and these others who are supposed to be a direct link to God are evil.
Evil is evil. God is irrelevant. Good people do good things. Evil people do evil things. However, it takes religion to make good people do evil things.
as noted above I am not a Catholic, and I don’t agree with selection of that Pope (given that among other things) that he was a member of the Hitler Youth.
Like I said, the KKK considers themselves Christians and I do not.
You’ll find good and bad people in every religion or lack of. No offense, but playing the “not a true Christian” thing isn’t valid. That’s not the point anyways.
The point is that people use religion to bad consequence no matter what sect they’re from.
Just to enlighten you a little bit: It was almost inevitable to become a member of the Hitler Youth back then. You weren’t asked if you WANT to join; only escape possible was that you were excluded due to “racial” or political reasons (for example regime opposing parents).
I’ve heard that excuse many times, and it’s true. But your why not just pick someone else for Pope?
But, as far I’m concerned it’s neither her nor there, as I’m not a Catholic.
I guess he had the best network among those in question. Dunno, and don’t care. The point is, whatever someone brings up against the pope (and there’s plenty of things to be irritated by), his participation in the Hitler Youth shouldn’t be among those things.
There is plenty of evil in the world so God must be absent.
It’s rediculous is what it is. It’s not fact, it’s a story used to convert little people. I outgrew God…and yet I still find myself NOT evil. hmmm.
That’s good point.
Let me just say that those rules from Deuteronomy, Leviticus and anything from the old testament are no longer relevant.
We believe that Jesus died for out sins, and that’s we no longer follow those laws.
You’ll often hear people quoting old testament rules to condemn homosexuality but that has nothing to do with faith. That’s just hatred mas curating as faith.
Uhm… If its in the bibel it IS christian opinions, isnt it? -.-
No actually, if it’s in the first testament it’s Jewish.
And I don’t mean that as a slight against Jewish people (and I apologize if it looks that way), what I mean is that is the reason that Jewish people don’t eat Shellfish and Christians do.
Christians believe that Jesus was the messiah and that he died for our sins, (and that absolves us the rules from the first testament) while Jews believe that Jesus was not the messiah and those rules still apply.
Er, actually, just the first five books are Jewish scripture. And not all of those rules apply to most Jews. They’re pretty aware of which are practical and modern and which aren’t. And if the Old Testament doesn’t apply, why did Christians keep it around? Just throw it away.
I wish they would, but I’m not the Pope.
“not the pope.” That’s pretty witty. Color me shocked.
Well, if you ever end up religious, but accidentally end up Catholic, be sure to vote me for me.
Also, by this time (as futurerama tells us) it might be for space Pope.
Yet too many fundamentalist Christians pull things out of the Old Testament when it’s convenient for them to do so — like when they want to “protect marriage” from same-sex couples (but seemingly have no problem with heterosexual marriage being a prize on reality competition shows).
There aren’t enough of these:
out there to fully express my disdain for fundamentalists in ANY religion.
I don’t want to get to far off topic. But I don’t feel those fundamentalist are Christians at all.
They are as Christian as the KKK. They are Christians the same way Bin Laden is Muslim.
Anybody with hate in their hearts are not people of faith IMHO.
Sorry, of course that should say “aren’t Christians at all”
You can’t decide who is christian and who is not. If someone wants to call themselves something, who are you to tell them they aren’t?
That’s one of the problems with Christianity. There are far too many ways to interpret far too many scriptures. And since there are also many different forms Christianity, like Catholisism, Orthodox, Anglican etc, it makes it even more ambiguous. To the point where one person will only take into account CERTAIN passages of the New Testament and another person will take into account ALL passages of both the Old and the New Testament. Therefore, the first person is just as catholic as the latter…depending on who you ask.
It’s cherry-picking.
Mass Curate!
Exhibitors on parade.
Mass curate!
Hide your face so the
Keane eyes will not find you!
Mass Curate!
All those painted different shades
Mass curate…
Look around there’s a Picasso behind you.
Do the first letters of your sentence make a word?
I should have put in the music notes… Christine Daaé would have put in the music notes…
♩♪♫♬
*helpless laughter*
“Let me just say that those rules from Deuteronomy, Leviticus and anything from the old testament are no longer relevant.
We believe that Jesus died for out sins, and that’s we no longer follow those laws.”
Does that mean we get to skip over the 10 commandments too?
Sorry 17R3W, but that argument doesn’t fly. It’s either all relevant or it’s not. Thankfully, most people, even religious people, don’t get their morals from their holy books. They cherry-pick the good and bad.
Okay, they’re relevant.
They’re relevant in that we know what Jesus died for. They’re relevant in that we know the basis of our faith.
And yes, of course we can skip over the 10 commandments too.
We had a good discussion about that in Church a couple years back. Many of them irrelevant (especially the Sabbath, because everyone works on Saturday, and the idol, because if you’ve ever been to Church you know we have tons of symbols).
George Carlin did a great bit about the 10 Commandments, I think he got them down to three without losing anything important.
Two.
But he says they can add a third that says, “thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself” then he wouldn’t mind if it was on the court room wall.
And this kind of relates to other comments I made back to you… but even though you understand those “laws” from the OT are bad, not everyone thinks so. They’re the main reason for denying homosexual marriage in the USA. It’s not just something that’s thrown aside offhand, so you can’t just say, “that’s we no longer follow those laws.” You might not, but a LOT still do.
And I think that third one is the most important. I only bring religion up here, because I’m joining a conversation already taking place.
Jesus died for our sins, so that means we’re without sin and the rules like the 10 commandments are not longer important. Ok well that means I can do whatever the hell I want and not worry about it because Jesus took care of my sins for me. wait..that doesn’t seem right.
I can’t believe you are actually attempting to cite wikipedia as a credible source.
To Aaron,
well you are referring to a fairy tale book all the time. Which is better?
Wikipedia has actually been proven to be an extremely credible and reliable source. It’s always checked and rechecked and updated. It’s a heck of alot more credible than the bible.
Yes because we all know a book written by man in a different language then mistranslated and adjusted over 100s of years is much more factional then any kind of scientific theory. That is just craziness
AMEN.
Sheesh, sometimes I wish Xtians would actually do something other than just quote the bible… like… do some RESEARCH on where it came from, who wrote it down, who translated it, what changes were made, and why. If they would just do that little bit of research they would all be mortified that they’re being so utterly brainwashed. I have yet to meet ONE Xtian who can handle an actual historical and linguistic debate on the bible. They always just say “it’s the word of God.” as if that is supposed to be an engaging debate.
Actually christians have been doing that along time. For Example the catholic church theologeans have devoted time and energy on researching who, how, when etc. the different books of the bible were written and how those aspects relate to the message in the books of the bible. for example the jerusalem bible has introductory articles before each book explaining the history of that book and the theories on its writing, author, and translation notes
That catholic church is a like a government. How could you ever trust them. This coming from a former catholic, mind you. You have to understand even if you could trace back the text. History is written by man and truth is hidden in lies.
Absolutely. You have to admit, though, that does simply serve to support the Catholic Church’s doctrine of original sin. Since it is seemingly impossible to have a honest, objective, and fair account of history, the problem lies within the heart of man.
There are over 13,000 extant biblical manuscripts that show that the Bible has not changed since it was written. There are only 3 or so original manuscripts of The Iliad with hundreds of years in between them, yet you don’t even question that book. It’s the same with history books written by the likes of Herodotus and other historians from antiquity. Until you have proven the Bible wrong with actual facts, this debate is over.
To Aaron,
OK, for arguments sake, let us just assume that the text of the bible has never changed since it was written.
1. Before it was written, it was handed down orally. (Big chance for mistakes)
2. How good is your language skill in Hebrew and Aramaic??
Oh, maybe you read an english tranlation (Big chance for mistakes)
Hmmm and that is something you consider reliable.
I wouldn’t.
BTW the is a big jewish tradition in interpreting the bible which do not all match.
Just for some scientific insght into the bible.
Bible wrong with actual facts??
Here is an example
Deut. 14:7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.
None of those animals has hooves. Bible wrong. Sorry!!!
Nice try. In the verse you quoted nowhere does it say the animals in the list have hooves. It says not to eat them BECAUSE they do not posses both properties of: 1. They chew the cud. 2. Their hooves are divided. Minus one of those qualifications and they are not to be eaten. No hoof = hoof cannot be divided. It’s provided for within the text, but I can see how you would miss that using the King James Version (a 400 year old translation into English). A modern translation would have made that much more easily to read correctly the first time, and EVERY translation is made from the ORIGINAL languages. No bible translation went from hebrew to greek to latin to french to spanish to german to english. Original source to target language every time.
Bible once again shown reliable. Sorry.
The first english bible was translated from the latin vulgit, not the messianic texts. Once again your shown to completely WRONG.
Whoopdee frikin dooo. The Wycliff translation of the Bible is NOT read or relied on by ANYBODY these days. It, along with the Geneva bible and other translations was a preliminary step in creating the King James version, translation out of the original Greek and Hebrew, which officially replace them all. All modern translations produced in the 20th century are translated the same way: RSV, NIV, NRSV, TEV, ESV, HCSB, NLT, NKJV, and the list goes on and on. I’m sorry, but there is NO dilution through multiple translation. That is a convenient myth. Why is it so important that you prove it all wrong? Wouldn’t you rather know the truth? I haven’t shown you anything that would obvious to somebody who approached the subject with an open and objective mind.
Miguel your a goddamn idiot.
Miguel, I think you’re thinking of the Tyndale Bible, not Wycliffe’s. The Wycliffe Bible was translated from Latin and was the first English bible, but it was Tyndale’s that served as a starting point for KJV.
But there is a good point in that the Catholic Church was highly opposed to any translations being made of the bible – it was in Latin and had to stay in Latin! – but that was more to maintain access control than memetic hygiene: if it had been the latter it would have been kept in Greek (as Judaism did in retaining Hebrew).
The downside of fixing the translation of course is that the language can change and leave it behind. The words stay the same but they don’t mean the same things any more.
Meanwhile, how’s that “Conservative Bible” translation project going on, I wonder? I’m pretty sure they were going to start with KJV and work to eliminate its liberal bias…
why mention the hooves, when as you correctly say, none of those animals has hooves?
BTW I use the German Buber-Rosenzweig translation.
It is important when discussing the translation of the Bible from one language to another to include a brief history of the text and its languages.
The common language of the area where Jesus preached was Aramaic, closely related to Hebrew but as different as French is to Spanish. Therefore, the Old Testament, which was an oral tradition until 400-300 BC, was written in Hebrew and the earliest gospels in the New Testament, not recorded until at least 100-150 AD (70 plus years after the death of Christ) was written in Aramaic.
With the proliferation of the ideas set out by Christ, the first place the apostles went was Greece and there they melded the teachings of Christ with Socratic and Aristotelian philosophy in order to gain a more potent and wide-spread following. So already we have a people taught their faith in Hebrew, teaching it to others by translating Aramaic into ancient Greek. With me so far? Let’s skip a few centuries.
312 AD, Christianity is officially adopted as the State Religion of the Roman empire. Now, all texts that can be are translated from Greek into Latin. After the fall of the Empire, we’ll skip the right mess that was the Dark Ages (they’re called that for a reason!) and jump right into the Middle Ages.
With the formation of our modern european countries, France, England, Germany, etc. and all of these being pious christian kingdoms, there came a need to spread the word to the faithful. But before the printing press, this was done by hand… by monks… from various places… with differing opinions on theology and gospel. Suddenly Paul’s insistence that women “cease gossip in temple,” becomes, “women be silent in temple,” which can be and has been interpreted in vastly different ways. The shift in meaning is horrific by any modern standard.
The point I am making with all of this is that you cannot trust one version over another simply because someone says theirs was translated by Greeks, or Germans, or even people who share your faith. The point is to read the words and gain your OWN meaning. Stop taking the book so literally. Even if it were inspired by God it was written by Men. And Men make more mistakes than can be counted.
Very informative, thank you. Where are your sources? I’d like to read into this more.
To The Rev
Thank you for enhancing this aspect of the topic!!
That was just fantastic. Excellent conclusion: No one translation can be perfectly trusted, read the words and gain your own meaning. That’s what everybody does anyways, whether or not they can admit it. Even IF you believe in divine inspiration, anything you can put into your own hands has been several steps removed and is prone to alteration. As a Christian I take a lot of heat for this view within my tradition, but it should not be essential to be a strict literalist or believe in biblical inerrancy or infallibility in order to call oneself a Christian or use the Bible as a guide for faith.
To add to Bylle’s first point “Before it was written, it was handed down orally. (Big chance for mistakes)” she’s absolutely right.
Have you ever played the game Telephone, Aaron? Even with just 5 people playing, the message gets distorted.
Now play telephone for a few hundred years, and tell me the final message will be the same as the original message. It’s just not possible.
Now add translation into the mix, and you’ve got yourself a whole wack of misinterpretation and changed messages. Translating something from one language to another will always lose its precise-ness. No two languages will have literal translations for every single word. Therefore even one changed word in a sentence can distort the message to mean something different from the original message.
The universe is BILLIONS of years old you fool. And if you want to know where all the fossils are you should take the time to LEARN (hard as that may be for you) how fossils are created. Everything that dies is not magically preserved you moron. How can you be so wilfully ignorant? You try to use entropy to prove your point, yet it’s painfully obvious you have no real understanding of thermodynamics.
Sorry to burst your bubble you freaking idiot, but evolution is only a theory because the process is not understood 100%. However there is zero doubt that it does exist. If you had ANY education at all you would be aware of this
But of course your ignorance here is wilful and you simply shut out any inconvenient reality that doesn’t fit with the bible’s mythical explanations. Thus any argument here is pointless and I’m wasting my time… *sigh*
Basic misconception on your part about the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Namely that we are 100% sure that evolution has occurred and is still procuring new species and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future; however, this is the kicker, the aspect of evolution which is a theory is only the method by which evolution occurs. It’s all still being fleshed out and a lot of things have been explained by the theory and successful predictions have been made based on the theory. Despite this, it will never graduate into a law: it’s too nuanced of a mechanism
To put it simpler, think of the water cycle: we know all the different ways in which water manifests and recycles itself, but we won’t call it the law of the water cycle since there is no single or set of rules which will allow us to determine where a certain water molecule will end up. The law of gravity on the other hand encompasses the rules which govern most massive bodies and it is also a constant.
Coming round full circle, the path of evolution is not a constant since there are a myriad of variables which affect it’s outcome, it is purposeless and has no ultimate goal except survival: the best guess you could make about a species in the distant future would be that it has adapted due to selection pressure and has thus evolved.
A philosophy? LMAO. Not hard to see why you flunked out of University.
I did read the Bible, cover to cover. It is about as authentic an historical work as has ever been written by a particular people with a particular perspective. It is chock full of examples of then-accepted military behavior that violates the Geneva Conventions today. It is also chock full of personal behavior that you would be considered pornography if it were in any other book. Other parts are about as baldly political as anything penned by the likes of Karl Marx (or Adolf Hitler, if you prefer).
Moreover, to the extent that the Bible addresses such subjects as astronomy, Earth science, biology, mathematics, or any other scientific discipline, the people who wrote it had a severely limited understanding of the scientific method or of the universe or even of the planet on which they reside. To take a word of it seriously in this regard is sheer stupidity of the highest order.
“It is about as authentic an historical work as has ever been written by a particular people with a particular perspective.”
Except for Genesis, Exodus, Revelations, *names the rest of the books*.
My fiance has her degree in history and is a devout catholic and even she says the Bible is NOT a good historical source. The only historians who would use that as a source is for something directly related to theology.
It has some things real in it, but then again so does Spider-man. That doesn’t make him real.
No sign of evolution today? Have you visited any building that was build even just a few hundred years ago? Ever notice how small the doors? Can anybody deny that we have gotten taller? Or that we live longer? And look at populations that were kept isolated for a long period of time. They are more likely to have certain types of illnesses or conditions due to inbreeding. Adam, Eve and their children reproduced among themselves and managed to create a population of 6 billion in just 6000 years? We’d all be inbreds, in that case. And i’m not bashing the Bible, here. I’m Christian but I can’t pretend the Bible is the absolute, unquestionable truth about everything. Our knowledge has evolved (evolution again!). We know the Earth is not flat. We know the Universe doesn’t revolve around us. We can identify animals and plants and cure stuff we couldn’t just a few decades ago. As for fossils, they are all over the place, dude. And the fact that the continents are drifting (ever heard of volcanoes, earthquakes, the Atlantic getting wider, the Everest gaining a few centimeters from time to time) proves the Earth is changing and because of that (at least partly) not all fossils can be found due to were they ended up. The guys who wrote the Bible might have been inspired by God, but they were humans with little or no scientific knowledge. They wrote in a way they knew their destined public would understand (we are not that public) using the knowledge they had back then. I don’t believe God actually came down to them and said “Dude, write this and exactly this”. If that was the case, why hasn’t he spoken directly and clearly to anyone in over 2000 years? Believing in science is in no way an insult to God or His creation. We’re just getting better at appreciating its complexity and understanding it, if anything. Evolution is happening. How? This is where the different THEORIES come in. And anyway, how would anybody know for sure the Bible is not metaphorical? Did you write it yourself?
“You need to look at both sides of the argument and see where the evidence points to and make your decision.”
OK, let us do that.
“evolution is a philosophy, not science and nowhere near proven fact.”
False. The Theory of Evolution is proven. It has predicted the existence of transitional fossils which have been found. Just look at the hominid fossil record. It also stated that there would be fossils of proto-whales with legs and they have been found. However, there is no proof the bible is correct and there is no proof there is a god. If there is some proof of either, please show it.
“Time is the enemy of evolution.”
False. Time is what allows evolution and natural selection to work. However, the bible pegs the age of the universe at around 6,000 years. If the age of the Earth can be shown to be more than 6,000 years, and it has been shown to be older than that thanks to archeology, christianity has a problem.
“If the universe was millions of years old, it would no longer exist because it is proven that the universe is slowing down”
The universe is about 14 BILLION years old, not “millions of years”. If you knew the first thing about cosmology you would know that. The fact that you believe the universe is only “millions of years old” shows that you are ignorant of the science. The phrase “universe is slowing down” has no meaning, it is semantically null. Are you making reference to Entropy?
“, i.e. the sun is dying out, ”
Sol, the sun, is about 4 billion years old and is expected to last another 4 billion years. Astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology all agree on this point. The various theories of those science have been made into computer models and the math checked out. The theories predicted astronomical phenomena which have been found. Stars in various stages have been found that fit perfectly with current models.
“the speed of light is slowing down.”
This is also semantically null. Are you speaking of the speed of light in a vacuum? If so, the statement is an outright lie. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant and there has been no experiments showing a decrease in said speed. The maximum speed of light does change with it’s medium, such as air, glass, water, etc. That is why the sky is blue and there are rainbows. If you can, please point out the peer-reviewed experiments showing the speed of light in a vacuum is decreasing.
“One question: where are all of the fossils of the creatures in the evolutionary chain”
Have you even bothered to look? You can start by reading the FAQ at talkorigins.org. Try reading the following story http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2008/06/30/Fossils-show-evolution-from-water-to-land/UPI-83961214846959/ . Check out the “List of transitional fossils” article on Wikipedia. Why don’t you take your own advice, look at both sides of the argument by doing a little research into your own questions?
“and why are we not seeing any obvious signs of evolution today?”
Why don’t we see any obvious signs of your height changing in a day? Depending on your age you are either growing or shrinking so why don’t we sii it. The answer is that both take place over long periods of time. The human lifetime is less than 100 years, evolution takes place over many thousands of years. We are see evolution take place, all around us. It just happens so slowly, we don’t recognize it. The changes of micro-evolution cause isolated populations to differentiate through different cumulative changes over thousands and even millions of years. The reason is the same as why we do not notice that the Atlantic ocean is getting bigger. It is happening so slowly that we would have to have a lifetime of a million years to see an “obvious sign”.
“And before anyone goes and bashes the Bible, maybe you should try reading through it with an impartial attitude. I’m sorry, but most of it is not metaphorical.” I did read it. I found it to be self-contradictory with a god that acts like a sadistically abusive psychopath. God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent, good, and perfect. Yet Adam and Eve are able to hide and god doesn’t know what they have done. How is it Lucifer tricks god into torturing Job, repeatedly? God kills the first born of Egypt, even though they are also his creation and therefore his children. The gospels disagree on when and where Jesus was born as well as who was present. And, the gospels claim certain people were in power or in certain places, yet history shows that those claims can not overlap. The gospels even disagree on how Jesus acted on the cross. One says he was taciturn and silent until just before he died when he cried out “Father, why have you forsaken me.” Another claims Jesus held conversations with the two others crucified with him.
While we are on the subject, let us address the claim that humans are designed and that the eye could not have evolved and must have been designed. Leaving aside the fact that the eye has evolved in several different independent times and ways and assuming god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent, good, and perfect, how is it god screwed up the eye so badly? If the eye was designed, it was designed upside down and backwards. Light must pass through a lens which degrades over time, through a gel, then through six layers of cells that do not sense light to reach the light-sensing cells. Any competent engineer would have put the light sensing cells as the first layer. And, there is a blind spot in the eye where the nerve attaches. Horrible design that, better to attach the nerve in a different location where it would not interfere with vision.
Now, please provide proof that the bible is correct without resorting to circular logic. Provide proof there is a god that does not rely on the bible or on circular logic.
Provide any reason why I should trust a book that not only contains historical inaccuracies but is self-contradictory.
The biggest difference between religion and science is that science conforms to known facts while religion demands that any facts that do not conform to religion be ignored and suppressed.
*Sigh*
Still waiting for a good counter-argument to your post.
…Not to say I’ll agree at all with the counter-argument. Maybe I should clarify what I meant by good counter-argument. I meant ‘funny counter-argument,’ as I’m not sure I can take any religious explanations very seriously.
No worries, you would be waiting a long time for either kind of “good” counter-argument.
*taps his shoes, looks at his watch….*
It can’t be a case of tl;dr … I mean, he’s read the bible, right? Maybe not in one sitting, but still….
Don’t you get frustrated when you answer their questions in great detail but they never answer yours? They just vanish like a thief in the night once the facts are stacked up against them.
Having one’s faith shattered by being confronted with the truth is pretty traumatic. Maybe they can’t… Okay, there’s no way to avoid a quote from “A Few Good Men” here.
Nah, they simply cannot accept anything that doesn’t support their belief. They’ve closed minds – that’s why we never hear from them again after a truly excellent post like EvilDave’s.
Oh – and great movie, BTW!
I will take agrument with this one part:
“However, the bible pegs the age of the universe at around 6,000 years. ”
Crazy people peg the age of universe at around 6,000 years. They take 6 days as 6 literal days even though there is no reason too. How can you measure the length of they day without the sun? How do you know for a fact that that days wasn’t 25 hours?
How do they know it wasn’t much longer that?
And for that matter how do they know the next 5 days aren’t longer then that? 6 days of work and 1 day of rest is parable for us to follow.
We are talking about an entity that is eternal. I don’t personally believe that earth was something he created on his spring brake.
Even if one takes “6 days” to not be 6 literal days, that still has the humans existing for less than 6,000 years and there is proof that human civilization is older than that, much less actual humans (as homo sapien sapien) who have been around for over 100,000 years.
We know the sun has existed for about 4 billion years, which means that there were days for at least that long by your own logic. If god created the sun on the third “day”, then there days since then. Why assume that the length of a day has changed appreciably? Why assume that days have gotten longer or shorter the course of human history or even the history of life on Earth? Occam’s razor argues against that thinking.
Prove that the “eternal entity” you speak of exists. You have made an extraordinary claim, and thus extraordinary proof is required. I would not suggest you try to use the bible, as the bible is provable incorrect.
Again I bring up the point, what is a day to a being that is eternal.
Each “day” in Genesis could have been 100 million years, could have been a billion years.
And think of the big bang theory, does that not sound suspiciously like “Let there be Light!”?
I can’t scientifically prove God, any more then you can scientifically disprove God.
What a day is to an eternal being is irrelevant because even if just include back to when Adam and Eve were supposedly kicked out of the Garden of Eden, the timing is less than 6,000 years. Human civilization is much older than that. The oldest known civilization existed more than 8,000 years ago. Not only is that older than the bible says the Earth is, it is older than the bible says humans are.
Even if each “day” in the creation myth of the old testament were a billion years, it would still be less than half the estimated age of the universe (6 billion years vs 14 billion years). That only covers up to Genesis 2. If one includes up to Genesis 3, one would have to assume that Adam and Eve will millions, if not billions of years old when they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Exactly when did the “day” of Genesis become a 24 hour day? There are still 48 more “chapters” to Genesis, which go all the way up to the time of ancient Egypt, a time that is well documented. In which chapter did it occur and why is there no mention of such an important event in the bible?
The Egyptian civilization was older (as proven by archeology) than the calculated time of the flood of Noah, which is an impossibility according to Genesis. Oh, and was the ark afloat for 40 24 hour days or 40 of your “million year or more” days?
And, no, the “big bang” does not sound like “Let there be light” because there would not have been light for quite a while after that. Try reading some cosmology.
I do not have to disprove God. You are making an extraordinary claim, and thus you must provide the proof. Can you even provide some scientific evidence FOR god? One would think that such an all-powerful being would have left at least one piece of evidence.
I can provide evidence, created by believers such as yourself, that your god does not exists. One of the tenants of your religion is that god will answer prayers. In large, scientifically sound experiments run by believers to show that intercessory prayer works, it was shown that did not prayer work nor provide any benefit at all. In some cases, the recipients of the prayers actually had a worse outcome. It sounds like either god does not exist, god does not care, or that god is actually malevolent preferring to hurt those prayed for rather than help.
Now, show many any scientifically sound evidence there is a god.
If you want evidence for the existence of God I would try the Kalam Cosmological argument to start. I know it, but it would take far too much space to post it here. If you want to continue debating I would recommend moving to Youtube and using PMs. That’s what I usually do. Just look up LittleGoobster1920.
You can take your Kalam Cosmological argument and turn it right back against yourself.
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause…
2.God began to exist
3.Therefore, God has a cause.
So who “caused” God?
Of course you’ll state that God didn’t “begin” to exist, he just simple “was”. But then so could the universe, couldn’t it? That’s not what I believe, I DO believe it “began” but not by God. It’s hard to swallow that there was a big guy floating around in nothingness before he created the universe.
You can take your Kalam Cosmological argument and turn it right back against yourself.
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause…
2.God began to exist
3.Therefore, God has a cause.
So who “caused” God?
Of course you’ll state that God didn’t “begin” to exist, he just simple “was”. But then so could the universe, couldn’t it? That’s not what I believe, I DO believe it “began” but not by God. It’s hard to swallow that there was a big guy floating around in nothingness before he created the universe.
to 17R3W
How can scientifically prove the non-existence on a myth??
The scientific way is: prove that your myth is real. Not the other way round! And since you admitted, that you scientifically can”t prove the existence of god, the conclusion is simple: There is no god.
That’s ridiculous.
That’s like saying X-rays didn’t exist until 200 years ago, because we never knew about them. Like saying Radio waves didn’t exist 200 years ago.
Things don’t begin to exist only after we discover them. Things exist and that’s how we discover them.
Falsifiability is part of science. If you’re going to hold a belief, then you have to have some way that could potentially prove its falsehood. Some ignorant theologists ask for god to be disproven. In order to use this argument, an experiment capable of disproving god must be devised.
Keep in mind that I myself am Catholic; I merely hold the opinion that religious and scientific beliefs should be of radically different natures.
Hi 17R3W,
“Things don’t begin to exist only after we discover them. Things exist and that’s how we discover them.”
I agree to that. Now just prove that a god exists, and I am convinced.
“I can’t scientifically prove God”
Ah you already admitted you can’t do that. So……
Again, that’s like saying the world is Flat, prove that it’s not.
Until we developed new technologies to prove it, it remained a theory.
The fact that we don’t have tools to prove or disprove God, is a limitation of Science, not faith.
The world was never regarded as flat by any prominent scientist that ever lived. This is a relatively new idea that popped up in america and your argument is based on a common misconception that people ‘used to think the world was flat’ no they didn’t.
And your history is just wrong.
Even Jesus thought the world was flat (that’s a topic for another time), but that was always a common conception (misconception).
You don’t know what jesus thought you don’t even have any evidence to say he ever actually existed! I study my history, which is why i know it’s accurate, what you learn from hearsay is bullshit.
To 17R3W,
“Again, that’s like saying the world is Flat, prove that it’s not.
Until we developed new technologies to prove it, it remained a theory. ”
I am sorry, you are completely wrong.
Eratosthenes (276 BCE – 194 BCE) estimated Earth’s circumference around 240 BCE.
To 17R3W
“The fact that we don’t have tools to prove or disprove God, is a limitation of Science, not faith.”
Nah, sorry, this works the other way round. There is no god, thus no limitation in science.
And faith includes not knowing.
To 17R3W
“And your history is just wrong.”
Nice try, but yours is wrong.
“Even Jesus thought the world was flat (that’s a topic for another time), but that was always a common conception (misconception).”
OK, you contradict here yourself, you claim JC being god”s son and also his incarnation. Being the omniscient god, he believed the earth to be flat. Come on.
And that’s why I said a topic for another time. I can give you my own personal views of what I believe Jesus was and wasn’t but they don’t line up with the Churches.
My personal belief is that God is real, and that Jesus is real, that Jesus is God’s Son, begotten not made, but not that Jesus and God are the same person.
Understand I’m saying these are my personal beliefs, and not those of the Anglican Church.
I agree with 80% – 90% of the church, and I tried different churches before I joined it. I believe in equal right for women, I believe in the rights for Gays to get married, I believe in charity and compassion. I do not believe in the Holy Trinity. Again my opinions.
I wanted to clarify that last statement.
The Anglican Church is pro women, pro gay rights*, pro peace, pro charity etc.
The part where I differ is the Trinity.
Because of the fact that Jesus believed the world was flat, and because he had conversations with God, I don’t recognize him as God, but a separate entity.
*I want to point out that the church isn’t perfect in this respect, but neither is the Democratic party.
Your correct, neither is the democratic party. But we get to vote them out.
Does it say anything in the bible about days changing from millions or billions of years to 24 hours? No? Then stop using this as an argument. It’s completely unfounded speculation.
And why are you using an eternal being in this? The bible wasn’t written by God, it was written by men who are not eternal. So a day to them could not possibly have meant millions or billions of years.
And while we can’t scientifically disprove god (yet
) we can scientifically prove why he doesn’t need to exist in the first place.
Spectacular
Evolution is fact. That is not something that is even open for discussion. If you don’t believe it is fact, that is your opinion. The fact is, however, that it is fact. Deal with it.
Uhhh…. where to go with this?
“time is the enemy of evolution.” Well, considering that Deep Time (look up the term in the cosmological sense) is the archenemy of Creationism, I’d say your statement is wholly wrong. In fact, evolution REQUIRES a long time. Time is the boon, not the bane, of evolutionary theory.
“Time is the enemy of evolution. If the universe was millions of years old, it would no longer exist because it is proven that the universe is slowing down, i.e. the sun is dying out, the speed of light is slowing down
Um… “proven” by whom and using what methods? The sun is *not* “dying out,” though it will run out of fuel in about 5 billion years. Where’s your evidence to the contrary?
And the speed of light is in no way, shape, or form, “slowing down.” Only creationist supporters make that claim. In fact, the Theories of Relativity show that the speed of light is a constant in a vacuum, with no temporal variations indicated. Once again, where is your evidence to the contrary?
“where are all of the fossils of the creatures in the evolutionary chain?”
Pick one: hyracotherium; tiiktalik; Homo erectus; the thousands of ammonite fossils in collections around the world; Pakicetus; the list goes on and on. Have you ever studied fossils? Maybe you should try it sometime.
“why are we not seeing any obvious signs of evolution today?” Pick up a science magazine sometime. You’ll find hundreds of articles which answer this question with two simple words: WE DO.
“maybe you should try reading through it with an impartial attitude.” I have. have you ever read the Bible? It’s chock full of violence, sex, rape, incest, theft, mass murders, etc. Lots of family values there.
“but most of it is not metaphorical.” How do you know?
anyone who actually believes in anything the bible has to say are just people who inherit the ideas from parents, recently as science has evolved even further nobody switches from science to god people start to realise what a load of bs god is and think “hmm wait a minute… the earth definitely wasn’t created in 1 week and humans weren’t along before dinosaurs so why do simple minded plebs keep forcing this idea on to me…” And also evolution is as plain as day, you see it everywhere you go, a human from this day and age is anatomically different from one a few thousand years ago, the human understanding has adapted as years pass onwards, is this not also evolution of understanding and science?
Somebody put this tool back in the DIY section where he belongs.
Evolution is not a philosophy, at least you should consider it being a scientific theory.
“why are we not seeing any obvious signs of evolution today?”
For me there is only one obvious reasonb to that. You avoid lloking at it.
“One question: where are all of the fossils of the creatures in the evolutionary chain”?
Ever been to a museum????
Or are you trying to avoid that too???
As I frequently remind people, there are not always two sides to an argument.
In science we deal with facts and theories (which seek to explain the facts). I expect science classrooms to do the same.
The *facts* show that the earth is old. If you want to claim otherwise, you need to come up with countering arguments, not just saying “No it isn’t!” over and over again.
The theory of the formation of the earth is robust, and overwhelmingly supported by evidence. Young-earth geology consists mostly of trying to knock down “traditional” geology, in the hope that by somehow disproving theory A, that theory B will become the de facto standard. This is called a false dichotomy. Even *if* you can show that some part of A is incorrect, it does not de facto make B correct. It could be that C (a third theory) is correct and both A and B are wrong, or that A is incomplete.
The fact that you drag biological evolution into a discussion about geology speaks volumes.
“And before anyone goes and bashes the Bible, maybe you should try reading through it with an impartial attitude. I’m sorry, but most of it is not metaphorical.”
Which is especially true for Mose 3:18!! My favorite part. Which does not mean I believe in any god. (Just a proof I really had read that book).
“why are we not seeing any obvious signs of evolution today?” Really?
there is thousands and thousands of sings about evolution, which is more than what you can show about the bible or this God that you speak of..i can show you fossils of dinosaurs that existed hundreds of thousands years ago, you can’t prove that Jesus existed two thousand years
There is more proof that Jesus existed than there is proof that George Washington existed. do some credible research.
Hi Aaron,
considered Jesus Christ was a real person. What would prove that?
(Except that he existed)
We know that not only did a man who was called Jesus the Christ live in the first century, but also that he was crucified by the Romans, because they kept accurate records of every person the executed in that manner.
Please provide links to sources as this is untrue.
please provide sources as to why you think it’s untrue…
You want me to point to sources that show his don’t exist? Were back to proving negatives aren’t we. Think it through Aaron.
Really? Jesus is just an imaginary historical figure that never even really existed? Try pulling that one over on serious historians. Not even secular historians are touting that because they know that to the best of our knowledge it is untrue!
Even Wikipedia can show you that as early as the fourth century Constantine abolished crucifixion out of reverence for it’s most famous victim. The crucifixion was even alleged true by the Jesus seminar! It was not a first century concoction because that would only have been a huge embarrassment to the Christians. Josephus records the event. Cornelius Tacitus recorded the event in his annals.
I’m not saying that this proves he was the son of God or anything. But it is simply a historical fact that a man known as Jesus the Christ was crucified by the Roman empire in the first century whether you like it or not. No competent historian argues over that.
To Miguel
“that as early as the fourth century Constantine abolished crucifixion out of reverence for it’s most famous victim.”
Even if that is true, what does that proof, except that Constatine believed in JC and that he believed, that JC was crucified. Maybe he did it political reasons.
But not Census records (unless they’re stashed away in a forgotten Vatican archive somewhere).
What is that proof? Is there anything in the Roman records? Any archaeological artefacts? Any independent, contemporary witnesses?
1.evolution is not a philosophy its a scientific theory there is a huge difference between the two, they are not synonymous.
2.The sun is burning out the universe is slowing down but since we have no previous universes to compare it it neither science nor creation can explain at what rate that happens and therefore we really have no bloody idea. If the sun is burning out that logically means that it peaked at some point, it didn’t just start dying like everything else it had to grow first.
3.There are lots of fossils on the evolutionary chain and no missing link. Start with Sahelanthropus tchadensis and work through to homo habilis, all are there
3.I am Lutheran and have read the bible and want to point out that the bible was not written by God, Jesus or even the disciples it was written by people that came years after them and has gone through too many translations to be completely accurate now.
If you want to make good arguments for creationism you should really take your own advice and learn both sides of the argument and come up with much much better ones for you side. Check out Dr.Kent Hovind on YouTube, he is a creationist who actually has good arguments based on scientific theory’s, unlike you who is just spouting off as if you know more then anyone. You really really dont
Wow…
I thought the creationists would keep up with arguments that have been thoroughly debunked years ago.
The universe can’t be millions of years old – because it wouldn’t exist anymore if it was?
This is what happens when you get your science education from a fundie priest.
Sigh…
1. The universe is 13.7 billion years old.
2. Time is not slowing down. If it is, when is it slowing down compared to? Another time?
3. The Sun has enough hydrogen to last for another 5-7 billion years.
4. There is no evidence that the speed of light is slowing down. if it is, then where are all the headlines?
5. Each and every fossil is a chain in the evolutionary chain.
6. *cough* *cough* Penicillin is useless now.
I am proof of evolution, and so should you be. Do you walk upright? are you taller than 3 ft. barring any form of dwarfism, can you speak…..there are many ways that we have evolved. I am not knocking the Bible, religion has always been used to explain the unknown, but why does that mean that science is not valid. Besides, religion is also a philosophy, at least that is where the Universities place it……..
I am a quarter way through this thread. Just checking in to see if anyone has been convinced of anything yet. Some good points above, as well as some useless bullshit, but so far no one has said, “Yep, I’m wrong. You got me. Guess I have to go back to the drawing board. Thanks.” So, has anyone budged?
Sorry to jump into your topic hollie. Just wanted to put up a note at my quarter way through point. By the way, I am taller than 3 feet.
Personally I’d be disappointed in anyone who did do that. But this thread does offer quite a few starting points for study.
Aaron, I was brought up to argue the same points as you. But learning argue bullet points is not the same as studying evolution. If you did, you’d realize that saying “You need to look at both sides of the argument” is incorrect, since evolution is not an “argument.” It is science, and it is not out to disprove anything. At the risk of sounding completely patronizing (I apologize for that), challenge yourself to study evolution for one year with a valiant sincere mind. Perhaps you’ll find that you can believe in your religion AND believe in science simultaneously. Evolution is really a beautiful process. I don’t know why most Christians don’t embrace it!
Most Christians do
evolution is not the end all. You can take all the data and research you want and twist it to fit your own agenda. That is what it comes down to in the end. What is your agenda? I have not studied evolution for a whole year but what I have studied does not make sense. On the contrary, I would challenge you to study the Bible in depth for a whole year and see what you come up with.
So you admit you’re ignorant, unwilling to do anything with it, and your excuse is you think everything that doesn’t match your beliefs is untrue anyway?
It certainly must be painful when reality impacts your beliefs, as it’s want to do. Oh wait… right. That’s just cases of the facts being twisted, right? Nothing can ever _really_ not match your beliefs…
Wow – you’ve turned ignorance into a lifestyle. You must be proud.
“Reality: the bit that doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.” (Philip K. Dick)
What do you mean evolution doesn’t make sense? It makes an incredible amount of sense. How else would you explain the fact that we have found fossils all over the world demonstrating evolution in no uncertain terms. If you line them up, side by side, you can literally see evolution with your own eyes.
Evolution is not something to have faith in. It IS proven. There are absolutely zero valid arguments that can disprove evolution, and on the other hand there are THOUSANDS of artifacts and fossils to prove it. Without a doubt, Aaron, evolution IS. It should definately not be up for debate. What sould be up for debate is your right to vote. Cus that’s just scary.
And as to twisting data to fit our own agenda, facts cannot be twisted. They either are or they aren’t. A fossil is either 50,000 years old or it isn’t. Genetic mutations either exist or they don’t. The FACT is that fossils can be dated accurately, obviously not to withing the year, but accurately enough to realize that an animal that was one way 100 million years ago, is not the same as it was 90 million years ago. And the FACT is that genetic mutations DO exist. They have bads sides, like cancer and diseases, but the GREAT side is that it makes all animals, humans, insects and plants able to adapt to their environment, ensuring them survival. Trust me when I say that if evolution didn’t exist, we would all be dead. No ifs, ands, or buts, especially coming from someone who still takes the bible literally.
Bull shit
I’m a science man
Time is by far not the enemy of evolution, but more of the catalyst (short of reproduction itself.) and the theory of evolution can be justified in the fact that your OFFSPRING have different features than you do, correct?
And while yes, the universe is in fact slowing down, and indeed the sun will slowly burn out, the time required for all of this to occur is on the order of tens, if not hundreds of billions of years (in regards to the universe, that is. The sun, give or take six or seven billion.)
Lastly, we ARE seeing signs of evolution today, both in genetic similarities between species (Would you be surprised to know that we’re 99.5% chimpanzee?) as well as numerous sites where slight changes in evolution are being observed, albeit at a slow rate, with the exception of viruses, which evolve and mutate at a dramatically high speed (a detail that most in the medical field are all too aware of.)
You’re right, Aaron–most of the Bible is not metaphorical. Most of it is bugshite stupid.
Oh, and evolution is not a philosophy. You should know what words mean before you attempt to use them.
Evolution is not philosophy. Philosophy is stuff like religions including Christianity. Things that you can’t test or record and evaluate, things you can only think about. For instance like I wonder if there is a god and if there is does he wear a pacifier? Evolution has been tested and has had many experiments have been done to prove and disprove it but through all those tests and experiments they have proven evolution. And even tho evolution is just a theory, like math, it is based on facts and observations about the physical world we live it. You can’t observe “god” cause it is not a physical manifestation. The bible was written by people, who for all we know were crazy or on ‘shrooms. So although there is no way to test, prove, or disprove the existence of god but evolution has already been proven.
No, evolution is a Scientific Theory based upon literally thousands upon thousands of proven facts. And this Scientific Theory has never been DISproven. If it was, it would no longer be a Scientific Theory.
The universe is not millions of years old. It is BILLIONS of years old. The speed of light is not “slowing down,” it is the speed of light. The universe is not “slowing down” (I presume you mean the expansion of the universe), it is speeding up, actually.
And if you’ve ever had to get a flu shot, you’ve seen OBVIOUS signs of evolution today.
And lastly, I’ll not bash the bible, but I will tell you I’ve read it cover to cover multiple times, several versions, multiple translations, studied it for decades, studied its original documents, its source documents, its parallel religions and philosophies and the anthropology contemporary with each text.
It’s parable, son.
First of all, I’m not your son. and don’t talk to me like I’m below you. The problem is that you put Christianity on the same level with other religions. Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship. All of the religions say that you are saved by your good works. The Bible says that we are saved by grace through Jesus Christ who died for our sins and rose from the dead. When Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except by me.” – John 14:6 That is a statement that must be paid attention to . It is something you cannot ignore.
Hi Aaron,
ah now you change the field
“Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship.”
Very bad argument. The jews haven an even closer relationship to their god than christians, and I think that is even true for muslems. So Judaism and Islam are religions. But Christanity is a relationship to god. Sorry. That does not work.
“When Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except by me.” – John 14:6 That is a statement that must be paid attention to . It is something you cannot ignore.”
Oh that is something I can very easily ignore, coz JC is not my spiritual leader.
Jews and Muslims have a closer relationship with God than Christians? What on earth? How would you even go about begin going about to determine that? Come on, that claim is just about as baloney as the argument you used it against. So many monotheists claim to relate to their deity. The question should be, on what basis, if any, can we quantify and qualify that relationship?
Let me propose to you one: How said person treats others.
Hello Miguel,
“Jews and Muslims have a closer relationship with God than Christians? What on earth? How would you even go about begin going about to determine that?”
Coz I know some jews. Their reletionship is a personal to god directly, no priests involved. Between a christian and the christian god is a hierarchie of priests.
Well, coz muslims let their religion get a greater involvement in daily life than christians do.
“Let me propose to you one: How said person treats others.”
Nice idea, but was has this to do with religion??
Hmmm… I mange to ignore it in favour of logic and rational thought just fine. I think you mean you need it s a crutch. Oh wait, I forgot for a moment how utterly all consumingly arrogant religious twits like you are. Of course it “must be paid attention to” and “It is something you cannot ignore”. Yet I do. Well, not really, eh? Secretly I have some empty hole in my existence that only bullshit, I mean religion can fill, yes? You know that. You know no one can really get deal with the world with logic, and rational thought – I mean lies (they’re all lies the devil sets to trip up the unwary, right?) alone? And even if people THINK they can, they’re just wrong, eh? Bullshit fables, I mean religion can brainwash them, I mean show them the ‘TRUTH’! Please come knock on my door soon! I’m willing to give up reason and truth – I mean all those lies – if you can just show me the way!
/end sarcasm
The same lever as “other” religions? Okay, I’ll grant that as a typo – I’ve made a few here like that as well.
But still:
You don’t actually know what the word “religion” means, do you?
I’m doing a pretty damn good job at ignoring it. And my life is probably alot more fulfiling and realistec than yours is.
Umm, wow, thank you for spelling out your own ignorance for us. Those of us who do believe in evolution believe in it because let’s see… evolution – TONS of evidence to support it; creationism – virtually no evidence save for the bible, which isn’t really evidence, just something we’re supposed to take on faith.
“Time is the enemy of evolution. If the universe was millions of years old, it would no longer exist because it is proven that the universe is slowing down, i.e. the sun is dying out, the speed of light is slowing down.”
Um – what? The universe IS billions of years old, and will continue for billions more – why would it no longer exist – the sun has about another 4 billion years left (maybe 6? I forget. 5+/-1)
Also – we are not seeing evolution because it takes a really long time. Not like, next x-mas long time but like, you’ll be dead for thousands of years long time.
you can believe in the bible all you want but please stop pulling fake science from your butt.
Aaron,
I like the fact that you have thought about your answer. Unfortunatly you have based this argument on false premises. It has been prooven that the universe is infact still expanding and the speed of light is increasing. Also in regard to the point about fossils there are and estimated 1000 more spercies for each fossil found… the conditions required to preserve a fossil are very particular and statistically improbable… most beasts that would die would be eaten then erroded not burried. Also there is prolific and irrfusable proof that evolution is plausable, all one has to do is observe the mutation of the flu virus each year… every year it evolves to counter medication. It changes and becomes something different. this is evolution. The point i find most amusing, you pointed out varrious flaws you found in science, all you had to add was a book. You did not attempt to justify this book or devulge why anything in it has an element of truth behind it. I could suggest that you read an achient text that tells of salvation and god through blind faith and my point would be the same as yours. Just suggestion the bible isn’t an arguement. but as im quite aware that is impossible to convice a person of faith so i bid you good day and i hope you find solace in your life.
obvious troll is obvious
Let us not forget, the age of the earth or the dinosaur fossils have nothing to do with evolution anyway. Creationists just like to lump several vastly different scientific disiplines under the single header of “evolution” because they’re too ignorant to recognize the difference.
I’m doublly sorry, It’s ALL metaphorical.
At least the “philosophy” of evolution and geology has massive amounts of supporting evidence unlike the 6,000 years of Creationist Make-Believe. There is nothing in the Bible that states the Earth is 6,000 years old. Christian theologists and theosophists claim that the Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam and Eve to Jesus and through a lot of BS guess-timating came up with 6,000 years. This is not proof. It’s not even acceptable supporting evidence. I can accept that God created the Universe, and if that is so, I also think that because we are human and inferior to God, that the passage of time according to God is not something we are able to comprehend. We also know that God did not write the Bible. It was written after the death of Jesus and compiled into a semblance of its current form hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. And it was edited, revised, and rewritten dozens of times over the course of history. As a reliable source document for the age of the Earth, the Bible fails.
you creationists realy don’t even try to make a credible argument do you? evolution is proven near irrevocably (i may have spelled that wrong), it is one of the fundamental aspects of genetics, which has also been proven.
there is nothing wrong with the basic code of behaviour (most of it at least) but you morons that insist on taking the bible literaly and trying to shove it down sane peoples throats make us all sick. to be frank
To coin a phrase a friend of mine uses all the time “You sir, are a moron” I’ll cover your statments in order of their submission: Evolution is not a philosphy, its a THEORY. If your going to bash science at least use proper terminology, since philosphy and theory are 2 different things. Two: This universe is far older then you believe, and we can prove it through a method called Carbon Dating. Meanwhile, you cannot prove the existance of god or anything in the bible…and do not cite scripture, because its not a valid source, since it is what we’re discrediting in this argument. Three, The Fossils of the evolutionary chain, we’ve seen them all the time go to any museum of natural history and you can find the chart of man. 4: We aren’t seeing signs of evolutin because man is a very short lived species in the context of things. Evolution takes hundreds if not millions of years, and a trigger. BTW, before you state about darwin and the monkeys, Consider this….Perhaps the species that man evolved from is gone, the other species not receiving the required elements to evolve like we did. Genetics is an interesting thing that can change an entire species by altering 1 gene. In my opinion, him saying it was metaphorical was him being nice. I personally like the bible, its a great work of fiction, worked up by several men many thousands of years ago. Its also a pity we’re getting the abridged version from the current owners.
Just a nit-pick. You can’t coin a phrase that someone uses all the time: to coin a phrase means to create and use it for the first time ever.
Accepted, I was writing this just after I got up in the morning so my sentence structure isn’t the greatest. My coffee was still in the machine at the gas station at the time hehe.
That’s a load of crap – if the universe * weren’t * millions of years old, how is it that in telescopes we can see stars that are millions of *light-years* away.
IE, it took the light from a star 2.3 million LY away that many years to reach our eyes, because we know that’s how fast light travels.
And no, the universe is not “Slowing Down” – in fact it’s been known for some time that the universe is still expanding, and that the observed expansion is in fact accelerating.
The Sun is technically “Dying Out” but it has a good 5 Billion years before it will use up its fuel and become a red giant. This is natural, all stars die out eventually, but this is natural and the universe is constantly making new stars.
As for your remark on evolution – actually, rapid evolution taking place in a single generation has been observed under laboratory conditions many times in bacteria and virii. In larger creatures such as animals, the effects are quite apparent in, for example, the massive changes from domestic felines and canines to modern day pets, and in humans, increased height over hundreds of years.
What scientific degree do you have to decide that millions of years is all it takes for the universe to die out? Where is the proof that the speed of light is slowing? Please cite proof to your statements.
Also, evolution is a slow process in most cases, because environments change and animals over generations have to adapt by ways of the ones with the strongest genes living well enough to successfully reproduce. Some animals also don’t evolve much, because they don’t need to change to better suit the environments that they live in. Time is not the enemy–it is the conduit that allows evolution to happen.
The Bible also has many, many versions edited by many, many people. Just read every version of the Bible out there, and you’ll see that for yourself. Not only that, but how can someone believe the planet is only 6,000 years old when there is tangible evidence that there was life before then? Hell, llamas were domesticated 6,000 years ago!
Dude did you graduate from church or high school? The earth was formed 4.5billion years ago when the solar system was still a clump of gas. and the sun will run out of fuel and die out in approximately 5 billion years. The speed of light has stayed at a constant 3X10^8 m/s with it being a constant and why we do not see the fossils of the creatures in the evolutionary chain is that over the millions of years layers of soil deposits have been covering the fossils. The movement of living creatures from sea to land has been a proven fact and which took place around 200 million years ago. So The earth still exist and will still exist whereas the sun will run out of fuel and eventually become a white dwarf/ probable neutron star and by then hopefully technology will think of a solution to the problem. Your ignorance scares me.
Has the thought ever crossed your mind that all the stuff you learned could be what the liberal evolutionary scientists want you to learn? Are you sure you have all the facts and are sure that they are actually facts?
Hi Aaron,
Has the thought ever crossed your mind that all the stuff you learned could be what the church wants you to learn? So you will follow that church without thinking?
Do you remember re-creating experiments in science class? Including many famous ones, e.g. Archimedes’ principle. It wasn’t just for kicks. We did that so we could SEE FOR OURSELVES that it made sense and fit the theory.
Moreover many more complex experiments can be done even in one’s own backyard, with simple, easily available equipment and a little hard work.
A modest amount of travel will also gain you access to much of the same data, artefacts and natural history used to form such theories as evolution and even the expansion of the universe.
I’m not asking you to understand quantum mechanics or advanced calculus – hell I don’t either beyond the basics. The best I could manage was statistics at uni. But there _is_ an awful lot you _can_ test and prove yourself, if only you exercise a little curiosity and discipline.
Of course it’s a lot easier to sit on your duff, stay ignorant and try to validate your wilful ignorance by claiming that everything contrary to your beliefs is all some vast liberal (damn those free thinkers with their open minds!) conspiracy, eh?
The good thing about science is that it all fits together and doesnt contradict itself. And more importantly it is self-correcting. If any facts or evidence appear that don’t fit in then it has to be revised. Scientists make their names by discovering new stuff. If there was any evidence that evolution is an error scientists would be queuing up to write papers about it and collect their Nobel prizes.
Oh! You got me! You questioned my facts, so now I believe in God!
Aaron you actually scare me. Do you have kids? Because if you have reproduced that would mean there are little-Aaron running around and that’s just even scarier.
I can’t even comprehend how you can POSSIBLY think the way you do. See the difference between you asking us if we actually know our facts are actually facts, and us asking you if you actually know that your facts are actually facts, is that we can say yes. YES we know that the fossils we have found are actually fossils. And YES we know that the earth and universe have been around for more than 6,000 years. It’s written in millions upon millions of documents around the world. And there is hard evidence to support it. I mean, you can actually hold a fossil in your hand. Physically. Right there…in front of your eyes. Now are you going to trust what you’re holding in your hand, that you can feel, see, smell and even taste if you want to? Or are you simply going to ignore it all and clame that God put it there to test your faith?
Whereas your “facts” come from but one book. And that’s all the bible is, it’s a book. It’s not the devine word of god, it’s not the book of all knowable truths. It’s a book.
AAAAND finally, science is not a conspiracy, like you’re trying to make it seem. You’re an absolutely rediculous person and I sincerely hope you never reproduce.
Most of it IS metaphorical. The story of creation of Adam and Eve, and even Noah’s ark VERY CLOSELY resemble earlier greek works. The world IS about 5-6 billion years old and life DID evolve from the spontaneous joining of nitrogen to form amino acids to form protiens to form enzymes, to form organelles to form cells to form multicellular beings such as you and me. It’s been proven! In laboratories, out of pure mineral water and electrical currents and pressure amino acids form. Scientist have created (like god) small prokaryotic cells. The bible may have great life lessons in it but it should be taken with a grain of salt. You can’t really argue with things that are solid fact that happen before your eyes.
The fact is evolution DOES exist. The fact that there are still monkeys around proves nothing.
For example, say you have a rowboat. It’s great, you can row across a river to a slightly better town to live in… but across the ocean is a bigger better town where everything is free. You couldn’t possible make it with your rowboat, so you build a yacht. From this conclusion we can say yachts evolved from rowboats. Needless to say, we have no need for a rowboat anymore. So Does it exist?? OF COURSE IT DOES!! durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
That’s not true. Evidence is to the contrary. The universe in fact appears to be accelerating, not slowing down.
Nobody was talking about evolution…
But anyways, “Creationism” is just as much of a theory as Evolution. It’s just older and has less evidence.
FYI I’m a christian
Creationism is not a theory. It is not even close to a theory, for there is no evidence for it.
Creationism isn’t even an hypothesis as it predicts nothing and is not falsifiable. It isn’t even testable.
It is merely a statement supported only by a book of dubious content with no supporting evidence.
Creationism is a theory, yeah right!
“Welcome, students, to Creationism 101.
God did everything with magic.
End of course. Rigorous exam to follow.”
You – like so many *long sigh* misunderstand what a theory is. There are times I really wish I could post links here…
“Time is the enemy of evolution. If the universe was millions of years old, it would no longer exist because it is proven that the universe is slowing down, i.e. the sun is dying out, the speed of light is slowing down.”
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Current evidence suggests the Universe will continue to expand. And by the way, that’s “just a theory”.
“I’m sorry, but most of it is not metaphorical.”
I’m sorry, but many religious people will strongly disagree with you. Just because you find it difficult to understand very basic science does not mean Bronze Age mythology is true.
re: “where are all of the fossils of the creatures in the evolutionary chain”
Umm… They’re at the Fossil Discovery Center. You know, the place to which these parents refused to let their child go?
I have seen natural evolution from the beginning of the 20th century to the end of the 20st century in north Texas vegetation. I also believe in the Bible. I believe much of it is metaphoric. Example, the story of creation in Chapter 1 of Genius and the second story of creation in Chapter 2. They don’t seem to match up, both both have a separate cadence and a poetic sense about them. Also, Genius is the last of the books written in the Torah (the Jewish text where we get the first five books of the Bible), but Genius was placed first. The reason to me seems to be that it sums up all the questions about where we came from and gets is the to point, why we are here, what we are to do in life. It is beautiful. Christianity can guide you on a great path in life and a world of study that will help you understand were you came from, what you are here to do and where you are going if you understand it and its history. God will reveal knowledge over time, this is why we read the Bible so often, not all will be understood the first time. However, if you do not try to accept the knowledge God has given you, Christianity can be as ugly as all religions can be. It is an isolationist belief that the scientific community does not consist of Christians (in America, the majority are Christian). God gives gifts of wisdom and knowledge. He has given it to scientist, maybe this one is one for you. To me God is in all the world and gives to all the world, not just to people who go to your church (where I am sure all is black and white and everyone walks in the light). Yes, to me God did create the world and make everything including you and me, but the ancient minds could not be give the knowledge we have today. They would not understand it.
Now, just like the Bible did, can we move on to something more important?
Aaron, really get some education dude. I mean, other than from the bible. Read something, anything else.
This better not be Mr Yost.
Anyways, evolution is an observable fact, the theory of evolution deals with why evolution happens. For short term examples look at genetics and breeding, for something more natural look to the fossil record.
wELL i’M GLAD TO SEE SOMEONE HAS COME ON HERE TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR ignorance IN THE MIDST OF ALL THESE GOLDEN GEMS!!! EVOLUTION IS A PROVEN FACT. tHERE IS NO ARGUMENT. tHE BIBLE IS AS GOOD AS TOILET PAPER AS FAR AS SCIENCE GOES. tHE eARTH IS 4.567 BILLION YEARS OLD!!! tIME IS THE PROOF OF EVOLUTION. tHE EARTH IS 4.567 BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD, AND sTROMATALITES HAVE BEEN ALIVE FOR 4 BILLION OF THOSE YEARS…….. ACTUALLY cREATING THE OXYGEN THAT APES LIKE US AND EVERY OTHER LIVING CREATURE ON THIS PLANET NEEDED IN ORDER TO SURVIVE HERE. tHE EVIDENCE SAYS THAT THE UNIVERSE IS ACTUALLY SPEEDING UP!! AND THEY DON’T KNOW WHY… PERHAPS DARK ENERGY HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT. AND OUR SUN ACTUALLY STILL HAS 5 BILLION YEARS LEFT IN ITS’ LIFE. eVOLUTION IS A PROCESS THAT HAPPENS OVER MUCH LONGER PERIODS OF TIME THAN THIS ( OUR ) PARTICULAR SPECIES OF APE LIVES! tHAT’S WHY YOU CAN’T SEE IT. iF YOU BELIEVE THE BIBLE LITERALLY…….. YOUR HEAD IS OBVIOUSLY FILLED WITH DOLOMITE!
Silly tard, the unbeliver knows her bible best!
This comment makes me want to cry, in all honestly. Now, to break down your arguments.
Up front, I will admit that evolution is not 100% accurate, but it’s the best explanation we have right now. The difference between science and religion is that science allows for more correct data to supersede the older incorrect data.
“Time is the enemy of evolution” argument. You say that if the universe were millions (correction, billions) of years old, it would not exist because it’s slowing down. One has nothing to do with the other, especially when you say the Sun is dying out. The sun is barely reaching it’s mid-twenties, in comparison to the human life cycle, hardly worthy of the title “dying out,” unless you’re pesimistic and say that you’re born dying.
“Fossils” They’re all underground, who’d a thunk it?
“Evolution” You are proof of evolution. An example of evolution is your parents getting together and having you. There is such a thing as real time evolution as well, take an organism with a short life span and breed only certain traits of that species and you’ll see a change in the general population after a (possibly) large number of generations. I know you’re asking the question, why haven’t we sprouted wings, kind of evolution. It’s because that would take a ridiculous amount of generations on our part and an environment that rewarded people with wings, or any other kind of genetic mutation you want.
“THE BIBLE” One of my favorite things to discuss. I have read it, and I’ve found it to be a well written novel. That’s right, novel. Let’s take the story of Moses. This man, born of Hebrews, was raised as an Egyptian Prince. He also embraced being Hebrew after finding out he was Hebrew. He (with the assistance of god) brought upon seven deadly plagues upon the Egyptians. ok, let’s swallow all of that. Now, let’s check the Egyptian records for any of this happening. What a surprise! They never mention any of this. And these are the people that wrote down and kept track of EVERYTHING. They don’t even have the name of the supposed King at that time. Science and historians would want more than one source of what supposedly happened. This is just one example of many where the Bible is, “left out” of recorded civilized history. This gives it the same worth of Greek myths, which all supposedly happened around the time they were written.
” If the universe was millions of years old, it would no longer exist because it is proven that the universe is slowing down, i.e. the sun is dying out, the speed of light is slowing down.”
No it isn’t, that’s insane. The speed of light is an absolute constant. And as for entropy, sure it’s occurring, but one frick of a lot slower than you seem to think. How long is a billion years? No really, a billion. Years. The sun is six billion years old, and it’s got another six to eight billion years left.
“One question: where are all of the fossils of the creatures in the evolutionary chain and why are we not seeing any obvious signs of evolution today?”
That’s two questions. There is plenty of fossil proof, and what there isn’t, hey man, it’s been 100 million years, you’re not gonna see a hell of a lot of stuff left after 100 million fricking years. Obvious signs? Look, sit down right here and watch the world around you. For fifty million years. I’ll bring you a sammich. You’ll see some evolution believe me. You aren’t going to see it because your existence isn’t so much as the beat of a fly’s wing in the scale of all of the time there is.
And BTW, I’m a big ol’ Jesus-lovin’ Christian who’s read the Bible front to back and back to front several times. Stick your fundamental garbage in your ear, homey.
You are a fool!!!
First, what have you been smoking. Second, evolution; see Tuskless Elephants (we [humanity] have poched elephants for their tusks for centuries, elephants with a genetic mutation that left them tuskless survived longer and gave rise to more offspring, there are now small groups of tuskless or small tusked elephants. This is called EVOLUTION
Third, the remainder of your facts indicate you are either illiterate or excruciatingly arrogant; the universe DOES have a mathmatically calculable expiration date, that date is just 10^(10^100) [that's ten to the tenth-to-the-hundredth power] years (for our star Sol it is around 4 billion years)
Fourth, no matter what any one says, you will never listen-fanatics like you are the reason the World Trade Center doesn’t stand, ’twas not Islam that destroyed the Towers it was FANATACISM!
Evolution has been directly observed occurring many many times. I can think of about 10 instances off the top of my head and there are literally hundreds of examples if you spend 28 seconds researching on google.
Umm… Let’s just go through this one at a time, shall we?
It’s not a philosophy. The emperical method of investigation is a philosophy.
It is a proven fact. Repeatedly.
Time is evolution’s friend. The universe isn’t millions of years old. It’s tens of billions. There was probably at least one generation of stars that flared into existence, lived their whole lives, and blew themselves up before our sun ever formed. And there’s more than enough evidence right here on Earth that the world has to be at least several billion years old. Like the marine fossils buried in shale on top of the Canadian Rockies.
The speed of light isn’t slowing down, that’s a corruption of recent findings that say that the electromagnetic force and the weak force become coupled at higher energies. Yes, that means that at some point in the universe’s history, the speed of light was different, but that time was only up until something like 13 milliseconds after the Big Bang.
There’s plenty of fossils of creatures in the evolutionary chain. Hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds, far more than I can list here. What’s surprising is that ANY FRIGGIN’ FOSSILS are ever found at all, given the stunning odds against a bone being preserved intact for seventy million years. Given those odds, we’ve actually assembled an incredibly detailed map of the descent of life on this planet.
There’s plenty of evidence of evolution happening today. Example? Vinyl-digesting bacteria. Vinyl had never existed in any form whatsoever on this planet before the 20th century, yet in a waste pool outside a vinyl plant we found bacteria that had gained the ability to produce an enzyme that allowed it to digest vinyl as food. When scientists tried to get some insight into how it evolved by taking the species it was believed to have evolved from and putting it in an environment where there was very little to eat except vinyl, it independently evolved again. But here’s the kicker- It evolved an entirely *new* enzymatic pathway, different from the one that had appeared in the wild. If that’s not evidence of evolution, I don’t know what is.
And, no, the Bible isn’t mostly metaphorical. Mostly, it’s the historical record of a bunch of guys who lived in the desert. Genesis, though, is a mashing up of probably a dozen mythologies from the Middle East, and is most definitely mostly metaphorical, and where it’s not metaphorical, it’s patently made up.
I do read the Bible with an impartial attitude. That’s part of the reason I chose not to believe in God.
You are wrong on so many levels. The speed of light is a constant of the universe, the universe is accelerating, and the average lifetime of a star like the sun is 10 billion years… plenty of time. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, how could we see other galaxies since they are over 20,000 light years away? Also, do you have any idea how rare it is for a fossil to even be made? Where are most of the fossils? Lost due to toll of time on the small number ever made!
Yes the speed of light is about eight miles an hour now. That’s how I know the endtimes are near. The lamb with his sword of righteousness shall make the light speed up again, for He IS the light, and it wouldn’t do for Him to dawdle.
“evolution is a philosophy, not science and nowhere near proven fact.”
LIE, UNTRUE.
“Time is the enemy of evolution. If the universe was millions of years old, it would no longer exist because it is proven that the universe is slowing down, i.e. the sun is dying out, the speed of light is slowing down.”
UH?
Where is there ANY evidence for this collection of insane ravings?
“One question: where are all of the fossils of the creatures in the evolutionary chain and why are we not seeing any obvious signs of evolution today?”
TWO questions, actually- you can’t even count!
The fossils all exist – you are regurgitating another lie, and we ARE seeing signs of evolution today – try the Pepper Moth, for a start!
And Gravity is just a Theory…. The records are there and being pieced together a little at a time. That’s how science works, little steps not giant leaps. When you bash it, you’re just as guilty as anyone who would “bible bash.”
I’m very interested in how you get the sun dying out from the universe slowing down (only one theory). Our solar system is not the center of the universe. In fact what does any of that has to do with the speed of light, it does not change? A planet, car, universe, could slow down the light refracting off/emanating from and around it will not….
Oh and I have read the a bible (there are many different versions of the “Real Bible”) and the History of it, including the number of edits made by Rulers to fit Their Political Ideals of the Time. The fact it was written 300 years (as a whole text and not just the different Gospels… most of which were kept as oral tradition.) after the death of Christ and edited by the hands of man means it isn’t the word or work of Christ it’s just based on it.
That doesn’t mean the moral lessons are any less valuable but I’m not going to take my science from it. Or from people who lived at a time where it was fine to kill your wife to divorce her if she was raped. Or people who thought the world was flat and heavy rains and lightning or a volcano meant God was mad.
It very may well be that God exists and is a Christian, great, good, fine, ok. That still doesn’t mean I’m going to look at painstakingly tested out facts and discard them because they may, as yet, be incomplete answers… Isn’t that the basis of Faith?
Evolution is science. It is the basis of virtually all biological science.
It is correctly called ‘a SCIENTIFIC theory’.
The simplest explanation of a scientific theory is that the only thing missing to make it a scientific fact is that it was not directly observed happening beginning to end by the ‘scientist’.
The reason for this is that except for forms of life that are very small, (single cell or just a very few cells) evolution happens over a very long time frame, and therefore is not directly observable
As of late, scientists have in fact observed evolution in process. Using very small forms of life, up to small plants that have a very short reproductive cycle, they have been able to actually observe the mutation process that is evolution.
At this time it appears that the ‘theory of evolution’ as a whole, may be on the verge of becoming a scientific fact. The time lin for this to happen, as with evolution, may still be very long. For changes to scientific therout to fact can mave very slowly as well.
I know the creationist will say that it was observed in small life forms, and cannot be projected onto larger forms of life. As always, they do not under stand science, or simply deny it.
Evolution is real. It is who and what we are. It can be denied, but that does not make it any less true.
I know it realy bothers some people that we are the desendants of pond scum from eons past.
go to the barnyard and ask the mule, “Why don’t you have any children?” he will tell you, “My mother was a donkey and my father was a horse. They are descended from a common ancestor and are still genetically close enough to produce me, but are far enough along the process of speciation (right now before your eyes,) that i am a sterile hybrid.”
Evolution is a both a theory and a fact. it’s a fact that a bird species called blackcaps are splitting into two species because one group flies to Spain to winter and and smaller group is flying to England to winter and feed off the bird feeders there. Google “blackcaps birdfeeders” for more info. Evolution is a valid theory in that it allow us to use the basic principles to make predictions about past life and then either prove it or disprove that prediction. For example if evolution is true then whales and all sea mammals started from a land base species. Researchers have found very good fossils to support it. Also as evolution denies fail to note there are multiple lines of evidence for evolution besides the fossil record, such as DNA and geology.
It’s a lie that the speed of light is slowing down pushed by anti-science groups. Before you put down evolution maybe you should try to study it with an impartial attitude, I’m not sorry evolution is true.
Shhh you are making a fool of yourself!
Um, no….
Evolution is not a philosophy it’s a theory, hence the name evolutionary theory. Get your facts straight.
Nope, you’re in an idiot. Thanks for playing, though!
“nowhere near proven fact”? Hold on there, If you have looked at “both sides of the argument” you would see there is plenty of evidence that proves the theory of evolution. And where are the fossils? Have you been to a museum? Also asking the question: why aren’t we seeing evolution today? Well, google it, read about it, I’m sure you’d have a better understanding of how long the process of natural selection is if you just looked at the other side of the argument.
Right on Aaron! I believe the world was created in 6 days! I used to believe in evolution. I know there are adaptations… but seriously… carbon dating is totally inaccurate. Two people can “date” the same rock and have totally different dates. With God, anything is possible. For all you Christians out there that believe in evolution… please… read the Word of God. It is all truths. Why believe part of the bible? My mother still cannot see it this way and it is so sad! The parts of the bible that weren’t meant to be real stories are stated as parables… that means they may not have happened. They were just metaphors and stuff that Jesus used to teach. The rest of it is all true! With God anything is possible! Anything! Only God can create every living cell and thing totally unique! Nothing is alike. How is that possible for something to evolve out of nothing (if there were no God)? God created the whole universe. It says in the Bible that you cannot look at the earth and not know that God has created all of its beauty. And for all of you who are like “oh why did he create bad things… huh?” Well Satan used to be an angel in heaven. When he disobeyed God, he and 1/3 of God’s angels rebelled with him and were cast down by God to Hell. When God’s creations Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they created chaos in the Earth. Nothing died before this happened. Satan rules the Kingdom of Darkness, while God is the maker of his Kingdom in heaven and on Earth. God gave free will to us and we chose death. Adam and Eve were deceived by Satan; while just like today, everyone is being deceived by Satan too. There is no evolution from nothing!
To Mariel
“Two people can “date” the same rock and have totally different dates. With God, anything is possible. ”
Anything…Like…. that both dates are correct???
Sorry, Why is the bible right and other religious books aren’t.
If (as some religious people have stated here) you really believe, we are you so considered about other results of the evolution
“There is no evolution from nothing!”
Then please tell me, why you do not still live in the log cabin of your forefathers? (See I do not even require a cave). But you prefer to use the stuff we scientists develop and then you claim
only god will care for you. Sorry.
BTW I hope the Holy Squirrel will not punish you for your comment.
Your a mindless drone.
Honestly…wow, just wow. You really haven’t thought that through, have you? The fact that someone was, to some extend, able to prove that the universe was slowing down, requires everything to still be moving, since it requires observation over time to prove such a thing. And that aside, the fact that it’s slowing down says absolutely NOTHING about how long this process has been going on for. Likewise, the sun is dying, that’s true for as far as we are aware. But it has not existed since the beginning of the universe, far from it, and has been dying since the moment it began, completely separate of the universe slowing down, those two things have practically nothing to do with eachother.
You also seem to be somewhat ignorant as to the whole fossil situation. Fossils are extremely rare, the fact that we have so many is specifically BECAUSE we are talking about such a long period of time. There is no way in hell we’re ever going to find fossil records of every creature that ever roamed this earth, the conditions during certain periods (and in certain places) are simply not good enough to preserve the remains.
As for “obvious signs of evolution today”…
If you’re talking about the kind of macro-evolution seen in the fossil record, of course not, those changes took place over tens of thousands of years, and I’m sure you’re aware of the fact that nobody lives that long, and our “modern” civilization (even going back to some of the earliest recorded history) has barely been around for that long.
On a microscopic level however, evolution has definitely been seen. but I won’t go into that any further because this reply is long enough already XD
I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous. The evidence is all around us. Aside from the fact that there are several species of any type of animal you see, or different ethnicities within mankind, let alone the crap we dig up out of the ground that links all of it together. I mean come on, evolution doesn’t show signs because the world changes so slowly, it doesn’t bring availability to study back that far. We have to adapt one way or another, and it makes not a lick of sense that a man in the clouds just said “I’m going to put a bunch of random lifeforms off of the top of my head on this flying rock”. It’s more like, Earth’s tregectory(sp?) is so absolutely perfect, that it can sustain life forms, and it all started out with bacteria.
But I’m done with that.
Also though, the bible is incredibly metaphorical, and is nothng but a repeat of thousands of identical religions with different names. So next time you want to be so narrow minded, how’s about you study some things like Horus, the sun god of Egypt, and notice how EVERYTHING stands identical to the story of Jesus. Jesus &the bible are nothing but astrological metaphors, bringing persona to the cosmos so humans can have an easier understanding, and also because of the past ignorance before the technological advances really hit us.
Just so you know, you worship the sun and Pisces.
So shut up, and study something more than your book of 2,010 years of hatred.
(:
Fruit Flies. You’re invisible monster is non-existant. and so is the afterlife.
You’re an idiot. The Bible and all religions are not based on fact, but fairy tales, a belief in a ghost in the sky (a MALE ghost at that) who created everything with magic. Do us all a favor and disconnect your internet connection, the world of knowledge is obviously useless to you.
O.O
Just…. O.O
“I’m sorry, but most of it is not metaphorical.”
I’m sorry too: all those stories of people killing each other over pointless differences in doctrine.
Wow! You’ll believe any shist your local preacher man says, you gullible person, you. Why not open a REAL science book and find out what evolution really is?
If God existed, he’d send all creationists to hell.
Ha, I like that
“wing down, i.e. the sun is dying out, the speed of light is slowing down. One question: where are all of the fossils of the creatures in the evolutionary chain?”
Museums, mostly. And university labs, but you are better off trying to see them in museums.
Seriously. Try it.
well you know evolution takes millions of years but i think haven’t looked it up yet but radiation might accelerate evolution plus most animals are already well suited for this type of environment
It’s easy to scientifically prove or disprove the creation / intelligent design theory. Pick any object, but a bible placed upside down would be most appropriate. Then simply say “Hey god, it’s me. If you created the earth, please flip this bible right side up. Hello? You’re there, right? Flip it, please? I need to prove that you exist. No? Ok. Guess not.”
If there is a god, I doubt he would waste time or take commands from a stinking geek, such as yourself.
Better to be a geek than a sheep. Baaaaa
the 10 commandments are identical to the 10 commandments from the egyption book of the dead… alos horrus was born on december 25th died and rose after 3 days… also he was teacher and performed miricles… sound like anyone familier… also before they were in greek they were in hebrew… no i ask what does the achient moral code of a bunch of nomadic desert people who cut their penises have to do with present day life
Hey! I happen to take great offense to your comment!
“no i ask what does the achient moral code of a bunch of nomadic desert people who cut their penises have to do with present day life”
Let’s point out the flaws in that statement.
First off the spelling, but i wont get into that.
Ancient? What do they have to do with modern life? My 6 aunts and uncles, and 9 cousins are devout Jews. They still follow the ten commandments. Ever been to a synagogue? Tons of them in the US alone, and the one I go to, a small one, gets around 100+/- people every service, I counted.
Nomadic desert people?
Just asking, do you know who invented power rangers, cell phones, advanced ANTI-MISSILE DEFENSES, etc.? Jewish people, more specifically, Israelites. And there is tons more things they made that we take for granted, just do some searching on google.
And for the penis cutting. It’s called circumcision. It’s been PROVEN, not theorized, but PROVEN that it reduces the risk of infection for males and females during sex, and reduces the chance of getting/transmitting STD’s. In fact, I heard a group of doctors are in Africa, giving people circumcisions to help lower the number of people with AIDS there.
And no offense to anyone, I just think an uncircumcised penis looks gross. I seriously don’t mean to offend someone with that comment, though.
And you might be thinking “well wtf with the ancient comment?”
I’m just saying that Judaism is alive and kickin’, even in MODERN TIMES.
Wait, wait, wait….. wait.
wait.
The Jewish people invented power rangers? I always thought it was the Japanese.
That’s friggin rad!
Respect.
indeed
“It’s been PROVEN, not theorized, but PROVEN that it reduces the risk of infection for males and females during sex, and reduces the chance of getting/transmitting STD’s.”
Except for when the orthodox mohel has herpes and gives it to the baby when he sucks the foreskin off with his mouth, as happened in New York.
Well every group in society has its dipshits. Pretty sure that’s rare though.
Which bit? The mohel with herpes, or the foreskin sucking? Or just the combination of the two?
Though I do agree that the earlier comment is quite rude and offensive to people’s beliefs. I have to warn you though: circumcisions don’t not lower your risk of getting AIDS. The virus is passed on by bodily fluids. Just so you know
I’m not even sure why she would bring circumcision into this argument…you are absolutely right it saying that it helps men be hygienic, and as a woman and also completely agree that curcumcised penises are far more attractive and comfortable than uncircumcised.
Well, the 10 commandments are pretty basic common sense on how society should run. Nobody really knows when Jesus was born, but Christians wanted a day to celebrate and decided to make it the 25th so converting pagans wouldn’t feel like they were giving up saturnalia.
I’m not going near the rest because there’s debate and then there’s just being derisive, and that’s the latter.
I’ll tell you why it didn’t work, because proof of god destroys god. God is based on faith, and proof refutes faith. With proof, you can’t (logically) believe anything else. I take a video camera and tape a ball falling down, you now cannot say that the ball did not fall (assuming the tape was not altered in any way). If god were to prove he existed, then he could not exist since his existence is based on faith. It’s a paradox, I know, but it keeps religion alive.
‘”Oh dear, I hadn’t thought of that,” say God, and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.’
That comment is one of the stupidest things I have read in a while. Good one, dude!
Carbon dating can prove that the earth is billions of years old. Lets not get bogged down in logic and proof though, cos some old fanatics wrote a book on how we should live. God thought “I’ll make man in a million different variations, oh and they should sometimes bite their own cheeks and fall over their own feet”.
Totally
carbon dating isn’t used for anything older than 60,000 years.. so you don’t know what you’re talking about.
<-is an atheist
No. *Radiometric* dating can prove that the earth is billions of years old.
Carbon dating is used for ORGANIC things, and only non-marine organic things. (Marine life carbon-dating is messed up due to the reservoir effect which unfortunately makes another stupid talking point for creationists.) You can’t use carbon for other things because they don’t have any carbon in it.
Thank you..you made me smile and chuckle.
I agree totally. Every culture has a creation story. -Key word- story!! Who decided because it was written in a book, it’s the truth? Or it’s the only right answer??
… to think that a people who didn’t understand the function of the human heart understood the universe and how it was created and that they out of all the people on all they planets in all the gallaxies in the huge mindblowing vastsness onf the universe are the only ones to be write and that a devine being picked them and only told them … this idea is retarted just like the people who beileve in it
I take offense to that
I kinda do too, but honestly, that just cannot be the first thing to have offended you in this thread, no matter what you believe =p
I think that kid’s parents are just doing asbestos they can. Thinking about my parents makes me sedimental.
ILY Mike :p That was great!
All of you, stop with the trying to out do one another by caling the other wrong. The most important things in the bible are the lessons it teaches.
I belive ther os one truth, no one is right, and everyone is wrong until proven otherwise. And this is speaking from a unbias standpoint, since i belive in the theory that we live in a continous loop, not a religion, or a “science” just me being inane. So be getting with the shutup and stop arguing
I love these conversations. You guys should seriously write for a comedy act.
please keep them up!
Thank you all for your delightful puns! So much more entertaining than the flames below it.
(For the record, I believe in Creation as well, but I’m not going to push the issue here. I think the real fail is the hideous grammar, spelling, and punctuation on the part of the parent. I swear the kids must have added the note to get out of some work.)
Sure, the parents are a peridots.
extremely long thing
aw. my parents were totally like that. They complained to the school a lot. it sucked…
btw, i’m now a geneticist, i spend much of my time mapping the evolution of red foxes and other canid species based on mitochondrial dna. hah. they’re real proud. It’s the greatest when they try and politely ask me what I’m working on these days. I just try and include the word evolution a few extra times just to freak them out.
*Hands Q-Czar some r-DNA, just for sh!ts and giggles*
That’s what happens when your mother and father had the same mother and father.
must be a real problem in the US for education :/
Only in some areas
“A wife ain’ nuttin’ but a sister ya hug.”
As a biology major, the traditional senior sem/capstone topic was Evolution. However, the religies forced them to create a seperate class for them (something about life sciences and the wonders of life).
Actually, I should be glad that they were not there arguing the whole time in my evo class as we read Darwin.
The UK too, in my house i’m an Athiest, but my parents are those christians that don’t bother going to church because they’re lazy (so they only have it in for themselves there) and my little sister, who just turned 6 in December, doesn’t know what to believe. It’s crazy.
Most of the people at my school chose not to take up RE as a subject, because we would end up ROFLing at the histerical ideas the world still uses today, and we don’t want to look as racist as we are.
My school doesn’t bother with any trips that could be contradicting to religion like that though, all boring trips to castles, universities, zoos and what not…GODDAMNIT I WANNA LEARN ABOUT ROCKS!
HOLY CRAP I JUST REMEMBERED MY PARENTS READ THE COMMENTS ON FAILBLOG!!!!!!!!!!
Stop masturbating and jizz on the keyboard. It’s gross.
But how can I jizz if I stop masturbating, mom?
Wait wait, what keyboard? I’m using my iPod Touch >:P
lol I’m an atheist too and I’m on my ipod touch I got for christmas…weird.Maybe god did it but he never mentioned it in the bible so…
Remember, the iPod Touch has that little sound when you press the letters on the screen to write something, it feels so right!
But I feel so wrooooong D:!
Is that an iPod good Touch or bad Touch?
I don’t know, but i’m selling it to buy a ‘Bad Touch Krotchy’ doll.
Not in the UK. It’s predominantly an idea that was manufactured about 100 years ago and imported from the US. Most Christians I know in the UK hadn’t heard about creationism until a few years ago. Since then creationists have turned more people away from Christianity than Richard Dorking. That damned Scopes trial has a lot to answer for.
Erm if you will take note of the spelling of the word “Centre” meaning this not is probably from the UK.
*note
@Centre:
Good catch, though Canada remains a possibility. (clickie – not sure if this is *the* Fossil Discovery Centre, but it certainly is *a* Fossil Discovery Centre, in Manitoba.)
Do you mean not from the US? Because here in the UK we use centre….. what gives it away that it isn’t the uk is the fact that the cost is in dollars.
I have a huge e-boner for Dawkings. I enjoyed reading his “The God Delusion” book (not that it is going to convert anyone, just give them something to think about). Reading the Christians’ follow ups is also interesting to me to see what they come up with.
I’ve been to the Scopes trial courthouse. We just peered through the windows, as it was a Sunday and therefore closed. Lol.
The name is Richard Dawkins
given that the canids can’t be more than 6,000 years old it seems like your job should be pretty easy.
You are full of win sir!
Or ma’am, either way Q-Czar FTW
BAHAHAHA!!!!! That’s awesome!
Ooh wow. Wow. Just wow. That is serious fail.
Wow.
Jesus Crist!
Holy Spelling Batman……you may need this.
*holds out an ‘h’*
Now why am I wondering what kind of rock the batcave is made from?
Guano.
Guano is a mineral!
Guano is not a mineral…it’s bat poop…sheesh
om nom nom tasty
BAT guano
Well, as I recall it’s a substantial cave system with a river running through it, with stalagmites and stalactites, so it’s almost certainly limestone.
I believe you are correct.
No, Jesus Crist is Florida Governor Charlie Crist’s illegitimate child by his Cuban-American maid.
That is a terrible rumor to be spreading “ThatGuy”. Charlie Crist would not at have an illegitimate child as he is obviously a homosexual. I urge you use more caution next time.
i thought guano was bat shit..?
He was referring to the governor of Florida Charlie Crist as in “Jesus, Crist, could you screw up your political career any more?”
*rolls eyes*
Oh yeah, this is *totally* a fail – after all, there is no cause for any reasonable parent to be a Creationist, or for her to send the permission slip back explaining why she didn’t want to send her kid on a field trip that would indoctrinate him/her in ways she didn’t approve of. Yeah. Of course.
[/sarcasm]
Look, you wanna believe in Evolution? Fine. I really don’t care. But don’t bash people who don’t believe as you do, especially not when it doesn’t matter in the least.
Or, to sum it up; this isn’t a fail, it’s a parent with a view you don’t share.
It may not be a view they share, but it is part of the curriculum, therefore is to be taught to all students.
when it comes to proofs, and endoctrinement, this leads to fail
Load of crap. The curriculum doesn’t override a parent’s rights over their children. My 5 year old doesn’t need to be learning about activities gay men participate in. Yes, that is the curriculum in my school district and no, it shouldn’t be taught to kids in the first grade.
If you don’t like it, move.
k@ the custard fairy & IgnoreButton™:
Spoken like a true Nazi.
If I told you that your children MUST learn to be a Christian and MUST write with their right hand, what would you tell me?
That that was a joke, written to bug someone who does not believe in their own education system.
that’s unusually harsh, writing specifically to bug somebody else!
VVVV Please read comments below.
Your ignorance makes me laugh you try to make fun of these people because of what they believe in but your acting childish and quite retarded by posting these “sarcastic” comments just to make someone else upset…shut your mouth and grow up. people like you are why other people believe humans evolved from monkeys.
VVVV again I refer to comments below.
I’m also a reason why other people believe humans evolved from monkeys.
Aww you so fluffy!
Thats because you fail
Only idiots believe humans evolved from monkeys. No respectable scientist in the world claims that. If your going to try to quote fact, learn it fast.
“Activities gay men participate in.”
Like what? Kissing? Hugging? Holding hands? Raising a family? Showing affection in public the way a man and a woman are permitted to do?
I quite doubt that your five year old is being taught the ins and outs of masturbation, oral sex, rimming, etc.
(He’ll discover all that in college, assuming he gets there.)
im going to guess you have never been to college because of your ignorance to the fact that the education system may teach such practices but not all must learn it…so stop being so immature as to post sarcastic comments just to get someone you dont even know upset, its childish and quite retarded. shut up.
Whereas giving orders to someone you don’t even know is mature? Especially when you have no power to enforce your orders. Oh, and of course insults.
Oh arthur, quit the sarcasm and be a man.
quod erat demonstrandum
That’s Latin, by the way, for “How unsurprising, when told all you can do is insult people, you respond by insulting people”
Uh, that’s not sarcasm. More sardonicism than anything.
This? Oh, this is condescending.
I really doubt that the oral sex and rimming are a part of the educational system.
I understand the U.S. educational system is much more strictly regimented than the one where I live, but even here the entire curriculum is publicly available online.
In other words, [citation badly needed].
Oh lord not the gays! Equal love is a dangerous topic! The school tought my kids about the gay penguins in the zoo in NY. My kids love penguins! Obviously they’re going to be the gay now…
DAMN IT! i love penguins…guess i will have to break off my engagement and start playing for the other team now. DAMN, don’t worry i wont tell 5 year olds what i do with my new boyfriend hahaha. (sarcasm)
Everything’s better with penguins.
I highly doubt your child is being taught what activities gay men participate in, in the first grade. What is this that we participate in that they are being taught? I would really like to know. Please, enlighten me.
If you do not want your children to be taught science, you will have to either homeschool them or send them to a Christian school which does not teach science (most do).
If you do not want your children to know that some other children have parents who are the same gender, you are going to have to interview every child your child encounters before permitting your child to speak to them.
You’re right…to a point.
As a parent, you do have the right to take your child’s education in hand. So, you have a few choices:
1) Because you are an involved parent, talk to your child about what they learned and then you can talk and teach your child what you believe and expect in relation to the subject.
2) You can switch the child to another school that has a curriculum that is in line with your beliefs and morals.
3) You can homeschool your children and teach them the skills you believe will best prepare them for life in the real world.
Those are your choices.
Agreed. But homosexuality should have no place in your agrument. Would you allow your 5 year-old to learn about heterosexual activities?
Uhm, evolution is not a “belief”, it’s a proven fact. Denying evolution is like saying “The world is flat!”.
One can argue however that evolution itself is somehow lead by a higher power, considering that it nevertheless is a gigantic coincidence that it came into being at all on a planet and managed to produce a sentient race suchas ours.
I don’t, but I can see why others would have that belief.
The fail above is a fail on multiple levels. Fail 1: Being a bible-crazy parent (btw. the bible doesn’t say anything about evolution…remember that the bible shouldn’t be taken by the word, but it’s about the allegories…).
Fail 2: Explaining in detail ones fanaticism to sb. who doesn’t give a rat’s ass or only will consider you crazy…
(sad) Fail 3: Doing all that to a poor 6-grader instead of letting him gain knowledge so he can later decide on its own what to believe instead of indoctrinating him in its youth.
You are of course right – but you mix up the terms theory and fact.
Evolution is a theory that is broadly supported by the facts that we can observe today.
Creationism is not a scientific theory, as you start with the conclusion and are not willing to modify theory to fit the facts.
Nitpicking, I know…
no, evolution is a fact. its the change of inherited traits in a population over generations. that happens. fact.
the theory of evolution is our atempt to explain how these changes come about and other things.
you are mixing up the terms evolution and theory of evolution
You’re mixing up two different things: inner-species evolution, which actually is a proven fact (especially easy to see with fruit flies and other short-lived creatures with a “rapid evolution”) and “species-spanning” evolution (the development of one species into others), which is not a proven fact today, as it still takes us way too long to watch.
Evolution has been proved, Darwin did it. What hasn’t been proved (that Creationists always refer to as the ‘missing link’), is the exact roots of human evolution, but evolution itself has.
We got pretty close with Ardi though
Many of you seem to have gotten off the point. It is not whether the belief in some sort of religious deity is ridiculous, but whether the belief that the earth and life on it is only 6000 years old.
Which it isn’t. Which is why the letter is FAIL. There is irrefutable evidence, not just theoretical models on the formation of our planet within our solar system, but even just using the radiometric dating of one rock Zircon. Radiometric dating show that the some of the Zircon was around 4 billion years old.
That alone disproves the possibility of the earth being 6000 years old, this form of radiometric dating has been proven accurate to around 0.1-1% no more than a few million years in the margin of error when talking in the billions of years.
This can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt as scientific fact by comparing the ratios of Uranium-235 to Lead-206, Uranium-235 is a unstable isotope, being unstable it has a specific half-life (the amount of time required for of the original element to break down into a different element through the loss of mass into energy in the form of radiation)
In this case the half-life is 704 million years. This is relevant because if a object contains both Uranium-235 and Lead-206 in a situation which little of either can be lost or affected by the outside world (like Zircon) then by comparing the ratios we can conclusively come up accurate estimation of the age of a object.
Example: If the Zircon contains a Ratio of 50:50 Uranium-235 to Lead-206 one can say the Zircon is about 704 million years.
And if that not enough proof for you then you can look at the fossil records.
And if that’s not enough proof for you you are naive.
Please mid any mistakes in the comment it was late when I wrote and I was tired.
*applauds*
The obvious explanation (and one which was given to me by a Religious Authority when I asked) is that physical laws such as radioactive decay, geologic action, etc. change over time!!
So, just because things would take a billion years under today’s conditions doesn’t mean they didn’t happen in 15 years in the distant past (say, 3,000 years ago.)
GD&R
That’s a joke, right?
Since when did the laws of physics change over time?
Obvious to whom? Are you implying that your religious authority has the expertise to comment on general relativity? There is no reason to believe that physical laws are not constant over time…only stupid delusions created to support myths.
EXACTLY, the laws of Physics change over time, which is why before Isaac Newton was born, everyone floated around.
the only problem with what you said is that radiometric dating has been proven accurate. the only way to prove it’s accuracy is to have an object with a known date of origin and have the dating confirm it. since the only way to show an object is 4bil years old is with radiometric dating, it is circular reasoning to prove radiometric dating. the half life you mentioned are only accurate for the current climate state of the earth. it is unreasonable to expect these to remain a constant.
“since the only way to show an object is 4bil years old is with radiometric dating”
Incorrect. Radiometric dating is proven accurate because we can use it to look for fossils.e.g. In the search for transitional forms between fish and amphibians scientists needed to know where to dig. They knew the time period this transition should occur at from previous fossil depths and radiometric dating. So they used this information to go to an area in Greenland which was the right age for the transition and they found Tiktaalik an almost perfect interminably between fish and amphibians.
This would have been impossible to do if radiometric dating didn’t work. This is a common tool used by paleontologists to find the fossils they want in areas they haven’t been to before. Its not like they just randomly pick a spot and start digging just hoping to find a t rex or something. This is a tool that has real uses to scientists.
Also having all these ages confirmed by 20 independent sources using several methods of dating is helpful too….
“the half life you mentioned are only accurate for the current climate state of the earth”
Also incorrect. Half lives remain the same regardless of climate. If we could speed up half lives simply by changing conditions like temperature, humidity etc we wouldn’t have a problem with radioactive waste now would we?
“This would have been impossible to do if radiometric dating didn’t work.”
Actually it would have been impossible if the scales didn’t match up. Just because it pointed to the right spot doesn’t mean that the age was right just that two arbitrary scales (radiometric and geological depth) have the same ratio. The only way to prove radiometric dating is to have an object of known age (ie first had account of its creation) and have the dating verify this age. Then it will be proven.
“Half lives remain the same regardless of climate.”
I’ll admit that ‘climate’ was a poor choice of wording. Variations in the intensity of cosmic rays would cause variations in radioactive decay rates. Just because we currently observe a certain intensity doesn’t mean it can’t or hasn’t changed.
Cosmic rays do not affect the rate of radioactive decay.
Butz thee bOok writen thosangbAnds off yeras ags Wen peples were stoneg to deah for fartting sas that the Earthb iz 6>000 yearsb old, sos it must bez 6000 yearls olb!
Speciation or “species-spanning” evolution is also a fact. It has been observed in dozens of plant species and in Drosophila, House Fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, Tribolium castaneum, various Lepidoptera, various ring species of birds etc.
What the Scopes Monkey Trial is going on here!
OK, so you say that evolution is a proven fact? well, I’m an evolutionist myself, but that’s where you are wrong. It’s just a concept that fits into the things around us, just like creationism or intelligent design (wich you have described above), but even then you could say that I created the world as it is, just because I clapped my hands. That fits too. And for the record: most of the theories commenly accepted, like the big bang theory or evolution are concepts. And therefore you can’t blame anyone’s belief in wichever theory they belief. it’s indeed wrong to indoctrinate your children, but the parents also have the right to speak.
Ditto plate tectonics: If I opened up your skull I wouldn’t find slabs of the Earth’s crust moving around. But I figure the concept is in there somewhere.
How can you be an evolutionist and still ask yourself if evolution is a fact? It IS a fact. An irrefutable fact. Look around you, look at the museums, you can even find fossils at the beach and hold them in your hand…there are millions of them, and millions of hours of research done into when/how these were created and what they mean in the grand scope of things. And what they mean is that evolution is a verifiable, irrefutable, indisputable fact.
Yeah, I am an athiest but I respect others beliefs whatever they are and don’t preach whatsoever.
Calling this a ‘fail’ is disrespectful to creationists wether evolution is proven or not. It is racist and should be removed.
Failblog has been turning to crap ever since they started using viddler and commenting in the title instead of naming them ‘Drunk Driver Fail’ like the good ol’ days.
Wait… how is being disrespectful to creationists ‘racist’? Creationism has nothing to do with race, and neither does this ‘Fail’ post.
OK just to clarify, the term creationists was new to me, and lazy ol’ me couldn’t be bothered to research (i’m an athiest – religion bores me like mad). I assumed the term meant any religion who believe the world was created by god.
Even so, I fail to follow your train of thought. So, what you’re saying is “people who believe the world is created by (a) god” are a separate race, and therefore, making fun of them is racist? Because honestly, that still doesn’t make sense.
I’m not saying they’re a seperate race.
I wasn’t using the term ‘Creationist’ as a religion.
I used it to refer to people in all races that believe that the world was created by a god.
I just didnt know creationists didn’t mean that. xD
Get meh now?
I guess you didn’t know what “racist” meant, either.
You mean idiots are now a race? Wow. I failed to notice.
Even the Pope himself is not a creationist.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/
How can I respect someone who clings to something that can be proven wrong. How can I respect it when someone says “the moon consists of cheese”?
Of course he may say so. That is his right. Anyone has the right to be wrong. But respect? Nope.
The problem is not that creationism stops at personal belief. That alone would be covered within the right of personal freedom. But it colides with the kids right to education. And that – at least in my eyes weighs more that the belief of the parents.
What do you think, will a professor say to the kid, when he tries to study anything scientific and he comes with creationism?
One of the things school tries to provide is a common scientific toolset for higher eduction.
I am not even claiming that the bible is wrong, but that it is wrong not to understand, that the content is mainly metaphorical.
Exactly, you just misunderstood me (or I spoke using the wrong context.)
Oh, so you respect the belief of others to crash aircraft into tower blocks? Or to stone women to death for just being alone in the company of a man? Or to deny their children life-saving treatment in favour of worthless prayer and watch them die?
Wrong is wrong, doesn’t matter if your belief says otherwise. You shouldn’t respect it in the slightest and should pour as much ridicule and scorn on it as you can. I believe that you’re a moron. Respect that.
Uhm, well. Calling “stoning women to death” wrong is based on certain morals, that is admittedly (and thankfully) shared by most people, but doesn’t have to be.
From a pure “evolutionary” point of view there is no “right” or “wrong” behaviour, and morals are simply a (maybe so far evolutionary advantageous) definition of man.
Consider how many times stoning is mentioned in the bible.
If anyone serves other gods (Deuteronomy 17:2-5) or suggests you serve other gods (Deuteronomy 13:5-10)
If your son is stubborn or rebellious (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
If your wife wasn’t a virgin when you married her (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
Adultery (even if you’re a victim of rape (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
If you touch Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19:13)
If you break the Sabbath (Numbers 15-32:56)
Just to name a few.
Man they got stoned a lot…Maybe we should follow their lead
I do.
*puff, puff, pass*
*tries to puff, puff*
*fails*
*
safety**tries again*
*fails again*
*pass*
You can respect another persons beliefs without respecting their actions.
Not when their beliefs are the reason for their actions.
Nope. They are the reason for their actions. Everybody is.
Belief is mostly used as something to hide behind – “Hey, I’m not doing anything wrong, my faith says so!”
So true, sadly D:
What precisely is it you are asking for when you suggest that one ought respect other beliefs?
Should I respect the belief of a flat earth, for instance? Am I not allowed to say “that belief… that is, that model of reality is in error. It does not correspond to actual reality”?
Basic human respect is one thing. But that doesn’t obligate me to not have contempt for silly beliefs.
Discrimination is an assault on the very notion of human rights. Discrimination is the systematic denial of certain peoples’ or groups’ full human rights because of who they are or what they believe. It is all too easy to deny a person’s human rights if you consider them as “less than human”.
This is why international human rights law is grounded in the principle of non-discrimination. The drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated explicitly that they considered non-discrimination to be the basis of the Declaration.
Yet discrimination due to factors such as race, ethnicity, nationality, class, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age or health status – or a combination of factors – persists in many forms in every country in the world.
Thankyou Amnesty international
Wait, who said anything about considering someone less than human?
Are you honestly saying “your belief is wrong” translates directly to “you’re subhuman”? or is some sort of serious miscommunication/misunderstanding occurring here?
Yes, in the essence of that statement, when you say “you are wrong in your belief,” you are implying “I am better than you”…….do I need to go further?
But feel free to laugh behind closed doors!
“I am better than you in that I have a more accurate model of reality… but that doesn’t make you subhuman or anything”
Besides, allow me to implement your idea: “How dare you disagree with my belief that it’s okay to disrespect others’ beliefs?! You’re disrespecting my belief to not respect the belief of others. You’re saying that you’re better than me!”
A world in which no ideas are allowed to be challenged is a world of stupidity.
But it is my belief that the people who wrote the note are morons who are seriously damaging their child’s welfare. By telling me that I’m wrong in my belief, according to your own statement, you’re saying that you’re better than me and therefore discriminating against me. I’m suing!
Honestly, I do believe I am better than the woman who wrote this note. Plain and simple lol
who let the trolls out?
♬
When the party was nice, the party was jumpin’
And everybody havin’ a ball
I tell the fellas “start the name callin’”
And the girls report to the call
The poor troll show down
Who let the trolls out?
♬
drops nuke on trolls*
!!!!
\__/
l l
l l
VV
V
the blogmonster ate my spaces!
You’re making straw-men arguments. You are also begging the question. Your argumentation is not consistent with a materialist worldview, if that is your worldview. If it is, you have no authority to label any behavior as wrong, making your final ad-hom look silly.
Not to be nit picky… but… who gets to decide what’s right or wrong? You? Me?
Someone *I consider* a racist pig will teach their children what *I consider* hate, yet that person believes they’re teaching what’s right. What’s right is right, right?
If an entire culture believes the only way to serve their God is to destroy those they consider infidels are they wrong? Not in their eyes.
Right and wrong are in the eyes of the beholder.
I disagree. There is a such thing as objective truth and morality. Committing murder, even if your culture deems it “right” is still murder. Teaching someone to hate is wrong, even though most humans actively hate one group or another. All of this contributes to the decay of society and can very easily lead to our destruction.
By the way, some of the creationist arguments in this thread need to be imaged and submitted to failblog.
Right and wrong and based on a collective of laws created by humans, based on human instinct and the desire for freedom. A basic human right, to the United Nations, is that all children have a right to education. Not a selective education based on the rediculous and unfounded religious beliefs of the parents…but if this woman truly believes beyond a doubt that the world is 6,000 years old than she should have no fear that her son will believe something different. (and hopefully he does!!!)
I also believe you are a moron, an extremely racist moron at that, and I do respect your beliefs because I myself am not a racist person.
You said “Wrong is wrong,” but if you think about it, isn’t that what causes all the killing and wars between races/cultures? I’m guessing that what you’re saying is that what you believe is wrong is absolutely wrong, regardless of anything. Who is to say what really is wrong and what is right, especially when morons like you decide for themselves and expect everyone else to follow them. Other people with different cultures, religions and beliefs are in exactly the same situation as you, you know.
Oh, and yes, I respect that everyone (yes, even them, you racist turd) has the right to believe whatever they want. I do not agree with them, or practice them myself, but I do respect that right.
So, someone early said “There is no God” To which someone else replied “You spelled Spoon wrong” This means you don’t exist. But you don’t exist twice. Do the two non-existences cancel each other out? Or do you not exist² making some sort empty square of non-matter?
You are almost right.
The truth is that I do not exist², which in advanced-complex-space-time mathematics means I am the source of all power, the holder of all knowledge, and the most awesome non-entity² in existence. The answer to all of this ruckus is that nothing, no thing, may be in control of everything. Since I am the only thing that does not exist, yet can interact freely and directly with everything that does exist, only I can be the one to be considered as what you instances call a ‘God’.
You say I am not the only thing that is not a thing? What, I ask. Nothing? I thought so. Now bow down, you senseless beings of existence.
Sooo … if someone were to say gravity doesn’t exist and I’d call that “fail”, I’d be racist and disrespectful to their beliefs however stupid and wrong they were?
My head is about to explode…
I think mine already did
*licks chops*
There is no gravity. Everything sucks.
So much negativity.
*walks in, hangs up sign, leaves*
/\
___________________
| |
| Please Do Not Feed |
| The Zombies |
|___________________|
Ack! It ate all the spaces that made the sign look sign like! *sulks*
Did you try the fake space?
Alt+0160 on numpad, it’s not actually a space, but looks exactly the same. You could just put a space, then a fake space, then a space and so on.
creationists don’t deserve respect – no one who would never listen to evidence deserves respect. The bible doesn’t say the world was made 6000 years ago, that’s an interpretation from a couple hundred years ago put on what’s in it. Dumbasses in the 20th C turned this into an axiom of faith. The bible stories were explanation from a time when people thought the world was flat & you could walk across it in 40 days. Scientific knowledge evolves as more evidence comes to light
“no one who would never listen to evidence deserves respect.”
Creationists have the exact same evidence as evolutionists. The evidence is not the issue, it’s the starting point that determines how the evidence is interpreted. Evidence does not speak for itself.
“The bible doesn’t say the world was made 6000 years ago”
No, but it says the universe was created in 6 days and gives a very specific genealogy from Adam to Moses. Anyone with a calculator can figure it out.
“that’s an interpretation from a couple hundred years ago”
Just the opposite, it’s been the majority view UNTIL a couple hundred years ago, as shown by Dr. Terry Mortenson’s doctoral thesis on the history of geology.
“The bible stories were explanation from a time when people thought the world was flat”
The Bible indicates a spherical earth in multiple places.
shazam
A very specific genealogy which includes people living for 500 years and many other BS stories. Plain and simple fact, the story of genesis was stolen from previous stories from other cultures, specifically the egyptians, babylonians and sumerians. Fact, the story of Moses is stolen directly from the epic of Gilgamesh. Fact, the story of jesus is stolen almost word for from the story of Horus in Egyptian mythology. It was well known in the greek world as early as Pythagoras’ time that the world was round. You religious morons change everything to suit your needs. Start living more intelligently.
“Fact” implies empirical evidence to support the “hypothesis” stated. Unless you were present at the time of creation or when Moses “stole” the stories. You are basing your “beliefs” on others studies at best and your assumptions at worse. The point is that YOU aren’t proving anything.
Rather than debating the age of the earth, explain the origin of matter. Based on the Law of Conservation of Energy, matter can’t be created or destroyed.
No, the Bible indicates a ROUND earth, not a SPHERICAL one. Plate, not ball. Common belief in pre-Greek times.
As for “Creatonists have the same evidence as evolutionists” – yes, and then have to come up with ideas like “the rate of radioactive decay has changed” to rationalise their belief – even though there is no “evidence” that that has happened, nor rationale for why it should have happened (basically, it seems to come down to “God has changed it” – in which case, why has God changed so many physical laws in order to make the Universe appear really really old when it was all created 6000 years ago? Ah, but He moves in mysterious ways, so you can’t second-guess God. And that is what makes creationism non-science. It is simply untestable, unproveable, and a total denial of scientific method.
“Creationists have the exact same evidence as evolutionists.”
You have fossil records?
I guess the great flood also happened exactly as described in that book of tales and myths, eh?
Of course! And dinosaur fossils are the bones of the animals that didn’t make it onto the Ark!
And GOD spaketh unto Noah: “I said two of EVERY kind (and seven of every other)!”
I’d say creationists still deserve basic human respect. And if they’re nice decent people, respect for that…
But that doesn’t obligate one to respect their false beliefs, that is, their erroneous model of reality.
Respect the person, not the beliefs.
Exactly. Religious tolerance doesn’t mean respecting other people’s beliefs. It means respecting their RIGHT to believe any ridiculous thing they want as long as they’re not hurting anybody, and treating them with respect as a fellow human being. Besides, as an atheist, try being nice to a Christian for a change and blow their minds. If you don’t attack them it might get them to think about what you’ve said later, after the conversation’s over when they’re not on the defensive, and I believe that if you get someone to question their beliefs, whether or not they come to change their mind, that’s a very good thing.
There are people who believe the world is flat, you know. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/)
See what religion does? It creates stupid people.
I object. I think you’re giving religion too much credit there. Stupid people create stupid people. Of course, then some of them go on to create religions….
“Who is the greater fool: The fool or the fool who follows him?”
AND stupidity is by NO MEANS limited to the religious community. Come on now. Tell me you’ve never done anything stupid. Say it. Without laughing. Honestly…
If you are a Dee …
Please don’t marry a Dee …
It’s genetics don’t you see …
Your kids will be Dee Dee Dee!
I think the Flat Earth Society is evidence to be used to prove Einstein’s Theory of Infinity (“I believe 2 things are infinite, human stupidity and the universe and I’m not sure about the latter”) rather than the theory that religion creates stupid people.
Well. No. Evolution is not a “proven fact”, it’s a theory. Hence the name “theory of evolution” – at least where the evolution of one species to another or that of unicellulars to pretty much everything else is concerned.
It’s a quite probable theory, which is why you will have a hard time finding a serious scientist claiming it thoroughly untrue.
God knows I’m no creationist, but if the theory of evolution would be an actual “proven fact”, there wouldn’t be all that discussion going on about that (which actually only seems to be the case in the US… dunno why…). I’m not sure that’s really possible, though.
It seems to be hard to understand for many, but scientific theories are always unprovable. Why? Because it is an essential for every theory to be open to falsification. Therefore no such thing as “proven fact” exists in scientific theories, only supporting evidence.
Yeah, but that’s again nitpicking. Of course you cannot speak of a “proven fact” anywhere but in mathematics. However, sometimes there is so much “supporting evidence”, that one is pretty close to a proven fact.
The theory of evolution still hasn’t got this much supporting evidence, since the documenting of the development of one species into a distinct other simply takes too long.
Nitpicking? It’s the basis of modern science. What you can say is that some theories have so much supporting evidence that scientists don’t bother to look for contradiction anymore.
Some scientists even go as far to talk about the Law of Evolution.
DNA is pretty strong scientific evidence for evolution, but if it contradicts people’s firmly held beliefs then they’re just going to ignore it, aren’t they? Also, scientists can document the development of one species to another by looking at the fossil record, eg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8105513.stm
Hope this helps
“Well. No. Evolution is not a ‘proven fact’, it’s a theory”
With respect this is a common yet uninformed argument. Evolution is a fact as well as a theory. Descent with modification is a FACT of evolution. The theory of evolution is the field of study which explores the facts of evolution.
In the exact same sense Music is a fact. And Music Theory is the field of study that explores the facts of music.
Gravity is a fact and Gravity Theory (and relativity) is the field of study that explores the facts of gravity. (which has a weaker scientific basis than evolution)
Germs are a fact and Germ Theory is, in itself, a fact in the same way that the Theory of Evolution is undeniably, factual.
**Stands and claps**
“Evolution is not a “proven fact”, it’s a theory. Hence the name “theory of evolution””
uhh.. no.
Have you ever heard of Gravitational Theory? Do you think Gravity is not a ‘proven fact’?
Gravity is a fact, the theory is on the how’s and why’s of it. Just like evolution is a fact, including the observed emergence of new species. The theory of evolution is on how evolution works.
No, you’re misunderstanding what the word THEORY means in science. A theory is an explanation of existing factual evidence, and theories can accurately predict future findings. What you’re thinking of is a HYPOTHESIS when you say “it’s only a theory.”
Put it this way — there’s gravity, and in science, there’s the Theory of Gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_gravity
No one in their right mind would say “gravity is only a theory.”
“you will have a hard time finding a serious scientist claiming [evolution] thoroughly untrue.”
I had no trouble at all
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/
Wow, you were very successful at finding a group of a couple of hundred crackpot “scientists” (and I use that term loosely) out of the millions of scientists on this planet.
And I’d be willing to bet that every single one of them was a Creationist from an early age who steadfastly held on to his/her religious beliefs despite the onslaught of facts during college.
Isaac Newton belived in alchemy. Doesn’t make it true!
Sure, but this site also states that ANY and EVERY evidence found that goes against the Bible is wrong… Nice scientific method to find suportive evidence… Besides every single one of those so called “scientists” have some sort of problem with the scientific comunit and belong in areas os study that have NOTHING to do with evolution or age of the earth… Or so you actualy thinks that a theologist can actualy be considered an expert in biology wen contradicting the fossil evidences???
It’s not about views or beliefs. It’s about science.
….Wierd science?
*pokes trilobyte with stick*
Weird science is investigating into whether a dog can tell if people are happy or sad by their facial expression.
Poking things with sticks is a way of life.
….but trilobytes are definitely odd.
You wouldn’t be saying that if they could poke you back!
*pokes*
*tickles*
:[
*tickle*
*poke*
*sigh
*pays*
*lends you a fiver*
Fankooo
*squeeze*
*falls over in snow*
*flyingsnowsqueezes*
You’re quite far north, aren’t you k@? I’m right in the middle of the snowfest.
No- I’m in Essex, I just talk funny.
*painfulsqueezes*
Ahh OK. Much snows?
Couple of inches *fnarfnar*
*shakes head in shame*
It’s still going though, and showing no signs of letting up…..and I am the only one who got into work today…..guess who is having to do everyone elses work! How about you?
About half a foot, though I hear there’s much more just down the road. School was cancelled, so not much to do.
Yowza, I hope we don’t get that much! It is hard enough walking as it is!
We’re having snow since the week before christmas. I’m tired of it. Where’s global warming when you need it?
If everyone turns their radiators on to full, it will speed up. Who’s with me?
Power to the… umm boiler?
This is it hun!
Extreme weather events on the upturn, and the gulf stream up the swanny.
I could use some nice above-freezing weather myself.
*loves every bit of the ice and snow*
Read an article today that said we might run out of gas in the UK because people are using their heating so much more this winter. That’d be pretty shit to say the least.
Too true, I jumped on a dolphin that was washed up on the beach once to figure out if it was dead or not.
If having an opinion that has been invalidated since the dark ages is not a fail, then what is?
It has been broady accepted that the sun is the center of our solar system. Believing that everything revolves around earth does not change the facts.
And creationism plays in the very same league.
The bible can still teach some good things to everyone, beliefs from the dark ages such as: “The bad smells of a sewer system will keep me safe from the plague!” are stupid to still believe, the bible isn’t that stupid even if it was proven false.
I dd not say that the bible is stupid. Au contraire: As most religious books, it contains a lot of truth. But thinking that a book that has been compiled more than 1000 years ago is true to the letter is plainly dumb.
Take the 10 commandments. Most laws are still based on these. As they are simply a good advice which deeds might be a bad idea if you want to live in peace.
Even the order of creation in the bible seems roughly right. But to take the 1 week literary, is plain stupid.
Having a belief does not free yourself from thinking. And in fact, if they collide, there obviously is something wrong.
Science != Belief.
Beleief if the realm of what cannot be proven.
Science is the realm of what can be proven.
The age of something doesn’t have any impact on it’s veracity. Where do you draw your authority to pronounce certain things true and others false re: religious books?
Also question begging in second para.
More of it in para 3.
Your final point is just foolish. Science is based on reason. Prove to me that reason exists, without using reason, as a thing cannot prove itself. Science is faith-based like any other body of knowledge. Science is what can be falsified, not proven.
have you ever read the bible texts in their original language? do you know how many errors of translation got brought into the bible as you read it?
Not to mention the time the bible was written when religion was often used as away to control and dazzle the public. The Greek Temples spent so much money on inventors to make flying chariots, self opening doors, and other such contraptions to make it seam like the gods were present. Religion and science used to go hand in hand together uptil the time of Leonardo and Gallileo when science was advanced enough to start disproving religion.
When has religion ever not been used to “control and dazzle the public?”
Yes and yes. Guess how many translations your standard english Bible went through from the original language to english?
One.
Original language—>english.
Two questions for you:
1. Was the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic Bible from which your edition was translated THE original Bible as it was a written? Or was it a copy of a collection of texts copied by hand from a collection of texts copied by hand – etc etc over hundreds of years – from the original Bible?
2. Was it translated by a native speaker of ancient Hebrew and Aramaic? Or by a group of scholars who think they got the gist of it?
There are no surviving original documents of any text from the ancient world. This bears nothing on the accuracy of them. The documents that compose the Biblical cannon are universally acknowledged as the most consistent of any ancient writings we are in possession of.
For your second point, are you suggesting that we cannot know what people meant if we didn’t talk to them about the subject matter? For instance, I read about Napoleon, but I’m not a french speaker. In fact the dialect of french Napoleon spoke was Corsican. You seem to be insinuating that we cannot or have difficulty knowing what he wrote. I respectfully disagree.
Citation seriously needed here. Universally acknowledged as the most consistent? Have you heard about Justinan and Theodora? Do you really think they didn’t tamper with your fairy tale? Do you realize that biblical scholars have traced variations in source data from mistakes in hand-copied illuminations from the Middle Ages?
Get out more. Seriously.
Beg to differ- were it not for definite proofs that God is still very much active in the world today, and that much of the Bible can be shown to be historically accurate. (I also there is a case for creationist theories, or any views which contradict the standard view of macroevolution and deep time, being excluded by the mainstream due to its tendencies to favour a consensus- but that is beside the point). To believe in something merely based on something one is not sure of is questionable at best.
What is commonly called “science” today (a misleading definition since “science” originally just meant “knowledge”) has its limitations in that any theory must be based on, and testable against, what can be observed or measured. In that sense, faith or religious belief goes beyond that, I will agree)
“definite proofs that God is still very much active in the world today”
You haven’t got a solitary shred of evidence for that claim.
“What is commonly called “science” today [...] has its limitations in that any theory must be based on, and testable against, what can be observed or measured”
Of course, why be limited by what we can actually observe and prove? It’s just like how google works because the Fnarglepots are always counting triffits for the great buluncamator, right? Of course that’s right. If you don’t believe it you’re just being limited by the evidence.
… you’re an idiot.
Not sure you understood his point. Science is based on certain assumptions, just as religious belief is. At least, I think this is what he is attempting to say.
Actually, I think he’s stating that the word “science” is misused in today’s world because literally translated, it means knowledge. Which is exACTLY why science IS science…because we can test it, watch it, prove it and adapt it as we discover new things. And religion fits nowhere in that category. So where is this proof that God is active it the world? I have yet to see him, hear him, touch him…
The bible can teach as much as Harry Potter.
The only thing your comment actually proves is that you’ve never had the book properly explained to you.
Harry Potter?
from an archaologist’s perspective – it’s not called the dark ages any more. just fyi.
What’s it called then? I’m eager, and I have to do a history exam about it soon, so I could wow my examiner with this new term for a period! :O
“It has been broady [sic] accepted that the sun is the center of our solar system. Believing that everything revolves around earth does not change the facts.”
What does that have to do with evolution? You’re talking about observation science and saying it’s the same as historical scientific speculation. Common tactic, point to empirical science and claim it’s the same as evolutionary science. On the contrary, evolution is not empirical science at all. No one has ever shown evolution to be true using observable facts, only speculation about what might have happened.
good point
Or would be a good point if it were true. And if it wasn’t based in a crazy misconception regarding how science works.
Creationism does NOT play in the same league. Young Earth creationism does. There are many different types from that to Theistic Evolution. Many of them openly embrace the teachings of science as authoritative. Don’t let Bible-belt fundamentalists talk you into believing their version of the faith is the only one. Ask the pope, he’ll tell ya.
It is a fail, the whole concept of God is a fail, Stop the education is a fail.
Being a Fanatic is a fail.
The concept of God is not in itself a fail, Science can only go so far to an explanation…(I am a scientist before you get all pissy)..there are still instances that defy explanation, and moments where the faithfull bring change like you have never seen it, do not mock faith, but feel free to poke blind ignorance.
As a Christian myself, I actually do not see a conflict with Creationism and Evololution. In my mind, the two theories can and do co-exist.
See…faith and science in tandem, can & does happen!
*squeeze*
Even Einstein believed in God. So did Darwin. If they can, I see no reason not to.
By the way, I’m excited that I finally got a *squeeze* from K@
I believe everyone needs faith in something, including science.
K@, my turn to give you a squeeze.
**SSQQUUEEEEZZE**
That was well said.
You guys rock.
hehe
i read that darwin stopped believing in god when he observed a type of wasp planting it´s larvae into another insect only for it to burst forth like an alien when it had grown large enough, killing its host..
the again, maybe it was just made up xD
@Even Einstein believed in God.”
No this is simply not true. Have you ever read the full history of Einstein? If so, then you should know that this is not true. Are you perhaps misunderstanding Einsteins quotes such as: “God doesn’t play dice with the Universe?”
In Einsteins own words, he did not believe in a personal God – AKA – The God of the Bible.
When will you people understand ? God is not necesarily Jesus, or any othert big guy with a beard who lives above the clouds. God may be something completely different.
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this,” A. Einstein, January 3, 1954
In that sense you could say he believed in god … but that’s hardly an admission of faith of any kind whatsoever.
Speaking of Einstein:
“The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man… I am satisfied with the mystery of life’s eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence — as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.”
(from the essay The World As I See It)
Here is a man who chose the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance, and who knew better than anyone that no belief is sacred.
Gott furfelt night.
Hat trick:
“It was, of course, a lie what you read
about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” A. Einstein, March 24, 1954 (private communication).
“Your letter shows me also that wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it.”
Er… Einstein did not believe in God. Nor did Darwin. Neither were Atheists, but both could be categorized as Agnostic. In other words, both had frequently said they do not believe in God, but were content with “I don’t know for certain.”
BUT. That is no reason for YOU either TO believe or NOT to believe.
If you had more than one brain cell, you would realise that the two theories can’t both work at the same time by any means, because they deny each other. So choose a side, mister. The dark side, preferably.
Never, I am a Jedi, like my father before me.
I am your father, you fool !
dear guybo,
You are my new best friend
please
ok
thank you
“As a Christian myself, I actually do not see a conflict with Creationism and Evololution”
Only if you reject biblical creation, in which case, why believe it at all?
It’s an inconsistent stance to take.
Well if you do not see a conflict, then you obviously have been skipping classes.
Why won’t god heal amputees?
ht tp://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Why won’t God make me rich?
“Why won’t god heal amputees?”
Because he’s got a sick sense of humour.
Seen a YouTube video of that. The argument posed by that rests on the assumption that there are no known cases of God healing amputees. One such case could throw the whole argument.
Right! But there are no such cases.
Well, if he heals a few amputees he still invented diseases and let millions of people die of hunger. Incompetent work..
Why not, indeed?
Why won’t my amputated limb regenerate? I could regenerate my liver if I needed to. I can regenerate my skin. Other species get to have limbs that regenerate – why not me?
Personally, I find the concept of God going ‘let there be light’ and everything coming into being no less believable than WHOOMPH, everything suddenly exists.
Snap, but where did the first particle of matter come from in the first place?
Ah but does it matter?
I am Anti it mattering!
That conCERNs me.
So that is what I Hadron.
I have got my Ion you!
Watch out, czuhc, you’re about to be lepton!
but where did god come from? if you ask where the first particle of matter came from, you muct also ask where did god come from as nothing can be Just There according to that belief.
This is coming from an agnostic point of view
“but where did the first particle of matter come from in the first place?”
That’s a question evolutionists can’t answer.
God, being outside of time and matter, spoke both into creation by his Word.
Actually, that’s a question physicists and astronomers are trying to answer and then back up with evidence and observations, rather than just making nonsense up and calling it a day.
Evolution can not answer that, since evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life on earth or the universe.
Abiogenesis is about the beginning of life on earth, and Big Bang deals with the beginning of the universe.
Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. It has to do with the evolution of species. There’s also nothing at all in Network Administration which can explain where the first particle of matter came from, and for the same reason.
The god of the gaps argument is one of the reasons religious answers are very very difficult to take seriously.
But since you asked, I’ll let you know. Zeus did it!
Hey, prove me wrong!
“WHOOMPH, there it is”
QUICK! Catch it!
*chases*
*pokes*
*pays*
:[
I caught it from you!
*pokes out tongue*
*flees*
I would say that IF the Big Bang happened it may very well have been the moment where God(s) said “let there be light”. Or something completely different.
“Let there be spaghetti”?
I once read that an astrophysicist believed that it is theoretically possible for an incredibly advanced species to create another universe (that astrophysicist was in favour of the multiverse-theory). This creating species wouldn’t have any chance of influencing or even observing what happens in the newly created universe, so it would be rather pointless to waste so much time and energy on doing so. But if that really is possible, we may very well be the unplanned result of an scientific experiment. Could we call that species “God”?
?
It is a silly question but yes, if you define God as maker or creator.
I read yesterday that two renowned physicist (I’ll look up their names) believe that nature is preventing the discovery of the Higgs boson. From the future! Nature (or God) would consider the Higgs boson as some kind of abomination and it’s discovery as highly undesirable.
I heard something similar, although I heard it was the hadron collider itself that was doing the sabotage from the future.
(clicky)
I don’t think it’s a silly question, because our concept of God is the all-knowing, almighty creator. If that species created us it is just one out of three – is it “God”? Furthermore, maybe in a very distant future WE are able to create another multiverse bubble. Wouldn’t that make us “God” for any species evolving in that universe?
our culture already does create universes. Not in the sense of matter and energy, but as simulations. Of course the universes we create are simplistic representations of the world, so we can understand the world (world refers to universe) we live in.
Whether the matter or antimatter or energy is real or not in the simulation is indeterminable from inside the simulation. As such we already have “gods”. Rarely do these “gods” wish that the subjects of the simulations to pray or even believe in their existence.
Just something to think about.
I would say that “creating” and “simulating” are not the same thing. They might be one day – what distinguishes a very advanced simulation from reality?
Define “reality”.
majority of people cannot prove even they exist. i am one of them. (there are courses in university on that subject)
I am pink, therefore I am spam.
Perspective.
String theory supports a multiverse theory. String theory describes 10 to the power of 500 separate universes!!! Although there are issues with this with some physicists theorizing that there are 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 10 million universes (not a typo!) though the problem with this is that we humans may not be able to comprehend this many universes so we whittle the number of universes down to the number necessary to work with (see Quantam Physics: Restricted View, though be warned it will mess with your mind)
Another interesting theory is the evolving universe theory. When matter is compressed to extreme densities at the centre of a black hole, it could potentially bounce back and create a new baby universe. The laws of physics in the offspring might differ slightly, and at random, from the parent – so universes might evolve, suggests Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada. Universes that make a lot of black holes have a lot of children, so eventually they come to dominate the population of the multiverse. If we live in a typical universe, then it ought to have physical laws and constants that optimise the production of black holes.
If an advanced species were able to create black holes and black holes were able to create universes then your astrophysicist could be right. It is also entirely plausible that we could be in a kind of Matrix simulation, hopefully one without those awful sequels
It can all make the brain hurt a bit sometimes but damn it’s interesting
Light switches just aren’t as noisy as they used to be huh!
*looks dissapointed*
It’s hard to get even a good “click” out of them any more.
hey babe, the big bang could be you n me tonite…
Well if you learned some astronomy and physics, then you would realise it wasn’t like that.
It’s a parent with a delusion. And it does matter quite a bit.
Allowing delusional people to live “happily” within their delusion is dangerous. These people make decisions based on their delusions, rather than on facts, reason, or logic.
Those decisions can have far reaching consequences not limited to the deluded people themselves.
Right. And you should have the authority and power to stop deluded people from deluding others, correct? Also, still question begging. Your nonsensical paragraphs up there are more logical fallacies.
what is question begging?
Claiming what you seek to prove. Google it.
Mouse said the parent has a delusion but provides no evidence or argument that the parent is indeed delusional, he just claims it as self-evident. This is begging the question, and it is a logical fallacy.
Sorry, I thought the image above was the evidence.
According to Merriam-Webster, delusion is defined as: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs.
This parent chooses to ignore scientific observation, to disregard evidence. He chooses instead to believe what is written in a collection of parables without further evidence to support those beliefs.
He falls within the definition of delusional. Feel free to expound upon the proof if you require it in a more formal presentation.
I’m not saying I should have any kind of super-authority. I’m saying everyone has a responsibility to stop deluded people from deluding others.
Yes, and you make the tautological error of assuming that evolution proves itself. Evolution is true, therefore whatever we find confirms it.
Bzzzzt.
I believe that the earth is old. As with the universe. It takes billions of years to form carbon. However, I don’t believe in fairy tale just-so stories regarding how life sprang from non-life. This is claimed as settled with absolutely zero observed evidence in favor. This parent has chosen to ignore interpretations, not evidence. Ergo, you beg the question.
Well, I’m glad you know what begging the question is. I hate when people – mostly everyone these days – misuse it to mean “leads us to the obvious follow up question.”
As for the words you are trying to put in my mouth, no thank you. I’m perfectly content with my own words. I don’t think evolution proves anything – I’m pretty sure evolution never took advanced mathematics or logic classes, so it would be quite astonishing for it to anthropomorphise and start writing proofs.
Aren’t you begging the question by saying I’m begging the question because I’m begging the question? Say that one five times fast!
Anyway, I’m still unclear what I said that you would like to actually discuss or whether you just want to show off your knowledge of words like tautology, which I have to admit is a very cool word to know but difficult to manage to play in Scrabble.
K. One last time.
You said the parent was deluded because the parent doesn’t agree with something you believe to be true. However, you haven’t proven what you believe to be true, so you cannot know it to be true. As a result of this, the parent may not be deluded, because you cannot be certain of your position. By continuing to claim the parent deluded, you are begging the question, because you haven’t proven them to be delusional.
Re: evolution as tautology, it works like this. Who survives? The fittest. Who are the fittest? Those that survive.
Circular reasoning. Sure, ppl like Dawking et al. argue that it’s the genes that do the surviving, but i’m sure you can mix and match the words and come to the same conclusion that it is circular.
So you’re saying that the parent is not deluded because he’s not?
Begging the question, why can’t I be certain of my position? Have you considered the possibility that I have proven the parent to be deluded, but I just haven’t proven it to you?
By continuing to argue that his disregard for the evidence of an alternate reality based on the findings of geologists measuring the age of the earth through observable evidence in rocks, the findings of astronomers measuring the age of the earth and other objects throughout the universe based on observable evidence, the evidence of paleontologists who have shown that dinosaurs existed on earth millions of years before humans… do I have to go on? By continuing to argue that the delusional man’s disregard for all these things isn’t proof enough of his departure from the real world, you’re losing the “I’m smarter than you” thing you were working on with all those SAT words.
Scientific hypothesis:
If you are delusional as well, then it will be impossible for me or anyone else to get you to accept this man as also delusional.
It’s not a very good hypothesis, because testing it thoroughly is a complete waste of time.
Re: evolution as science, it works like this: In every generation there is random mutation – you can see this for yourself by raising generations of drosophila. Sometimes those random changes manifest features that aren’t so useful and organisms with those mutations don’t live long enough to reproduce. Other times those mutations provide a survival advantage – such as the black coloring on moths in England at the time of the Industrial Revolution; light colored moths were no longer naturally camouflaged.
Your logical fallacy: “Evolution doesn’t happen because not very clever wordplay allows evolution to be expressed as a tautology” That’s just bunk. If P then 42. You’re talking about circular reasoning but you’re not even using regular reasoning anymore, if you ever were.
I never denied evolution happens. I denied speciation is a product of evolution. Please read accurately.
You haven’t proven the man to be delusion, you just claim it, therefore you are still begging the question.
Your proofs for the real world change about every 30 years. Plate tectonic theory is on the way out, age of the universe conflicts with red shifted star light…science is in a constant state of change, so for you to claim that an individual is nuts because he doesn’t agree with what scientists themselves debate over is silly.
Wow, moths change color. New species of moth? no. Black moth. Wowzers.
But Mouse DID prove this person is delusional (Mouse, you keep saying man, I was picturing it as a woman
).
“According to Merriam-Webster, delusion is defined as: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs.”
1.There is indesputable evidence to contratict that the earth is only 6,000 years old, which is what this parent is claiming.
2.The parent is falsely propagating their delusion, by first of all leading their child (or possibly even children…scary!!) to believe that the world is only 6,000 years old and also the teacher and who KNOWS who else?
Therefore, based on our english language, this parent (and all other steadfast creationists…) are delusional.
But Mouse DID prove this person is delusional (Mouse, you keep saying man, I was picturing it as a woman
).
“According to Merriam-Webster, delusion is defined as: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs.”
1.There is indesputable evidence to contradict that the earth is only 6,000 years old, which is what this parent is claiming.
2.The parent is falsely propagating their delusion, by first of all leading their child (or possibly even children…scary!!) to believe that the world is only 6,000 years old and also the teacher and who KNOWS who else?
Therefore, based on our english language, this parent (and all other steadfast creationists…) are delusional.
And you both need to stop using the phrase ‘begging the question’. We get it, you know what it means lol
Evolution, just like everything else in science, has to be able to stand on its own and prove itself. How else would evolution be proven? Someone states, ‘I believe this ball will fall to the ground due to observations I’ve made about a field force I call gravity.’ To prove their hypothesis correct, they would need to drop the ball. If the ball falls towards the earth, gravity is proven correct due to gravity’s action of pulling the ball towards the earth. Evolution follows the same principal of proof
first of all the parents whining in this particular case does not have anything to do with evolution it has to do with the age of the earth which is a fail considering that the earth being billions of years old is as settled as the fact that it revolves around the sun.
Second to say it doesn’t matter in the least is profoundly ignorant the age of the earth and the fact (yes, fact) that biological organisms evolved are integral parts and necessary to the understanding of many fields of science.
I think this can be best summed up with a quote “this is totally a fail – after all, there is no cause for any reasonable parent to be a Creationist.” I could not have said it better myself.
Don’t believe in what is obvious if you don’t wish, but don’t ruin the lives of your children just because you’re an idiot and believe that some old man created everything.
I disagree, this is totally a fail. I don’t care if you believe in evolution or not, but to actually think the world was created in a week? Absolutely ridiculous. That whole story of Adam and Eve was started in ancient Egypt by Jewish slaves. At the time, the Babylonians had a better creation story, so the Jews wrote this one.
Some people (not necessarily you) need to stop being ignorant, learn some history, and not take the bible word for word.
Well, even if you do take the bible word for word, actually believing that the world is 6000 years old is plain stupid. In the bible it says:
“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”
This basically means it is highly possible that there never was a one-week-creation-period, so everyone who believes it doesn’t seem to understand how to read the bible. Which is kind of sad, because these people obviously want to live by it…
“With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day…so everyone who believes it doesn’t seem to understand how to read the bible. ”
This has been thoroughly refuted by dozens of sources.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/sixdays.asp
The proper way to read the Bible is “naturally”. In other words, context is everything, and the context of Genesis is historical. Any Hebrew scholar will tell you the author intended it to be read as real history and not allegory.
2 Peter 3:8 is a figure of speech…it’s a simile
“This basically means it is highly possible that there never was a one-week-creation-period”
God wrote the Ten Commandments in stone, Himself.
Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
So by your interpretation, we should work 6,000 years and rest 1,000 years.
Actually, my interpretation is a little different: to me this passage means that sometimes, God refers to time a little differently than we do, which would only be natural, since our lifespans are different – max 120 years vs. eternity.
So for this particular creation passage my interpretation would imply that the author was talking about days, because people living a couple of thousand years ago wouldn’t have been able to process the actual timespan anyway – to them even a thousand years would have probably seemed like forever.
For the Commandments of course, God has to refer to our ‘actual time’, because they are COMMANDMENTS, they have to be exact, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to follow them.
I am aware of the fact that this is just my interpretation, but at least this interpretation is way more probable than word-for-word-creationism ist not…
On the contrary, almost all Hebrew scholars will tell you that the pentateuch is *NOT* a history book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution
A close reading of the Hebrew reveals that there are actually 2 words translated in English as ‘day’. One is used in the context of ‘in Noah’s day…’, meaning a general time setting. The other is used to indicate the passing of a 24-hour period. This is true for every Biblical reference, including the 2 days when the sun stood still over Joshua’s battle, indicating that the definition of ‘day’ in Hebrew was even more a definite period of time than the passing of the sun. Now, I have no proof that Genesis is a literal, factual account, nor do I have proof it is not. The real point is in the allegory of it. You can take it either way, as far as I’m concerned, but if you go the literal route, please understand that that does mean 1 week, and 1 week only.
It’s a metaphor you dumb shit.
That is exactly what I’m saying… but ok, you’re really cool.
You’re obviously getting the metaphor wrong then. It doesn’t mean that we should convert one day into a thousand years and we’ll get the right answer. The thousand years isn’t the key at all. The point is that time has no importance if you have faith.
“…time has no importance if you have faith.”
So that’s why people drive so damn slow after church on Sundays.
Did you read what I wrote?
“Actually, my interpretation is a little different: to me this passage means that sometimes, God refers to time a little differently than we do, which would only be natural, since our lifespans are different – max 120 years vs. eternity.”
I think this passage means that God does not relate to time the same way that we do. Thats all. I never said and never meant to say that to God one day is exactly 1.000 years. Is my train of thought really so hard to follow? In that case I apologize… oh wait, I don’t, not to someone who calls other people “dumb shit” over the internet.
Sigh. You’re still not getting it.
This isn’t about “a view”. It’s about reality. You can’t tell you kids to give wrong answers to math questions and expect the school to tolerate “your view” about maths and let your kids pass. Same applies to biology.
“believe in evolution” ?! how do you do that?!
nah, it’s a bona fide parent fail
Sanity fail
If the view is filled with ignorance and stupid, I don’t see how this is NOT a fail.
Same applies to you. Science is not a friggin’ belief. It’s based on FACTS. And facts prove that Earth was created some billion years ago, whether they like it or not. Darvinism is no such ‘belief’ either, I guess someone lacks knowledge on that matter.
Basing something on facts does not necessarily mean it is true. Statistics can be used to bend facts till they can break.
Science explains the world to the best of our current knowledge, new discoveries are made everyday that revise peoples theories about how things work, so science itself is evolving and constantly proved wrong.
Condemning all belief in such a manner is similar to some religions denying aspects of science.
Have more tolerance.
That serious hat of yours looks real sexy.
*rips Moomin costume off*
*reveals little man in whitecoat and spectacles*
An impostor!
Aaaaah!
*runs off through glass door*
You do realize the difference between fact and theory / conjecture, right?
You cannot disprove what’s been proven, unless you prove logic false -not incomplete as Godel did, which does not apply to this case.
Facts do not prove that the Earth was created billions of years ago. Assumptions based on the observable data show that the Earth is billions of years old.
The only way to prove for definite when and how the Earth was created was to have been there and observed it. No matter how reasonable and intelligent the argument is, no-one can say for definite how and when it happened.
So then by your logic, if no one happens to witness a murder, the murderer should go free in spite of any forensic evidence because if no one saw it happen it can never really be proven. Science does revise itself but there comes a point where we can say with confidence that we know certian things are true based on overwhelming evidence. This is one of these times.
That is why in the law it is required that it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, they do not say that that is definitely what happened.
They look at the facts, and construct the most reasonable scenario based on those facts. Then the lawyers try to convince the jury of which way it happened to suit which side they are arguing.
Sure thing. However, if you follow the evidence where it leads, without ruling anything out apriori, you may have a different conclusion than everything from nothing, life from non-life. If you rule out the possibility of God from the start, of course you’ll end up with a materialist universe in which you are merely a bag of chemicals.
Sorry, but how does ruling out the possibility of god (which I do) end up with materialism? I know for a fact that I am far less interested in shiny gold jewellery and keeping up with the Joneses than the bible-thumper who works next to me, and I am far less interested in clothes and shoes than the inveterate church-goer who works next to her. Plus I give more to charity than they do, I rescue stray cats and I am “religiously” environmentally responsible. Belief or lack thereof in no way predicates the sort of person one will be.
You don’t understand the meaning of the term ‘materialist’. It can be used in several different contexts…in this case it doesn’t mean the guy-with-the-most-toys-wins idea, but it means that there is nothing that exists which isn’t material. Love is mere chemicals. Morals don’t exist (how big are they? What do they smell like?). There is no such thing as faith, trust, or the number 5. This is materialism, this is what Dawkins adheres to, and this also determines your life (if true). For example, if all that exists is material, then your life is ruled by your DNA. you have zero free will to act as you want, because you are merely a slave to the chemical reactions in your mind.
But of course everyone knows this to be false. You don’t need God to live with His morals. But you do need God to make moral claims…if He doesn’t exist, why do you think it is a good thing to give money away? Regarding how much church-goers give away, you have any stats on that? You do realize that conservatives annihilate liberals in everything charity, including the amount of blood they donate?
I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that if there were no God it would no longer be a good thing to give money to needy people…do you honestly believe that?
“if He doesn’t exist, why do you think it is a good thing to give money away”
Because it makes the world a more enjoyable place to live. So that means, for the atheist (me), since in my mind I only have one life to live, and nothing to look forward to after i.e. heaven, I want to make it as wonderful as I can…which means being nice to people so they will be nice in return (altough, I’m a part-time cashier, and let me tell you, people can be extremely rude to you for no apparent reason…). God is not needed to have good morals. God and good are not synonymous.
Most people I know actually start out with the assumption that God exists, and after years of study, come to conclude that that’s probably not the case after all.
So, people don’t start out ruling out a personal God. They come around to it.
I kept an open mind. Although not believing in God, the positive evidence for God’s existence are sufficient enough to convince me.
What evidence do you have? Anything that cannot be attributed to coincidence?
Sometimes, when I concentrate really hard, stop lights turn green for me. Still, that alone probably doesn’t constitute sufficient evidence that I have electokinetic super-powers. I mean, I can’t prove it, but it’s possible those lights would have turned green anyway, even if I hadn’t been concentrating so hard on making it happen.
Alright, I’ll list the arguments.
Kalam Cosmological
Modal Ontological
Anthropic
Teleological
Moral
Argument from Reason
Argument from infinites
I know you can work the google machine fairly well, you can find out what the details are from websites such as this one:
http://www.williamlanecraig.com/
this one:
http://www.str.org/site/PageServer
and this one:
http://philofreligion.homestead.com/plantingapage.html
The scholars who these sites represent are prof’s at CalTech, Notre Dame, and Oxford.
Plantiga is the most philosphical of the three, Craig is regarded as the worlds leading Christian apologist.
Here is a page with some of Plantinga’s work
http://philofreligion.homestead.com/Papersbyplantinga.html
It’s interesting that here you say you have “evidence”, but when asked for that evidence below, you instead produce “arguments”.
Evidence cannot only mean materially existent things. For instance, I have no material proof that you have no mind. I have arguments, but there is no materially existing thing called a mind.
Please educate yourself on basic philospophy, as you are conflating materialism with metaphysics.
Asetha your throwing out basic philosophy as though you understand the science your pitting it against. You can’t expect people to respect your argument when you use examples that have nothing to do with the debate. You were asked for evidence to support your side, stop trying to confuse matters by stating outdated philosophy and provide something useful.
I believed in God very much as a child. But by the time I reached my teens and began to think it through (rather than just accept what my parents and my Catholic school told me), I realized just how preposterous the whole thing was. It’s like believing in Santa Claus.
I prefer Santa Claus, at least he brings gifts
I don’t know the term but in Greek it’s Διαφορικός Λογισμός. Facts build up and can lead to answering something otherwise left unanswered.
For example, when Eratosthenis calculated the distance between Earth and Moon on 400-something BC. how did you think he did it? Did he took a measure tape and decided to have a stroll up the moon, I don’t think so (in fact I know how he calculated it but I bet there were people like you who did not ‘believe’ him because they couldn’t see it in front of their eyes). Guess what, his calculation was about 2%-3% wrong (minor difference of meters, really).
So, Διαφορικός Λογισμός or how it’s called is NOT based on simple assumptions. That way we can assume a flying unicorn created the universe but we have no facts to base it on.
You can’t really believe in Διαφορικός Λογισμός ’cause that’s where science, physics etc. have evolved – unless, of course, you prove that the entire thing is wrong, that Eratosthenis’ calculations was just one coincidence, that logic itself is wrong and then we’ll have to start all over again.
*did he take
My English sucks atm, sorry.
There’s no need to apologise for your English, I know it’s not your first language. I will also admit that there’s no way I’d be able to hold out an argument like you do in a language that isn’t my first.
Now as to your example, when Erastosthenis calculated the distance to the moon, this was not proof that it was the distance to the moon. He may have been accurate in his results, but that is still not proof. That his calculation has been shown to be correct is the proof. He may have been right, but he did not prove it.
The logic may be flawless, but until it is backed up by observation that backs up the logic, it is theory. They can give you the most probable course of events, but you can’t say it is the undeniable truth.
Διαφορικός Λογισμός = differential calculus
90% of statistics are wrong including this one
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Not if you’re handcuffed to something 132% your weight.
At least 42% of the time.
You know, you can believe in creationism if you want. I have a right to think anyone who does so has a few screws loose, but whatever. However, considering that we have clear and undeniable proof of human civilization going back >6000 years, trying to claim that this woman is at all sane or reasonable (“we all know the world is only about 6000 years old”) just makes the debater look crazed as well.
And it does in fact matter. People who hamper their children from learning scientific and historical fact are people who in the end hamper society and cause the continued dark stain of stuperstitious and magical thinking that supports people like the Westboro Baptist Church, the prop 8 crowd, etc.
We all know that all that “evidence” was placed here by the devil to trick us!
Nah I’m just pulling your chain, but this reminds me of when a parent told one of my friends he couldn’t teach her daughter a song about dinosaurs because fosils were placed here by the devil to trick people into hating Jesus.
Had a good laugh after that one!
This is exactly what I was told in Sunday School class when I naively asked about fossils at the tender age of 8. Even then I knew the smell of bullshit. I had quite a troubled childhood from that day on being raised in a devoutly religious household as I scrutinized everything I was asked to believe on faith.
Props to Maulkin. This truly is not a fail.
Doch.
There is NO cause for ANY reasonable human being to be a creationist, or to beleive in any other form of diety or religion. Your point is invalid. This woman is a nutjob.
The point is, it’s just geology. It’s not “eviloution”. It’s not Cosmology. It’s not religion. It’s not “indoctrination”. You may be content to distort knowledge that affects the real world, but the parents in the rest of the world who do not choose to leaven real science with religion will raise children who will be better scientists and engineers than those whose parents put religion, which is spiritual and philosphical, ahead of science, which can be tested and verified. You see, some of the best scientists the world has ever known were christians who put real knowledge ahead of religion when it came time to make real things happen in science and engineering. The very real fail of this parent stands a very good chance of raising children who will be wonderfully suited for a job… flipping burgers or cleaning floors for a living.
Dude, this IS a fail, if you don’t want your children to be EDUCATED the scientific way then you should send them to a religious school!
(And it’s a WIN to the teacher who posted this on failblog xD )
And as a convinced anti-religious atheist who follows the way of science and proven spirituality I don’t really respect people who are ignorant enough to think that the earth is only 6000 years old, that the entire world is made in a week, and that one man on his own can name every species of animal on earth! (we find new species of animals every day that hasn’t been named yet!) when it’s clearly been proven otherwise! I know many people who believe in god and stuff like that who agree with the laws and discoveries by science. just saying “satan put it there to confuse us” or “god did it” is what people did in the dark ages! and it always ended up with very bad results!
Actually, yeah it is a fail. Even most Christians admit that the world is older than 6000 years old.
If a parent does not want his or her child to be educated with mainstream (secular) knowledge about rocks, or the earth, or life on earth, he or she should send them somewhere other than a public school.
No wonder other countries are passing us by.
Why is it bad to let your child hear the other side’s opinion. Knowing about the other theory doesn’t mean he has to believe it.
P.S. if the story of creation from the Bible is to be taken literally, then our ancestors (Adam and Eve) populated this world through the incest of their children, heir-go, we are all the product of sinful relations.
P.P.S. also if we are to take the Bible word for word. God said “WE shall create man in OUR image”. Judaism started by picking one of the many Gods from a previous religion and only worshipping him. So the Bible clearly carried that over showing those people believed there were other Gods up there. This, again, contradicts the teachings of the Christian church.
“incest of their children, HEIR-go” WIN!
You’re so right! I, for instance, do strongly believe that the earth is flat and that the sun orbits around it and I absolutely refuse to tolerate anybody calling me a fail for that! I expressly wish not to be bashed by people who don’t share my view! I deserve respect, and lots of it!
All you deserve is to be kicked in the nuts. Go back to the basement.
*facepalm*
Wow, you just failed really hard, assclown.
Agreed!
Evolution and Science in general are not views, not points of view, not beliefs, they are the truth. At least the best true we found out so far, that’s what science does, try to find the truth.
You wanna believe in the god(s) of your choosing? Fine. I really don’t care. But seriously, creationism is the single most moronic religious concept conceived by man and I have absolutely no respect for anyone who believes such categorical nonsense.
And how does it actually harm anybody to hold that view? How does it actually impact on you? Why disrespect someone otherwise?
Ask the people of Kentucky who would actually like to receive a decent education how it harms someone when others hold that view. And I have no respect for, say, racists, even if they aren’t actively going out and burning crosses. There are some opinions held that say volumes about the people who hold them. And believing in creationism says stupid, intransigent and afraid to not be ignorant.
It harms anyone to whom they tell their myth as if it were fact. Particularly if those people hope to one day grow up to be educated individuals.
Ask me again in ten years (or simply check out what happened to the arabic countries when they turned from science to religion a few hundred years ago). Hello, China, I hope you’ll let me in!
Its a delusional parent. The permission slip doesn’t say anything about evolution, or mention that the earth is billions of years old. Nor does it talk about an essay.. Its a freaking fieldtrip, and the fact that the kids parents have deluded beliefs about sky-fairies isn’t relevant. If they feel that strongly about the school teaching science and reality, perhaps they should enroll their kid in a school that will teach delusional sky-fairies instead.
Oh, and godisimaginary.com
They should have their children taken away.
Yes, I am serious.
Why? because they don’t believe what you do?
Of all the comments I’ve read here, yours is the stupidestestestest I’ve read.
You should have your children taken away because you don’t believe what I do?
Geesh!
Then you should take the children away from every single fundamentalist, evangelical parent on this planet.
*Then you should take the children away from every single fundamentalist, evangelical parent on this planet.*
You say that as if it’s a bad thing.
That’s exactly how I meant to say it. It is a bad thing. Not only does it trounce all over our “Freedom of Religion”, but it makes a precedence for governing based on universal ideals which can never truly be universal. Silly man. Just because someone does not agree with you does not give you any extra rights.
It has nothing to do with beliefs. It has to do with education.
Let’s assume, for the moment, that you’re ok with the idea that a parent’s child can be taken away if the parent fails to provide adequate nutrition, medical care, and clothing. Maybe you’re not; maybe you believe that a parent has a right to deny what most of us would consider fundamental necessities. But I will assume for the moment that you agree that there are certain minimal care requirements that a parent must meet.
As it so happens, parents in the U.S. are required to provide a proper education for their children too. If a parent refuses to send a child to school, and does not provide home-schooling that meets appropriate standards, that child can be taken away.
Do you feel that this is wrong? Do you think that it is right for a parent to withhold education from a child? To put it another way, do you not believe that a child has a RIGHT to an adequate education, regardless of a parent’s insistance to the contrary?
Continuing this line of thought… let’s say that a parent *does* allow a child to go to school, but strictly prohibits the child from learning certain subjects because it conflicts with the parent’s beliefs. Is this right? If we say that a parent cannot interfere with a child’s right to an education, how can we then say that a parent does have a right to interfere with factual parts of that education when the parent’s *only* complaint is a religious one?
If I believe that the earth is flat, do I have a right to prohibit my school from teaching my child that the earth is spherical? No, I do not. I can indicate to the child that my own belief system suggests otherwise, but I do not have a right to keep the school from teaching that which is currently accepted as a legitimate scientific principle.
If I refuse to allow my children to go to school so as to shield them from learning accepted scientific facts that conflict with my belief system, then *I’m* the bad guy, and I’m depriving my children of their fundamental right to a proper education. And yes, my children should be taken away from me – not because my belief system is different from someone else’s, but because my belief system (and the manner in which I am implementing it) is interfering with my children’s right to education.
True, all of their chieldren should be taken away from them.
Believe in evolution? it’s not a belief, it’s a provable, testable fact that has been used to make fossil predictions. That’s like saying gravity is a belief.
This is a fail in parenting.
You are not allowed your own facts. UIt would also be a fail if the parent believed gravity was caused by invisible elves holding everything down, or if they believe the moon was made out of cheese.
If you want to belief in creationism, fine but it is NOT science. All the facts show us the the earth is a hell of a lot holder the 6000 years.
So when talking about science, and to be scientifically accurate, you need to recognized the data and the facts. IN you own time you can make up reason why God created the world with contradictory facts. Of course every actual Bible scholar agree that the bible is NOT a literal document. This is also provable.
You’re absolutely right that they’re being bashed, but not because “they don’t believe as others do,” but because they are ignorant and proud of it, what we call “rednecks” where I’m from. They are ignoring the facts, not to mention making assumptions about the curriculum and hurting their child’s future.
Nope. It’s a fail.
It’s not about believing in evolution. It’s about can you not? The evidence is so totally overwhelming that you have to be wilfully ignorant and delusional to not see it’s happened and continues to do so all around us. It’s a theory because not all of the process is understood. It’s scientific FACT that it happens.
What must it be like when the very reality around you contradicts your beliefs? Well I guess you end up being mocked by people who have a little more logic and rational thought happening upstairs
Sorry if you don’t like that, but that’s what happens when you reject the very reality surrounding you, even the reality of your own body – whose physiology, development, and genetic code also subverts your mythical beliefs.
I hope you’re not an editor or something, because if you don’t think this is a fail, you obviously didn’t notice the assorted spelling/grammatical errors the note is littered with. Regardless of your views on evolution, it’s a fail.
Why is it indoctrination to show children different views on stuff like the creation of the earth or evolution. I think holding different views from them so they can’t really choose for themselves what to believe is indoctrination.
“Or, to sum it up; this isn’t a fail, it’s a parent with a view you don’t share.”
Actually its a parents with a view with the greatest factor of error ever produced… it’s the same as thinking the distance from San Francisco to New York is less than 30 METERS rather than thousands of MILES…
“don’t bash people who don’t believe as you do” Oh, you don’t want us to act like religious folks?
This is a fail. A fail of epic proportions. The parent, and I use the term loosely, should have just written “I am an ignorant, hate-filled fool and want my child to be just like me.”
Maulkin, do you respect people that believe in leprachauns and fairies? Santa claus? How about people that believe they have an invisible friend that follows them around and watches over them? Those idea’s seem silly because theirs no reason to even entertain the idea, the difference with evolution is theirs EVERY reason to ‘believe’ it exists. You couldn’t go to a courtroom and tell the judge he’s being unfair because he’s ‘believing’ the side that has evidence! To sum it up, he just doesn’t share the view of the murderer right? Your an idiot -_-
Yes, because we all know that it’s a parent’s sole right to indoctrinate their children however they see fit.
They are their property, after all.
But, umm, no, there is no cause for a reasonable person to be a Creationist except for a willful glorification of ignorance.
And it does matter. We, as a nation, are slipping into a new Dark Age because of morons like this.
No, no, no, no, no. This is not a simple matter of “don’t bash the person who doesn’t believe the same thing as you” this is a matter of mock the person who honestly believes the world is 6,000 years old. I see no reason why we shouldn’t mock the stupid.
And you don’t wanna believe in Evolution? Fine. At least offer another valid explanation for all the fossils and all the species that have died out. Hard to do when you think a mystical being created everything from scratch just as it is now.
This reminds me of the kids who walked out of our HISTORY class because we were studying the dates and facts of Darwin’s studies. You didn’t see the atheists complaining about the 95 Theses though….
“You didn’t see the atheists complaining about the 95 Theses though….”
QFT. I learned about all kinds of religions (I, being atheist) and never once complained. It was actually interesting.
Although younger kids might be swayed to actually believe something just from learning about it, so the concern is somewhat justified. But that’s irrelevant since it’s a museum of rocks. Maybe not biblical rocks. But what kid goes to a rock museum and remembers facts? I only remember the shinies.
Ha! I was just at the Museum of Natural History a couple weeks ago and yeah, the shinies are all I really remember of the rock exhibit.
lolwow.
Wow and I thought the rocks were dense..
TEACHER: “So you’re saying your kids WON’T be turning in the assignment….”
In some way the note is correct.
But what a dramaqueen must it be, to make a story like that because of 2 dollars.
LOL
^^
bwahahah
I believe that’s principle, not the 2 dollars. If the cause was the money, I’d justify her at least a little bit.
Dear lord. The amount of puns that shot through my head the moment I read this just became too much. I’d rip that kid apart (or at least his parents).
I came up with the funniest joke ever the moment I read this!
Me too!
but i ain’t tellin’
Translate it into German, we can use it in the war!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaeeeeerk
Wait a bit, there’ll be another one around the corner.
Division and derision are what people do best.
Can another nation play the bad guys this time? We don’t want to do so anymore; after all, we always lose.
I think the English are the only people it’s politically correct to accuse of being villainous and evil nowadays. How this came about I am unsure.
*twirls moustache and cackles diabolically*
….’cause we are?
*wanders off to laboratory*
But that’s dangerous; after all, you (almost) always win your wars…
now is a good time to do it, no more Tony Blair and G W Bunsch
“We have never been conquered, save by the Normans.”
“But they could not have done it unless they had been us.”
*raises hand*
Us! Us! Pick us!
*starts singing the Belgian anthem*
♫ Allons enfants the la patrie-e-e-e…♫
.
oh please! South Africa is way more evil than Belgium!
*victimises a minority*
Oh, you go for a minority this time? But sorry, no one beats us at that.
“we” used to victimise the majority, you don’t get more bad ass than that
*stern face*
Czuhc, you know you’ve already been the villains during your imperialist times. Now it’s somebody elses turn. Maybe the Swiss?
*points at scar on finger*
Nasty Swiss knife accident.
*points at glass eye*
Cuckoo clock.
*points at stomach*
That’s chocolate related, I blame many chocolate creating nations for that.
Alright, that is evil. Who can we pick then?
Eenie Meenie Minie Mo. . .
Norway! I mean, some people say we are evil gay socialists! Maybe we are plotting to overtake the world with civil rights, oil and fish!
Canada. Our Prime Minister has been doing a great job proving it, lately…
la jour de gloire est arrivé…
no actually how goes the Belgian anthem?
does it not go like: oh dierbaar België…
don’t worry, more people everyday think that the middle east countries are the bad guys these days xD
Haha. Good one.
Haahaa. Good one.
God, People actually still believe in that thing?
There are age restrictions on driving, using tobacco, using alcohol, being permitted to gamble in casinos… why aren’t there age restrictions on religion?
Yeah, like from age 3 to 10.
tell them we really are alone at about 10 or so, add it to the tooth fairy and santa claus speech
That would really be an interesting experiment, to see how many people still hold to religious beliefs if you remove childhood indoctrination. It’d be even more interesting to remove tradition, family and social networks from religion and see if you still get a lot of people going for the dogma. Of course this is purely an intellectual exercise because it’s not like you’re ever going to separate the social aspects of religion from the rest of the package.
It would only work if the children were also taught to think rationally and critically.
*sigh* i have known many parents like that. the only reason my parents never bitched was i went to a christian school. parts of private religious education can be great… until you get to the science part. you wind up with biology books with titles like “Exploring God’s Creation” and teachers claiming they could disprove evolution with a simple chart. The chart showed many species over time, and teachers said “look, there’s no connecting species!” It took me awhile but, after I’d cleared most of their garbage from my head, I finally realized: they were looking for right angles. They wanted Species A to connect, in one step, to Species B, not taking into consideration the fact that evolution doesn’t happen overnight. christian schools say evolution means one day a monkey birthed a modern human, just like that. then they mock evolution and the students love it. poor kids, some of them never notice the logical flaws in this argument.
My school is a Christian school, and our science is nothing like that. Our science teachers never try to disprove evolution. Then again, I go to a Lutheran college, so it may be different in other Christian schools.
Most, if not all, Catholic schools actual teach good science. Anyway: look a human transitional fossil:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html
Yeah, Catholics tend to accept evolution (the two most recent popes have accepted it). That’s because they don’t take the Bible literally but more as a series of metaphors.
It seems the US is the country with the biggest problem of “evolution vs creationism”… Why do all Christian fundamentalist extremists live here?
Not only that, but creationism is actually considered a “cultural fad” by prominent catholic bishops. Also, the “big bang” theory was originally devised by a catholic priest, which squarely falls in the “old earth” category.
After 12 years of catholic school, I was amazed to find in college that *anyone* intelligent believed in young earth… The catholics learned that the bible is “not a source for science” after what they did to Galileo, why didn’t the Protestants?
wait, wha – ? :O
one whole side of my family is catholic, i have a LOT of catholic friends, & they all most certainly “take the bible literally.”
Ask them if they like ham, bacon, and shrimp. Then, ask them why they are not following the bible passages banning both.
raaaaaaaagggeeeee
Stupid theist
Ooh, I love Shakespeare!
Shouldn’t it be Stupid thou ist?
Win!
::cringe:: Classical grammar fail
Thou ART.
Ahh, but then it wouldn’t be correcting the word theist.
If he’d said “stupid theart”, A probably would have taken a different route.
Evolution…my brain hurrrrrts.
Poor kid :’(
I went to an anglican school. Im proud of the fact i got suspended twice for debating religion with my “Bible Studies” teacher. It was encouraged to debate the fact, but apparently not if you could come up with statements that she could not refute…..
yeah, all animals are equal as long as you’re a pig, freedom of religion, as long as you believe what i believe, be curious as long as you don’t ask uncomfortable questions…
lol nice one
just the whole concept of god is retarded
I don’t believe in gravity!1!! God didn’t create it, I can fly
Get your facts straight.
God created dinosaurs, but the dinosaurs begun eatting each other, so God put a giant rock down their heads. Then God created humans (some say humans existed amongst dinosaurs but let’s say they didn’t for the sake of history), but humans begun eatting each other so God sent a giant rock down their heads. There!
Actually some say dinosaurs never existed and god put their bones on Earth to test our faith.
Others say God never existed and clergy trolls made Him up to test our reason.
In case others have not, in fact, said that, then let me be the first.
All we know is, he’s called the Stig.
I hate those creatonists…
*creationists*
….you have egg on your face.
I think he ment cretinist….:)
the thing that makes me laugh is that people like this will deny the use of carbon dating on rocks when they are billions of years old,but when they want to prove the shroud of turin is real they cue up to use carbon dating.idiots.
Denying the use of carbon dating on rocks that are billions of years old is actually quite sane. I recommend reading at least the first sentence of the Wikipedia article.
Carbon dating only works for a couple thousand years(around 5000)… *Sigh* .. We use isotope decay for the others.. like lead uranium.. and even those methods have a plus/minus 10m.y. The best time tellers are fossils, they have like only plus/minus 1m.y. but sadly those are only in sedimentary rocks… Trust me, I am a God damn geologist =\
Trivalence, you missed the point. Even 1 million years is a butt load larger than 6000 years, isn’t it? No one cares if the dates can;t be placed to 0.00000001% accuracy. 120 million plus/minus 10 million is still 110 million to 130 million years.
I saw the point, just correcting that little error.
God damned geologist you mean
(jokes)
Nicely corrected bud, i tried but my anger got the best of me and i think i used the words ‘f.ucking idiot’ too many times.
Verschiedene Menschen = verschiedene Ansichten
Thats the point .
er. right.
Wissenschaft is KEIN Ansicht, du dummer Mann!
See I can write German too…makes you feel less smart now, doesn’t it?
*corrects mistakes*
Eh well you got the point.
It doesn’t made me feel smarter to speak 4 words of a language I’ve learnd for around 12 years ( scool and education ).
But It seems your german is as good as my english.
But thank you anyway.
It didn’t*
Your English ain’t half bad tbh. But hey, όποιος δεν ξέρει για τι μιλάει ας σωπαίνει.
See, it’s rather annoying if the public you address to doesn’t really understand you (well, the majority of it). I’ve stopped speaking Greek for that matter.
Thank you.
Τότε πρέπει να προσπαθήσουμε να το καταλάβω.
But I understand you.
I mean the problem. ( with understand you )
I don’t see anything so funny about this supposed fail. Everybody has the right to his opinion, and trust me when I say there is enough scientific evidence that a very young Earth is possible. This might be an unpopular opinion, but certainly not an absurd one.
sure, but some opinions are right while others are not
Absurd, as it has been proven otherwise. Jeez at least post a link.
No, I do not trust you when you say that, because every legitimate scientific source says otherwse. The concept of a 6000 year old earth is, in fact, absurd in the face of traceable human history going back further than that.
You have the right to your own opinion but not your own facts. There is no evidence, of any kind, anywhere, that the earth is “young”. Yes, your belief is unpopular and yes, it is absurd, but most importanly it is just plain wrong.
does anyone have the right to impose their opinion on their child like the parent in the letter is? does a parent have the right to impose ignorance on their child, cos they sure as hell know nothing of the facts, they didn’t come to their belief based on studying the subject, even studying the bible, cos the 6000 years doesnt come from the bible
Just read the book The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse. (Get it at some library or probably off the net, whatever.) Even if I wasn’t Christian, I sure would not believe in evolution after reading it. It’s well-written, easy to understand, and from a neutral point of view. If you are interested in science, you might enjoy reading it. Generally it shows how well science facts go together with the Bible, and also shows that evolution is not proven at all, it is just a theory with some flaws. Plus, reading books is way more constructive than discussions on the net.
How about this: I’ll take your argument seriously when you can point to a peer-reviewed article promoting the young earth theory that has made it into a scientific journal, and then I’ll read it. Any doofus can write and publish a book: being in the monograph format does not lend it a shred of credibility.
“Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 104 [1983]: 289-299.
“Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107 [1984]:387-403.
“Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) [2004]:213-239.
A quick google search shows you that your sources are suspect. I started with the third one and got a pretty informative wikipedia entry that casts a lot of doubt on the quality of the article’s scholarship.
I’ll let you do the other two since I’m pretty sure they’ll turn up more of the same, plus it’ll be more fun for you if it turns out I’m wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy.
Actually, you have it backwards. It IS popular, but also absurd.
Haha, Americans always crack me up. Keep up the good work, so the laughter never stops!
Yeah because America is the only place with creationists.
I have never met anyone in my school with creationist parents or anyone who is a creationist in Britain but I do know they are lurking out there ready to spew their ignorance all over me.
Failblog also failedededed!
““Note: Just to let you it is not that we don’t believe in things like that”
They missed out know : )
Sad really. The fact that anything that goes againist anything is wrong. Evolution is wrong for those people, they are ignorant. Creationism is foolish and stupid, those who say that show ignorance. We should accept we do not know it all and realize we are all ignorant and we should just try and learn. Even if the subject is…. errr.. upsetting.
yeah we do not know it all but creationists claim we do. so what now? we can’t claim geology is right since “we just dont know” but we have to accept creationalism as correct? sorry but eff off.
i never said “we have to accept creationalism as correct” but if that is what you think i said, maybe its not me who needs to “eff off”
You can’t just dismiss another persons argument by pretending dismiss your own. Your not in the same boat as someone else when they’ve got trusted, tested and re-tested evidence to back up their theories. It’s like me saying, ‘well actually i believe the earth was created last thursday BUT LETS FACE IT WERE ALL STUPID REALLY’.
geology rocks.
lol earth 6000 years old?
what r u illiterate or something? idiot creationist americans still believing in god and shit rather than accepting the facts. Just as bad as muslims
What does being illiterate have to do with believing that the earth is 6000 years old?
btw: I think that it’s bullshit too
How many of there are you? America is not the only place with creationists, and most people in America wouldn’t believe something this ridiculous.
Fail.
Actually studies show that a surprising amount of Americans believe things that ARE this ridiculous, i wish i could mock you but the English results aren’t that much better
I really should add a link here but you can google it tbh their are LOTS of these studies.
Minus the whole driving planes into buildings sorta thing. And suicide bombers.
“we all know the Earth is 6000 years old”
since when?!? This is news to me, ohmygod I need to go back to school.
Today?
Oh crap.
I’ll go get a cake, everyone else get some hats and crisps.
I’ll bring the party
pooperspoppers.*holds hand up*
Balloons, streamers and nibbles.
Ooh, do that nibbling thing a bit lower.
nibblenibblenibbleNom!
Sorry!
*giggles*
*volunteers to nible anytime.*
nible basher
nible nasher surely?
*noms on granny’s nibly bits*
oooh hehehe oh ooh!
*squeeze!*
or perhaps bible basher, since we’re on that subject
Just wondering, does God himself belief in evolution? Probably not, either he invented it, which would deny his own existence, or he did not invent it, also denying his existence, for evolution does.
*making not much sense today*
Suspending for a moment the absurdity of the existence of magical sky-fairies, The fact that life on earth has evolved and will continue to evolve does not necessarily disprove the existence of a “god”. It just means that certain (heck all) human ‘religious’ texts are not absolutely literally true.
It is possible that there is some sort of all-powerful entity, that would appear magical and god-like to us, established the universe as we know it, and caused the laws of physics and forces of nature that science has observed to come into being. In fact it isn’t entirely unlikely.
*However*, it *is* entirely unlikely that this entity is or can be even remotely described accurately by any human endeavor, including all past, current, and/or future human ‘religions’.
OMG!!!!!! I am not sure about this. Recently, I came across a hot bbw dating cite.
If you put “black ” “white ” “finder”and “.” “com” together, then you will get the URL
It’s a nice and free place for Black Women and Black Men , or White Women and- White Men to interact with each other. Maybe you wanna check out or tell your friends. FREE TO JOIN.C’MON NOW!!!
*empties cupboard of geological samples on the head of spam troll*
Angry creationist runs in,
“The rocks are a lie!!”
So you are standing on sponge then?
Is this why rock music was branded as evil and corrupting the youth?
Hey, it starts with ‘OMG’, making it a relevant comment. A shame he/she/it has to be so racist about it.
Odd. there seems to be no way to mark a comment as spam/
@all creationists here:
You have the undeniable right to belive in things proven wrong by the science but please, PLEASE, don’t be ridiculous: School has the right and the obligation to teach the most “fact-reliable” theory about earth’s history…
Feel free to brainwash your children at home but writing such a letter to the school realy makes you a FAIL…
Calling Gods creations a fail..t..t..t.. That’s a one way ticket to hell for you.
Do two-way tickets to hell exist?
Yah, but they are only issued very rarely. And mostly to the Ancient Greeks. My Mythology is VERY rusty, but some guy with a lyre managed to go down and fetch his wife from Hades (same as Hell really, except there is not as much fire) Sad ending though, he looked back to his wife before he reached the surface, and by the rules, she was flung down again. Oddyseus did it, except he wasn’t rescuing any damsels in distress, he just needed to interrogate an old man. Herakles went to the entrance of Hades, and managed to steal the three headed puppy we all know and love.
Where were you when I was trying to learn this stuff at school!? This summarisation is a gem.
I want a three-headed puppy!
Condemning someone to hell… isn’t that a condemned-to-hell-worthy sin?
Nothing like a Redneck angry dad to cheer up my day
EXACTLY! HOME is the place to brainwash your children. It’s YOUR job as a parent to raise your kids and help shape their world view into the healthiest you know. Quit trying to pawn your job off on the government.
Religion is clutching at straws on its way down the sewer pipe of logic. What people must be careful of however; is to assume that because science has dis-proven creationism as “Religion” tells it, does not mean that it has now ruled out the possibility of there being a higher power of some kind. If you believe that then you are as closed minded as the parents in the fail post.
I don’t believe in a god as religion would paint it, but I keep an open enough mind to accept that there is still a big enough gap in human knowledge for a huge power to exist.
Religion may have been a creation of mankind, but we still don’t know for sure where matter or energy came from.
Until science can fill in all the gaps, my mind will stay open to all the facts.
Just dont leet your mind get filled with shit.
God is an excuse for people that scares about not controlling (by knowing) everything, People “need” to believe in something, cause is to scary dont know the truth, thats why humans create god, is the answer to all the weird spooky things.
i see no difference from a kid that believes in santa.
Don’t let your mind get caught up in the definition of god as religion would have it.
God does not have to be defined as your best bud in the afterlife, to save you from the fact that when we die, we just die.
As far as the parents are concerned. This re-affirms my belief that there should be parenting licenses. The kind of idiot that believes that the world is only 6000 years old should not be reproducing life, its counter productive to evolution.
I agree with you, DeathnTaxes.
I don’t believe any religion has a clue about the world and god (if there is a god), but I can’t throw away the possibility of a higher power or something else scientists don’t consider.
There are possibilities, some of which are close to the principles of science (how about a theory à la Matrix, where our universe is a video game? The programmers would then be some sort of gods to us, wouldn’t they?).
What bothers me the most with science is the fact it can’t explain consciousness.
Scientists believe consciousness is a creation of the brain’s neuronal configuration, and I can perfectly understand that our brain holds some sort of program or software which produces reflexes in the entire body (like a computer).
What I can’t explain is why does the configuration of the brain create consciousness, which is an abstract and non physical phenomenon?
Science so far is always about physics: whatever the theory or the laws, the result is always physical (gravity, chemical transformations, etc.). Consciousness is the one exception.
Could we actually be spirits trapped in a physical body until our body dies and we are free?
I don’t know, and the whole consciousness thing really bothers me. I’m a third year psychology major in university, and I always try to approach problems with scientific reasoning, but despite my education and all the critical thinking I use, I can’t explain consciousness from a scientific perspective.
If I end up working as a researcher, I hope to work on consciousness and hopefully explain how this abstract phenomenon is possible. But in the meantime, consciousness really is a mystery to me.
Perhaps some things are not scientific, or perhaps we must reconsider the definition of science and the principles of scientific thinking.
Reminder: Spirit of Science is to keep an open mind to all evidence, always.
Apart form that, there are several lawsuits with a negative outcome on teching creationism:
http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism
Poor kid!
at least the priest loves him…….regularly
Just wondering, which country is this stupid parent from?
my country is a state of mind
country is a state of mind
c*nt is a state of mind
t is a state of mind
state of mind
ate of mi
a divine
a o mi
aom
OHM
OHM
OHM (click)
*shivers*
Ooh, Granny, I felt that all down my spine.
*flutters eyelashes*
I think I might love you.
is there a dog?
Do you lie awake at night wondering?
*thinks about that statement*
*needs bukkit*
LOL! cute little tail!
Now that’s just backwards thinking.
if you speed it up and play it forwards it tells you to spread evil wherever you can
As a pastafarian I’ll do the same when my kids will learn about the theory of gravitation. Every pastafarian knows that it’s the theory of intelligent falling that is the real reason why things end up on the ground if thrown into the air.
unless the pasta is cooked
Well, as a pastafarian you should already know that pasta is al dente when it doesn’t fall at all when flung against the fridge.
It has reached it’s true state and should be revered.
Yeah, but does it tell you how.
I wish there was such a thing as an
revolver for these casesRating the bible:
“Material contains graphic violence, gore, sex, incest and foul language”
Rated: A
Age restriction: 0+
Rating a modern film or game:
“Material contains comedic violence, funny language”
Rating: R
Age restriction: inf+
Due to sexual comment many Jewish boys prior to the New Testament were NOT allowed to read the Song of Solomon until the reached a certain age. But good point. If they really made a movie of the whole bible (ok, it would be a really, really, really rediculously LONG movie) it would probably be rated R on a good day.
Those who deny science should return their computers to the manufacturer immediately.
I don’t believe in manufacturers. God created computers. Stop indoctrinating me.
God sends plagues through his computers to the non believers.
That should be considered child abuse and their children should be removed from their custody.
Too harsh, but it is unfortunate. It’s easy to forget that the children suffer for dogma like this. Then again, perhaps this student will grow up to be the greatest geologist, just to show ‘em.
I’m sure you’d do a much better job of raising children than their biological parents. You believe you should have the authority, or the state should, to remove children out of loving homes because they disagree with a particular set of beliefs.
Glad we live in a democracy where would be tyrants like you are laughed at. Unreal ignorance on your part, mate.
Just because a person has the biological ability to reproduce doesn’t mean that person can parent. S*e*x is easy and quite a few organisms do it. Critical thinking is much harder.
How’s this for critical thinking? If you or anyone else tried to take my children away because I hold different opinions than Brian here about God (and no, I’m not a young-earth-creationist), well, you better bring the iron.
Agreed that children are the natural consequence of sex, and if you aren’t prepared to responsibly raise children then you shouldn’t be having sex. Totally agreed.
No worries, friend. I do not actually advocate removing children from their biological parents due to ideological differences. That is a step on the slippery slope to banning certain beliefs althogether. Whether it be a religious belief or secular one, people should have the right to hold it. I am sorry for the implications of my comment. I suppose I was more thinking of physical neglect and abuse, forgetting that the discussion was belief based!
I do, however, believe that public schools should be able to teach science without interference from parents; just as those parents should expect that the schools will not interfere with the religious instruction of their children.
Religion would not be so popular if it was more of a private thing than a public thing (i.e. something you practice at home, not in a place where many people gather to practice it together).
When people belonging to the same religion get together, this has an effect that is normal in human psychology: they reinforce each others beliefs.
Maybe some of you have seen the same effect happening during camps in your childhood, when one or two kids start talking about ghosts, and as the night goes on and all kids start talking about ghosts then in just a few hours even the most skeptical kids are scared.
This happens because when religious subjects are together, they are in an environment where their beliefs are not questioned, and any logical inconsistencies are ignored.
In such an environment, they are not forced to see the mistakes in their reasoning. In fact, their mistakes may get approval from other subjects.
You can see this psychological effect happens because some religious subjects will avoid environments where their beliefs may be questioned, instead of trying to defend their beliefs through debate.
The most common indicators that a subject attempts to avoid a questioning environment are:
- Refusal to enter discussion regarding their beliefs.
- Refusal to understand it is a logical mistake to assume something is true when there is no proof to it (i.e. the infamous “Prove God does not exist !” argument)
- In the most severe cases, refusal to attend events where he/she may encounter people who will question his/her beliefs. An example would be avoidance of people who don’t share the same beliefs, or only attending events about the subject’s own beliefs.
It appears the parent who wrote this note is displaying this last avoidance behavior: refusing to send their child to a place where their beliefs may be questioned (Geology focuses on much more than the age of the Earth. Geologists focus on types of minerals, modifications of the environment (i.e. how humans modify the environment or how river flows drain earth and rock on their way)).
I personally think that when I think I am right about something I should not fear debate over my opinions, because I can prove I am right (if I can’t prove it, then why do I even think I am right in the first place?). If I fear questioning, then it means I doubt and I must learn more before holding an opinion.
(Note: I use the term “Religious subject” because I am talking about people who are much more than only their religious beliefs (as such, the term “Religious person” would be diminishing). “Religious subject” is used here to speak theoretically only of the religious aspect of one’s personality. I am not implying people who hold beliefs of a religious type are scientific subjects comparable to rats in a laboratory).
I’m very confident in my beliefs, engage in debates about God on several blogs I follow and in my personal life in a hostile environment here in the Middle East. I am a Christian, have never heard of the so-called infamous prove-god-doesn’t-exist argument (although I haven’t heard any positive evidence for the atheist position, which is what is required for one to hold a viewpoint on anything…) I only need the positive logical proofs that are adequate to convince me that God does in fact exist. While you are correct in the general psychological insulation that most people like to live with, it works both ways in that materialists do not debate modal ontological arguments, rather shy away from the logical consequences of their worldviews when confronted with them. For instance, if God does not exist, and all things that exist are matter and nothing more, then my belief in God is not a choice that I make at all. Neither is anything I do, I am a slave to my DNA. Don’t pay my taxes? DNA. There is no free will in a materialist universe, even Dawkins acknowledges this.
I’m getting sidetracked. You are correct in that no one should fear opposing viewpoints to one’s own. This woman is doing the wrong thing by attempting to keep her child away from a harmless fieldtrip. I’d agree with her if they were taking the kid to the French Maid.
Some Christians are guilty of keeping their children uneducated about the logical arguments for God’s existence. Even the early Church fathers (Augustine) believed the world to be very ancient. For those of you here all frothy at the mouth regarding astronomy, geology, biology etc, these are all based on the assumptions that knowledge and truth exist, which are based on the assumption that reason exists. It’s faith all the way down. Reasonable faith.
I can reply to you about the evidence you seek from atheists:
This is precisely the infamous “prove-god-doesn’t-exist” argument.
Sometimes, we don’t have proof of something yet we must make a choice anyway. In this case, we turn to logical assumptions so as to choose the option that is most likely.
Imagine I had to guess where you live, and I could not say “I don’t know” as an answer.
A good way to guess where you live would probably be to consider the fact that you said you live in a Muslim country in the Middle East yet debate on religion frequently with Muslims.
First of all, I would discard countries where the culture is not predominantly Muslim. For example, I doubt you live in Israel.
Second, I would discard Islamic countries known for strictly applying religious law. I assume you could get in serious trouble in those countries for questioning Islam.
I would probably remove countries such as Saudi Arabia from the list of options. I may be wrong (perhaps you do live in Saudi Arabia) but from the little I know it’s safer for me to bet an another country than Saudi Arabia.
I would stick to open-minded Islamic countries, such as Tunisia.
I could also look at Islamic countries that have a minor yet quite important Christian community, such as Egypt.
10% of Egypt’s population is Coptic, which is a Christian group. There are also probably some non-Coptic Christians there, which increases the rate of Christians above 10% of the Egyptian population.
Egypt would be a good guess: it’s in the Middle-East. The population is mostly Muslim, yet there is a quite large number of Christians. The government is not too strict regarding Islam, so you can question the religion there without being killed or jailed. Finally, I know Coptics in Egypt suffer a lot of discrimination from Muslim Egyptians, which would fit your claim that you live in a hostile environment.
I don’t know much about other countries in the Middle-East, so if I was force to guess where you live I would say Egypt. This could be wrong, but from where I stand it’s the safest guess for me to make.
That’s the power of assumptions.
So why don’t atheists prove god does not exist?
First of all, something should not be assumed true without a good reason. Therefore, it is expected that someone prove their theory is correct or at least give evidence it is before assuming it is.
Atheists won’t waste their time disproving a theory for which no proof is supplied.
Otherwise, they would have to disprove fairies, dragons, magic, the pasta god and whatever else.
It also makes no sense to assume something is true with no evidence. Therefore, it’s up to Christians to explain why they believe in their god. If they don’t give a good enough explanation, then their beliefs are considered illogical.
Second, it’s difficult to prove something does not exist, especially when there is no exact definition to the phenomenon you are attempting to disprove.
You can prove there is no snow because snow has a very specific definition, but god hasn’t. The only thing atheists could do, is use the errors of the Bible to argue god does not exist.
For example, atheists could argue that the ancient testament says god created humans less than a week after he created the world. They could argue this would mean either humans lived along with dinosaurs, or dinosaurs lived only a few days on Earth.
But Christians have two responses to this: the first one is that the ancient testament is a legend or a myth. The second response is to say this “week” is symbolic as time does not flow the same for god. What is a week for him is millenniums to us.
Such responses just show that the theory of the existence of god is not accurate enough to be proven false.
Scientists make very specific theories that can be proven false. This is a requirement in scientific reasoning. Religion is a blurry theory, and the blur makes it impossible to disprove.
To put it simply, the theories held by all religions are not solid enough to be taken seriously from a scientific perspective. These theories need to be written very accurately, not in an obscure and blurry way.
And evidence that supports the theories must be supplied.
When this will be the case, scientists will consider religious theories and they will discuss them.
But at the moment, it just looks like a story of fiction someone made up and scientists can’t waste time and resources disproving it. Otherwise they might as well try to disprove Harry Potter and all of Setphen King’s novels.
It sounds like you are trying very hard to convince yourself of something with facts, what should be taken on faith.
Several people arguing for the creationist side have brought up the “science is faith in reason” argument, so I’d like to add my 2 cents to that. Yes, you are absolutely right, science IS faith in reason and logic. But our whole society, our language, our interactions with each other, our ability to process information and survive are all based on our ability to reason. It is impossible to have an argument without reason. You, in your argument, are using reason to disparage scientists for their faith in reason. If you want to say that reason is false, then I guess you’re free to say so, but then you better stop using it. And, BTW, technology, societal structure, laws, democracy, etc, etc, are all based on reason and logic. If you want to argue against that, you’re arguing for anarchy and chaos. Otherwise, let’s agree that a life based on reason and logic is preferable to one that isn’t, and drop that ridiculous ruse of an argument.
Sorry for your misunderstanding. Obviously I am not arguing against reason. A careful reading of my statements would reveal as much. I am pointing out that science is based on certain assumptions, the exact same assumptions that all knowledge is based upon, and cannot be known with certainty.
In response to Internet, no I don’t live in Egypt. Never been there. I live in Abu Dhabi, UAE. Special pleading doesn’t get you out of providing good reasons to hold your worldview. I’ll wait here. There are good reasons to be a theist – modal ontological proofs, kalam cosmological, fine tuning, teleological, moral, historicity of the resurrection etc. These are all sufficient positive arguments.
Of course, if your science apriori discounts the existence of the transcendental, then of course God will not exist because you discount the mere possibility. However if you allow for the posibility it becomes necessary for God to exist. See Alvin Plantinga.
“For instance, if God does not exist, and all things that exist are matter and nothing more, then my belief in God is not a choice that I make at all. Neither is anything I do, I am a slave to my DNA. Don’t pay my taxes? DNA. There is no free will in a materialist universe”
Sorry, but no. That is a false dichotomy. It is not “Either there is a god and I have free will or there is no god and I am a slave to my DNA.” Rather, there are many more choices including “There is not God and because I am an intelligent, thinking being, I have free will and can do whatever I wish even resist the biological drives that are the result of my DNA.” DNA is not a program from which one can not vary. If that were so, identical twins would live identical lives and they don’t. That is proof that your supposition is incorrect. One may have a tendency to do something because of one’s DNA, but one has the ability to choose what to do. That is free will. One’s DNA does not make one not pay taxes, just like one’s DNA does not force one to not have children even though one is fertile.
“even Dawkins acknowledges this.”
Please cite where Dawkins says this or acknowledges this.
Best post on this topic by far. Thank you sir for taking the time to write out an intelligent response to this mess.
Why can’t people in this world think openly and fairly? Why do people have to get so uppity about things? What you believe is what you believe and that’s fine but prancing around with an “I’m right, you’re wrong, end of discussion” arguement is rediculous and not only that, but hurtful to people that may not share the same view as you.
Believing in God is fine. Nothing wrong with that. Interpreting the Bible as absolute fact when it isn’t is wrong and even worse, when you read between the lines and interpret things that aren’t there. Taking your beliefs based on that and thrusting them upon your kids without their ability to adequately defend themselves is wrong.
As was said before, if you are so sure of your belief and so sure you are right, why get so mad when other people disagree with you?
Believe what you want, talk to you your children about your beliefs in the hope they will share them with you, but do not, under any circumstances, prevent your children from encountering other views on the subject, particularly when there are other views available with a larger following than your own.
I believe science and religion can mix together just fine. It’s the extremists on both ends that cause the most problems and make the most noise just for noise’s sake. It’s really irritating.
Amen!
As a Christian, AND a geologist, I am a Theistic Evolutionist.
God used evolution to create everything.
There, I solved this whole problem.
You’re welcome.
So… why are they supposed to pay for misleading their children?
We’re all doomed!!!!
Theory of Evolution: Based on scientific studies, experiments and observations.
Creationism: Based on what some old guys wrote in a book over 2000 years ago. And what I make of it: not even litterally in it. There’s even a lot of priests who will tell you the bible is mostly symbolic in it’s meaning, and those guys have a DIRECT LINK with god! :p
The important matter is: science seeks solutions for a problem unsolved, by testing and experimenting and falsification. Extreme religion tells you how it is and then just ignores everything that would contradict their fact.
These parents are doing the right thing! At least they and their child will go to Heaven for having blind faith in The Lord! Jesus will ring at their door like if He is the man delivering the pizza except it will be Jesus. He will take them by the hand and lead them to Heaven!
Science is an abomination and is unholy because it is made of lies and it encourages people to use common sense instead of having faith! Common sense was given to us by he-who-dwells-below and should never be used!
I can not understand why people do not see scientific theories are complete nonsense! My neighbor is a scientist and he has all sorts of weird equipment on a table with glass jars and vials and pipes and he makes his own experiments in his apartment. There is a terrible smell coming from it whenever he opens the door, it is no doubt the smell of the fumes from hell! I avoid leaving my apartment when he just opened his door because once his door was wide open and I was standing there telling him about The Lord and after a while the smells made me dizzy and I thought I was being sucked into hell!
And he invites over some of his scientist friends every night and you can see they have red eyes and have trouble walking and they make no sense as if they are drunk, except I know they’re not drunk because they come empty handed and my neighbor never buys alcohol.
This is what scientists are like! They are not smart people, they are weird and make no sense when they talk, it’s like he-who-dwells-below took their soul! Once my neighbor could not even figure out how to open his door he was trying to open it with a lighter instead of his keys and you tell me scientists are smart and you believe their “theories”?? I pray The Lord has Mercy on your soul!
We should not trust people who use common sense! Common sense was given to us by he-who-dwells-below!! God Our Lord made us 100% everything we have we owe it to Him so we should have faith in Him! What is wrong wit the world today?
…well said Bishop! Pass the alterboy please.
If God created humans, who created trolls?
Conan O’Brien ? or was it that short fat smiling guy, whats his name… Bubba.
Does this scientist ever have plants and herbs from the garden of hell? Cause I know some people who know some people who’d like to…um…go prey with that scientist.
dude. Get some intensive psychiatric treatment.
I’m pretty sure he was posting tongue-in-cheek…
I’ve read a book about such a theory that technology and science were an abomination …
I think the title was How to make myself look like an idiot for dummies …
I go with the meaning of Eddie Izzard in his latest show Stripped…
You sir, just made a WIN
oh and to answer the question of what is wrong with the world look upon yourself…
arrogance and narrow mindedness are the curse of the world and your not really helping with this
So common sense was given to us by the devil, yet god made us 100%???
OK, I think I’ll go get drunk now to get rid of the headache your logic is giving me.
Your sarcasm is beautiful and has helped make my day complete. I thank you and hope you continue to spread the wonderful sarcasm he who dwells belows has given you.
Some didn’t seem to get it…
The world is full of religious fanatics because Moses and Muhammad were spoken to by a God/Allah. What if a person claimed this today after coming out of a cave or walking down a mountain, what would we think of that person? Cookoo!
Stop brainwashing children and let them decide who to believe once they get older. I feel sorry for that child who sees all his friends go on the trip. What must be going through his head? Very sad.
Why do the deities always choose poor, illiterate folks (or criminals) to be their prophets anyway? If they really wanted to get their message across, why not deliver it to someone who already has some credibility?
i believe the budda was from a rich family. i coul be wrong
Yes, but he achieved enlightenment by sitting down and thinking for himself, rather than being picked to be a prophet by some deity.
Oh man…that poor kid.
I think the fail is that the wording of the letter makes it sound like the students themselves are organising the trip.
Surely the teachers should be organising it?
I’d hope that the letter was organized by a teacher or supervised if it is a student club. I’ve written parent letters that were very simplistic to maximize understanding (especially where language is a concern).
The kid: mom! now I have to write a report
The mom that wrote it: Sorry jimmy mommy was PMSing
I feel so sorry for that kid. The parents are clearly total morons who have no business raising children. People are entitled to their own beliefs, but not their own facts and they are not immune from criticism simply because they’re too stupid to know how stupid they are.
Evolution is a fact. The earth is not 6,000 years old. It is not “bigotry” to say this. It is simple, provable fact.
It’s also a simple, provable fact that these people should not be raising kids.
Actually, it’s called a THEORY for a reason since it’s basically unprovable.
Much like “global warming” that 99% of you pukes believe in just like several BILLION people believe in God. So why are they idiots and you’re not when both are bull$hit?
So who’s stupid?
Read the posts above.
Every study about something is called a theory.
Gravity, Evolution, physics,…
Doesn’t make it true or untrue.
No you moron, many things start out as theory and are later proven or dis-proven. When someone says the earth is 5,687,978,365 years old, there is NO WAY to ever “prove” that so it will always remain a theory.You can no more prove that there is no God than a hard core religious person can prove there is so sorry, even though you obviously think you’re soooo much smarter, you really aren’t.
so you’re saying Music Theory is not a fact? That it does not exist? That the “theory” in music is not proven? Evolution is FACT. There is proof in species like fruit flies (rapid generation species) that show genetic modifications over a period of time. The fact of Evolution exists. The theory behind evolution tries to explain the link between species since it takes far too long to quantify the change from one species to another. I’m sure you don’t understand that but I figured you deserved a chance at enlightenment.
Again, Evolution is both fact and theory. It is proven that it exists, the theory is just explaining the details. Just as Music Theory exists (there are I chords, IV chords, and V chords etc…). It is a proven fact and the theory is the study and exploration of the finer details.
>>>>>You can no more prove that there is no God than a hard core religious person can prove there is so.
You cannot prove there isn’t an invisible, unobservable, silent, and non-corporeal ghost of a pink unicorn hiding in my garage, either. But it would be rather silly to believe there is one, wouldn’t it?
Yeah, just like the ‘theory’ of gravity is basically unprovable, right?
You misunderstand what ‘theory’ means, in a scientific context.
For an explanation of the meaning, see below.
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
You don’t believe in global warming??? Dude, that is VERY observable.
Perhaps you should learn about the meaning of the word “theory” in a scientific context.
Here is the definition: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
You, however, are using the colloquial form of the word, which has a meaning closer to hypothesis. However, the colloquial form has looser meaning than hypothesis in that for a statement to be an hypothesis, said statement must be, among other things, falsifiable.
There is a huge body of evidence for the Theory of Evolution. The Theory predicted that transitional fossils would be found and they have been.
Several billion people believe in a god or gods, but that does not make them right. That is a fallacy known as “Appeal to Popularity”. Regardless of how many people believe something that is false, said thing is still false. As an example: at one time, everyone believed the Earth was flat, but, the Earth was not and is not, nor has it ever been flat.
There is no evidence for any god or for creationism. There a huge amount of evidence for evolution.
So, who is stupid, those that believe is something for which there is no evidence or those that believe in something for which there is evidence?
Who would you rather have acting as a jury if you were an innocent defendant? Those that believe what ever they are told by authority or those that examine and believe what evidence tells them?
Here you idiots are, ragging on people who believe in God when you believe this is real and not just some retard’s idea of “humor” (or is it humour since it’s centre) Try going to some 3rd world arab hellhole and telling them how stupid their beliefs are, see how long you last. Oh that’s right, liberals don’t have the balls to say anything bad about people who’s religion says to kill them. I wonder why that is?
Cause we’re not stupid. That doesn’t make their beliefs less wrong.
No one says you can’t believe in God. It’s possible to believe in a certain entity and still believe in evolution. God could have started the whole thing and then let nature do the rest (I personally don’t believe this).
The difference with third world countries and us is that many of the people living there don’t have access to all the facts we have. In some parts of the west, some people remain stupid willingly. And that’s just enraging to me.
Point of note: Evolution is something that happens.
“Belief” in evolution is moot.
So your point is that Arabs are murderous savages and we’re supposed to respect them for that?
Maybe it’s because they’ll be killed?
Threatening people with death doesn’t make you right. It just makes you a violent, bigoted psychopathic retard.
Like you, except you don’t have the balls to kill anyone, you just wish you did.
I’m not gonna lie, that is one of the stupidest comments on this page. It’s also from a conservative. COINCIDENCE?
Maybe you should learn a little more about Islam before you spout your mouth off about it. It most certainly does not tell anyone to kill people of opposing beliefs. Also, starting every post by calling people morons and idiots doesn’t exactly make you look like an intellectual.
Exactly. Also I’d like to add a great deal of modern science stems from Islam which built upon the ancient greeks. The numbers we use in Western society are Arabic, the concept of zero, a good deal of medicine, algebra, in fact an Islamic scholar came up with the heliocentric model of the solar system long before Copernicus did. Another Islamic scholar in the 14th Century was able to exactly measure the length of a solar year to within 2 minutes. Noone was able to come up with a more accurate result until the 20th Century, some 600 years later!
At least Islam embraces science rather than futilely attempting to attack it.
>>>>>Try going to some 3rd world arab hellhole and telling them how stupid their beliefs are, see how long you last.
Passionate belief in God and dismissal of science is one of the main reasons the Arab world IS backward in the first place.
The Rwandan genocide was not just Hutu vs Tutsi. The Hutu are Catholic and the Tutsi are Protestant. The Hutu bishop in Rwanda didn’t just condone the genocide, he assisted it. I think this proves that christians are quite willing to kill those who do not believe as they do.
Why is that you believe force or threat of death makes something true? It appears you don’t believe in Freedom of Speech when said speech is against your religion.
It also sounds like you would love to kill those who speak out against your religion. What ever happened to turning the other cheek, the meek inheriting the Earth, and being humble?
Don’t simplify the Rwandan genociede as simply religious. The roots of the genocide can be traced back to the end of colonial era and how the Belgians left the country at its independence. It had much more to do with political and cultural status among the two groups than religion. Religion was not much more than coincidental in that situation.
I think this is a big win. Why should the government force evolution down our throats. Separation of church and state anyone? Evolution has not been proven therefore if they wish to teach it to our children, they need to present both sides of the story.
Are there ANY facts or studies proving creationism at all?
AT ALL? :p
Things exist. . .
I mean, there are fossils of birdlike dinosaurs, with feathers and little wings. Clearly a step between reptile and bird.
There are currently certain species of fish who can breathe out of the water as long as they remain wet.
These are clearly missing links.
Virusses constantly evolve to cope with our antibiotics, creating new kinds of diseases.
Plants constantly evolve to match their predators, creating a sort of biological race of arms…
How do you call that?
Creationists call it doing drugs, I believe.
Since when do liberals care about “facts”? I’m gonna bet you BELIEVE that the world is getting warmer when it’s 28 degrees in Florida because someone claimed it was a “fact” but you choose to BELIEVE that it’s true, what’s the difference? People who go out of their way to say there is no God are just as bad as people who insist there is, why do care what other people believe? Unless they’re Muslims and what they BELIEVE says to kill you, who the fvck cares.
I love how some of you rednecks use the word “liberal” as an insult. Come live in western europe for a while and let your eyes be opened.
It is perfectly possible to study the possible warming of the globe (in a long term period. the last ten years were among the hottest of the last 150 years. Glaciers are visibily melting further away, the ice on the poles is getting measurably thinner…) That doesn’t make it a proven fact but an important possibility we should take notice of. Global warming is on the agenda because the majority of scientists who studied the matter now agree that something is going on.
It IS however impossible to prove the existence (or the non existence) of god (unless he shows up). Therefor it should be excluded from all scientific theories and experiments. Is that so hard to understand?
P.S. I have now been called a liberal and a Nazi in one posting….woo!
Not to labour a point, but you always seemed so conservative in your comments.
Yup, I may have to Whig out!
You’d be a monster raving looney to do otherwise.
Makes me turn a little Green at the thought!
Maybe you’re coming down with an SDP.
We should head to the local BNP garage to buy her some flowers, and maybe a bag of coal, if she is.
I may just have a little UKIP. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Actually, to be precise, if something can’t be proven it should be ASSUMED it is false, but it should not be CLAIMED it is false.
But in practice it’s pretty much the same thing.
Didn’t say it was false i said it should be excluded from scientific experiments.
Wow, thanks for PROVING my THEORY that you’re a complete IDIOT!
The last 10 years have NOT been warmer and you believe it so therefore you’re just as fvcking stupid as all the religious people just like I said. Have you heard that all the “facts” the global warming scam artists used were conveniently deleted? Of course not, even though it’s a FACT, you CHOOSE to not believe it.The same people who you’re dumb enough to believe now said in the 70′s that we were about to go into another ice age and if you were around then and believe them now, you’re really really really stupid.
DOG Don’t you have a job or something?
They have generally been warmer. It can easily be tracked, since they measure the average temperature each year.
And i didn’t say global warming is a fact. The fact is that the glaciers are melting, some island countries are slowly getting flooded by the ocean and the polar icecaps are getting smaller. Either that’s manmade or not, but it’s a fact.
The good things about science is that wrong theories will eventually be falsified. The bad thing about religious zealots is that they won’t let you falsify their evidence.
It has always been religion who punished and sentenced people for findings later be proven right (the shape of the earth, the center of the solar system, the anatomy of the human body…
You’re pretty good in whining about the few sentences in my posts you can reply, but carefully stepping around the other ones. Like the one that said a lot of priests tell you to look at the bible in a symbolic way. It’s just a book telling you how to live a good life. Moral codes. Not a scientific explenation of the known world.
“Either that’s manmade or not, but it’s a fact.”
Despite the fact that we probably have differing views on climate change, this is one of the bests posts I’ve read in these comments. I’ll happily debate anyone that cares about the facts and their veracity. So many people obsessed with global warming forget what they are arguing about (on both sides).
It IS however impossible to prove the existence (or the non existence) of god (unless he shows up). Therefor it should be excluded from all scientific theories and experiments. Is that so hard to understand?
It’s also impossible to prove the age of the earth so therefore, by you’re mindless logic, it should be excluded too, wow, you know it alls are sooo smart.
it is VERY possible to prove the age of the earth through radiometric dating.
“Therefore, by you’re mindless logic…”
YOUR. please, if you’re going to starting calling people idiots, morons, etc… you should at least have a basic command of the English language.
You’re an idiot. Your stupidity upsets me.
Do you see the difference?
We actually have evidence to support the claims that the earth is older than 6000 years, evolution, and even global warming no matter how much you try to deny it. I fail to see any evidence that God exists.
Who peed in your porridge this morning, dude? Calm the f*ck down! And admit their MIGHT be a chance that these theories are true… can’t believe how batsh!t crazy you go on subjects like global warming… get a grip and watch the Arctic melt, man!
DOG, Look at the comments, you are the odd man out here, and in the general population too.
# Christianity: 2.1 billion
# Islam: 1.5 billion
# Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
wow, you’re wrong again, HOW unusual
DOG, I am a christian too. everyone who claims to be of one religion or another is not a retarded extremist. like you
Extremist? why? I’ve never been to church in my life and don’t plan on it. Learn to read, the point is why do you CARE what people believe unless it going to hurt you? When the government wants to tax God, then I’ll have a problem with it.
You just said that the “general population” believes what the liberal pukes here do and obviously you’re wrong.
PS: why do you call yourself a “Christian” if you don’t believe it? That’s pretty retarded if you ask me, so why are you any better than the fake person that wrote this fake note?
Extremist, in that your identity is wrapped up in your belief structure to the point that you can’t even examine it anymore. You do have a point in that this condition is distressingly common; this is more of a mainstream extremity.
A debate over creationism vs. evolution does no good to anybody, because when placed on that footing you’re only comparing one somebody’s say-so against another. The more important comparison is between the processes that yielded these products. One sees it as a strength to examine and revise one’s own beliefs; the other sees it as a weakness and a failing.
The movement to get creationism reintroduced into the public schools in the States has adopted a tactic of “teaching the controversy”. This sounds wonderful, because when we teach our kids about things that adults don’t know for sure, it’s very important to teach them that we don’t know for sure, not least because some among the children are likely to be the ones who figure it out for us. But until there is a case put forward that creationist principles fit the data and make better predictions than those held by mainstream science, there is no controversy. Teaching the controversy when there is none is terribly disingenuous. It is unfair, and it hurts us all in that it represents a slide backwards in humanity’s quest to better itself.
I digress, but to your point, doG, this is one reason why some people who do not share your fervor might care about what people believe even though it does not hurt them directly. I care about the good of the human race. I certainly don’t have the answers it needs. But when I see a scientific, or mathematical, or pedagogical victory, I am gladdened that it is seeking them. When things like this failblog entry remind me that a majority is too attached to their beliefs to continue the quest, I am deeply apprehensive.
Wow, awesome post Glarynth. Very well spoken and you get many well thought out points across.
Thank you for this bit of greatness!
Glarynth, I admire your calm and respectful tone in the face of utter idiocy.
Well, the church BELIEVED that the inquisition was all right, and they also told conquistadors to ‘go forth and conquer in the name of the Lord your god’, and in doing so they killed millions, wiped out cultures and civilizations. Look, I’m in no way saying that RADICAL ISLAM is okay, but RADICAL CHRISTIANITY (Westborough Bastard Cult…erm westborough baptist church) isn’t okay either. If your church said that the bible said that god wants you to blow up the jewish community center down the block, would you? If you had no experience outside that church, had been indoctrinated into that belief all your life, you would likely do it because the man interpreting the bible for you said to. That’s what RADICAL Islam is. That’s how the EXTREMISTS become terrorists. Islam is no worse than Judeism or Christianity.
You’re right! We need to present both sides. That’s why we should teach alchemy alongside chemistry!
Ehm, pst, chemistry evolved from alchemy. They’re basically the same thing, save for the focus on philosophy.
And alchemists wear more colorful lab coats than chemists.
Now I want to declare a casual Friday for all chemists. Pointy hats allowed!
Save for the fact that one is outdated and the other isn’t.
Would you prefer phrenology vs. neurology? Or astrology vs. astronomy? At some point all the nebulous spiritual doctrines must relinquish the field to things more concrete.
> Evolution has not been proven
Yes it has. Time and time again. From breeding fruit flies to dogs to cats to having offspring yourself, evolution (=small changes from one generation to the next) is happening all the time. Your children will not be identical to you. You are most likely taller than your ancestors. That, Nick, is evolution in action.
Over time, these small changes accumulate, making for more impressive, bigger changes. Here’s a multi-decade example:
http://current.com/items/88968153_theory-of-evolution-proven-again.htm
But as a religious nutter, you’ll probably choose to ignore this evidence (as is usual). It took the church until the late 20th century to admit they were wrong about the Sun orbiting the Earth (and putting away Galileo for it!)
One more thing- you’ll want to make absolutely sure that your current religion isn’t completely misguiding you. The stakes are pretty high (eternal doom), so you better prove that your religion is the One True Religion. After all, the ancient Egyptions, ancient Greeks, ancient Romans, Mayas and Incas were all wrong, even though they were absolutely sure their faith was the One True Faith as well!
Sep of church and state…we went over that in my fifth grade bible group way back when. I believe we were told something to the effect of ‘With separation of church and state can you read your bible in school?’ or some off question of that sort. ‘yes, you can. and that’s because sep of c and s is that church can’t affect gov, gov can’t affect church, and church can’t be taxed.’ based on that, then, the separation of church and state argument has nothing to do with a school taking kids to a museum. This is coming from someone who once was, and still is, christian. And comically a KANSAN!
hahaha moron
>>>>I think this is a big win. Why should the government force evolution down our throats.
For the same reason it forces the “spherical earth”, “earth revolves around the sun”, and “Pi is irrational” theories down our throat, despite the fact that the bible CLEARLY SAYS the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around it, and that Pi=3.
Evolution is not a religion and has been proven. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before you comment.
Yes, I think parents should be allowed to teach their kids whatever they want!
They should be allowed to forbid them to go to geography class when the teacher talks about the round earth, and instead tell them the earth is flat.
They should be allowed to forbid them to go to biology class when they talk about sex education, and instead teach their kids the stork brings babies.
And when the teacher starts talking about that evolution nonsense, with all the thousands of fossils, DNA evidence, anatomy, vestigial features, radiometric dating, and all that other silly “proof” stuff to back it up, they should be allowed to tell their kid the world was created by Zeus, or Odin, or whatever God they happen to prefer.
And that was sarcasm, for the slow. Dude, wake up, evolution has got more evidence to back it up than the fact that the earth is round. This is REALITY, and teaching your kids a myth in its place is not doing them a favour. In fact it’s child abuse.
I think rocks and minerals are classified as “abominations unto the Lord” in the bible, along with homosexuals and crustaceans.
I’m also rather surprised that the person who wrote the note was able to form such complex sentences.
Christian WIN
In France, we do believe a lot more in science than in religion bullshit, and a lot of christian are working on evolution. We don’t believe the first fool who says “The science is wrong, because God created everything !”. That’s our difference with USA (or some states). Well on the other side, the world say we’re gay, and weak…
Maybe better than being dumb
Seems to me, if we’d let Christianity continue to dictate matters of science to us, we would still think the sun revolves around the earth. After over 2000 years of pushing the same hocus pocus crap, it’s kinda hard for them to backpedal on creationism, sine that would mean the bible is wrong.
ID argument:
First: Living things contain within their genomes large amounts of functional information.
Second: The only cause known to be capable of generating large amounts of functional information is intelligence.
And third: It is therefore reasonable to infer that the functional information in living things must have an intelligent source.
Here we have not a pronouncement but an argument based on evidence and logic. It is perfectly fair to argue against it, of course, but it is hardly fair to dismiss it as dogma.
This argument was presented in the Journal of Molecular Biology by Douglas Axe, PhD. CalTech.
http://biologicinstitute.org/people/
No you don’t.
What you have there is Grade A Bullshit from a creationist think tank.
He takes an established facet of molecular biology and then says that because we don’t know, or at least he doesn’t know, how it works so it must have been put in by our magic sky daddy.
You presented no counter-argument, instead you merely dismissed the logic. Fail.
He doesn’t say ‘because we don’t know’ at all. He says the that the only. observed. cause. is intelligence. Therefore, you appeal to an unobserved cause for your argument. You posit no observed cause of functional information. You, friend, are the unreasonable one.
Okay, I’ll play.
First: Living things contain within their genomes large amounts of non-functional information.
Second: Another cause known to be capable of generating large amounts of functional information is statistical probability/randomness.
And third: It is therefore reasonable to infer that the functional information in living things may occur without the need of an intelligent source.
You seemed pretty good at finding logical fallacies – I challenge you to find the ones you posted in quoting Doctor Axe. I bet you’ll call #2 a tautology.
I’d call number 1, 2 false, and so your conclusion is tossed.
Coin flipping heads or tails is non-fuctional info. Gear ratios in a transmission are functionial, as are DNA code.
Well i guess the discussion is closed.
Statistic Probability = false
Angry beardy lightning guy = correct.
21st century people, 21st century.
Why would you try to figure out complicated systems and patterns if it’s clearly god.
Science tries to find new and intelligent ways of looking at problems.
Beats:
-Oh no, fiery bolts from the sky => GOD.
-Some gigantic creatures were clearly here in earlier days but not anymore => GOD pulling a joke on us.
Thank god I live in europe.
What’s next, respecting the teachings of scientology? (Am I gonna get sued? :s)
You are a self parody and show zero interest in learning about things you do not understand. Good luck with life.
Start giving real answers and maybe I’ll learn.
A lot of people here talked about the major part of our dnacode having no function whatsoever. What about that?
You seem to happily ignore it.
Ignore this last post.
Call them false and toss my conclusion false if you like… that’s what I was doing to you, anyway. Your one and two are exactly as silly.
90% of human DNA is not used. You’re welcome to call that 90% still functional if you like, but it’s not a definition of functional the rest of the world has agreed to.
And I don’t know why you reject statistical probability – it is impossible to define a set of criteria that is possible to exist yet impossible to arrange by random chance – the more complex, the less probably, but not impossible. The unlikeliness itself is not a disproof.
Also, you didn’t take my challenge.
They are false. Large amounts of functional information do not happen by chance, as chance is not a cause. Also, they are not my arguments, they are Doug Axe’s, take it up with Cal Tech.
Reference re: 90% of human DNA is unused. In 1972 Susumu Ohno coined the term. Today the concept is regarded as abjectly false. Here are a few quick resources I found in 0.45 seconds, according to Google.
http://www.junkdna.com/
Dr. Alexandre Akoulitchev, Oxford University
Dr. András Pellionisz, New York University
So much for your second paragraph.
Where do I reject statistical probability?
This is by no means a definitive argument against evolution, but I offer it to put the “time, chance and random mutation” theory in perspective.
Everyone knows that micro-evolution occurs, such as dog breeding and bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. But macro-evolutionists believe that with enough time an amazingly complex single cell of unknown origin could make lots and lots of small changes, develop reproductive capacities and eventually become humans, elephants, caterpillar/butterflies, chameleons and so much more.
Let’s consider something very simple. Imagine that you shuffle a deck of cards. If you shuffled it one time per second, how often would all the cards go back into their original order? (Ace of spades, King of spades, etc.) The math is simply 1/52 (the odds of the Ace of spades being on top) times 1/51 times 1/50, etc. I left out the Jokers to make it easier.
Guess how many years it takes? I’m not kidding: 2,557,653,956,460,680,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
If everyone on the planet shuffles the cards instead of just one person, it only takes 393,485,224,070,873,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. That is still 87,441,160,904,638,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the age of the earth, and even more times the period that life has existed here. You are much more likely to win the Lottery seven times in a row. We even have a term to describe the practical probability of that happening: Zero.
I make it so easy — you didn’t even have to create the cards or the people to shuffle them. But when you’re done, all you have is a particular card sequence. You haven’t brought anything to life. You haven’t created new cards. You haven’t developed different sexes of cards that can make new cards that evolve to a computerized version of Monopoly. Most importantly, you just created a pattern, not information. DNA is full of information, not just patterns.
The odds of all that would be enormously higher. This is a very simple view of the requirements for structural changes:
* Many genes must change at once.
* A change to any one gene affects many functions.
* The probability of a genetic mutation being beneficial is very low. Harmful or insignificant mutations are far more likely.
* Significant changes require many simultaneous beneficial mutations.
When you extend the odds of each of these things it becomes quite fantastical that, as some evolutionists claim, a mammal would go from exclusively consuming fresh water to salt water and more.
Your entire argument was flawed from the beginning. The elading theory of evolution doesn’t claim we evolvd through chance. It claims we evolved through natural selection. It’s good to see that you did a little research but you really should try to understand it before regurgitating.
P.s. Take your micro evolution and begin to consider macro evolution.
Natural selection is a term given to chance. The world happened to be x temperature at x time. Why? Chance. The chemicals reacting at x location happened to land on x type of crystal. Why? Chance. X crystal produced the first self-replicating biological machines. Why? Chance.
Come off it.
You have no understanding whatsoever of natural selection and this couldn’t be clearer than when you state that it’s ‘a term given to chance’. I’ll spell it out for you real easy like:
Natural selection is the term used to express what happens when inheritable and usually profitable traits are passed from generation to generation thus making it more likely that each generation will survive and reproduce due to having an advantage over its peers. There is no ‘chance’ involved in this process. Your argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don’t interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
You should check out talk origins for replies to these ridiculous arguments your putting forward.
Response to Miles,
Again, for the umpteenth time, I do not deny evolution occurs. I understand the fundamental concept. My argument does not ignore the fundamental role of natural selection for micro-evolution occuring. That is your straw-man. Mathematically, the only possible positive benefits from evolution affect species with body masses less than several hundred grams and renewing generations every six months. There simply isn’t enough time from the beginning of the world until now for speciation to occur to the extent we see. I do check Talk Origins. You should check similar websites without the materialism bias.
I’d like to see the math your using to calculate just how much time it would take for our species to evolve and propagate. You’ve already established that you know nothing about the processes of evolution by claiming natural selection = chance. Now, not only are you trying to have an opinion on something that you know nothing of, but your also doing the math. Badly.
Also, explain what you mean by ‘materialism bias?
The first is incomplete. The reason it is incomplete is that while living things have “large amounts of functional information” in their genomes, they have a far greater amount of non-functional information. This is known as cherry-picking, taking only the data that supports one cause while ignoring that which does not.
The second is incorrect because “only known cause” is not the same as “only cause” and because random chance can create the semblance of order where there is none. This is actually a version of begging the question. You assume that the “only known cause” is actually the “only cause”.
The third, the conclusion, is not supported because of the first two. And, as worded the third does not follow.
Returning to the first premise, if all living things are designed, why is there so much useless, non-functional information in the genomes of living things? One does not find thousands of extra, non-functional gears in a watch, so why so much non-functional information in genomes? Why is the human eye designed upside down and backwards? Why are the designs so poor?
It pains me to see the Republican/religious/conservative/etc. using the liberal defense of “We let you believe what you want to believe how come you have to bash others for believing what they believe?”
You want to know why? Because the 6000-year-old earth theory is asinine. That’s why. And while we liberals/intellectuals/heathens may condone a lot of off the wall ideas/practices/beliefs, promoting “these” ideas is not good for anyone.
Name ONE person who believes that (and if you say Sarah Palin, you’ll prove you’re a complete tool since she never said it) I’ve never once met a person who believes the earth is 6000 years old but I’m sure they exist, who cares? Why is one theory asinine and another isn’t? That other idiot is spewing “facts” about global warming that are completely untrue and yet he is convinced they are, how is Al Gore making millions off of bull$hit any different than some church?
The FACT remains that nobody can PROVE how old the earth is and making fun of religious people because of the silly things they believe when you believe silly things too is…typical liberal. (and yes, calling someone a liberal is an insult)
I saw documentaries about lectures given in UNIVERSITY about the 6000 year old earth. The whole point of the guy was “You need to ask yourself: WERE YOU THERE?”
Well, was he there when the bible was written? :p
People like that really scare me and will be the end of the US as a leading world force if they ever take control.
You’ve tried with doG man, it’s time to let it go and stop feeding the troll.
I can’t.
It’s against everything i believe in!
doG is an idiot. There’s sadly no hope for people like him. I hope he doesn’t have children.
Well Said Thanks
LIVE FROM GREEN ACRES TRAILER PARK, ITS DOG MAN
He’s not coming back.
Yes, you can, actually.
Last time I checked there were dozens of radiometric dating methods, as well as others, which all independantly show the age of certain things such as rocks or fossils, and they all match to indicate an old earth.
You realize you’re challenging people to “name ONE person” who believes the Earth is six thousand years old, in a thread underneath a photo of a school note where a parent has written that “everybody knows the Earth is 6000 years old”, right?
*facepalm*
I don’t have to name one person. Go to the creationist’s museum in Kansas and read the guest book. Every single person listed there believes in Young Earth/Universe creationism.
Charles darwin….win!
This is an epic WIN!!!
people really need to read into this stuff more. I spent years researching this… the earth is not billions of years old, not even over 10k!
So, got any references i could look into?
Any books i might read on the matter?
Try “The Bible – Fred Phelps’ interpretation edition”
You fail.
Years researching? Yeah right. You’re not seriously telling me you read all the facts by actual scientists who believe in evolution, all their reasons for believing the earth is billions of years old, and found that they were all wrong and you alone were right?
So, I’m interested in hearing this stuff you discovered. Why are the radiometric dating systems wrong? Why has the light of stars billions of lightyears away already reached us?
which sources did you research for years???
Fairy tale books??
I have studied for years and all I see is evolution!!
So I am righter than you
No matter how many computers and space shuttles science builds, it will never be enough for the most fanatical religious people.
I suggest scientists just write a special “Fanatic’s edition” of their experiments, where it says “He who doesn’t believe in evolution shall be stoned” and that will finally be convincing proof to these people.
I love it! Thats awesome
“Uhm, evolution is not a “belief”, it’s a proven fact. Denying evolution is like saying “The world is flat!”.”
Not even close. No animal kind has ever been observed to evolve into another. You’re trying to equate observational, empirical science (the world is approximately spherical) to unobservable speculation (one animal evolved into another 100 million years ago). If you could observe and point to proof of evolution, you wouldn’t have more than 50% of the population that doesn’t believe it. There’s a very clear different between observational and historical science. Attempting to put them on equal par is a common tactic of the religion of evolutionism, bowing at the altar of bad science.
Im sorry but that is a load of crap. Evolution is a prove thing. It has been proven since Darwin published his findings. Since then the theory of evolution has been developed more and more. Proof that animals have changed is out there. Animals did’t change from one species to another, but the developed new characteristics that made them more likely to survive. If “god” made everything perfect, why would that need to happen? It wouldn’t thus evolution is much more than a foundationless theory
theory of evolution
theory of evolution
theory of evolution
theory of evolution
theory of evolution
theory of evolution
theory of evolution
what part of theory don’t you get?
The real question is why do all you super smart intellectuals CARE how old the earth is? When religious people do, you call them all sorts of names but here you are proclaiming something to be a “fact” when there’s no way you can, MUCH LIKE GOD.
It’s the part of theory that YOU don’t get. It’s science, so “theory” doesn’t mean “theory” in the everyday sense of the word. If you can’t understand this, you didn’t learn much in science classes.
oh, I get it, theory doesn’t mean theory, it means theory, thank you for explaining. What’s it like to be sooo smart?
I wish you would use scientifically defined terms rather than making up your own, doG. There is a difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
So you’re finally admitting there’s a difference between “fact” and “theory”? The point is, God is just as much of a theory as aliens coming here a million years ago and unless you can go back in time a million years, you can never prove it 100% no mater what and regardless of how super duper smart you claim to be, that will never change.
So far I haven’t seen anyone claiming to be super duper smart. All I see is someone who seems to have issues.
he said theory and hypothesis, not fact and theory.
A theory is what you base yourself on to study something practically.
To play music correct, you need to study the theory first.
To cut into a human body and heal it, you need to study the theory first.
To understand how a car works and how it will drive more smoothly you need to study the theory first…
Is any of this reaching you somehow?
Thats actually the best explanation of that I’ve ever read.
Nice.
Except I wouldn’t use medical science as a proof, since it often only involves (educated) guesswork.
Ofcourse, but still…
Concerning my health, I would rather have a surgeon who studied the human body for years take an educated guess, than some nutjob holding a holy book and a chicken.
Yep, wen’t back in time in spaceshipsubmarine, it was pretty sweet. I saw the big bang, it happened like 10 billion years ago, God totally helped it along, and then we played guitar hero together and ate oreos.
He was all like “Damn why didn’t I create these cookies!”, and I was all like “You totally do in the future, just create earth in a couple billion years.”
He was like, “Yeah sure, that’s cool, maybe I can knock up some chick there and totally stick her with a kid!” Then I told him to make sure he made great white sharks because they are awesome! He said sure but he is just going to get the dominos rolling on this one, adaptation will take care of the rest. I was like, sweet, and then we showed me his sweet tattoo on his chest, Bill Murray from Ghost Busters.
That is how everything came to be, you’re welcome!
Congratulations! You have just lied and proven that you can not argue rationally. The poster you responded to said nothing about “facts” He mentioned “Theory” and “Hypothesis”. Science, being the precise thing it is, uses specific definitions of words.
You, on the other hand, not only do not use the word “theory” in it’s scientific sense, you can not even keep the argument straight. This means either you are incompetent or a liar.
Holy cow DoG…you might be the most blatantly ignorant person I’ve ever had the pleasure meeting (figuratively speaking). They’ve already explained what a theory is in the scientific sense of the word vs how people generally use the term…
Evolution is indeed a theory. So is gravity. So are cells. Just because we know that something occurs and we know how it occurs does not mean that we can prove exactly how it works. Take the theory of general relativity for example- Einstein did not know why it existed, but he could describe it ad nauseum. Just because it is a theory does not mean that is is devoid of consequences- if we didn’t use the theory of general relativity, GPS units of all types would lose accuracy by miles per day. Yes, evolution is a theory, but that does not make it any less real in terms of its effects or its veracity.
Pretty straightforward explanation, right here:
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
“Theory”, when used in a scientific context (as it is in “Theory of Evolution”) does NOT mean what it might mean if used by an average person.
“The theory of HOW evolution works”
Buddy, you’re confusing theory and hypothesis. Hypothesis is based on observations and tested in experiments to solve a problem. That solution is a theory. A Theory is unproven, not a ‘fact’, but supported by available evidence gained through the experiments. Unlike religion, who have the solution and problem, but try to make up evidence supporting the solution (albiet this happens in science, but those men shouldn’t be taken for the whole, much like fanatics in religion), science has a problem, looks for evidence, and modifies the hypothesis to fit the evidence to draw the conclusion. And no, the fact that the hypothesis undergoes change does nothing to take away credibility of the scientists testing it, but having a ‘known’ as a conclusion (God) and not being willing to accept facts against the conclusion makes an irresponsible ‘scientist’ (See: bad scientist who change facts to support conclusion).
Need I go on? Make a song in the same vein as “I’m just a bill” by schoolhouse rock?
Some would reply that allowing animals to adapt is part of God’s perfection… but then they’re admitting that evolution exists. The only thing I could ever think that even remotely makes and sense as to why people still get pissy about it is that we’re too genetically close to chimps and they get offended by it… and they shouldn’t, because most chimps are smarter, more polite, and can provide for their families better than they can.
Thats called Macro evolution…the equivalent of Eskimo’s developing thick jaws to chew dried fish. Evolution theorizes that Animals did evolve from one species to another. I.e growing legs, blah blah blah.
I don’t think we’ve seen one example of an animal growing legs to adapt to its environment. No, no even the Axolotl
“In modern fish the “walking” ability differs from that of tetrapods. The theory of evolution suggests that life originated in the oceans and later moved onto land, and paleontologists have long been looking for a missing evolutionary link between ocean-living and land-living animals. Of recent finds, reported in Nature (April 2006) is Tiktaalik roseae, which has many features of wrist, elbow, and neck that are akin to those of tetrapods.[3] It belonged to a group of lobe-finned fish called Rhipidistia, which according to some recent theories were the ancestors of all tetrapods (four-legged animals).”
(Notice it says the THEORY of evolution.)
I’m guessing you’re a creationist… Actually yes, evolution has been proven with this new science involving DNA. We now can link several generations of animals through evolution because of DNA research. And if you really want to get even more simple than that, and I mean painting a wall simple; simply look at the human race. Evolution is adaptation; look at humans… you don’t need to look back millions of years, just look at locations today. While we’re all the same species, per-say, we look different mostly by the region from which we come. This is because as the species migrated there, it adapted (thus EVOLVED) to it’s surroundings. Another perfect short-term example is dogs! You see some dogs that naturally do not have tails; and it can be proven (in every case I’ve seen) that the breed originally had tails, but they were repeatedly cut off until the species itself genetically decided in some way that it didn’t need one… That is called evolution… it’s proven.
Oh, and more than 50% of the population voted Bush for a second term. More than 50% believes that Jesus resurrected himself. More than 50% think that the world was created in 7 days. More than 50% think Robin Hood is a real person. Oh, and by numbers of voting, more than 50% of the people believe that humans can stop global warming… yeah, good call.
more than 50% of people voted for Obama, what’s your point?
how do you know 50% of people believe anything?
why is it liberals claim to know everything and yet will say say ridiculous things like Indians are “native Americans” when they came here from Asia? Oh by the way, that can be PROVEN by their DNA, imagine that.
Because they were the first known homo sapiens in america? Because they aren’t from INDIA? I guess by your logic, you aren’t american, you’re european…I’m assuming you’re white. The difference of race geneticly is infentecimal! You look at a black man and a white man and then their genes, about…what, some 10 genes are different to change skin pigmentation? You go on to say white people and black people don’t have the same DNA, but white people and white people don’t either? DNA is unique to individuals.
I’m sorry for you but I’m hoping he’s American.
Thank you for this post.
There are several theories on the origins of race. Charles Darwin, for example, believed the African was less evolved than the Anglos… it’s true. Some creationists believe in a black adam and eve, a white adam and eve, etc. etc. The question of race is interesting, thanks for bringing this up.
Social Darwinism is so freaking funny to read about!
It’s less funny when it’s practiced.
Oh I certainly agree, don’t think I believe the practice is funny but the mere idea of it is funny. The pictures and “facts” they came up with though is so insulting it’s hilarious!
Gotta love how you people pick and choose your “facts”. You babble about DNA to show what a super smart person you are and then say that all people are the same when blacks and asians can be identified by their DIFFERENT DNA. How do i get to be smart like you?
PS: Darwin was what you people would call a “racist”, I thought all racists were evil? Another one of your chosen “facts”.
It’s funny how you stop every discussion after you get cornered.
The fact is, we share our DNA with all living humans, but in time mutations arose, indeed because of migrations and genetic abnormalities which proved to be useful. The points where these strings changed can be TRACKED DOWN. So our ancestors are the same (most studies show humanity was born in africa), but we started to differ after we started living in different places.
If you can’t get into college, at least watch soms NGC.
(PS: i’m not a native speaker, so don’t mind my spelling mistakes.
doG, you can get ‘smart’ by getting a real education rather than a brainwashing. When we present evidence, mocking it does not change its veracity. Darwin may have been the impetus of evolution, but it is important to note how much the theory has matured over time and how new scientific discoveries, such as DNA, reinforced the theory rather than disproving it.
I never said it was true or not, I said it can’t be proven and no matter what you say, that will not change. 10 years ago, it was taught as “fact” that there were 9 planets, is that fact still a fact?
Back when the Bible was written, the people who wrote it were probably just as sure of their “facts” as you are now, so how are you any different?
What is and what is not a planet is arbitrarily defined by humans, just like a foot or a meter. Unlike the bible, the theory of evolution is constantly adapting to new discoveries and it is this ability to remain a valid document that has gained it so much support. When DNA was discovered, it reinforced the theory of evolution and helped to explain it. It did not disprove it and it did not provide evidence against it. However, there are so many parts of the bible that are said to be metaphorical while only the convenient parts are said to be fact. This is also an arbitrarily defined system created by humans- the bible is not changing, people are skewing their interpretations to attempt to make it valid.
>>>>> 10 years ago, it was taught as “fact” that there were 9 planets, is that fact still a fact?
Er, the facts about the solar system did not change. The only thing that changed is the names. Pluto is no longer CALLED a planet, but what we know about it is still true.
10 years ago it WAS a fact that Pluto was a planet…
We are different in that while Pluto is no longer considered a planet, the fact is it still exists. Just because it’s not a planet doesn’t mean it just suddenly disapeared. The HUGE difference is that since it was discovered that Pluto doesn’t meet the requirements to be classified as a planet, it was no longer called a planet. Whereas even though a rediculous amount of proof has been discovered to disprove the majority of the bible as being fact, people like you still cling to it as fact.
By the way, when you say things like “and no matter what you say, that will not change” it makes you sound like a petulant two-year old, and does nothing to reinforce your credibility.
ALSO, how can you possibly know that when the bible was written, the authors meant everything they wrote to be taken literally? Maybe they really did mean it all to be taken as metaphors on how to live a good life? (which I highly doubt, seeing as they stoned women for being raped…would you stone a woman for being raped? Cus that might explain alot…)
Like I just said, white people and black people do NOT have the same DNA so once again, you have no f’ing clue what you’re talking about. Please tell me what point this changed since you claim it’s possible. How come when someone points out the obvious similarity between black people and gorillas, the liberal will scream RACIST!!! and then go on to say that evolution is a “fact” when that’s the most obvious sign that it is? Darwin said it and since you’re sitting here saying what Darwin said is fact then I guess when he said blacks were less evolved than whites, that must also be a fact, right? Make up your minds please, you can’t have it both ways.
To a certain degree I envy your certainty.
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
–Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, author, Nobel laureate (1872-1970)
…and doubts make people wiser. Whereas it’s in our nature to prefer certainty, so the fools will always be certain. It’s inevitable.
I was agreeing with you.
And I was agreeing with you. And with Bertrand Russell.
So what you’re saying is that we agree to agree? I find that agreeable. Can’t speak for Ol’ Bertie, though.
Well, Russell would most certainly agree that we’re agreeing. And since we’re agreeing on his statement, he might very well agree with us.
If I remember my Russel, he would agree with all those and only those that do not agree with themselves.
Perhaps you should re-read The Descent of Man. Darwin was clear that the differences between races were so inconsequential that the races could only have emerged a long time after humans had established themselves as a species.
Can I ask you why you keep saying “white people and black people”? Whyyyy do you feel the need to keep comparing the two? You can just as easily compare two white people, or two black people, or two asians, or two arabs…or you can compare them ALL. The truth is that no 2 people have the same DNA (unless of course, they’re twins or triplets, etc.) I don’t understand what you’re trying to prove when you repeat time and time again, that white people and black people don’t have the SAME DNA. No sh*t sherlock…we all know that. What’s your point?
You mention the “obvious similarity between black people and gorillas” but what about the even MORE obvious and numerous similarities between ANY TWO HUMANS?!?!?!?!? Quit being such a god-damned racist hick, you’re reinforcing several stereotypes that make me want to hurl my fist into your face. Yup, and now I’m angry at you lol
Aren’t you a brilliant one… EVERYONE has different DNA; the point is that species of animals are linked by the same characteristics of their DNA. And no, Blacks and Asians aren’t identified by their different DNA; certain parts of their DNA tell you what they are, but HUMANS are identified by the same characteristics in DNA across the board. Men and women can be identified by their DNA too, are you going to tell me that two white people (woman and man) born from the same parents are different species? Again, good call!
I work with genetics. If you happened to learn a bit about it rather than inventing it, you might understand this topic enough to not embarrass yourself more in the future. At the most basic level, a species is a group that can interbreed. Because humans are not asexual, there is a gene flow between the two parents that creates an entropy in the gene pool but still preserves a species.
And I said differently in what way? Or was your response not directed at me? I’m sure there’s a possibility that I wasn’t perfectly clear, but I don’t really see where.
If ALL blacks and ALL whites can be identified by their DNA, that would make it DIFFERENT, now wouldn’t it? A tiger and fluffy the cat are both cats…so what? Are you going to say they’re the same or different?
Dude, you can even identify individual families by their DNA.
The average DNA of two white men isn’t generally more or less different than the DNA of an average white and an average black man.
There’s just one part of the code making you black, just as there is a part giving you a big or small nose, or a unibrow.
Cats and tigers are both “felines” like we and chimps are both from the “primates” class. Cats can’t give birth to tigers. We can’t give birth to chimps. Oh, but wait, a black man and a white woman can make a kid without genetic disfunctions. That makes us the same species.
Why do i even bother.
Are you trying to be this dumb? They’re identified by a PART of their DNA that characterizes their race. Same with whether or not they have blond hair, gender, etc. Humans are identified by a different part of that DNA, same as your favorite example, cats! A DNA strand doesn’t simply say, human, frog, otherwise, it tells you an entire story about the subject. Why do you think people are identified by their DNA? BECAUSE EVERYONE’S IS UNIQUE! My brother has different DNA than I do, but that same DNA also says we’re both human!
**PLEASE FEEL FREE TO BASH ME**
I just want to clear up a few things on both sides of the debate.
First of all, Richard Dawkins, Moses the Prophet, and Charles Darwin would probably agree that when you brush aside a belief held by millions of people (which ever one you lend yourself to) you make yourself sound like an ignorant ass. Therefore, I’m not going to say whether one is right or one is wrong. The reason? no matter what any of us say, there are going to be millions of others that disagree.
Now to clear up some things–First of all, the first few chapters in the book of Genesis–where the creation account is written–is written in a form of early Hebrew poetry. When compared with other ancient poetry, ie. the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc. you can see that when one would write in this structure, they are not meant to be taken 100% literally.
Adam and Eve? many Christians believe this may only be written as an allegory for what the first original sin may have been.
6 days? (because on the 7th God rested) well, the word used for “day” in the Hebrew Torah is defined as not representing a literal 24 hour period. Rather, the general consensus among many Christian apologetics, intellectuals, and theologians is that the earth may have been made thousands of years ago, millions, billions, whatever. What I’m saying is that the Bible does not dispute the billions of years theory, nor does it agree with it. So, as far as man being made in 1 day, who knows how long that “day could have been.”
What is important and central to the Christian faith is knowing that God created the earth. What is not as important is knowing exactly how it was done. After all, if we knew all about how a god worked, wouldn’t that make the god more like a human, who is comprehendible. There are several passages in the old and new testament that make it clear that man is not meant to understand God’s ways.
Charles Darwin writes in the Origin of the Species that man is most certainly and indisputably descended from early barbaric “humans.” What is key here is that Darwin actually only says that the fact is that we are descended from early, more primitive versions of humans. He does not present as fact that we have descended from apes or other primates–he openly asserts that such thoughts are theory and he himself says that “they [such theories] are yet to be proven as fact.”
Also, perhaps the most important and applicable piece of knowledge that Darwin pioneered was that of natural selection. And this, natural selection, is what is taught as factual evolution. All you need to do is study germs or flu viruses in order to understand this. For instance, for whatever reason–what Darwin calls the strive to live–living matter will mutate at a very basic level. Out of a pool of 100 germs, 99 of them will be killed by an anti-bacterial soap, but that 1 will then go on to reproduce itself, and thus begins a new and more improved/immune strain of that germ.
I think Christians fail to realize that the crux of their religion is based on faith. Faith in the supernatural. Will God ever be proven to non-Christians? I don’t know. But that is not important. The point of their faith is believing in things that cannot be seen or possibly even proven through humanly scientific means.
The inherent problem with this – and I’m sorry if someone has already brought this up – is that there is a significant segment of the religious community that is completely dependent on biblical inerrancy. So dependent, in fact, that subsequent printings may have small alterations made to help support their positions. I will summarize the reasoning that I’ve had put in front of me.
If Adam and Eve didn’t happen exactly the way that the Bible says, then there’s no Original Sin. If there’s no Original Sin, then there’s no reason for Jesus’ sacrifice . (This is further complicated by the idea that some sects do not consider Jesus and God to be the same person, but I digress.) Without the sacrifice of Jesus, all of Christianity becomes suspect.
So, as it turns out, I find Christianity suspect most of the time. _I_ am perfectly OK with most of the Bible being allegory (and I understand that lots of the Bible evolved from other literary sources), and I was raised and have stayed with the idea that you need to treat others how you want to be treated, but I run away from the dudes in the fish hats.
The whole concept of faith is that you _can’t_ prove it. It’s not that it’s difficult to prove – it’s completely impossible. Faith is the antithesis of proof. Unfortunately, this causes grossly irrational portions of the populace because their faith in some things causes a lack of critical thinking about other things.
I can only assume that natural selection will eventually rid us of young-earthers, alcoholics, chain-smokers, and people who drink white gravy by the gallon but it’s going to be a long time. Showing those people facts about heart disease and lung cancer and STD’s haven’t caused major behavioural shifts, it’s taken years and years (and having some of them die out skews the data).
Sorry I’m rambling – what I’m getting at is that the atheists are going to deal with their current life OK, and they may not care so much about the afterlife. What I think may be more important than proving God to non-Christians is proving this life to the zealots.
“What I think may be more important than proving God to non-Christians is proving this life to the zealots.”
Awesome quote. I’m stealing it.
Fruit flies…short lifespan…breed/die in a matter of days…change a variable in their habitat…they EVOLVE to cope with that change. Viruses…penicillin…virus dies…later variants of same virus immune…EVOLUTION.
Animals (and plants) change every time they reproduce! There is a new life form every time something is born, slightly different from its parents by mutations in DNA and genes. Do you think the HIV virus has always been around? What are mules? what about… oh, never mind you’re not listening anyway.
Yes, we’ve observed animals evolve into something else. Mostly insects and bacteria, but these are the types of changes you’d expect to see in this short timespan. And we know that wolves evolved into dogs. But I guess the differences between a chihuahua and a bulldog aren’t gonna convince you, are they?
We know that dolphins evolved from land mammals, because their spine runs the way it does for land mammals, because they still have the genes for making hind legs (and leftovers of hindlegs) and…what else…oh yes, LUNGS. Or are you telling me God just made them breathe air cause he thought it was funny?
Evolution allows you to make predictions, which is a requirement of science. Observation: Dolphins have their blowholes on their heads, other mammals have the breathing hole at their nose. Prediction: transitional fossils between the two should show the breathing hole travelling upward gradually. Result: That’s exactly what they found once they found transitional fossils.
But I guess you’re gonna tell me that that’s all pure coincidence, that God just felt like making animals that look like transitional species between land and sea mammals, and give them blowholes that are between the two, and to give dolphins lungs etc. Right?
Just a vote that this possibly says “your world is a renewing” (not “revolving”) — makes more since with the following clause, “ours has a start and an end.”
Maybe it’s because they’ll be killed?
Threatening people with death doesn’t make you right. It just makes you a violent, bigoted psychopathic retard.
Like you, except you don’t have the balls to kill anyone, you just wish you did.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/sumerians_look_on_in_confusion_as
Im just gonna say i loved the puns and the bible is a load of crap
Adam is still alive naming all of the new species too? WOW! That’s one long-living dude! I’m glad I’m not him, must have arthritis like a bitch!
Not to mention: if a scientist gives a name to a newly discovered species today, he somehow magically ends up giving it exactly the name Adam gave it. PLUS, Adam spoke english, despite the fact that all his descendants then spoke some ancient language.
Mm, yes, the best way to raise an atheist.
It’s a massive evolution fail. It’s a fail that we’ve failed to evolve past all the god nonsense. Get over it. There’s no god.
Epic obnoxious.
And Ninja Master, the problem with your argument is evolution is not a biological phenomena, it’s a mathematical phenomena and it’s inescapable. If your faith is rooted in either the age of the earth being 12,000 years old or the lack of evolution, then I fear your faith is a ticking time bomb.
I happen to believe (and I may be the only person in the world who believes this) that the world is both 4.5 billion years old AND 12,000 years old. It’s a long story, and I always get weird looks, but it’s all about scientific models. The truth is much less important than finding a model that works and for me they both work.
For example, what if God created a 4.5 billion year old universe 12,000 years ago? *shrug* Our existence implies the existence of a creator, why not call this entity “God”? I think we can all agree on this. The real rub is this: is our creator an intelligent being? I don’t know. I’m on my own spiritual quest for enlightenment, I’ll let you know when I find out.
Actually there is a theory that says time is an illusion (i.e. we perceive it, but it does not exist per se in the universe).
Following this theory, then we would be wrong to look for a start to our universe.
The universe would have had a starting shape, which changed, but it would not have had a starting point in time, therefore it would not have been created, it just would have been.
(The above is a simplified description of the theory of course).
It’s a very difficult concept to explain, especially in the comments section of a website, so I won’t even try, but anybody interested to know more can do some research on their own. That’s why scientists wrote it in the first place I believe.
This theory has received serious scientific consideration, so it’s worth looking up for culture’s sake.
Theory of Special Relativity has long held that there are three methods of measuring time. . .
Because that’s just worming your way around every flaw pointed out in religion with “magic”. I have no problem with religious folks (except fanatics like the fail up at the top of the page) but every time a flaw is pointed out, religious people always find a way around that still doesn’t add up.
For example:
“If God created everything, who created God?”
- Oh he’s powerful enough to create himself.
ORLY? Seems like a way around that flaw.
You are not alone in the new-old-world hypothesis (link).
A facetious extension of the “the world was created old”, if we allow that the creator could have arranged not only for geological formations and radiologically apparently-old fossils but also for the memories in your own brain, holds that the world was created last Thursday.
Bertrand Russel once considered a thought experiment in which the universe had been created five minutes before.
Perhaps the world was created when last you blinked your eyes.
You will find things to help you on your own quest anywhere you look, and it will span years. Allow my contribution to be to suggest that our mere existence does not, in itself, imply the existence of a creator. Your hypothesis that the world was created already-in-progress is what does that.
And once again, the society that claims they want equality and tolerance makes fun of the Christian religion.
I don’t think this is a fail, I think that this is just a parent standing up for their faith and not backing down despite the odds.
We only make fun of people that let their ‘beliefs’ trump education. You beleive whatever fairy-tales you want, and even indoctrinate your kids all you want, but don’t bury their heads in the sand about the real world. Let them see *all* the information (including the information you ignore because your shaman says the magic sky-fairy will get angry at you) and make up their own mind.
Don’t go against the magic sky-fairy, for the love of Zeus don’t go against the magic sky-fairy! You’ll doom us all, doom I says!!!
Believe what you want, false myths aren’t going to help you be successful.
True myths probably won’t be that helpful, either.
Wait. Wut?
Don’t you notice these parents are actively holding their children’s eyes closed? The school only wants to take them to the museum, to look at the EVIDENCE. If evolution is wrong, I’m sure logic will lead them to that decision on their own. If the parent feels they need to stop their kids from looking at this stuff, their case for creationism obviously isn’t very strong.
And by the way, 6000 years old is completely wrong, even according to the bible.
I like how it says “Note” as if the teacher wouldn’t know that the writing on the bottom was an effing note. FAIL. And why would you sign permission for your kid to go…. if you didn’t want them to go? FAIL. FAIL on more than one level without even touching on the crazy aspect…
this creation stuff is bullshit as proven by people who can’t spell mislead twice
As a Roman Catholic, I am ashamed of the parent of this child. Where I live now, Religion is a required subject and never have they told us to take it literally, word by word.
Yes, the Bible is a guide on how to live your life if you know what’s right and wrong, as there are several contradictions within the bible. But the Commandments are the Prima Strategy Guide to Life.
Simply put, I have no problem with God, it’s his fanclub which I hate.
So to this parent, a FACEPALM!
Oh what’s that quote…by Ghandi.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Jesus taught love and acceptance, I always found it hard how so many Christians overlook these values or replace them with, “I’ll accept you as long as you believe what I do.”
I was brought up Roman Catholic and my catholic school taught religion pretty much the same way as your schools do. I just don’t see why people feel the need to impose their beliefs on others one way or another. You believe something, great, good for you, that does not mean I need to nor do I need to hear about it every two seconds.
I don’t recall the bible ever stating the earth is only 6000 years old.
Disgusting.
Plus, we all know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster named the minerals.
This post is neither a fail nor a win in my book. It is the product of a parent taking an incorrect approach to achieve an admirable goal — trying to teach his or her child biblical truth.
I would first say to this parent that there is no need to shield a child from “science” or from any other particular worldviews. On the contrary, it is best that we let our children truly learn what the world has to offer, and if the teaching they receive at home is apt, children have a way of figuring out the truth for themselves.
As far as the back and forth jibes about carbon dating and other means of attempting to determine the age of the earth, the parent in this case and many of the commenters are missing the obvious point. While the circular reasoning employed to use these methods of dating is sketchy at best, it really doesn’t matter one way or the other if the science is “right” or not.
By a biblical interpretation of the Creation Week (yes, week – more on this later), God created, as we’ve all read, “the heavens and the earth.” However, when God created Adam, he wasn’t an infant, was he? He was a grown man. Just as Adam wasn’t created into an infant, neither were animals, plants, trees, or rocks. So, if scientists feel that they’ve dated a rock to be 8 billion years old, then I have no problem with that. But it doesn’t mean that rock wasn’t placed there by Almighty God several thousand years ago.
Let’s also bear in mind that while science was so sure the earth was flat, the Bible already said it was round. I am sure scientists of the day scoffed at that. It is also impossible to pick up an English Bible and expect to take every verse literally or figuratively without an appropriate study of the original text. Taken in context, it is usually not hard to determine which parts of scripture are to be taken literally, and which are figurative or poetic in nature, or even if they are interpreted from the limited, observing eye of the writer. Also, while in English, we have one word for “day,” the Hebrew language is more versatile, and knowing the distinction and the particular uses of the day makes a strong case for the “days” of creation to refer to six literal (sun up to sun down) days. That also makes sense within the order of creation. If you want to combine creationism with evolution and try to suggest that each day was really thousands (or millions) of years, then I would be interested to know how plants survived that “day” without the sun, or without pollenation.
I agree with the commenters who say that we have proof of evolution. Indeed we do. However, we do NOT have proof that evolution was the origin of the species. And to blindly believe in that is no less foolish (or fail-ridden) than you claim it is to believe in Creation.
What frustrates me is that the majority of Christians have not studied the Bible (or its contemporary works) to be able to stand firmly on the historical and even scientific facts that serve to back up the truth of the Bible, so they resort to their own version of ridiculous, flimsy arguments that make them sound like morons, and by association, all Christians are labeled that way, as if we don’t have one working brain between us.
No amount of scientific theories or public school systems will ever be able to overthrow the truth. Science has changed over the years, but the Bible has always stayed the same, withstanding innumerable attempts to disprove and discredit it. Parents like the one on this “Fail” posting need not be threatened. Let the child go on the field trip and get an “education.” It is the responsibility of the parent to make sure the child hears every side of the story. Do that, and reason will prevail.
Really, the bible has stayed the same? Thus the Second Testament right? And the constant changes throughout history? Or how about the Catholic church gatherings over the last decade deciding whether or not to accept evolution in their teachings and change the bible yet again? You fail! lmao!
Science changes as it advances, there’s no way to advance the bible except through science… proven fact that disproves the bible and thus forces them the change their story… And proven science doesn’t change either… theories change. Figure it out. Name one scientific proof that has changed.
Oh, and science had never said that the Earth was flat… THEORY said the earth was flat!!! SCIENCE says the Earth is billions of years old!
And did you just suggest that the sun didn’t exist before the Earth? ah hahahahahaha!!!!!! Thank you all for the excellent start to my day.
C’mon, christians murdered scientifics for realizing that the earth was not the center of anything. There’s no way the earth could have been created 6-7 thousands years ago, and that is a fact. To begin, we humans have been on earth for more long than that, and if you include other ancient living creatures, you have a prove that the earth has been here millions of years ago, thousands of millions… Tell me why do humans have so many similarities to rats, or other mammals?
It makes no sanse what you’re saying, no sense at all. And what you said is not what christians said some time ago, some tell me what’s the truth? Because in the Middle Age, the church said something different, and if your religion is the truth, the only one, then how could it possibly change with the years? You’re just adapting to science to have still a little bit of credibility.
I’d just like to point out that what you call “the scientists of the time” were called “Natural Philosophers”.
Also, they did not apply today’s scientific method. You can’t imply science today is unreliable because scientists centuries ago (who did not even use today’s strict and much more accurate methods of studying the universe) made mistakes.
Also, mistakes in science are very rare. Regardless, scientists never ask anyone to blindly believe in their theories and conclusions. Scientists merely say “Evidence points to this, so it’s safe to assume this is true”. People then attempt to use scientific findings to create stuff (like computers, cars, medications…)
If it is discovered a theory was mistakenly assumed true, then the mistake is corrected.
Religion, on the other hand, holds a theory for the purpose of having people believe in it. Religion actually clearly says there is no proof of it’s theories and blind faith is demanded by god.
I repeat: science doesn’t make theories to force people to believe in it. Science makes theories so people can do useful something with them.
Also, religion doesn’t correct mistakes but attempts to hide them. Whenever one points out something illogical in the Bible, religion replies the Bible must not be taken literally.
The theories of religion are blurry, and this blur is used to protect the theories against being completely disproved.
Scientific theories, on the contrary, are clearly defined. We know where they start and where they end, and we know when something contradicts them.
Are you single?
Actually, we can prove that evolution was the origin of the species. It’s called “speciation.” The real question now is how life originated.
I find, however, that neither the Bible nor “contemporary works” have much scientific value. They generally use faulty or outdated evidence, lack rigorous peer review, and show generally shoddy scholarship. Therefore, I will not start with a literal Biblical reading and attempt to shoehorn science into confirming what it says. Rather, I will take my “truth” from the world around me.
BTW: 1.) The Bible “disproves and discredits” itself just fine and hardly needs my help.
2.) The strength of science is that it admits its errors and changes with a change in knowledge.
And, in the greatest scientific tradition, I am always open to discussion.
ladystark (at) ymail
So it looks like christians go on fail blog too, can i quote my favourite passage of the bible for you christian cousins, JOHN 12:24. And another is Tebow 12:18- and the lord said go Gators.
@ Asetha – how can you doubt the existence of reason? Isn’t reason the thing that distinguishes us from other species on earth? HOw could YOU be able to choose to believe in God, without reason = choosing to belief as you do..?
Since the “lacking proof” of reason seems to be a cardinal point in your argumentation, I think (note: I THINK = reason) that you should inlighten us.. What is left of you, if you deny the existence of reason??
Sigh. Re-read my comment. I don’t doubt the existence of reason because I believe in God. If I didn’t believe in God, and we are merely bags of random chemical reactions, I should doubt the reasonableness of my own mind.
Reason is assumed, but not proven. One cannot prove reason without resorting to USING reason. Thus one cannot prove reason without committing a logical fallacy…it must be taken on faith.
I’m not arguing about the existence of reason. I’ve stated this before. I’m pointing out that even hard-core anti-theists like Hitchens et al. take things on faith. That is all.
they should burn in hell for their stupidity !!!!!
if u exagerate with religion that’s how stupid u get …..6000 years old ? wow …dipshits ! Adam named the animals ? wow …ur smart ….Adam and Eve and all those fairytales aren’t really real ! i believe in God but the Bible is wrote by man …a wise man ..all the stories in the Bible except with the crucification of Jesus are just metaphores …ppl like that need to shoot themselves in the head with a nailgun
If they use a nail gun, there’s a good chance of survival… much higher than that of a shotgun or something more effective.
so much time wasted arguing
“Mislead” is misspelled, not that it does anything for the explanation.
lol the fact that that parent thought adam named all the animals shows me that he is a fail worthy of failblog.
Didn’t anyone figure out that this was Canada?
Google “Fossil Discovery Centre” and you get the “Canadian Fossil Discovery Centre” in Morden, Manitoba…
I honestly never figured Canadians could be like some of their neighbors south of their border in terms of bible thumping closed-mindedness.
Maybe this parent is a US ex-pat to Canada.
Well, you learn something new every day… Something I don’t think this parent understands.
I failed subscribing to this nonsense!
agreed
PRAISE THE LORD !
THE EARTH IS ABOUT 6,000 YEARS OLD ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE.
HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT THAT ALL WE KNOW AS MODERN IS ONLY A COUPLE HUNDRED YEARS OLD?
THIS EARTH IS YOUNG AND IT WAS GOD WHO CREATED IT, ALL THE ANIMALS, PLANTS, ALL AFTER ITS KIND.
GOD BLESS THE PERSON THAT WROTE THAT LETTER TO THAT TEACHER.
IT IS NOT A FAIL AT ALL.
Why do fanatics love caps lock so much?
CAPS MAKE YOUR POINT MORE VALID88!!
this has to be a joke…
Anyone who believes religion is real = epic fail
Religion is simply a system of control based on fear… and I refuse to live my life in fear.
Anyone who believes God is not real = eternal fail.
Not sure which “religion” you’re referring to JD, but Christianity teaches that fear is not of God.
2 TIM 1:7 – For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
For kicks, you should do a search on how many times “Fear not” (loosley translated: Don’t be afraid/worry) occurs in the bible.
Of course, if you’re referring to the “smiting” or “eternal damnation and hellfire” as punishment for sin as “control”, then I submit the following question to you:
Do you walk around afraid of being arrested and going to jail all the time?
If so, you should just turn yourself in… because being a fugitive is just no way to live, man.
If not, why not?
All the while, the entire principle of it is to be punished if you don’t follow! HELLO!!! FEAR MONGERING!!! lmao
Prophet = epic fail!
If this tread was a couple of hundred years old, most of us would be burning at the stake right now.
WIIIiiiiitch!
Thanks George.
You know… sometimes, when engaing in conversations like this, I always try to be respectful, and to give those with differing viewpoints the benefit of the doubt of being reasonable and intelligent.
For people who claim to be so smart though, I am sometimes astounded by the sheer inablitity, or outright refusal to be reasonable.
I notice you only addressed a portion of my post, which was meant to inspire thought and dialogue, and either neglected to read, or purposely avoided the part that addresses what you refer to as “fear mongering”, so let me break it down for you.
The question I posed (though not directly to you) that you ignored or didn’t read was:
Do you walk around afraid of being arrested and going to jail all the time?
The answer to this question is hopfully “no”, and for the sake of this discussion, I am going to assume it is.
I’d like to expound a little on this subject by asking these questions as well.
If someone warned you not to jump into crater full of lava, and they explained to you the reasons why (ie: you will die), would you consider their explanation, or the end result “fear mongering”?
Do you refrain from murdering people because you’re afraid of the consequences (ie: being arrested, going to prison, and/or possible execution) or because you believe it’s morally wrong?
In the same way that you most likely do NOT walk around in fear of being arrested and going to jail, neither does a Christian live in fear of judgement from God and “eternal hell fire and damnation” etc…
It was not my fear of judgement that led me to follow God, just as it’s not my fear of going to jail that stops me from commiting crime. I do both, because I believe that they’re the morally right thing to do.
Following God is a choice, just as choosing to obey the laws of our society is a choice. Both have laws, and the consequences for breaking those laws can be severe before (life in prison or execution) or AFTER death (hell).
Thoughts?
I suppose my question is about the passages that tell us to fear God.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Bible_verses_about_fear
Prophet:
1-You always try to be respectful? Then how come your first line of your first comment was “Anyone who believes God is not real = eternal fail”? That’s not very respectful.
2-You’re giving them the benefit of the doubt that they’re reasonable and intelligent. What’s reasonable about faith? Nothing, faith, by it’s very definition, is to believe something with no reason to. (i.e. no proof) And if one more person quotes the Kalam Cosmological Argument as fact, i’m going to blow a gasket.
3-Do you walk around afraid of being arrested and going to jail all the time? You rightly assumed that the answer would be no. But that’s because being arrested or sent to prison is not an inevitability of life. Death, on the other hand is. And if you’re Christian, then you believe that when you die you will be judged, and either go to Heaven (if you’ve been good) or to Hell (if you’ve been bad…but even then, you can do horrible things, go to confession and be granted forgiveness and STILL get into Heaven.)
You quoted the bible to show why you should not fear God…and Obelletto also gives quotes to support why you SHOULD fear God (or at least that God wants you to fear him). That’s one the the major major problems with the Bible, it often contradicts itself.
i like the fact that none of us reliezed the letter is dated feb 2008
Hahaha I failed to see that too…
I’m with Algavi. That needed to be said. Props to you, Algavi!
JohnDoe, you are totally wrong. Christianity isn’t even a religion, it’s a way of life, and those who live by it are better off than you, regardless of how poor they may be. You need to wake up to Jesus, man. And that goes for the rest of you who agreed that it was a fail. It was an EPIC WIN because somebody actually stood up for the TRUTH!
Do you think jesus would mind about gay people minding their business?
Just a question.
Do you think Jesus takes any sin lightly? Just a question.
You should read the bible again, and underline all the segments where jezus actually took sides of the ones seen as sinners.
Jezus was about love, understanding and respect to all.
He was the worlds first hippie. :p
Actually yes, Jesus loves sinners, as all people are sinners. Can you show me where Jesus encourages people to continue to sin? Loving people and encouraging destructive behaviour are two very seperate things. Jesus made some seriously strong claims – eg. the only way to God is through him, all apart from him are doomed, that he is God etc.
How un-hippie like and exclusive.
Does jesus love hitler?
And on a more serious note: Where is the destructive behaviour in being gay?
They don’t bother anyone, they contribute to society by working… They’re not being gay AT you (Thank you Louis CK).
And if it’s unnatural, then why are there gays in every animal species (look it up, it’s true).
The only thing getting destructed is maybe their assho… sorry for that.
Yes, Jesus loves Hitler.
1. Mad higher rates of STDs, rape, suicide, lower life expectancy. I’d call those destructive.
2. I don’t look to nature to determine how I behave, else I’d be throwing my own crap at you. Nor do I eat my own vomit. Therefore I think it unreasonable to justify behaviour because animals do it.
Is hitler in heaven now, because of jesus’ love?
Is he gently spooning saddam?
1. STD’s: you don’t get them if you’re safe, and it’s only destructive to those who get them.
Rape? Yes, Gay people are dirty rapists (w t f)
Lower life expectancy? Are you kidding me: Being gay = not unhealthy. Eating a big fat greasy burger every day is.
Suicide? Yeeeeah, how would you feel if more than half of the nation thinks you’re inhuman and treats you like that.
You make no points what soever. So being gay is a sin, but being fat isn’t?
2. You’re part of nature, accept it. You have almost every basic need an animal has. You’re just more evolved.
I can’t comment on the status of Hitler’s afterlife experience, as I am not God. Based on the fact that didn’t exhibit Christlike love and forgiveness or ever claimed to have a personal faith in the redemptive sacrifice of Christ, I doubt it, but only God knows the heart.
Didn’t call them rapists. They experience it in statistically higher #’s than do non-gays. You can find that on the web.
Ever fill out a lifestyle risk-assessment form for medical purposes? Sexual orientation is on it for a reason.
Glad you realised that eating is the same as homosexual activity in that it is an act that is chosen. Eating a hamburger is morally neutral. Sexual behaviour is not. It is wrong to treat anyone with anything less than the dignity they deserve for being human.
I forgot to mention depression as well.
Thank you, Asetha. And @ deaf4everrr, jesus loves everybody, no matter what they do. Do you think that jesus loved that Hitler was responsible for millions of deaths? Heck no.
A sexual orientation is almost never a choice. There is a lot of research about it. Some people spend years in denial and shame because they have homosexual feelings they can’t explain and they fear the reaction of their enviroment. It’s well documented. That could also be one of the reasons for depression (if your assumptions are true).
But hey, you clearly can’t get convinced. You’ll call me judgemental, I’ll call you the same.
Actually, you can’t call me judgemental, as I have many homosexual friends here in the Middle East and back home in Canada.
The research you claim doesn’t exist. There is no ‘homo-sex’ gene. Reasons vary from person to person about staying in the closet. Persecution is always wrong. Jesus calls us not to condemn, but to forgive. My claims are not assumptions, they are facts. I don’t go from claiming ‘gays are depressed, therefore homosexual behaviour is wrong’, I go from the moral commands that lay on my heart and what God has revealed in the Bible.
Wow. Unless you’re a Nazi, in which case I really don’t want to be talking to you, how can you follow someone who would love Hitler? Just a personal question…
Aaaaand where are you getting your information about higher rates of STDs, rape, suicide, lower life expectancy? IF people who are gay have a higher rate of suicide (I said IF, just for argument’s sake), then it’s because of people like you, who think of them as less than human. Where the f*ck do you get off thinking that of anyone?
Also, looking down to your last post in this thread, you claim to have many homosexual friends…what to they think of your thoughts on them? That’s like saying, hey, I’m racist and think that if you’re not my skin color you’re beneath me, yet saying you’re friends with a rainbow of humans…does that makes sense to you?
Do you have evidence proving God exists? No? Then believing in something like that to a ridiculous level (as in denying evolution and the age of the Earth) is not just a fail, but an epic one.
Do you have evidence that evolution exists…no…you fail good sir
Read the entire page and go attend biology class.
for the love of god.
ive read this entire page and all it is are “theorys” well if you wanna put it that way then call it the “theory of God” none of you believe in certainty apparently.
this proves you haven’t read it.
the “theory” of god is not supported by facts or studies but by a 2000 year old book written by fishermen.
Felix, you’re a moron… there is VAST amounts of EVIDENCE that evolution exists!!! NONE that God does!
This thread is a kick!
I know right!
I don’t think I’m going to get anything done in the office today because of this thread…ah I’m a good employee.
So you must have skipped over the part where we explain that there’s a difference between “theory” in regards to science, and “theory” in regards to every-day use. And you must also have skipped over the parts about radiometric dating, and the fact that if you line up fossils, you can literally see evolution with your own freaken eyes.
And how is God a certainty, pray tell!
What facts support your claim that this is a truth? Do tell. Do NOT quote the bible…the bible is not a reliable source for anything factual.
Teaching your kids to be this willfully ignorant should be considered a form of child abuse.
Winning and argument on the internet is like winning the special olympics, even if you win you’re still retarded
Hey man, beats studying right now :p
but to join in:
“The internet: where kids bullied at school become the bullies.”
HAHA!, look at the idiots that are too scared to face their own mortality. They can’t handle the fact that one day, they will no longer exist in any form beyond someone’s memory. Therefore, they stick their fingers in their ears and scream “la,la,la God is great, la, la, la”
Lets base our entire lives on the literal interpretation of a book put together by a bunch of ignorant
One day you will die and cease to be. There is no little man in the sky that can save you, no matter how hard you pray or click your heals; you will be as consious and self aware as my cup of coffee (but your corpse will be colder). Oh yeah, and Santa isn’t real either.
You Can’t handle the Truth!!
lmao! LOVE IT! BEST POST EVER!
THere’s no santa what!?!?!?! /cuts self
I have nothing against religions. Well, almost nothing against it, this letter shows what I’m against: most religious people “force” their children to follow that religion.
I’m not just talking about extreme things like this letter, but also taking a child against his/her will to church for example. If the child is fine with it: sure, go ahead, the child made his/her choice to go with you. But if the child protest, do not force him/her unless you really have to.
Or another example: ramadam from the islam religion. Especially that is a good example: you can’t “force” your child (I don’t know from what age children from the islam religion have to participate, though) to not eat and drink until sunset. That’s a terrible thing to do.
I’m all for persuading, but let the child choose. Of course, do not attach a punishment to that choice, as that is still forcing. And don’t manipulate your child by telling all kinds of scary stories what happens if the child does not cooperate. Because then you’re mentally forcing the child.
I agree, but I think it goes beyond that. I’m teaching my son that no one holds the truth and that you must find your own.
If you strongly influencence a child when its impresionable, that’s just the same as forcing him/her. Maybe even worse, because you are crippling him intellectually.
I’m not a believer, but I respect any believer that thought his/her stuff through and seriously challenged his/her beliefs. If said beliefs could stand that, then they’re respectable. In my experience, most believers never do this, certainly the Church doesn’t want them doing this.
I went to the process and ended up an agnostic. If my child ends up a believer it will be his choice not mine and I’ll respect that.
*edit*
Lets base our entire lives on the literal interpretation of a book put together by a bunch of ignorant folks that didn’t even know the Earth was round.
Actually the bible clearly states the earth is round so shut up read it…then come back here and post your “problems” with it.
Maybe YOU should go read it like a good little sheep and stop bothering us educated folk with it. I mean really why are you on the internet? Shouldn’t you be at church?
All of my dinner plates are round too.
Round and flat.
The proper word here is spherical. Please cite a bible passage that unambiguously describes the earth as spherical.
Jeez, I never realized there were so many uneducated tards out there. Creepy…
I agree, how can people be so utterly stupid, yet still remember to breathe?
They don’t need to *remember* to breath, God does it for them!
I’m not sure where the fail is, someone decided to stand up for what they believe in. Homosexuals, for example, stand up for what they believe in all the time and are met with great support, but someone has a different opinion than you and automatically give them ‘fail’.
they do not believe they are gay, they just are. It’s not a choice. In almost every animal species there is evidence of some sort of homosexual behaviour.
get the facts first.
Uhh, that has nothing to do with what I said.
yes it does, don’t compare a sexual orientation (you are gay or you are not, with a religion (you choose to be a christian or not.)
It doesn’t matter whether you choose to be gay or not, that’s not what I’m talking about.
Most homosexuals(not just gays, just using it as one example) ‘stand up’ for what they believe in, mainly gay rights(again, gay rights is just one example). And most people side with them, they support gay rights and such. They spoke up and took a stand.
This guy writes the note expressing what he believes in and according to some people he should be arrested by child abuse.
What’s the difference between this guy and gays protesting for gay rights? Nothing. Actually, there is one difference, this guy’s opinion is different than everybody else’s, so he’s labeled as a ‘fail’.
Maybe because he is setting his kids up for academic failure?
Because he’s promoting regression and ignorance?
It’s fail because people like that hold us back from medical/scientific/academic progress.
Having your religion forced upon kids in school is not the same as protesting for your basic civil rights which SHOULD be afforded to you as a CITIZEN OF THE U.S.
There is a difference between Human Rights that we should all be entitled to and someone thinking the earth is 6000 years old.
Also Gay Rights have plenty of haters…usually the same people who believe the earth is 6000 years old. The people who believe the world is 6000 years old also have supporters as well…but not generally the gay rights activists.
Anyway there is a start difference between the two, but I get your basic reasoning. The problem is not that the person is voicing their opinion, but they are going about in a way to try and force that beleif on other people while at the same time denying any evidence to the contrary. If you think that you can poop spaghetti and are proud of it, then announce it to the world…but don’t try to convince me that I too can poop spaghetti.
I’ll be sure to let the gay folks over there, who STILL CAN’T LEGALLY GET MARRIED, that apparently “most people side with them” about their rights. As the various votes in various states have shown. Oh wait.
Your analogy is wrong. Let’s take a look at gay people who have adopted children (or legal children because one of them was married to a woman first): would they say to their son “you need to become gay”? Would they mess with their kid’s head? Would they not allow their son on a fun field trip about something that shows, say, a marriage between man and woman?
The answers are: no, no and no. While if you convert the questions to fit in this case, the answers are yes, yes and yes.
Listen…if you want to believe in Creationism, it is your right to do so. Fine. Good. Believing in evolution, I may disagree with you, but go for it. Believe what you want. It’s your right.
But you do NOT have the right to force your beliefs on others or force a school to teach your beliefs when an opposing theory possesses the facts and the evidence to prove it. Evolution is supported by science and thus should be taught in science class; creationism is not supported by science and thus should NOT be taught in science class.
This goes for everything, not just evolution/creationism. Believe in God? Great. Don’t believe in God? Also great. Believe what you want. Just don’t force others to follow your same beliefs.
I mean, Christ, is this really that difficult?
Thank you Sean! I really wish more people could figure this out.
Though technically wouldn’t telling others to not to force their beliefs on us be us forcing our beliefs on them…Aw crap I just blew my mind!!!
Pashoooow!
Agreed! from pbs.org:
“…evolution studies, like other sciences, are founded on a growing body of observable, reproducible evidence in the natural world, whereas “creation science” is based on accounts written in the Bible and “intelligent design” is not yet supported by scientific evidence. Teaching evolution alongside these other approaches would imply that creation science and intelligent design theory are as rigorously tested as evolution, and they are not.”
Christian fundamentalists are just as scary as Muslim fundamentalist. There’s really not much difference between them.
Some of this creationism crap is as funny as that Scientogolist crap. Like how they believe that ALL the fossils come from Noah’s giant flood when the dinosaurs drowned. He He..
Yes there is. Do Christian men make their wives dress in burkas? Are young Christians told to strap bombs to themselves and kill as many innocents as possible?
I won’t go into all of the ways that statement is false because I know you probably won’t listen. But I will say this: The basic belief of Christianity is sacrificial love. Love your neighbor as yourself, to paraphrase the Golden Rule. How does that fit in with making women dress up in garbage bags and killing “infidels”?
Oh, and in case you haven’t noticed, the Crusades have been over for hundreds of years. But you probably want to continue being ignorant of history, so I’ll just let you do that.
Nope. Fundamentalists are blinded and hateful. They have no love for those who don’t agree with their beliefs…e.g. Fred Phelps.
Fundamentalism is not Christianity.
Then why do so many christians hate so many things.
@btw
ever hear of the witchhunts, crusades? there are more those are the most known. Every religion has their radicals, including yours and mine (agnostic/atheist [leaning towards the latter, but think their might be something, but no afterlife] has their people who go around killing the believers.)
so no muslims don’t tell their youth to strap bombs to themselves, maybe they get women to wear birkas (don’t know if its cultural of spiritual forgive my lack of knowledge), only the radical groups do which exist in EVERY RELIGION
but don’t try to defend your religion by bashing your hateful uneducated believes on other religions
You know, Birka was an important medieval trading town in Scandinavia^^
another point.
this is added about your last paragraph. Yes history will show that it is in the past, but whos to say that this isn’t their radicals time to arise (and ultimatly fail like their predseurs) but the point remains, that EVERY RELIGION has their time when radicals shoot up
Ok, so then let’s hop ahead to just a few years ago. The last Pope, who claims that condoms will only aggravate the AIDS problem in Africa? Ringing any bells? He’s pretty much condemning them to death by spreading vicious lies, that some of them will believe, and others wont.
And just in the same way that not all christians are extremists, not all Muslims are extremists. You don’t think that it pains people to see others of their religion acting this way? By suicide boming themselves? I can guarantee you they don’t all support this, just as much as my (catholic) family does not support the Pope’s statement. One religion =/= one mind. Just like I can assume that not all christians will agree with your narrow-minded view.
correct. And the moment you say so, they’re going to trot out their Jihad Envy. “You’re lucky we’re not muslims – we won’t bomb you!” Unless you’re in a women’s clinic, of course. Then those good loving xians will blow you up.
Wow you guys are truly as moronic as i thought….i cant imagine how many times google was used during this thread but what i do know is…get out of your moms basement and get a job and die alone, its pretty simple…maybe just maybe god will have mercy on you. id pray hard.
Ut oh, you spelt God with a lowercase g, he doesn’t like that. Poof you’re going to hell. That sucks…sorry man.
Man that sucks. Poor guy.
your god doesnt deserve a capital g
depends on their religion not all capitalize the g on god it depends on what religion they talkk about. if its the christian God its with a capital if its the jewish one (wont say it to not offend annyone) its not acctually called god. and more…
“The Sky is blue”
“No, no the sky is clearly green. It says so right here”
“Just look up, the sky is blue”
“I don’t have to, I have faith the sky is green. “
Ok ok ok, I’m coming in a little late here but it gave me the chance to see a few fails in a lot of people’s logic. Currently either way can’t be proven 100%, however, there is a HUGE difference in the words “facts”, “theories” and “beliefs” that some people are totally failing on here.
First off, Evolution is NOT a “belief” system. It’s a scientific process which is full of physical facts that point toward the answers to the theories that people had. I’ll break it down Nancy Drew style, there are clues leading us to the correct answers in the theories of evolution. To some it may not seem 100% true yet, but either way evolutionists have hundreds upon thousands of physical and non-physical fact to back up what they think is true. Also these facts don’t come from just one source, there are hundreds of different scientists from hundreds of different cultures that have that come to the same conclusions. This is what backs up evolution.
On the flip side we have creationism, which has one, yes just one thing, that backs up the theory that creationists posses, The Bible. Which is a book that has been around for less than 2,000 years (give or take) and has been translated, revised and tampered with several hundred times by humans (which we have recorded as a known fact). So, if there are any other “facts” backing up creationism that I am unaware of, please let me know. In no way am I bashing the bible, it does have very important stories and life lessons, I am just saying as a “factual document” it’s about as reliable as the children’s game of telephone is today because of mans influence on it. The Bible is a “belief” system, not a factual document, even the originals could have been forged, tampered with or changed to suit the writer and there’s no way of proving or disproving this. Thus making it impossible to be conceived as “fact”.
That’s my 2 cents on the matter.
Sorry that was poorly phrased… evolution hasn’t been proven 100% in humans, it has however been proven 100% in other areas. Best example is viruses. The common cold, flu and many other viruses evolve fast enough where we CAN see the changes right before our eyes.
So yeah, sorry about that. Poor wording on my part.
I’m glad you cleared that up. There are scientist who still argue human evolution. And people do confuse evolution of some animals to be the rule for all.
God is a win Jesus is a win Holy Spirit is a win. This is not a fail. Jesus died for us to pay our debt of sin. He desires you to change your mind and recieve a free gift of freedom and to be glorified with him in heaven. He loves you so much and you don’t relize it
Did Jesus die for all the sins committed until his death or for all sins ever to be made by mankind? Because if the latter is true I could kill my annoying neighbors and still go to heaven, no?
Just say you’re sorry and you can…I think…
The question is: Does Jesus think rock museums/exhibits are cool?
Not sure, but he might vandalize in the souvenir shop.
Set them free! Be free rocks!
That depends. If you mean minerals, yes, especially the glow in black light display. If you mean the Experience Music Project, not so much. The displays were all right, but He didn’t care for the building at all.
Get help. That level of crazy isn’t healthy.
In all seriousness I’m concerned about this kid’s ability to pass the proficiency tests. It’s a parents choice on how to educate your child, but at the point at which you’re denying your child a well-rounded education and a chance at passing proficiency tests and making a future for themselves I take issue with it…
Catharine, the sad truth is that these people are totally entrenched in a worldview of denial. They aren’t just a threat to their own children; they’re a threat to us all. We’re talking about people who choose to find a way to accept a notion as obviously wrong as Noah’s ark. Nevermind how those two koala bears swam across oceans to get to the ark…. with enough eucalyptus leaves in tow to last the journey there, the stay on the ark, and the journey back. It’s so obviously wrong, yet they will do any amount of contortioning to make it work. Not only are their children mis-served by this sickness, but society as a whole is harmed because of it. That’s why I say it’s NOT a matter of letting people believe what they want to; this shit has gone on WAY too long and society needs to find a way to civilly and humanely put the brakes on it. For the life of me I wish I knew how, but I am resolved to do what I can to help.
The problem is that for some reason dimwits breed faster than people with brains. I’m pretty sure society is going to end up like in the movie Idiocracy.
Brawndo! It’s what plants crave!
Electrolytes?
for crying out loud. debate on this subject gets you nowhere – i think that’s been established, here and for years on end.
creationism as well as evolution are both FAITHS.
a person requires conviction in order to support either one, seeing as neither has much COMPLETELY LEGIT fact to go by.
and before someone steps up with “WELL NO BECAUSE EVOLUTION HAS ALL THESE SCIENCEY THINGS THAT ARE TOTALLY BELIEVABLE AND TRUE/WELL NO THE BIBLE SAYS…,” let me rally a big “ehhh…not really.” because evolutionary data sounds just as ridiculous to a christian as God sounds to an evolutionist. if you publicly state something YOU believe is meaningful fact about evolution, you can expect someone else to counter with something THEY believe is absolute fact about creationism, and believe me, it’ll sound just as meaningful. because you both firmly believe in your opinion.
creationist & evolutionary views alike are going to be different depending on who you talk to and what you read. that’s common sense. and until you die, Jesus returns, or the missing link is discovered, no one is going to know for sure what the truth really is. the thing that matters is what you believe in your mind and heart, so strongly that you feel the need to defend it, be it the Bible or the Origin of Species.
i’m familiar with darwin’s work. i’ve read evolutionist theories. there is unsteady ground. there is unsteady ground in creationism, as well. hell, if you really wanna look into it, both sides are BUILT on unsteady ground. how is darwin any different than those who wrote the bible? they observed what they saw around them and wrote down what THEY EACH perceived. what you feel is right is entirely up to you.
personally, i find the idea of someone great and intelligent shaping us more enjoyable than the idea of the universe just appearing. i can’t look at a flower or study the human eye and tell myself such beauty and design came from prehistoric pond scum, which in turn happened from nothing at all. you see how i can’t help but put in about what i believe? it’s a faith thing. and it goes for evolution, too.
i believe what i believe, but i don’t feel the need to bash someone else’s belief in order to prove my own. i feel it in my heart, and that’s what’s important to me.
this parent’s note, though, i think was unnecessary. the letter never directly said anything about the earth being billions of years old, unless a keyword that suggests evolution is one that got blanked out, like the name of the museum or organization or something. the point is, LET YOUR KID GO ON THE FREAKING FIELD TRIP. it’s a fun experience, and it’s not like the administration is going to brainwash your child away from your belief. he’s in 6th/7th grade. you have plenty of time to teach him about Adam & Eve, and probably have been since he was little-little. ROCKS ARE COOL DAMMIT.
You ma’am, need to jump off a giant rock and hopefully hit your head on another if you think that evolution is a belief system and has no legitimate factual information to go on…
congratulations – you just missed & made my point for me simultaneously. c:
Care to explain how I made your point? Scientific proof of something isn’t a belief system thus needs no convictions to stand by. Belief requires conviction to stand by and to deny scientific proof of something. How exactly does that make your point?
Actually, the primordial ooze is a theory. So is “big bang”. The difference is that science is able to keep testing their own theories.
ah, france.
Soooo, France is a theory? I thought we proved their existence.
*looks for maps*
no no no, the tests that take place in france.
’twas on the news.
Ahh, France. Yes.
alright. as much as i hate looking back on things, i clearly said “not MUCH” legitimate information. you want fact? i’ll deal in evolutionary fact. you wanna tell me how on earth the ratlike creature assumed to have evolved into a bat could have possibly stayed alive, not being able to feed itself or move effectively (much less FLY), during the obviously lengthy time period it took for the thing to evolve wings and actually BECOME a bat?
my POINT was that, existence of scientific “fact” or not, it takes faith to believe in something. and while someone might be off preaching the total domination of one view, there’s going to be someone else, waaaay on the other side of the room, quietly laughing at the speaker. what matters is how you look at something and whether you decide to take it seriously or not.
you should see someone about that angry streak, btwayside.
Though I don’t have any proof I don’t think in the theory of evolution it is difficult to see how a rat could possibly become a bat.
Step one, rat that likes to eat fruit or something. It scavenges on the ground or up in trees. It says, “Hey I wish I could easily get to that tree over there, let me get together with my friends to see how we can do this.”
All the little rat creatures get together and are like, “Hell yeah, that tree looks tits!” So they start leaping for it, but they keep missing and falling and dieing.
Step 2, adaptation. Throughout thousands of years of scavenging for food, making little baby ratlets, and jumping to their doom they start to develop extra lengths of skin between their appendidges, like a flying squirrel. They eventually grow these large enough to be able to glide to the other tree and eat its fruit.
They then look to the sky and see some tasty looking bugs and are like, “You know what, trees suck, I want to live in caves and eat bugs and stuff.” and the rest are all like, “Yeah!”.
So it starts over, they lose mass over the thousands of years and those skin flaps begin to become wings.
It’s not like they are just sitting around and starving waiting for it to happen, it extremely subtle changes that happen over an extremely long period of time. (Except for viruses and few other exceptions).
No Scientific “fact” is not 100%, but it is as close to 100% as we can get with the materials we have at the time.
Hehe, lol!
But Seriously, these missing links indeed exist today.
look at the wings of a bat.
in comparison with rats, that’s a pretty big stretch. literally.
bat wings have a framework of loooong, thiiiin bones weaving throughout their wings, like super-extended fingers with large expanses of membrane between them.
so, over however many millions of years you wanna say, no matter how subtle the changes are, they WOULD have to take place. and drastically.
at one point in time, maybe halfway through the evolutionary process, we would have to imagine a small, furry mammal caught in between rat and bat. some length of a tail, a growing taste for insects, and leg-wings that render it immobile. bones somewhat extended – not long enough to fly yet, but just long enough to make movement painful and nearly impossible. saggy flaps of developing skin that haven’t been pulled taunt yet because of the too-short “wing” bones. the poor little guy would be unable to hunt, unable to even climb things and reach the inanimate food. also, rats aren’t even that fond of fruit – they eat a variety of other things. but in this rat/bat’s case, even if it WAS a version of rat that consumed fruit regularly, reaching it would be quite a pain. at one point or another, the creature would be confined to the ground, unable to run, climb, or even glide with its puny “wings.” this vulnerability would make the rat/bat easy prey for other animals, as well. eventually, you’d have to assume, if the change took place in ALL the creatures, this would lead to extinction.
that’s always what i’ve thought.
Perhaps this is easier for you.
1.) A colony of proto-bats moves into the forest canopy as they expand their search for food.
2.) Within this colony there are different phenotypes. Some of the proto-bats, due to a random mutation, have extra folds of skin between their digits.
3.) The proto-bats with the extra folds of skin are able to outcompete the “wild type” as they can make longer jumps between branches to escape predators or find an unreached food source.
4.) The “wild type” slowly dies out while more and more of the proto-bats have folds of skin between their digits.
5.) A new mutation or two occurs and now we have some proto bats with longer digits and a greater surface area skin fold. As before, these are able to glide longer distances making them more successful and more likely to reproduce.
6.) Through a successive sequence of mutations modifying the gliding traits over MANY generations you get a small number of proto-bats with the ability to fly under their own power. They can now chase their prey making them vastly more successful than the rest of the colony. They increase in number while the other proto-bats do not.
7.) Over many more generations, random mutations tweak the physical structures of proto-bats in our colony making some more able to survive and others less so. Eventually, we get something resembling our bat.
At no stage is there a proto-bat with useless folds of flesh and short digits because, as you said, it would not survive to reproduce. Rather, the proto-bats who reproduce will be the ones who have increased surface area in tandem with lengthening finger bones.
Evolution is merely the cumulation of useful mutations that allow populations to optimize their use of their environment and survive to reproduce. It has no endgame and no “halfway.”
ladystark (at) ymail
are you honestly going to look at the toes of a rat and a pair of bat wings and tell me that wouldn’t take a WHOLE LOT of gene-screwing to get from one to the other?
believing in a series of random, perfectly-timed genetic mutations spanning generation after generation and just happening to end up with a whole new creature is just as far-fetched as believing in a God.
They are hardly perfectly timed. That is why it takes millennia for you to get massive changes in the use of limbs, for example. Each characteristic is only slightly more exaggerated than the characteristic before it. Modification of existing structures goes the other way too. For example, cetaceans once were quadrupedal land animals but have lost their hind limbs as those conferred no advantage to them in the water. In some, you can still find the vestigial pelvic bone. I would suggest you search “homologous structures” to learn more.
You don’t seem to understand that rats, as we know them today, didn’t turn into bats, as we know them today, or vice versa. They stem from a single mammal ancestor, who produced several branches of mutations, two of which eventually ended up in bats and rats, respectively, as we know them today.
or so they say.
That’s a good argument.
That is a horrible argument…
Oops, what I meant to say was:
That is a horrible argument…
That would be like me saying God created the Heavens and the Earth…or so they say. The only difference is that we have fossils and research to back up our point of view.
And you can’t simply come up with your own rediculous version of how bats evolved from rats (where did you get that information anyways?), and use that as a reason why it couldn’t possibly be true. You or I might not have the explanation as to how it happened, but I can pretty much guarantee that someone who studies evolution does have those answers.
Or so they say is nowhere near a valid argument…it’s not an argument at all actually.
Proto-bats are still a hypothetical creature and have never been observed. So the above is a fictional story and since you talk about MANY generations your story could never be corroborated with actual evidence.
Evolution has never been proven and will never be proven because it didn’t happen.
It’s funny to me how many people just blindly follow the teachings of the public school system. I’m not telling you to believe anything but just take a close look at the factual evidence for evolution and not just the cool discovery channel what it probably would have been like shows. You’ll see it doesn’t have a solid ground.
If people do as you say and check the evidence they’ll quickly figure out that your an idiot so i don’t think i need to say much more here.
Agreed, Miles!
BigRon, people don’t “blindly follow” the teachings of the public school system. There’s no “blindly” about it. The things tought in a science class at a public school have been tested, researched, retested, hypothesized, theorized, proven and reproven. Public school teachings evolve with the discoveries made, whereas Catholic schools (not all catholic schools though…I went to catholic school for my entire school career and they had an EXCELLENT science program) or better yet, religion class uses the same “information” as they always have. Simply adapting the bible to any scientific laws they eventually realize they can’t denounce anymore, constantly adding passages that they claim are “metaphors” to suit their need to cling to a 2000 year-old novel that was writen only after many years of being handed down orally. If you ask me, you are the only who “blindly follows” whatever your priest/pastor/whoever “taught” you about evolution tells you to.
also, your post made me miss my pet rat.
her name was jessica.
she was awesomeeee. 8D
Wow. How convienent you had a ‘just-so’ story without any offerings of…waddya call it….evidence. You just made that whole thing up. If not, links to peer-reviewed papers that prove rats got together and said ‘hell ya, tree looks tits’. Seriously?
Ok Asetha, explain to me how all the animals that ever existed got into a small wooden boat (swimming from all the different continents?).
Explain how they didn’t eat each other.
Explain how they got their food.
Explain how not every person and animal on the planet is retarded since that would have obviously led to pure inbreeding.
I would really like to hear a valid explenation for that.
Otherwise I’ll gladly stick with the flying rats theory.
In a creationist’s opinion – God. Duh.
You are reading into the text. I don’t need to explain how all the animals that ever existed got into a wooden boat (which, btw, wasn’t small). They didn’t. Local flood, limited amounts of species on board. Sure, all of humanity could have been wiped out, but all of humanity at that point didn’t amount to a whole lot of individuals. Cages stop animals from eating each other. And at some point, yes, every human on earth is statistically related to one another.
Have fun with the rats.
So what you are saying is, if it fits, take it literally, if it doesn’t, take it metaphorically.
Nice one.
This is getting on my nerves.
Also, stop talking about providing evidence if you’re not going to yourself.
There are hundreds of thousands of papers explaining, testing and investigating evolution. Written by some of humanity’s greatest minds.
I would like to see some of the evidence from your side of the story. And by evidence, I don’t mean a single “scientific” paper that can easily be debunked by the vast majority of other scientists opposing it.
Sorry, for the three comments, but I keep finding new ridiculous stuff to reply to.
You obviously have no clue whatsoever about the gigantic variety of species we have in this world. Even if your wooden ship was 2 times the size of titanic (which it, obviously, wasn’t) couldn’t you fit even half of the species in there. Furthermore: would have been an aaaawful lot of cages if you want to put two of each species of insects in a little tiny cage. As there are tens (maybe more, i’m not a biologist) of thousands.
And the bible didn’t spoke of local floods, the bible spoke of every animal getting on the stupid boat. Don’t go interpretating if your little book was meant to be taken literally.
I have in numerous posts provided all the standard arguments for God’s existence. If you haven’t read them that’s your problem, not mine.
Evidence on what, exactly? That species evolve? Sure. That species become new species? Doubt it. That phyla become new phyla? Hell no.
And since when is consensus considered science? Was Galileo with the consensus? Newton? Einstien? No. Consensus means less that the ink it’s written with in the scientific world. A million wrong scientists are still wrong. It only takes one. So please stop talking about numbers. I’m hardly the only educated guy in the world who believes in God. If you have a problem with that, well, you should know that you’re not in the consensus.
You never really here the debunking side because most evolutionist don’t listen. Most scientific papers that I’ve read are theories and peer reviewed by like minded scientist. Scientist who don’t believe in evolution are discredited and usually their voice is silenced but what do they have to say.
Our “just so stories” were meant to address an individual’s specific confusion regarding how a particular feature might evolve. However, I am hardly one who would turn down a request for sources. I hope you are not intimidated by embryology: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/17/6581.full
The ‘just so’ stories are entirely without observed fact and developed to explain absolutely anything one comes across in the natural world. Ergo bat digits. Look – they were small. Now they are long. Evolution from whales to humans must be true!
What??? You lost me so completely that I have no idea what you are talking about any more. If you wish to continue this conversation I suggest we take it to private email, as this page is growing too big for my computer to load.
I’ll leave you with one last question: Is it not possible that an all-knowing Creator could create a system by which Its creations could change to better fit a changing world?
ladystark (at) ymail
It’s cos they didn’t. rats and bats aren’t related anyway. Rats are rodents and bats evolved from shrews which aren’t rodents.
Aw yay, people liked my story!
Hmmm Maybe I will come up with a way People evoled from whales. I’ve argued that we’ve evolved from rocks before…that was fun!
Plus, have any of you not looked at a tree and said “That tree looks tits, I want to live there!”
…
Yeah we have all been there, Stop lieing to yourselves and accept the rat/bats for who they are!!! Leave rat/bat alone!!!
Not much? You need to go to school some time…
And the reason it was able to survive is that it was able to provide for itself… if everything were to be on the breaking point, evolution couldn’t occur. But if you truly need that explanation, then you haven’t a clue how we got here in the first place. There are so many perfect examples of how that works in this thread alone I can’t help but to be baffled that you even asked such a question.
i’m sorry – you’re avoiding the question, you say?
i’mma go now – sleeeeepyyyyy.
EVERYBODY GET ALONG NOW~ : D
“you wanna tell me how on earth the ratlike creature assumed to have evolved into a bat could have possibly stayed alive, not being able to feed itself or move effectively (much less FLY), during the obviously lengthy time period it took for the thing to evolve wings and actually BECOME a bat?” = understanding of basic principals of evolutionary theory fail. And lolWIN.
great explanation you got there.
Nice attempt to try to weasel out of the spotlight.
The entire sum of human knowledge is at your fingertips right now, including several excellent websites on beginning level information on evolutionary processes. I have spent a great deal of time studying this subject, which is why I am able to identify your lack of understanding. I put in my time. The people who make websites dedicated to science education put in a hell of a lot more, for the sake of humanity at large. I suggest you spend some time on learning the basics about a subject before you argue about it, instead of trying to turn the focus on me.
oh goodness~
i’ve put in my study time, as well. it would seem, my friend, that we focus on two very different types of research. and you can’t respect thaaaaat.
i am not “taking the spotlight off myself.”
i just find it funny that you comment on how much i fail, yet you refuse to counter with your thoughts.
I did counter with my thoughts: they were, if you’ll pardon me for paraphrasing, “You don’t know what you’re talking about. Go do some reading and get back to us.”
You focus on a very different type of research? That’s cool, but what does it have to do with evolution? Because evolution was the topic, you know.
And what is it with people like you immediately pulling the respect card? I “can’t respect” your pursuit of some other type of research, that you haven’t even named so I don’t know what it is? Is it possible for a person to not respect an unknown something? You haven’t studied much on the basic principles of logic and debate either, have you?
I’m going to post a comment in a thread about 14th century French literature that clearly demonstrates that I don’t know anything about 14th century literature, and when someone points out that I have no idea what I’m talking about I’ll smokescreen by claiming that they’re the dummies for not giving me all the information.
And then I’ll tell ‘em that I focus on a very different type of research and they can’t respect thaaaaat.
Damn, you’re on to something here… using that tactic, I don’t have to actually know anything.
I could counter with more thoughts if you want, but I would advise against it if I were you.
okay. thank you for the suggestions, but i’m okay with my current standpoint and don’t feel that i need to do any more reading. call me ignorant, but i’ve never been more content.
neither of us were employing very much respect.
now it’s just rudeness.
i’m not trying to change anyone’s agenda, and no one is going to change mine. just like no one is going to change yours. we’re all entitled to our says, but this is useless.
Well you’re being honest and polite in making that point, and I can definitely respect that.
That’s why they say ignorance in bliss…
Deoesn’t mean you’re right though.
You sure type a lot, but all I see is blah, blah.
Try to be more concise.
Thanks.
try to understand that you are on the INTERNET.
you’re welcome~
That’s much better.
Thanks.
OOH OOH.
how’s this?:
lol, rock phail
8D
H0P3, you say creationism and evolution are both faiths, and you’re right. Evolutionists place their faith in the results of millions of hours of research done by thousands of trained specialists all over the world throughout the last century, and creationists place their faith on a collection of scriptures written by a group of nomadic shepherds who roamed the Middle East during the Bronze Age.
ooohh, seeee~
this is what i was trying to get at.
be a grown up,
respect other peoples’ beliefs,
do whatever you want with your own,
and understand that i think yours is just as silly as you think mine is. c:
Disagreement does not equal disrespect. And I never said your beliefs were silly, although you just said mine are, and that I should be a grown up (implying I’m not acting like one). How respectful is that, from someone saying we should show respect? That’s not a rhetorical question, by the way: honestly asking yourself that question could be a good exercise.
Even I find it difficult to show respect for a person when I have no respect for that person’s beliefs, but it’s still a good exercise and I do try. An example of a tough one for me would be maintaining respect for the flat Earth people, even though their beliefs are in my view, frankly, idiotic. Or the parents who pray over their child instead of getting medical attention and the child dies. That’s a really tough one because their beliefs have killed their child. But if I don’t want to be a hypocrite, I have to remember that the whole reason this issue gets me so angry is that I believe that people DESERVE BETTER. Even those parents deserve better- they deserve the opportunity to help their child the best they can. They’ve been robbed of that opportunity, and I am outraged by it because I care about them even if I disagree with their beliefs.
My entire argument is this: the ancient Hebrews weren’t stupid; they did the best they could with what they knew at the time. So did the Greeks, the Maya, and the ancient Chinese. We all should do the best we can with what we have in our time. And clinging to outdated myths, superstitions, and practices get in the way of doing our best. It shows more respect for the dead than it does for the living.
Your last response was hardly respectful to me, and certainly a disappointment if I had been hoping for a thoughtful argument from you. I put a little more effort into this one, and I hope you won’t just dismiss it out of hand too. A thoughtful response, after all, would be the respectful thing to do.
“Evolutionists place their faith in the results of millions of hours of research done by thousands of trained specialists all over the world throughout the last century, and creationists place their faith on a collection of scriptures written by a group of nomadic shepherds who roamed the Middle East during the Bronze Age.”
i don’t know. i felt kind of disrespected by that. you just belittled my belief in favor of your own, and then stated that you “find it difficult to show respect for a person when you have no respect for that person’s beliefs,” so…
i said i would have respect for a person’s beliefs. not the actual person who starts insinuating things about the other party’s written law. is that not less than respectful? i am sorry if i offended you, but you started the venture with a negative approach and it raised my hackles. let me just say i respect your points in this conversation.
the bible was written by many different people at many different locations over many different time periods, and it has been the very key to the history of ancient Israel, among other cultures. it also just so happens to be the documented story of the world’s creation, or rather, the way i believe it happened. it’s a special thing to Christians – no one likes to have their special things mistreated. that’s something i think we can all understand. no one is asking you to abandon your own thoughts – only to respect those of others. i respect evolutionist views. i’ll gladly argue them, some part of me will always think they are silly (just as you said you have problems respecting those with views opposite your own), but i respect them.
when it comes to parents sitting by and praying while their children die beside them, i don’t know of anyone who has ever done that. unless they were financially unstable, every Christ-following family i know would most definitely seek medical attention in that time of need. there are large amounts of prayer, too, of course, but as far as i’ve seen, this generation knows when it’s time to call the doctor. believing in God doesn’t make you thick in the head. and, you know, the whole reason i believe in God is because of the difficult things i’ve seen and been through. i am hardly perfect and far from virtuous. but sometimes, when certain experiences pop up, you can’t help but believe in something more than science.
it’s a personal choice. and, just like everyone else, it stings a little when others condescend to you and call you crazy because of something you deem wonderful.
i’m all for science. we would be nothing without experimentation and hypothesis. but even though we should do the best we can with what we have, and should definitely keep searching for answers, that doesn’t mean everyone should suddenly stop believing in something that’s been very real to them their entire lives. and that goes for EVERYONE. to me, this isn’t an outdated myth. it’s not superstition, either. it’s my faith. and in the past, it’s been the only thing that’s kept me upright.
to tell you the truth, i don’t LIKE religion. i enjoy learning about the various religions, and i find them interesting, but religion starts war and gets people murdered. it’s never been about religion for me. it’s been about a relationship with God, and that makes me happy. i think people should be free to pursue what makes them happy, and then be celebrated because of it or left alone about it. it’s not fair to nitpick on evolution, or any other belief, view, opinion, faith, or religion of another human being. we’re all going to have objections, but, like you said, it’s important to care about people, even if you disagree with their worldviews.
she should have let her kid go on the field trip.
‘I don’t know. i felt kind of disrespected by that. you just belittled my belief in favor of your own…’
If the facts belittle your beliefs doesn’t that say a lot?
Substitute my comparison with this one:
I own a Kumatsu D575A-3SD (world’s largest bulldozer) and you own a shovel.
It’s a statement of fact, sure. But it would be rude to actually point that fact out to a person’s face. Why? Because it’s impolite to point out someone’s shortcomings to them? Because it assumes that owning the world’s largest bulldozer is “better” than owning a shovel? (It certainly isn’t if you need to dig a hole in your back yard for planting a tree.) Maybe someone might suspect I think I’m a better person than the guy with the shovel.
The cause for insult is the reflex that someone thinks they’re better than you. That’s understandable, and in this case I can’t argue that my statement clubbed him over the head a bit. It was intended to. Not as an insult, however, and I do sincerely mean that. I just wanted him to LOOK at it and THINK. “Is the world view regarding the subject of evolution (or any topic regarding the natural history of the Earth) better served by modern knowledge, or ancient knowledge?
In that light, my analogy would be more akin to making the bulldozer/shovel statement at a strip mine where a guy with a shovel was claiming that he could do the work as well as I could. And in that context it’s less an insult than an outburst of incredulous surprise.
that’s how you feel about it.
but what if, in someone else’s mind, having a shovel makes a whole lot more sense?
it’s slower work, but the rewards are great.
the evolutionist research facts most certainly did not directly belittle my beliefs.
what did was the fact that the person i was speaking with made a claim i found to be untrue about my beliefs, while putting them on a lower pedestal to his/her own.
which is something we all do–i mean, come on.
+ it doesn’t say a lot if you don’t quite agree with the facts and their extensions.
You disagree with the claim of who wrote the bible? It isn’t even like the pope himself disagrees with that it’s sounding a lot like you don’t even know your own beliefs.
+ of course it says a lot of you disagree with the facts. What do you mean extensions? How do you extend a fact? By adding fallacies? Because that’s what creationists do, not scientists. Unless you were just trying to fit a long word in there…
holy crap. did you even read our original posts?
+ they’re not all fact to me.
how about i just say you won’t understand mine, i won’t understand yours, and we’ll call it a night.
coexist. avoid. whatever.
i gotta fold laundry.
You do nothing but ignore the points made and when they’re pushed and your pushed you duck out. Debating creationists will only ever lead to this. It was a pleasure being entertained by you.
you’re so closed-minded, it’s almost laughable.
at least i try to RESPECT others’ opinions.
i’ll counter them, but i respect them.
as opposed to you, who sits there and refutes everything that challenges your way.
don’t try and act so big. retract your claws a bit.
it makes it harder to take you seriously.
i got three hours of sleep last night.
forgive me if i’d rather rest than continue a conversation headed to nowheresville.
i don’t expect you to understand my personal journeys.
not everything is about data.
…
and it’s “YOU’RE.”
as in “YOU ARE.”
not “YOUR,” which shows possession.
/apostrophe, plz
Your resorting to correcting spelling errors in a BLOG? Lol okay then if that’s all you have left:
Capital Y on YOU’RE opening sentence. Capital A on your second. ‘others” it isn’t others is so you type ‘others’. Capital I in your next sentence and you ended with a full stop…
Actually i’m bored this is a blog you see you can type how you like it’s about getting MEANING across not accuracy of language. The irony here is that i’m a studying English teacher.
You said it yourself, you inferred an insult from my statement about the people who wrote the Bible. My statement was a pure statement of fact, not any insult. If you read it without emotion you’ll find it is an accurate if not broadly generalized statement of fact. Your inference is a reflection of your own feelings, not mine.
If you don’t know of any families who haven’s sat by and prayed while their children died instead of getting them medical attention, you have missed a lot of TV and print news articles over the last decade. (I don’t mean that to be an insult either, it’s a statement of fact too but I’ll be darned if I can come up with a nice way to say it. I don’t mean it as an insult though, sincerely.) A google search will reveal articles like this http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-15-forced-chemotherapy_N.htm —or this—- http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/2008/04/former-member-of-church-that-refuses.html The only good thing about this phenomenon is that it’s not widespread.
I agree, she should let her kid go on the field trip. I really worry for the kid’s future. She’s doing what she believes is right, but she’s hobbling her son academically in a world where lack of education is often a one-way ticket to the grey area between poverty and lower middle-class.
I think it’s more accurate to say that those of us who accept evolutionary theory to be true, do so based on trust. We trust the theory because it has made clear and falsifiable predictions, and those predictions has always proven to be correct.
Trust is earned, faith is blind.
Interesting tagline, Sceptic.
sid meier civilization for bibel retards guy only 4000 years instead a billion
Try SimEarth, millions of years to play, although the game is slightly old now (PC and SNES versions came out in ~1990-1992).
You are all retards for feeding into the argument on either side of the debate… believe what you want to, educate yourselves how you desire, and draw your own conclusions… keep your mouth shut and be thought of as ignorant or open your mouth and remove all doubt…
yes this person seems uneducated and biased… no one gives a sh*t… good day
and yet you felt the need to reply…
goodness, you are just mr. bitters today~
again, another baseless remark that totally means nothing… good call!
it means you forgot to take your happy pills this morning, silly!
I feel the need to participate in this argument because religious garbage like this damages society at large. I will do what I can to fight it because it IS important. Which is a shitlot better than you, saying you don’t care but then posting about it anyway. People like you are as much a burden to society as the fundie nuts.
oh noes, i think you want bloody_trauma’s original thread… ;3;
Indeed; my apologies.
My Penis is bigger than yours…
Indeed, but so does your mom. And your dad’s better in bed than either of them.
I can’t help but wonder if this kid’s name is Carrie White =/
I like pie.
Pee I IIlk
I went to two schools who were like that… My folks AND I complained about the crap they taught in those places…
I could have been a Doctor…
Christ, the goofy shit bags one has to get their education from so they can be something worthwhile in life!
FACT: The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old. This can be proven through many many different methods of scientific observation. This is not a theory, not a belief, it is a FACT.
ergo: This letter = FAIL.
In the creationism story, there was NOTHING before 6,000 years ago, so that means there were no stars. Does that mean that the stars we can see today which are more than 6,000 light years away do not exist, or that their light can travel faster than the speed of light?
I suppose the light was just ‘put there’ somewhere in space, from where it could travel to earth within 6000 years….? That would make it fit again…. LOL
This all made me realize one thing about God: he is a hermaphrodite.
Just think about it. God created Man in his own image. Man has two genders. Therefore, God has two genders. Since he is the father of humanity, he had to copulate with himself.
We all know what influence copulation with that kind of cosanguinity can have on children. Hence, they were born defective, with only one gender and inbreeding has made all godly characteristics disapear.
Thus the hermaphrodite is the purest form of Man. Jesus probably was one.
In the same line of thought, one could conclude that masturbation, having sex with oneself, is one of the best ways to get closer to God. Heterosexual sex is act of trying to become one with the opposite gender, like God is. Homosexual sex could be a way to copulate with someone being as alike to one self as possible.
You see? Religion DOES make some kind of sens when you really think about it. I, for one, believe and will jack off to that.
So funny with all the flame wars, even the vatican is starting to think that evolution exists. They are starting to not take the bible literary and taking it metaphorically like it was intended from start.
Probaly the family gave her last $2.00 to church…
good call
Bonjour,
Se sont les théologiens de la Sorbonne (Paris), et non la Bible, qui ont décrété que la Terre datait de 6000 ans. une des premières personnes a contredire cette date fut Georges Buffon en 1744. Pour cela, il a mesuré le temps de refroidissement de boulets de canon de différents diamètres préalablement chauffés au blanc et extrapolé le résultat au diamètre de la Terre. Il détermina que la Terre datait de 10 millions d’années. De nos jours, la Terre a été daté a 4.56 milliards d’années selon de nouvelles méthodes de datation.
Hello,
Were the theologians of the Sorbonne (Paris), not the Bible, who decreed that the Earth was dated 6,000 years. One of the first people to contradict this date was Georges Buffon in 1744. For this, he measured the cooling time of cannon balls of different diameters previously heated to white and extrapolated the results to the diameter of Earth. He determined that dated back to Earth 10 million years. Nowadays, the Earth has been dated to 4.56 billion years according to new methods of dating.
I think this pretty much sums it up…
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/sumerians_look_on_in_confusion_as
Awesome!
This guy is an embarrassment to creationists and Christians everywhere.
X(
it’s kind of painful.
Creationists idea of fact: One book, author unknown.
Evolutionists idea of fact: Tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence and 150 years of detailed scientific research.
Boy, I bet people like this just _loath_ NASA and the Hubble telescope
No, that’s all fake. We never landed on the moon, it was all done in a soundstage. Aliens are really angels and the dinosaurs wouldn’t fit on Noah’s boat.
Jesus just called me from his allosorusphone. He wants us to stop arguing and be happy.
What’s really interesting is that this took place not where you would have expected it: Manitoba Canada. That’s where the Canadian Fossil Discovery Centre is located.
Damn, we’re even losing our superiority in ignorant Xtian fundamentalists to other countries now….
Beat ya to it
http://failblog.org/2010/01/06/field-trip-fail/#comment-736321
The fewer of them in the USA the better.
God is fiction.
The Bible is a book of fairy tales.
Jesus Freaks are ignorant.
Have a nice day.
oh hilarious. Let’s make fun of people’s religious beliefs. What next — oh hahah the religion of Islam doesn’t like images of Muhammad to be shown. Haha. Or, oh hahah kippahs look so ridiculous on jews. hahah.
Just because you don’t believe it — and nor do I — and you find it to be ridiculous does not mean that it is ok to display your intolerance on the internet.
there’s other uses for the internet?!?!
porn
From what I see, the comments are the fail in this post, not the picture.
The amount of discord here only shows on a very small scale how closed-minded humans are of each other. Who cares if one is right or not, why can’t we just respect one another?
We all have differing opinions, beliefs, thoughts, and lifestyle. I think we all know that, but the sooner we realize that’s not going to change, instead of trying to push our points on each other, just accept it. Not saying you have to believe it, but accept that the other person believes it, but keep believing what you believe.
Evolution… we’re going through one right now, not in the way you all speak of it now, but global warming, rise in human population, loosing resources, dying lands, shrinking rain forests… this is change to come, and here you are all bickering whether or not your own believes are true or not. SO WHAT!? Instead of bickering about what is theory or truth of the past, we should focus on the present and the future. While massive biological and habitat changes are being made right now, that will forever change the face of this planet, why don’t you start worrying about that instead?
There looks to be a lot of smart, educated and maybe scientist types who have posted here, why not use your education and help us save this planet before entire ecosystems are wiped out… all because we humans were too thick to see what we were doing.
Like you are all doing right now.
Yeah, you guys need to work on saving the planet.
Get back to work!
The kids of today are the scientists of tomorrow. Not granting them a decent education is therefor dispicable.
Hence: picture = fail.
Listen here the world is ment to be close minded dumsdass
For them, there no way to change the future!
What they’ll do? Pray to save the world?
They’re wrong! They need to change her minds!
Only scientists can’t change the world!
Sorry about my english!
I’m closed-minded when it comes to willful ignorance, yes. I’m not bickering about my beliefs because I don’t have any. I have reasonable expectations based on previous experience and factual evidence. I don’t BELIEVE my car is where I parked it, but neither do I KNOW it. I have a reasonable expectation that it’s there based on previous experience.
I’m arguing here because previous experience has taught me that when people base their actions on fact and reason, they have better outcomes, and when they base their actions on beliefs, their chances of good outcome are reduced to no better than what one would expect from a random coin toss. Religious belief is one of the single greatest threats to the ongoing development of our species. I discourage it whenever possible and encourage reason instead. What a closed-minded jerk I am.
And I’m gonna be really PISSED if I go out there right now and my car is gone…
Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so many more believers than thinkers
The school can’t force the kid to abandon his faith. The father is right to raise his kids just like he thinks is right. When the kids grow up, they can think about it and keep his faith or give up. But while he is a child, his parents must raise him according to their beliefs. And the school should not say that’s wrong, It’s a matter of respect.
Nobody can obligate people to abandon their faiths and values.
when he’s grown up it will be too late. No decent education = not much choice in jobs.
*poof!*
*Jezus magically creates a college degree*
The trouble is that saying the earth is only 6000 years old is a lie. Plain and simple. It’s like saying the Earth is flat at this point. Teaching your kid lies does not help them. I simply cannot imagine any circumstances where it would.
Does every public school not have a religion class? Hell, this might even be a catholic school! Are you aware that in Manitoba there is an equal amout of time spent learning science as there is religion? (10% of the curriculum is devoted to each). Do you know why that is? It’s because it is MANDATORY that children recieve a proper and balanced education, based on what the government decides. So yes, this parent can tell their kids whatever they want at home, but to tell them that they can’t go to a museum because it’s spouting lies about the age of the earth is absolutely rediculous. The fact that the age of the earth isn’t even IN the bible makes this all the MORE rediculous.
The fact that you’re suggesting that this school is forcing the kid to abandon their faith is PURE speculation and completely and utterly unfounded. That’s like saying that by sticking atheis kids in religion class, they’re forcing religion down their throat. Untrue, and you know it.
When a kid grows up thinking things like the world is 6000 years old, from a very young age (which, judging by the devoutness of this parent, probably started right outta the womb), it’s pretty darn hard to teach them otherwise. Why do you think there are so many religious extremist groups that tell their parish that seeking medical help from doctors is a one-way ticket to hell because they’re questioning God. Or that being homosexual is grounds for being thought of as less-than-human and that they deserve less than basic human rights. It’s because it starts at a young age, and that’s all a kid will grow up knowing. It’s wrong, and this parent is wrong, and they’re stunting their child’s development. It’s just as bad as not feeding, clothing, or sheltering him. Oh wait, they are sheltering him…from the evil evil scientists who are trying to fill the kid with the devil’s thoughts!
Epic Win
All religouse people fail at life
Faith = false hope … enough said
Like your parents had faith in you?
Just kidding.
All humans have faith. If you believe in a place on earth that you have never visited, you are doing so based on the authority of someone who says they have been there and seen it. In the same way, Christians believe in the things mentioned in the bible based on the writing of the bible itself and the authority of the authors claiming to have “seen it”. So whether you believe in a place you haven’t seen on earth or a place like heaven, you do so with faith in something.
Yes I have faith I will continue to see people fail and die
Not the same thing. Your example is easily verifiable by simply looking at a map. Faith in God, however, has no such safety net.
Spoiler Alert:
Pilate Kills Jesus
Which, we find out 3 days later, is also a “dead people”
Actually I hope Jesus was real and gets reborne or something so I can kill him…..well tourture to death
I’d rather see some pissed off SSJ Jesus kicking heretic butts left and right.
Now THAT would lead me to believe.
anyway… the kid died??
Marcelo BR your going to die if you don’t stop being retarded
There’s no point in arguing with those who believe, so literally, in a story book. Everyone knows the flying spaghetti monster is the one who placed all of those tricky fossils there anyway.
Who said i belived in dinosaurs..are you a proclaimed failosaur…..I will fossilize your face
Dekar will die a slower more painfull death…..steel wool stratching garnished with some cool poison ivy
Poe’s Law.
I’m trying to think of what the hell poe’s law is and how I should kill you
Poe’s law: if you pretend to be a religious fundie, no matter how dumb you act, someone’s gonna fall for it. Cause there’s always a real fundie who is REALLY that crazy.
One thing I wonder is: who posted this? The teacher? But that’s contradicted by the title where it says “I BET the child isn’t popular”, implying the poster doesn’t know him.
I’m a christian…and I hate people like this. so freaking annoying.
Please forgive my religion. we are not all nutjobs like this person, despite what the world seems to think.
Isn’t “hate” frowned upon? I thought Christ…you know the root of CHRISTianity, told you to love everyone no matter what? You may have to repent….
mature.
The meak inherite nothing onasaril you along with chrisianity will and currently are failling
There’s nothing wrong with having views on either side of the debate. Although I’m not religious and think the Bible was written by man and continuously updated by man to serve needs of control and fear, I tolerate religion. What I don’t tolerate is when religious people take an inappropriate opportunity to throw their faith in other people’s faces, as the parent did in this situation. To subject their child to the humiliation of not being able to go on the field trip, for the reasons stated, is despicable and a form of mental abuse IMHO. People like this are not just faithful, they are addicts, with religion as their drug of choice.
Personal opinion: I choose not to be religious because I have seen absolutely no proof that anything in the bible is true. What evidence there has been can easily be explained away by science, and in my opinion, science has trounced religion in every disagreement. This is because all religion has been able to produce for proof is a 2000 year old book that is nothing like it’s original version. Science has produced hard facts that have enabled huge advances for humankind and improved out quality of life immensely. Religion knows this, because they have systematically persecuted scientists throughout history. Had science not come along to improve our society, we would be much like the middle east, where religion has had the upper hand. I’m stating my opinion here, because this is an appropriate place to do it, as we are having a debate. Having stated my views, if my child were going on a field trip to a church, I wouldn’t think twice about letting them go, and certainly wouldn’t write what I just wrote here on the permission slip.
cmerlo1 I somewhat agree……happy failing and have a great death
I am pretty sure what the note meant to say is “your world is just ‘evolving,’ ours has a start and an end.”
since when is believing something different a fail?
Seriously…it may not be socially acceptable to write it on a note to the teacher, but everyone has a right to believe something different.
It becomes a fail becuase any retard knows it only The world was only made one way…..the right way…sciences way….duurrrrhh Lynn GIMP FACE
Yes, I agree. People have the right to ignore facts if they wish.
I only care when creationists try to get religious philosophy written into a science textbook or insist that leaders follow some sort of religious faith. It betrays the notion of religious freedom and betrays science itself, since science only deals with what we can prove as true.
Exactly. No one on the side of logic and reason actually cares if others want to be total morons and raise their kids to be the same. We care when they start trying to drag everyone down to their idiot level.
That’s the problem in a nutshell. It’s all well and good to be wilfully ignorant as an adult, but when you then go and inflict that on a child it’s a reprehensible act IMO.
Imagine if you grew up being told by your parents that blue was red and forks were knives. Imagine what would happen when you go to school for the first time and the shame, embarrassment and anger at finding out everything you thought you knew is wrong.
Now consider that religion’s creation myths are less obviously patently false and require a modest education, and some measure of logic and critical thinking to disprove. Then consider a person denied that education who does not have a natural inclination to logic and critical thinking.
What do you get when they enter society? The legion of sheep who blindly follow a myth because it’s what they were taught or is easier to comprehend than the truth (truth has a habit of not being easy or soft and fluffy and full of cherubic children playing with bizarrely docile lions). Lies are comforting if they’re all you know or can comprehend, or your need to belong to a group outweighs reason.
Yup – it’s a sad state of affairs…
Hi Wizardling,
that sheep reminds me: it is easier to follow a shepherd and to look for your own way.
When someone does something like pulling their kid in a stroller behind a motorcycle or telling someone that the earth is 6,000 years old, that is considered a fail because normal people realize that these are dimwits.
As dimwits continue to outprocreate us, “normal” will eventually change, and then the dimwits will make fun of us.
Rent Idiocracy if you need more explanation.
Brawndo!
It’s got Electrolytes
maybe it was the writing an idiotic note to the teacher that’s the fail part.
Thanks, Dean o! Hopefully it’ll be quick, spectacular, saving someone else’s life, and very far in the future!
I’m a Roman Catholic and have had a nun tell me that it’s all right to believe in evolution, so long as you give God credit for creating the soul. What most people don’t understand is that NOTHING IN GENESIS REALLY HAPPENED! Its all metaphorical, and also something no one else thinks of, it also says in the bible that “God’s time is not our time” so how do you now it took a week? maybe it took a week by God’s time, and I think he has a little more of that than we do.
I’m not very religious, I just wanted to contribute.
thanks for listening see ya next week
are your sure you will see us next week? Maybe we will see your soul next week, hopefully not your physical remains ;p
Dude, you need to work on your “your” “you’re” placement.
you’re going to have to work on your funeral arrangements
stfu man you have nothing usefult o say during this debate. all you say is go die man!
on a side note that spread that word to this nutjob who said the earth is 6000 years old (dont have to convert her just inform her)
yup, even the current and last couple popes have openly embraced evolution, so this isn’t strictly a “science VS religion” issue but an issue with the religions that chose not to *ahem* evolve.
I would like to be able to say “all things in time” but its been long enough that I doubt it will ever occur.
member pope gregory, creater of the gregorian calender (the one we use today for those who don’t know it was made by a pope!)
He made the calender based on the cycles of the sun. he went to scuientists for help.
science and religion can get along, its a matter of not attacking but thinking
>they will do the essay ‘Rock and Minerals’ but it might not be 5 pages long, and about billions of years, it will be according to the Bible.”
Fine, but expect an F!
It’s sad. Every time I see this argument on the internet (or anywhere), it’s nothing but one side calling the other delusional morons, while the other calls the first arrogant heathens who are going to hell. None of you care anything about either God OR science! You just want to feel superior to someone else! Shame on all of you.
actually alot of these people are scientists so if scientists dont care about science then….wtf?
WTF indeed.
Look, I realize my comment may not apply to each and every single individual poster. I didn’t have time to read EVERY comment. But this is what these “discussions” generally spiral off into. Those who do care about God, or science, or both (yes, that’s possible), have to throw up their hands and step out of the fray. Because there is no reasoning with anyone who is just looking for an excuse to believe they are better than someone else.
So you decide to just come on here and make derogatory assumptions about groups of people. Hmmmm….I think there’s a name for that.
It’s not derogatory, and it’s not an assumption. It’s observable behavior that is happening right here. Your attempt to turn the argument on me doesn’t change that.
Does that make you feel superior? Ha Ha.
No, but it makes me sad.
idea were in a sims like video game being played buy aliens and when we die that’s them deleting the game
sorry meant we are
Youare all friggin nuts! The Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. And the end of time will come in what is known as “The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief”
The amount of fail in this blogpost is just staggering. There should not even be a debate: there is NO OTHER SCIENTIFIC alternative to explain the diversity of life than evolution. People trying to debate evolution have no idea what they are talking about: they have no real concept of how the scientific model actually works, what a scientific theory actually means and most importantly what the theory of evolution actually is.
It is sad that idiots like young earth creationists think that they know better than scientists that devote their whole working life and countless man-hours in biology, geology, astronomy and such. That is intellectual dishonesty and FAIL in my opinion. So, if you cannot cite credible sources or cannot produce a reliable phd (Discovery institute not included) you are out of your league and should shut up, regardless of what you think you know.
I agree we are right but lets reach 1000 at least it will be fun!!
And the sheer number of astronomically unlikely coincidences which all had to occur, exactly right, IN A ROW, in order for evolution to take place as it seems to have done, is mind boggling. And yet here we are. So no matter what you say, the belief that some force was there guiding the process, even minimally, is no more absurd that the idea that it all happened by a nigh-impossible fluke.
The real problem with this debate is not figuring out which side is right, it is the fact that neither side is willing to accept that perhaps BOTH SIDES ARE RIGHT. Because if they accepted that, then how would they feel superior?
Well, sure, there might have been a force that started it all, although I won´t humor the idea too much. Still, substituting what we could know with “god” is not going to advance our understanding of the universe and the potential of progressing technology to a point we could not imagine. Science brought us computers and space rockets, prayers didn´t.
I agree. (Except for “humor”, because that still sounds like you’re calling me an idiot, just in a gentler way) I believe in God, and I believe he designed a universe that we were meant to explore and gradually understand. Science and God are not mutually exclusive. The problem that many of the religious defensive folks is that they insist on claiming God is too infinite for us to comprehend, and therefore so must be his creation, and at the same time they put all sorts of limits on Him. “Aliens don’t exist because they’re not part of God’s Plan.” Why? God can’t have a bigger plan than you are aware of? “Homosexuality is sinful because God’s Plan was for men and women to procreate.” Guess what, the planet’s overpopulated. Maybe He has a new plan. Maybe this was part of the plan from the start. “Evolution doesn’t exist because God can just go *poof* an aarvark, *poof* a giraffe, instantly.” Well, sure, He CAN, but does that mean He couldn’t have done it some other way?
And clearly, humans have the ability to learn, progress, and adapt to new information (even if some refuse to do so), and if that is so, and if God designed us, then He must have intended us to develop science and gain an understanding of the universe, and therefore it equally makes sense that he would have designed the universe according to a logical pattern that we would be able to study and comprehend. Both ideas coexist without any problem at all. Unfortunately, people on either “side” have a harder time.
And one of the problems with those on the Science! side of the argument is the insistence that God cannot exist if no proof of his existence can be produced. Could we prove that the stars were distant suns before the invention of telescopes? No. Were they? Yes. Could we prove that cells made up life, or that atoms made up matter, before we developed the technology to observe the microscopic? No. Did they? Yes. Can we prove there is life on other worlds than our own? No. Does that mean there isn’t? In years to come we may invent interstellar travel and meet such life for ourselves. How can we say they are not there, just because we don’t yet have the power to find them?
@ whatever finally! someone says that! I believe in god, but i certainly dont believe in the bible. Has it ever occurred to anyone else that god might exist AND that science is correct???? To this day, scientists dont know why the universe was created. it couldve been god. And the bible was NOT written by god. It was written by some people who wanted to explain about how they got there. Im not badmouthing religion, nor am i glamorizing it. Im just saying that the Bible doesnt have to be true in order for there to be a god. It was just a way of someone trying to explain the past. However, think about this: there are a lot of planets orbiting millions of stars in billions of galaxies. So even though a series of freak accidents and all the requirements of planets to support life, the odds are pretty good that AT LEAST a couple planets can support life.
What you’re talking about is a variation of the Gambler’s Fallacy. Probability tries to predict the future. The past, for probability, is a record of how close the prediction was to true. The probability of something that has happened is exactly one. If the odds were against it, that merely shows how wrong the odds were.
Oh well… I shall “sulphur” in Hell for having laughed at that picture and the first comments that came along.
(Don’t worry Guybo, I’ll leave you the credit for them. Peace! ^^)
I feel sorry for these kids. Any child being brought up in a fundamentalist house hold that believes in a Martian monkey-god should be taken away because they’re being intellectually abused.
Feel sorry for no one everyone deserves a specail gift
are you saying that intellectual abuse is a “special gift” haha go pick a switch and I’l give you another “special gift” then hahahaha
I will good you a good will bullet after your beating session fool!!!
so here’s my argument, its short and sweet.
The catholic church vs. the theory that the world revolves around the sun.
Church said logically Since god put humans on the earth then Earth must be the center and the sun revolves around it, Galileo’s theory was that the earth in fact orbited around the sun, he publicly defended his view up until the catholic church found him guilty of “vehemently suspect of heresy” and lived the rest of his life under house arrest only moving to florence for medical reasons. Modern science has proven that, that it is in fact the truth, the earth does in fact revolve around the sun, and in 1992 the pope finally confirmed galileo’s theory to be true.
That is exactly what is happening here, the church believes everything is an act of god and not listening to science. It seems the church is often wrong and maybe in the future will apologize to Charles Darwin even though it is again to late.
They officially pardoned him some time in the 1990′s. Pretty sad/hilarious.
Note, that’s “pardoned”, not acquitted. *snerk*
Oh, oops, I misread. You already said that. *shameface* Heh. Yeah, I don’t know if they’ll ever “pardon” Darwin.
Dude, you were just bitchin about the people fighting on here. What’s up with you?
What do you mean? The story about Galileo’s pardon was told to me by my pastor, with equal snerk. It’s amusing. I wasn’t trying to pick a fight. Sorry if it came off that way.
i meant pardon him for making people open their eyes to the truth
wait what i never used pardoned or acquitted reading fail much?
I didn’t reading fail quite that much, I just transposed Galileo and Darwin at one point. I know you didn’t use the WORD pardoned or acquitted, but you said “in 1992 the pope finally confirmed Galileo’s theory to be true” which was the event I was speaking of. I was told the story by a Rev. who thought it was funny that the church had said “pardoned” not “acquitted”, because of “pardoned” still implies that the crime was legitimate, which of course, it wasn’t.
Sorry for the confusion.
do you realise that darwin has been taken to court worldwide 9 times since he published his ideas on evolution. the last one was about three years ago. so i dont think theres going to be an apology anytime soon
Seriously? That is utterly hillarible. I heard that a convicted criminal once tried to sue the devil for “making him do it” but the suit was dropped because his lawyer couldn’t figure out where to send the subpoena. But that’s probably an internet myth.
I find it so sad that atheists can’t be comfortable in their atheism and that they can’t be tolerant of people who have faith. Was this letter stupid? Sure, absolutely. She can teach her faith at home. Does she have the right to teach her kids her faith? ABSOLUTELY.
And I hope I’m there to see it when Mr. Martian Monkey God and others like him come to the realization his arrogance was his undoing.
Nice blanket judgment of atheists there, sport. Tolerance? Do you REALLY want to compare the histories of Christians and atheists in terms of tolerance?
You clearly know as much about atheists as you do about science. Let me guess: Jack T. Chick tracts?
FTW!!!
Congratulations! You’ve wasted your time if you’ve made it down to the bottom to read all of these comments.
actually i scrolled down lol
this is no longer the bottom LOL
This note really looks like a fairly smart kid is trying to get out of a 5 page essay “might not be 5 pages long” sort of tips you off…
ur very right, i wonder where DOG went? He was very funny.
This is not a FAIL! This is a WIN! The mom was simply standing up for what she believes, and not mindlessly shoving her child into the mainstream.
Please, before you infer to much from my comment, know this: I am a scientist, and a Christian. I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Physics from the University of Washington, and I work as an Environmental Specialist. I am totally worried about the climate changing, the sea level rising, and the fate of all the trees and birds and worms. As a 39 year old woman, I’ve never had kids, because I believe in Negative Population Growth for Humans. Politically, I am a moderate, voting sometimes with the Democrats and sometimes with Republicans.
THAT SAID, I believe the Creation story is a very accurate metaphor, if you substitute the word “ERA” for the word “DAY”. This allows me to agree that the world is about 4.5 billion years old. But the ORDER of events in the Genesis story is remarkably accurate for a some desert-dwelling nomads of 5,000 years ago! I have known good-hearted Christians with an enviable mystic faith who believe the world is 6,000 years old, and I commend them in their choice to refute “geologic evidence”. I am proud that my country can tolerate and even support differing opinions! Dissenting river guides can take a group of Christian tourists down into the Grand Canyon and point out to them evidence of a timeline that supports Genesis. I am happy for their faith.
Please don’t judge this parent for what they wrote…and don’t make fun of the child in class who is raised this way. When we lose the will to make our own choices, we lose the option, and then all of a sudden nothing sits well, even if it IS “The Truth”.
Thank You!
“I have known good-hearted Christians with an enviable mystic faith who believe the world is 6,000 years old”
Yeah, but come on now, do you know any INTELLIGENT EDUCATED ones that believe that?
You yourself admit that the creation story is a metaphor. That’s why this letter is funny, because the author thinks that the Universe was created 6,000 years ago, the stars 6,000+ light years away were given some kind of faster then the speed of light speed boost so we can see them, and the dinosaurs just wouldn’t fit on Noah’s boat.
well the dinosaurs were actually believed to be the ‘evil’ creatures that god drowned when he sent the floods. well i think god sent the floods im pagan so i dont really know christianity very well
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0901/one-more-theory-theory-ark-noah-flood-demotivational-poster-1232649120.jpg
If there was no sun for a while how could you have a day? Therefore your “era replacement” is in no way incorrect with the Bible.
No my dear madame this is most defiantly a fail. This woman is in no position to question Geology.
Her beliefs and opinions do not matter. Beliefs are not a basis for defying facts. “She is not shoving her child into the mainstream” it is not for her to decide what a fact is and what is not a fact. Children not be deprived of reality because of the delusions of people who are unfit to be parents.
It does not matter if you are allowed to agree with the Geological time frame by substituting era for day or not. What you believe as a christian is irrelevant to science. As a “scientist” I would have expected you to be able to differentiate between a proven scientific fact and an uneducated badly informed opinion. The fact that you called tour guides explaining facts and evidence as “dissenters”.
Christians are dissenters of reality.
There is nothing enviable about ignorance my dear madame.
Someone should not be commended for their ignorant denial of reality because their book tells them differently. The earth is 4.54 billion years old, until science tells us differently. To question this is a denial of reality. Just because they have a faith in their opinion. They can believe in it until the cows come home however it will not change the scientific fact. Geology is not open to interpretation by christians using a bible to dictate differently. Geology cannot be refuted by the bible, to do so is a delusion.
You all can pretend that the evidence fit’s in with your book by distorting it as much as you can but it still does not make your book fact, nothing does. Your bible is worthless. The Geology of the Canyon does not “support” genesis at all. You can change words around from billion to thousand or day to era but it does not make your book right.
Yes you should be proud that your country can tolerate different opinions, but you should not be proud that your country can put someone’s opinion (lies) on the same level as proven facts.
People need to stop basing their arguments on and fervently believing in them due to the random location that they were born in. It gives one a very poor foot hold on credibility.
People need to stop being told that all opinions are of equal merit. Because they are not.
I pity her poor child who is now going to grow up and start another cycle of christian brainwashing and evidence denial.
Geology and the history of life on earth are more wondrous and fascinating than all of the lies in all of the holy books that have ever been written combined. The ever changing face of the world and the 1.6 million species that have evolved over 3.8 billion years.
There is more to be gained from our singular lives by understanding the truth about the world around us, the real truth not biblical “truth”.
Regards, Your friendly Atheist Geologist.
1 final thing, you say that genesis agrees with the geological time line and is “remarkably accurate” If this is true then plant life managed to survive for a few thousand years without photosynthesis. “god” created plants before he created the sun. In your book anyway. I’m afraid there is nothing remarkably accurate about the inference that life on earth began before the sun was in the sky. Especially as the sun is 30 million years older than the earth. Geology does not support genesis.
Applauds, clap clap clap, ovations. (former Christians).
Love it all, facts. Not like some people just spouting facts copied off CNN.
Gary get an avatar and tell us more.
But remember the bible is written with facts too and cannot be discounted either. Being a Christians requires great faith and foundations. 90% Christians are very good honest people lead by 10% Christians with power. Christianity is not for everyone. Jesus Christ was a great teacher unfortunately his true teachings (love) where twisted and turned for the power that be at the time.
I certainly agree. Being raised in a religous community (not like a cult, I mean going to Catholic school) you find that the people who are sensable, honest, and nonagressive make up the silent majority, while people who are loud, ignorant, and determined to convince everyone that their’s is the only way of thinking — on both sides of any issue — are a small portion who manage to get everyone else unfairly sterotyped.
I actually know someone who does not believe in DNA. It boggles the mind. I know at least 50 religious people who do. but she’s the one who talks long and loud.
TL;DR
I COMPLETELY agree Diana.
you cannot possibly be a geologist i’ve never heard a geologist say “I am totally worried about the climate changing, the sea level rising, and the fate of all the trees and birds and worms”
No Geologist has said that in this thread. I know I certainly didn’t. The lady I replied to commented on climate change while stating that her field is,alle