Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Dos Equis on April 08, 2009, 11:36:00 AM
-
Organizing, meeting, and protesting something they don't believe in. Sounds a little crazy to me.
-
how original..you bored?
-
those are just a few reasons of the many.
-
Organizing, meeting, and protesting something they don't believe in. Sounds a little crazy to me.
Good point!
Some of the ones on this board consider themselves intelligent and perfectly sane, yet they constantly argue with people that they consider to be seriously insane, arguing about a being they do not believe even exists. :)
-
big L dawg,
I don't know if you are aware of this, but many of us mostly access getbig from work, where videos are blocked. If you don't care that we never get to see your many posted videos, then disregard this!
Instead, you could be original and post your own thoughts, or at least write a summary of the video and your thoughts on it.
-
big L dawg,
I don't know if you are aware of this, but many of us mostly access getbig from work, where videos are blocked. If you don't care that we never get to see your many posted videos, then disregard this!
Instead, you could be original and post your own thoughts, or at least write a summary of the video and your thoughts on it.
are you just assuming I have nothing to do with the research or production of some of these video's?..secondly it's not very Christian like to spend all that time on GB on the company's dime...You can't access GB at home on your own time to watch the video's?
-
Good point!
Some of the ones on this board consider themselves intelligent and perfectly sane, yet they constantly argue with people that they consider to be seriously insane, arguing about a being they do not believe even exists. :)
True. I think it's funny. :)
-
are you just assuming I have nothing to do with the research or production of some of these video's?
I'm assuming nothing, but either way I and others still don't get to watch your many posted videos.
If you have anything to do with the research or production of some of these videos, then it shouldn't be a problem to write a summary of the video and your thoughts on it, would it?
..secondly it's not very Christian like to spend all that time on GB on the company's dime...
Not in my case.
Ever heard of those companies where computer programmers, engineers and graphic designers work together in a room with a pool table, a dart board and a flat panel TV? You know, the type of job where the boss orders pizza for his employees every Friday?
Well, that's not like my job, though that would be nice! :)
But at least they do allow me to surf the net on the company's time as long as my work gets done and as long as it gets done well. Plus they already block all the stuff on the Internet that they don't want me to access from work.
Besides, part of my job requires surfing the net anyway. And my company is aware of the study which found that employees who surf the net in moderation on the company's time are more efficient at work. :)
Otherwise, I would not surf the net on the company's time.
You can't access GB at home on your own time to watch the video's?
I do sometimes, though the last thing I want to do after work is get on a computer, even if I had the time to do it. I do have a life outside of work, and outside of getbig.
-
I think it can be seen as hopeful too. I think it means they really are searching for or do have a genuine interest in God. ...but maybe are angry at Him.
You don't see us frequenting leprochaun boards arguing against their existence.
Seems like many people want God to be how they want Him to be.
Since we as humans are not omniscient, we simply can't understand why certain things are allowed to happen...like child abuse, etc. if there is an all-powerful God that could stop it.
We can't understand all things and so become angry and reject the fact that He could be real...because in our minds, if He were real, these things would not take place.
But the thing is, He gave us free-will. And there are jag offs that do stupid and evil things. And there are people that do things w/o intending to hurt others but it still can result in something terrible. The first time you use the heroin, all you want is to get high, but later you hang yourself in a jail and your family and friends and your children are destroyed.
-
I think it can be seen as hopeful too. I think it means they really are searching for or do have a genuine interest in God. ...but maybe are angry at Him.
You don't see us frequenting leprochaun boards arguing against their existence.
Seems like many people want God to be how they want Him to be.
Since we as humans are not omniscient, we simply can't understand why certain things are allowed to happen...like child abuse, etc. if there is an all-powerful God that could stop it.
We can't understand all things and so become angry and reject the fact that He could be real...because in our minds, if He were real, these things would not take place.
But the thing is, He gave us free-will. And there are jag offs that do stupid and evil things. And there are people that do things w/o intending to hurt others but it still can result in something terrible. The first time you use the heroin, all you want is to get high, but later you hang yourself in a jail and your family and friends and your children are destroyed.
That's a good point too! :)
-
Organizing, meeting, and protesting something they don't believe in. Sounds a little crazy to me.
I agree. It is a little weird. I can see debating on forums. But all the other stuff?
I can see why some of you here compare it to a religion.
I wonder if they sing hymns.
-
I think it can be seen as hopeful too. I think it means they really are searching for or do have a genuine interest in God. ...but maybe are angry at Him.
You don't see us frequenting leprochaun boards arguing against their existence.
Seems like many people want God to be how they want Him to be.
Since we as humans are not omniscient, we simply can't understand why certain things are allowed to happen...like child abuse, etc. if there is an all-powerful God that could stop it.
We can't understand all things and so become angry and reject the fact that He could be real...because in our minds, if He were real, these things would not take place.
But the thing is, He gave us free-will. And there are jag offs that do stupid and evil things. And there are people that do things w/o intending to hurt others but it still can result in something terrible. The first time you use the heroin, all you want is to get high, but later you hang yourself in a jail and your family and friends and your children are destroyed.
So here I am poking fun at atheists and you have to inject truth, common sense, etc. into the thread. :-\
:)
Seriously, I agree with you. I do think that many atheists are searching. Many that I have encountered are angry. It's good for them to not completely shut the door.
-
I think it can be seen as hopeful too. I think it means they really are searching for or do have a genuine interest in God. ...but maybe are angry at Him.
You don't see us frequenting leprochaun boards arguing against their existence.
Seems like many people want God to be how they want Him to be.
Since we as humans are not omniscient, we simply can't understand why certain things are allowed to happen...like child abuse, etc. if there is an all-powerful God that could stop it.
We can't understand all things and so become angry and reject the fact that He could be real...because in our minds, if He were real, these things would not take place.
But the thing is, He gave us free-will. And there are jag offs that do stupid and evil things. And there are people that do things w/o intending to hurt others but it still can result in something terrible. The first time you use the heroin, all you want is to get high, but later you hang yourself in a jail and your family and friends and your children are destroyed.
I don't think they are searching for God. I think they can't understand why anyone would believe god exists with the lack of evidence indicating he exists.
-
Seriously, I agree with you. I do think that many atheists are searching. Many that I have encountered are angry. It's good for them to not completely shut the door.
Yeah, one guy I knew who was very angry was a state cop that had seen horrible things. I can understand how there can be intense feelings of helplessness and anger.
-
I don't think they are searching for God. I think they can understand why anyone would believe god exists with the lack of evidence indicating he exists.
That is probably true too. I know they don't but I find evidence for a God in nature, our bodies, animals etc. feelings, a sense of right and wrong, vision etc.
-
I'm assuming nothing, but either way I and others still don't get to watch your many posted videos.
If you have anything to do with the research or production of some of these videos, then it shouldn't be a problem to write a summary of the video and your thoughts on it, would it?
Not in my case.
Ever heard of those companies where computer programmers, engineers and graphic designers work together in a room with a pool table, a dart board and a flat panel TV? You know, the type of job where the boss orders pizza for his employees every Friday?
Well, that's not like my job, though that would be nice! :)
But at least they do allow me to surf the net on the company's time as long as my work gets done and as long as it gets done well. Plus they already block all the stuff on the Internet that they don't want me to access from work.
Besides, part of my job requires surfing the net anyway. And my company is aware of the study which found that employees who surf the net in moderation on the company's time are more efficient at work. :)
Otherwise, I would not surf the net on the company's time.
I do sometimes, though the last thing I want to do after work is get on a computer, even if I had the time to do it. I do have a life outside of work, and outside of getbig.
;D ;D ;D
-
I agree. It is a little weird. I can see debating on forums. But all the other stuff?
I can see why some of you here compare it to a religion.
I wonder if they sing hymns.
Actually, some of them do, at some of the “un-churches” (humanist centers) in California. Beach Bum and I talked about this on a thread several months ago, regarding a TIME magazine article, "Sunday School For Atheists".
The Palo Alto Sunday family program uses music, art and discussion to encourage personal expression, intellectual curiosity and collaboration. One Sunday this fall found a dozen children up to age 6 and several parents playing percussion instruments and singing empowering anthems like I'm Unique and Unrepeatable, set to the tune of Ten Little Indians, instead of traditional Sunday-school songs like Jesus Loves Me. Rather than listen to a Bible story, the class read Stone Soup, a secular parable of a traveler who feeds a village by making a stew using one ingredient from each home.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.html)
-
Organizing, meeting, and protesting something they don't believe in. Sounds a little crazy to me.
Not if you have Christianity shoved down your throat from day one.
-
Not if you have Christianity shoved down your throat from day one.
I must have missed the news bulletins, where atheists were dragged to church every Sunday or forced to pray over their food.
Unless, of course, you're referring to the epileptic fits that atheists have this time of year and during the month of December, when they see those "oppressive" Navtivity scenes.
This country was founded by people who believed in God. If that bugs you, you can always pack your Samsonite and head to Europe.
Of course, they won't be godless much longer, once they get overrun by the Muslims. But, that's another story for another time.
-
Actually, some of them do, at some of the “un-churches” (humanist centers) in California. Beach Bum and I talked about this on a thread several months ago, regarding a TIME magazine article, "Sunday School For Atheists".
The Palo Alto Sunday family program uses music, art and discussion to encourage personal expression, intellectual curiosity and collaboration. One Sunday this fall found a dozen children up to age 6 and several parents playing percussion instruments and singing empowering anthems like I'm Unique and Unrepeatable, set to the tune of Ten Little Indians, instead of traditional Sunday-school songs like Jesus Loves Me. Rather than listen to a Bible story, the class read Stone Soup, a secular parable of a traveler who feeds a village by making a stew using one ingredient from each home.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.html)
Yeah i remember that now. That's pretty interesting. Gathering for a common cause that's good, is good. But it does seem silly, these comparisons.
-
I think it can be seen as hopeful too. I think it means they really are searching for or do have a genuine interest in God. ...but maybe are angry at Him.
You don't see us frequenting leprochaun boards arguing against their existence.
Seems like many people want God to be how they want Him to be.
Since we as humans are not omniscient, we simply can't understand why certain things are allowed to happen...like child abuse, etc. if there is an all-powerful God that could stop it.
We can't understand all things and so become angry and reject the fact that He could be real...because in our minds, if He were real, these things would not take place.
But the thing is, He gave us free-will. And there are jag offs that do stupid and evil things. And there are people that do things w/o intending to hurt others but it still can result in something terrible. The first time you use the heroin, all you want is to get high, but later you hang yourself in a jail and your family and friends and your children are destroyed.
I have to disagree with you on one aspect of this post, STella.
I do understand why certain things like child abuse are allowed to happen. In fact, it's the point of the rather spirited discussion that Ozmo and I have undertaken over the last month.
The wages of sin is DEATH. And, the worst part about sin is that the transgressors aren't the only ones who suffer for it. As you just mentioned, if you get strung out on dope, you can destroy your entire family. Things like child abuse happen, when people get hooked on drugs or alcohol. It also happens (far more often) when people shack up and fornicate.
How many times have we heard of a girl being sexually molested by her mother's boyfriend (especially if he ain't the girl's father)?
That is horrific, yet pointed, example of sin's effects being passed on to the next generation. She is suffering, paying the price for the sinful behavior of her mother and the boyfriend.
Just as our righteous behavior can bless us and others around us; our wicked behavior can curse us and others within our circle of influence.
-
do you guys just not get the damage that religion does, the restrictions placed on non-beleiversand the impact you guys have on our lives? Look at the middle east, that is way i care about your ridiculous beliefs, unfounded in reason or logic and potentially dangerous.
we have no interest in god, but in the people that beleive in him. Also, the irraionality displayed by believers shocks me. For example intelligent design. It has been dismissed in court and proven to be nothing more then religion with no scientific backing, while evolution is the most accepted biological theory to date. Yet you guys continue to insist it is a religion and ID is a science or offers some form of answer. You guys are blind with faith and completely irrational, that is a dangerous combination. You wont listen to contradictory views or accept contrary evidence, you suggest you have all the answers and tell me im going to hell for not beleiving what you do.
Religion needs to end imo. Recent trends show it is decreasing, perhaps this is the first sign?
-
do you guys just not get the damage that religion does, the restrictions placed on non-beleiversand the impact you guys have on our lives? Look at the middle east, that is way i care about your ridiculous beliefs, unfounded in reason or logic and potentially dangerous.
we have no interest in god, but in the people that beleive in him. Also, the irraionality displayed by believers shocks me. For example intelligent design. It has been dismissed in court and proven to be nothing more then religion with no scientific backing, while evolution is the most accepted biological theory to date. Yet you guys continue to insist it is a religion and ID is a science or offers some form of answer. You guys are blind with faith and completely irrational, that is a dangerous combination. You wont listen to contradictory views or accept contrary evidence, you suggest you have all the answers and tell me im going to hell for not beleiving what you do.
Religion needs to end imo. Recent trends show it is decreasing, perhaps this is the first sign?
Necrosis,
Not all Christians, not even all creationists, accept Intelligent Design as science.
Not all Christians believe that evolution is a religion. Actually, I have heard Christians say that some atheists live as if Atheism was a religion to them, but Christians saying that evolution is a religion? I wasn't aware of that.
-
do you guys just not get the damage that religion does, the restrictions placed on non-beleiversand the impact you guys have on our lives? Look at the middle east, that is way i care about your ridiculous beliefs, unfounded in reason or logic and potentially dangerous.
The people of the Middle East are no more dangerous than were those of ATHEISTIC Russia, under Joseph Stalin. Should atheism be cast away, based on the amount of bodies he racked up, under his regime?
we have no interest in god, but in the people that beleive in him. Also, the irraionality displayed by believers shocks me. For example intelligent design. It has been dismissed in court and proven to be nothing more then religion with no scientific backing, while evolution is the most accepted biological theory to date. Yet you guys continue to insist it is a religion and ID is a science or offers some form of answer. You guys are blind with faith and completely irrational, that is a dangerous combination. You wont listen to contradictory views or accept contrary evidence, you suggest you have all the answers and tell me im going to hell for not beleiving what you do.
This has nothing to do with Intelligent Design or evolution. But, since you want to bring it up, evolution is based on materialism/atheism, just as Creation has its Judeo-Christian roots. Both are based on philosophical/religious belief. From the earliest proponents to those of the 21st century, evolutionists have adhere to this for one simple underlying reason: It fits their philosophic mindset and end-goal, an explanation for life on earth WITHOUT any deference to a Supreme Being.
One evolutionist (and he is hardly alone) even stated, in no uncertain terms, that he believe in evolution (specifically a once-proported but now-dimissed tenet, spontaneous generation), because if he did not, the only option that remained was that of supernatural Creation, which had undesirable philosophic implications. Many of his colleagues felt the same way.
As for your blubbering about people not listening to contradictory views, I'm afraid that falls on a number of evolutionists, too, who among other things, got un-nerved when a certain organization opened its Creation Museum in Kentucky, some even resorting to filing frivolous lawsuits (bleating about "separation of church and state", despite the fact that PRIVATE FUNDS were used to build the place).
Or, take evolutionists like Eugenie Scott, who have gone so far as to suggest that scientists who believe in Creation be stripped of their Ph.Ds or not be given such in the first place. Left up to her, folks like Dr. Ben Carson (one of the greatest neuosurgeons on this planet, most recently celebrated during "Black History Month) wouldn't be able to practice medicine, not because he lacks competence or ability, but simply due to his belief that there is a God and that He created this world.
Then, there's the guy who fired in Massachusetts, Dr. Nathaniel Abraham, simply because he expressed his views on Creation, which didn't sit too well with his evolution-believing (and perhaps atheistic) boss.
Based on a number of your posts, YOU are every bit as "dangerous" as you purport people of faith to be. You ridicule and insult those who don't agree with your godless mindset. Who's to say that you wouldn't use force to impose your will onto others, should you and those of your ilk gain the might and the muscle to do so, having failed to make your case with all of your "logic" and "reason" (I refer you again to one Joseph Stalin)?
Religion needs to end imo. Recent trends show it is decreasing, perhaps this is the first sign?
Hardly!!! There are ebbs and flows to it. When/if the trend reverses, what's going to be your excuse for that?
-
The people of the Middle East are no more dangerous than were those of ATHEISTIC Russia, under Joseph Stalin. Should atheism be cast away, based on the amount of bodies he racked up, under his regime?
WWI(1914 - 1918): 19,772,701 casualties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#References
WWII(1930s – 1945): 62,000,000 casualties
- World War II: Combatants and Casualties (1937 — 1945). Retrieved on 2007-04-20.
- Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm. Retrieved on 2007-04-20.
- World War II Fatalities. Retrieved on 2007-04-20.
Joseph Stalin's Great Purge(1937 -1938): 1,200,000 casualties
- Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments by Historian Michael Ellman, 2002
Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward(1958 - 1960): 43,000,000 casualties
- Peng Xizhe (彭希哲), "Demographic Consequences of the Great Leap Forward in China's Provinces," Population and Development Review 13, no. 4 (1987), 639-70.
Pol Pot's agrarian collectivization (1975 -1979): 1,700,000 casualties
- Sophal Ear (May 1995). The Khmer Rouge Canon 1975-1979: The Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia. Retrieved on 2007-11-02.In Chapter 1: Introduction
- The Cambodian Genocide Program. Retrieved on 2007-11-02.
These were not committed by ancient, primitive people and they were not inspired by religious beliefs. These were committed by "modern civilized people" inspired by secular ideologies like Nationalism and Communism.
And the cause for the current, global economic crisis has nothing to do with faith in God, but it has a lot to do with greed, dishonesty, and materialism, all of which are condemned by God according to the Bible.
-
Not if you have Christianity shoved down your throat from day one.
How has Christianity been shoved down your throat?
-
How has Christianity been shoved down your throat?
Ask him that question tomorrow, when Good Friday starts.
;D
BTW, be sure to check out "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?", which usually airs around this time on any network that carried the Coral Ridge Hour. Again, I'm not sure how (or if) they still air this special, since Dr. D. James Kennedy died back in 2007.
In the event, you don't catch it then, you can always go to YouTube, courtesy of my thread, with the same title.
With Passover starting, I'd be remissed if I didn't mention another of my favorite broadcasts, based on the very reason for that holiday, in the first place, The Ten Commandments, usually aired Resurrection/Easter Sunday on ABC.
-
The people of the Middle East are no more dangerous than were those of ATHEISTIC Russia, under Joseph Stalin. Should atheism be cast away, based on the amount of bodies he racked up, under his regime?
This has nothing to do with Intelligent Design or evolution. But, since you want to bring it up, evolution is based on materialism/atheism, just as Creation has its Judeo-Christian roots. Both are based on philosophical/religious belief. From the earliest proponents to those of the 21st century, evolutionists have adhere to this for one simple underlying reason: It fits their philosophic mindset and end-goal, an explanation for life on earth WITHOUT any deference to a Supreme Being.
One evolutionist (and he is hardly alone) even stated, in no uncertain terms, that he believe in evolution (specifically a once-proported but now-dimissed tenet, spontaneous generation), because if he did not, the only option that remained was that of supernatural Creation, which had undesirable philosophic implications. Many of his colleagues felt the same way.
As for your blubbering about people not listening to contradictory views, I'm afraid that falls on a number of evolutionists, too, who among other things, got un-nerved when a certain organization opened its Creation Museum in Kentucky, some even resorting to filing frivolous lawsuits (bleating about "separation of church and state", despite the fact that PRIVATE FUNDS were used to build the place).
Or, take evolutionists like Eugenie Scott, who have gone so far as to suggest that scientists who believe in Creation be stripped of their Ph.Ds or not be given such in the first place. Left up to her, folks like Dr. Ben Carson (one of the greatest neuosurgeons on this planet, most recently celebrated during "Black History Month) wouldn't be able to practice medicine, not because he lacks competence or ability, but simply due to his belief that there is a God and that He created this world.
Then, there's the guy who fired in Massachusetts, Dr. Nathaniel Abraham, simply because he expressed his views on Creation, which didn't sit too well with his evolution-believing (and perhaps atheistic) boss.
Based on a number of your posts, YOU are every bit as "dangerous" as you purport people of faith to be. You ridicule and insult those who don't agree with your godless mindset. Who's to say that you wouldn't use force to impose your will onto others, should you and those of your ilk gain the might and the muscle to do so, having failed to make your case with all of your "logic" and "reason" (I refer you again to one Joseph Stalin)?
Hardly!!! There are ebbs and flows to it. When/if the trend reverses, what's going to be your excuse for that?
I will not respond to the garbage you have posted above, you are being willingly ignorant and are disrespecting the men and woman who have spent there lives in academia so you could have a better life. Without evolution modern medicine would not exist. Your ignorant remarks show how little you know. I don't fear a god nor do i want to be godless. Shit i would like to live forever, in a paradise. But geuss what, there is no evidence of such and the thinking aligns itself with childish needs and wants when deconstructed. I wont beleive in something without evidence, until then i will say i dont know.
if you beleive in creationism and have a phd in biology then yes you should be stripped of your PHD. It has lost in court twice and proven to be non-scientific, to beleive it to be scientific while working in the field would comprimise work quality. Who would grant someone money who says that things just a happened or that the answer is an unknowable god, who is invisible. This fact would make inquiry impossible since we cant know, completely sabotaging progress in science and knowledge.
Look at francis collins, a stuanch chrstian and one of the leaders of the human genome, look at what he says about creationism. Sure you will get people on both sides, but just line up the evidence. Wait that was already done and you gusy failed twice. You guys lie, its a fact, creationists are liars. You lied about the text books used in the court case, half of the people wouldnt testify etc etc...
-
Without evolution modern medicine would not exist. Your ignorant remarks show how little you know.
if you beleive in creationism and have a phd in biology then yes you should be stripped of your PHD. I .
Ok now I'm no creationist but this is seriously stupid.
That "modern medicine wouldnt exist if it wasnt for evolution" is utterly rediculous.
Evolution hasnt helped further science in anything, we would be just as advanced if we never knew of this THEORY.
You gotta get your facts straight.
I know people who have Ph.d's in biology/genetic engineering/Physics who are creationists, these are highly intelligent people who are great contributions to their field of science, saying that they should be stripped of their ph.d or that their beliefs hinder them is utter BS.
-
I will not respond to the garbage you have posted above, you are being willingly ignorant and are disrespecting the men and woman who have spent there lives in academia so you could have a better life. Without evolution modern medicine would not exist. Your ignorant remarks show how little you know. I don't fear a god nor do i want to be godless. Shit i would like to live forever, in a paradise. But geuss what, there is no evidence of such and the thinking aligns itself with childish needs and wants when deconstructed. I wont beleive in something without evidence, until then i will say i dont know.
The problem with that long-winded tirade of yours is that you aren't saying "I don't know". You are stating emphatically and with confidence that there is no God. And your issue is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.
if you beleive in creationism and have a phd in biology then yes you should be stripped of your PHD. It has lost in court twice and proven to be non-scientific, to beleive it to be scientific while working in the field would comprimise work quality. Who would grant someone money who says that things just a happened or that the answer is an unknowable god, who is invisible. This fact would make inquiry impossible since we cant know, completely sabotaging progress in science and knowledge.
Work quality? Now, that's a laugh!!! Again, all of this posturing of yours is PURELY PHILOSOPHICAL and had nothing to do with science. I'm sure the people, helped by Dr. Ben Carson (the aforementioned great neurosurgeon) would vehemently disagree with your ridiculous position that he should be stripped of his Ph.D, simple because he believes in Creation. That would be especially true for those co-joined twins he separated and their parents.
Furthermore, this notion that people would stop scientific exploration and inquiry, because they believe in Creation (and thus, in God), is downright STUPID, especially based on the early men of science in the Western world, who make no secret about their religious beliefs. Did Drs. Carson, Abraham, or any other scientist like them stop their studies or pursuits? NO!!!
Look at francis collins, a stuanch chrstian and one of the leaders of the human genome, look at what he says about creationism. Sure you will get people on both sides, but just line up the evidence. Wait that was already done and you gusy failed twice. You guys lie, its a fact, creationists are liars. You lied about the text books used in the court case, half of the people wouldnt testify etc etc...
I can line up a host of liars from the evolutionists' side as well, like certain information, regarding so-called "missing links" allowed to stay in textbooks LLOOOOOOOONGGG after they were exposed as being frauds. Same holds true for certain embryonic drawings.
Then, of course, there's the aforementioned frivilous lawsuit by certain evolutionists, regarding a Creation museum. Come to think of it, didn't a certain HBO host try to sneak into that very same place, recording the displays there, and make a bunch claims that were utterly FALSE, regarding the exhibits there?
But, as I've said before, this is all about philosophy, not science.
-
The problem with that long-winded tirade of yours is that you aren't saying "I don't know". You are stating emphatically and with confidence that there is no God. And your issue is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.
Work quality? Now, that's a laugh!!! Again, all of this posturing of yours is PURELY PHILOSOPHICAL and had nothing to do with science. I'm sure the people, helped by Dr. Ben Carson (the aforementioned great neurosurgeon) would vehemently disagree with your ridiculous position that he should be stripped of his Ph.D, simple because he believes in Creation. That would be especially true for those co-joined twins he separated and their parents.
Furthermore, this notion that people would stop scientific exploration and inquiry, because they believe in Creation (and thus, in God), is downright STUPID, especially based on the early men of science in the Western world, who make no secret about their religious beliefs. Did Drs. Carson, Abraham, or any other scientist like them stop their studies or pursuits? NO!!!
I can line up a host of liars from the evolutionists' side as well, like certain information, regarding so-called "missing links" allowed to stay in textbooks LLOOOOOOOONGGG after they were exposed as being frauds. Same holds true for certain embryonic drawings.
Then, of course, there's the aforementioned frivilous lawsuit by certain evolutionists, regarding a Creation museum. Come to think of it, didn't a certain HBO host try to sneak into that very same place, recording the displays there, and make a bunch claims that were utterly FALSE, regarding the exhibits there?
But, as I've said before, this is all about philosophy, not science.
you keep saying creation, is it creation or intelligent design. One is an alternative theory to evolution proposed to explain the diversity as well as the originof life with the answer being god, thus no further inquiry can be made. If you beleive in god you surely can make progress, the two are not mutually exclusive. But ID and beleiving in creation are not the same, refine your terminology.
You are trying to defend ID/creationism,you have lost in court twice, there is no defence, it is non-scientific. The creation museum has dinosaurs with humans saying that it occured, this is patently false.
It's about science, any phd in biology/evolutionary biology cannot believe in an alternate theory and progress in the field. They should pursue study in the field in which the theory they beleive exists. Its quite simple and logical. It's like not beleiving in thermodynamics yet being a cosmologist, you can't be as you don't agree with the tenats, thus you should look for an alternate theory but you should not be a practicing cosmologist, get it? It's not philosophical, why would anyone be allowed to work and use government money in a field of science they dont beleive in? it makes no sense. They should try to get funding for there theory like everyone else.
Just like everyone in expelled, creationist people lie. I like how they outline one guy as top in the field and was suddenly fired when he expoused his beliefs. HAHAHAH he hadn't gotten a grant for like ten years.
-
anyone that believes dinosaurs and people walked the earth at the same time lose all credibility.at that point debating with them is pointless as you might as well go talk to a sheep.
-
I feel the same way about people who believe the government shot a missile into the Pentagon on 911, faked plane crashes, and secretly kidnapped and murdered passengers. Might as well talk to a rock.
-
you keep saying creation, is it creation or intelligent design. One is an alternative theory to evolution proposed to explain the diversity as well as the originof life with the answer being god, thus no further inquiry can be made. If you beleive in god you surely can make progress, the two are not mutually exclusive. But ID and beleiving in creation are not the same, refine your terminology.
You are trying to defend ID/creationism,you have lost in court twice, there is no defence, it is non-scientific. The creation museum has dinosaurs with humans saying that it occured, this is patently false.
Defend it from what? You are the one who claimed that any scientist who believes in Creation should be stripped of his Ph.D. And, you continue to make the erroneous and utterly FOOLISH assertion that scientific inquiry is stopped, if one believes in God.
It's about science, any phd in biology/evolutionary biology cannot believe in an alternate theory and progress in the field. They should pursue study in the field in which the theory they beleive exists. Its quite simple and logical. It's like not beleiving in thermodynamics yet being a cosmologist, you can't be as you don't agree with the tenats, thus you should look for an alternate theory but you should not be a practicing cosmologist, get it? It's not philosophical, why would anyone be allowed to work and use government money in a field of science they dont beleive in? it makes no sense. They should try to get funding for there theory like everyone else.
Scientists can pursue any field they see fit. You can have biologists who believe in Creation (and we do), neurosurgeons who believe in Creation (and we do), the list continues.
Your ridiculous points continue to rear their ugly heads. Being a cosmologist and the laws of thermodynamics have absolutely does NOT require a rejection of Creation, especially since one of its proponents believed in Creation, namely Sir Issac Newton.
-
Defend it from what? You are the one who claimed that any scientist who believes in Creation should be stripped of his Ph.D. And, you continue to make the erroneous and utterly FOOLISH assertion that scientific inquiry is stopped, if one believes in God.
Scientists can pursue any field they see fit. You can have biologists who believe in Creation (and we do), neurosurgeons who believe in Creation (and we do), the list continues.
Your ridiculous points continue to rear their ugly heads. Being a cosmologist and the laws of thermodynamics have absolutely does NOT require a rejection of Creation, especially since one of its proponents believed in Creation, namely Sir Issac Newton.
you are being willingly ignorant. I said and mean one cannot beleive in intelligent design/creationist science and pursue science. Evolution and ID are mutually exclusive, you cant be an evolutionist and beleive in ID, they are seperate theories.
you either cannot comprehend my examples or are creating straw men deliberately. You can beleive in creation and do as issac did and try and figure out how god did it. You cannot however, believe ID and evolution.
creation or beleiving in god is fine, many religious scientists do this all the time. When you bring an omipotent, invisible, omniscient being into a theory you have become unscientific by defition. You cannot measure, calculate or predict god in a theory, or miracles.
You cannot have a scientist who beleives in ID as a scietific theory, it has been proven to be nothing more then religion, twice. If they continue to perceive it as such i truly question that persons logic and rationality, perhaps there is a conflict of interest?
so stop comparing ID to creation, and if you want to continue to do so, provide a definition of creation please so we can be on the same level, as it is obvious you are not understanding me.
-
I feel the same way about people who believe the government shot a missile into the Pentagon on 911, faked plane crashes, and secretly kidnapped and murdered passengers. Might as well talk to a rock.
ok....not sure what that has to do with the thread but....ok.
-
I feel the same way about people who believe the government shot a missile into the Pentagon on 911, faked plane crashes, and secretly kidnapped and murdered passengers. Might as well talk to a rock.
so you beleive dinos and humans co-existed?
-
so you beleive dinos and humans co-existed?
Foot prints have been found together.
And you are assuming they no longer exist, animals from the "pre historic era" still exist.
-
ok....not sure what that has to do with the thread but....ok.
Same thing dinosaurs have to do with the thread.
-
so you beleive dinos and humans co-existed?
Not what I said, but yes that's what I believe.
-
Not what I said, but yes that's what I believe.
so you deny archeological evidence, dating methods etc?
you know kent hovind was lying when he talked about the dating methods being wildly inaccurate right? he is a liar and is in jail. Or do you have some other reason for believing this despite all the evidence to the contrary. All of cosmolgy would have to be wrong as well as the universe would have a different age, so i geuss we got the speed of light, the redshift etc wrong also....
it suprises me that you would believe something like this despite evidence to the contrary.,
-
so you deny archeological evidence, dating methods etc?
you know kent hovind was lying when he talked about the dating methods being wildly inaccurate right? he is a liar and is in jail. Or do you have some other reason for believing this despite all the evidence to the contrary. All of cosmolgy would have to be wrong as well as the universe would have a different age, so i geuss we got the speed of light, the redshift etc wrong also....
it suprises me that you would believe something like this despite evidence to the contrary.,
Who is Kent Hovind?
I believe in the Biblical story of the creation of life on earth, intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it.
IMO, macroevolution doesn't make sense; there are too many holes. I've read several books that reinforced my beliefs, including "Darwin's Black Box" and most of "Billions of Missing Links." I created a thread about Billions of Missing Links and will update it one of these days.
-
so you deny archeological evidence, dating methods etc?
you know kent hovind was lying when he talked about the dating methods being wildly inaccurate right? he is a liar and is in jail. Or do you have some other reason for believing this despite all the evidence to the contrary. All of cosmolgy would have to be wrong as well as the universe would have a different age, so i geuss we got the speed of light, the redshift etc wrong also....
it suprises me that you would believe something like this despite evidence to the contrary.,
Like I said..theres no point man.you see the reasoning skills were dealing with here?Once simple logic and basic common sense are out of the equation theres no point.No chance of rational thought or discussion.
-
Like I said..theres no point man.you see the reasoning skills were dealing with here?Once simple logic and basic common sense are out of the equation theres no point.No chance of rational thought or discussion.
yep.
*On a lighter note, saw Bill Maher live last night. Awesome show. Can't believe the number of 'closet atheists' around my 'hood. It's very encouraging.
-
the idea that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive is ignorant, there are plenty of ppl who believe in creation and also evolution, charles darwin being a very important one.
-
Who is Kent Hovind?
I believe in the Biblical story of the creation of life on earth, intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it.
IMO, macroevolution doesn't make sense; there are too many holes. I've read a several books that reinforced my beliefs, including "Darwin's Black Box" and most of "Billions of Missing Links." I created a thread about Billions of Missing Links and will update it one of these days.
weve had discussions about this in the past beach, have you ever actually taken an objective look at evolution? I dont mean books serving agendas i mean taking a look at the concept evidence for it and made an educated decision?
Do you not believe in modern dating techniques?
-
the idea that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive is ignorant, there are plenty of ppl who believe in creation and also evolution, charles darwin being a very important one.
ID and evolution are opposing theories.
if you mean creationism as in god did create each species seperatlly then you are still wrong, as evoulution talks about common descent.
-
the idea that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive is ignorant, there are plenty of ppl who believe in creation and also evolution, charles darwin being a very important one.
your people should define "creation" also. Is it god wound it up and started it all then left it to chaos, or he plays a roll in active creation and in day to day life. Or are you actually talking about creation science/ID which is no doubt mutually exclusive with evolution.
-
ID and evolution are opposing theories.
if you mean creationism as in god did create each species seperatlly then you are still wrong, as evoulution talks about common descent.
you should probably understand that creationism and ID dont go hand in hand either.
your people should define "creation" also. Is it god wound it up and started it all then left it to chaos, or he plays a roll in active creation and in day to day life. Or are you actually talking about creation science/ID which is no doubt mutually exclusive with evolution.
My people? creation could mean a whole host of things basically what it boils down to is that we were created by a higher power, that definition work for you?
-
you should probably understand that creationism and ID dont go hand in hand either.
My people? creation could mean a whole host of things basically what it boils down to is that we were created by a higher power, that definition work for you?
i do understand the difference between the two however, posters in this thread do not apparently.
that definition is fine, but it wont work once abiogenesis is a completed theory.
-
i do understand the difference between the two however, posters in this thread do not apparently.
that definition is fine, but it wont work once abiogenesis is a completed theory.
not at all please explain how abiogenesis being proven disproves creation.
-
you should probably understand that creationism and ID dont go hand in hand either.
My people? creation could mean a whole host of things basically what it boils down to is that we were created by a higher power, that definition work for you?
Correct!
Contrary to what many atheists have said, Creationists and ID advocates are not the same group and don't always agree on everything.
ID advocates generally want ID to be taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution. The Discovery Institute is probably the leading organization advocating ID.
Harun Yahya, the leading Muslim advocate of creationism, has said that ID is a tool of Satan.
http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/intelligent_design.php
Answers in Genesis(AiG), the leading Christian organization advocating Creationism, does not say that ID is a tool of Satan, but look at what the organization has to say about teaching creation or ID in public schools:
"Answers in Genesis has consistently stated that it would be counterproductive for public schools to force science instructors to teach creation or ID. Since most science teachers are evolutionists, they would teach creation or ID poorly—and the effort to introduce counters to evolution would generally backfire." - Mark Looy, CCO, AiG–U.S.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/expelled-review
You may disagree with the reason why AiG does not support ID being taught in public schools, but at least you can agree with them that ID should not be be taught in public schools.
-
Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life.
Nietzsche
....so goes for all religion
-
weve had discussions about this in the past beach, have you ever actually taken an objective look at evolution? I dont mean books serving agendas i mean taking a look at the concept evidence for it and made an educated decision?
Do you not believe in modern dating techniques?
What do you mean by "objective look"? I've taken numerous courses that taught the theory of evolution. I'd hardly call them objective. What I have done is read books about alternative theories. So, what I've actually done is looked at both sides of the issue. Have you?
What modern dating techniques are you talking about?
-
Organizing, meeting, and protesting something they don't believe in. Sounds a little crazy to me.
I think we should give up the term atheist.
I don't believe in organising this sort of shit.
-
I think we should give up the term atheist.
I don't believe in organising this sort of shit.
Does this mean you will not be joining a national atheist organization? http://www.atheists.org/ http://www.atheistalliance.org/
Or watching the Atheist Viewpoint TV show? http://atheistviewpoint.tv/
Or attending the national atheist convention? http://www.atheists.org/convention/
Or attending an atheist church, aka "humanist centers"? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.html
All this organizing around something they don't believe exists sounds a little nutty to me.
-
Obsession Beach is more of a religious affliction ;)
-
Does this mean you will not be joining a national atheist organization? http://www.atheists.org/ http://www.atheistalliance.org/
Or watching the Atheist Viewpoint TV show? http://atheistviewpoint.tv/
Or attending the national atheist convention? http://www.atheists.org/convention/
Or attending an atheist church, aka "humanist centers"? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.html
All this organizing around something they don't believe exists sounds a little nutty to me.
No. I don't like any such organisations. Even though I am a freedom loving libertarian I would also never join any libertarian organisation in an active way, just very independent and lone wolfish. Most of the stuff you cited is stupid and I think it is a waste of time.
-
not at all please explain how abiogenesis being proven disproves creation.
well if we show how life was created during early conditions and repeat it its pretty safe to assume that was the way life was created with no god needed. To suggest god after a mechanism is elucidated is irrational as you are adding noise to the equation and have more explaining to do.
It like creating fire, creating a flame if you will, we know how to do it, how it happens to suggest god created fire makes no sense, you could beleive he invented fire but you would be making some huge assumptions.
-
No. I don't like any such organisations. Even though I am a freedom loving libertarian I would also never join any libertarian organisation in an active way, just very independent and lone wolfish. Most of the stuff you cited is stupid and I think it is a waste of time.
anything that adds rationality to the world and reduces religious influence is not a waste of time.
-
What do you mean by "objective look"? I've taken numerous courses that taught the theory of evolution. I'd hardly call them objective. What I have done is read books about alternative theories. So, what I've actually done is looked at both sides of the issue. Have you?
What modern dating techniques are you talking about?
No doubt, my anthro classes were pretty much like you say but that doesnt mean that I as an individual didnt take an objective look at the evidence for and against it. What classes did you take beach?
carbon dating,potassium-argon dating etc...my point being if you believe that we as humans have always been this form then why are there no humans found that are dated back past like 250,000 yrs? yet there are plenty of organisms that date back much much further?
-
well if we show how life was created during early conditions and repeat it its pretty safe to assume that was the way life was created with no god needed. To suggest god after a mechanism is elucidated is irrational as you are adding noise to the equation and have more explaining to do.
It like creating fire, creating a flame if you will, we know how to do it, how it happens to suggest god created fire makes no sense, you could beleive he invented fire but you would be making some huge assumptions.
LOL not at all simply b/c we as humans find a way to create life(if we ever do) doesnt dismiss God. My belief in God is not based in how we were created, that is merely a part of my belief which by the way abiogenesis doesnt disprove all that proves is how God perhaps made is possible.
-
No doubt, my anthro classes were pretty much like you say but that doesnt mean that I as an individual didnt take an objective look at the evidence for and against it. What classes did you take beach?
carbon dating,potassium-argon dating etc...my point being if you believe that we as humans have always been this form then why are there no humans found that are dated back past like 250,000 yrs? yet there are plenty of organisms that date back much much further?
I've taken biology, geology, various history, various psychology, and geography classes and they all were either grounded on or at a minimum embraced the theory of evolution. It's hard to take an objective look at a theory when they only present one theory. Some professors even tried to intimidate or ridicule students who had a contrary viewpoint. You should check out the books I read. They really do challenge what we were taught in school.
My recall of the whole "carbon dating," etc. stuff is kinda fuzzy, but I don't think the view of a very old earth is inconsistent with intelligent design.
-
anything that adds rationality to the world and reduces religious influence is not a waste of time.
Meh. You don't need to organise around something such as atheism. We don't have words for non-astrologers or non-alchemists. We just speak in plain and rational terms. My atheism has no effect on my life whatsoever, I never think about it at all. Why would I want to join an organisation about something that has no bearing on my life whatsoever?! ???
-
I've taken biology, geology, various history, various psychology, and geography classes and they all were either grounded on or at a minimum embraced the theory of evolution. It's hard to take an objective look at a theory when they only present one theory. Some professors even tried to intimidate or ridicule students who had a contrary viewpoint. You should check out the books I read. They really do challenge what we were taught in school.
My recall of the whole "carbon dating," etc. stuff is kinda fuzzy, but I don't think the view of a very old earth is inconsistent with intelligent design.
i had professors like that as well i also had professors that were the exact opposite of that also. Again though simply b/c somebody presents something in a non objective way doesnt mean you cant take a objective look at it. Church is not objective at all so should that stop ppl who have beliefs that contradict those being taught not go and take an objective look?
a 4.5 billion yr old earth does go against ID b/c like i said modern humans have only been around for about 250,000 yrs according to our dating methods, before that a species that was similar to humans but slightly different, before that a species that was similar to the last but slightly different and so on and so on. If God created us the way we stand today why arent there fossils like modern day humans that date back further then 250,000 yrs? Living things were made at the same time correct? if we were made at the same time we would find modern human fossils that date back to the same time as dinosaurs etc...so yes ID and radiometric dating do stand on opposite sides of the debate unless i missed something about ID
-
Meh. You don't need to organise around something such as atheism. We don't have words for non-astrologers or non-alchemists. We just speak in plain and rational terms. My atheism has no effect on my life whatsoever, I never think about it at all. Why would I want to join an organisation about something that has no bearing on my life whatsoever?! ???
because alchemy and astrology are minor concerns compared to the major concern of religion and religious ideas.
I see the analogy but i think it's flawed as i beleive would should oppose anything as suppressive and dangerous as religion, look at the middle east.
i doubt it has no effect on your life and i doubt it has little effect on sam harris as the dude writes numerous books, blogs, videos on the subject...
the opposition of religion is what my atheism is defined by to a degree.
-
LOL not at all simply b/c we as humans find a way to create life(if we ever do) doesnt dismiss God. My belief in God is not based in how we were created, that is merely a part of my belief which by the way abiogenesis doesnt disprove all that proves is how God perhaps made is possible.
your reading comprehension is poor, you keep misundersanding me. I did not say it disporves god but disproves your assertion that god created life, since we could re-create the conditions conducive to life it follows that these conditions created life not god, hence, no god.
actually try reading what you read, or if you do, stop making straw arguments.
there seems to be a trend in the religious folk here.
-
anything that adds rationality to the world and reduces religious influence is not a waste of time.
good post.
-
your reading comprehension is poor, you keep misundersanding me. I did not say it disporves god but disproves your assertion that god created life, since we could re-create the conditions conducive to life it follows that these conditions created life not god, hence, no god.
actually try reading what you read, or if you do, stop making straw arguments.
there seems to be a trend in the religious folk here.
your logic is poor, simply b/c humans can produce life doesnt mean God didnt create life first does it? Humans producing life doesnt mean no God only that humans can make life as well...
-
because alchemy and astrology are minor concerns compared to the major concern of religion and religious ideas.
I see the analogy but i think it's flawed as i beleive would should oppose anything as suppressive and dangerous as religion, look at the middle east.
i doubt it has no effect on your life and i doubt it has little effect on sam harris as the dude writes numerous books, blogs, videos on the subject...
the opposition of religion is what my atheism is defined by to a degree.
Active opposition to religion is more anti-theism. I don't know, my life is largely unaffected by the ravings of the religious, so why bother? Nice to argue here on getbig every now and then though...
-
Active opposition to religion is more anti-theism. I don't know, my life is largely unaffected by the ravings of the religious, so why bother? Nice to argue here on getbig every now and then though...
Haha dont Kid yourself Deicide, Religion owns your mind, you think about it at night before you go to sleep, maybe thats what keeps you awake for so long.
-
Haha dont Kid yourself Deicide, Religion owns your mind, you think about it at night before you go to sleep, maybe thats what keeps you awake for so long.
I wish. I think my inherent laziness and lack of drive to do what needs to be done about my MA degree is a much more likely candidate.
-
i doubt it has no effect on your life and i doubt it has little effect on sam harris as the dude writes numerous books, blogs, videos on the subject...
the opposition of religion is what my atheism is defined by to a degree.
Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and company love religion and they love God too, because writing about religion and about God has made them all very rich.
because alchemy and astrology are minor concerns compared to the major concern of religion and religious ideas.
I see the analogy but i think it's flawed as i beleive would should oppose anything as suppressive and dangerous as religion, look at the middle east.
There are other things far more dangerous than faith in God, but I don't see atheists, agnostics or non-religious people in general organizing to oppose these things with the same zeal.
WWI(1914 - 1918): 19,772,701 casualties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#References
WWII(1930s – 1945): 62,000,000 casualties
- World War II: Combatants and Casualties (1937 — 1945). Retrieved on 2007-04-20.
- Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm. Retrieved on 2007-04-20.
- World War II Fatalities. Retrieved on 2007-04-20.
Joseph Stalin's Great Purge(1937 -1938): 1,200,000 casualties
- Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments by Historian Michael Ellman, 2002
Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward(1958 - 1960): 43,000,000 casualties
- Peng Xizhe (彭希哲), "Demographic Consequences of the Great Leap Forward in China's Provinces," Population and Development Review 13, no. 4 (1987), 639-70.
Pol Pot's agrarian collectivization (1975 -1979): 1,700,000 casualties
- Sophal Ear (May 1995). The Khmer Rouge Canon 1975-1979: The Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia. Retrieved on 2007-11-02.In Chapter 1: Introduction
- The Cambodian Genocide Program. Retrieved on 2007-11-02.
These were not committed by ancient, primitive people and they were not inspired by religious beliefs. These were committed by "modern civilized people" inspired by secular ideologies like Nationalism and Communism.
And the cause for the current, global economic crisis has nothing to do with faith in God, but it has a lot to do with greed, dishonesty, and materialism, all of which are condemned by God according to the Bible.
-
Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and company love religion and they love God too, because writing about religion and about God has made them all very rich.
There are other things far more dangerous than faith in God, but I don't see atheists, agnostics or non-religious people in general organizing to oppose these things with the same zeal.
Halfway decent post.... ;)
-
Halfway decent post.... ;)
LOL :)
Coming from you, I'll go ahead and take that as a compliment! Gracias!
-
i had professors like that as well i also had professors that were the exact opposite of that also. Again though simply b/c somebody presents something in a non objective way doesnt mean you cant take a objective look at it. Church is not objective at all so should that stop ppl who have beliefs that contradict those being taught not go and take an objective look?
a 4.5 billion yr old earth does go against ID b/c like i said modern humans have only been around for about 250,000 yrs according to our dating methods, before that a species that was similar to humans but slightly different, before that a species that was similar to the last but slightly different and so on and so on. If God created us the way we stand today why arent there fossils like modern day humans that date back further then 250,000 yrs? Living things were made at the same time correct? if we were made at the same time we would find modern human fossils that date back to the same time as dinosaurs etc...so yes ID and radiometric dating do stand on opposite sides of the debate unless i missed something about ID
How do you take a truly objective look at a theory if you don't look at alternative theories? For example, have you ever read about the theory of irreducible complexity?
The earth being 4.5 billion years old doesn't conflict with intelligent design at all. It's entirely possible the earth was around for a long time before life was created.
There are no transition fossils. That's one of the major flaws in the macroevolution theory. The oldest human fossils are human. Same with all other animals. If there were was this massive transition from one species to another the fossil record would be full of these hybrid creatures. But this is probably the subject of another thread.
We tend to repeat the same discussions on these boards. :)
-
How do you take a truly objective look at a theory if you don't look at alternative theories? For example, have you ever read about the theory of irreducible complexity?
The earth being 4.5 billion years old doesn't conflict with intelligent design at all. It's entirely possible the earth was around for a long time before life was created.
There are no transition fossils. That's one of the major flaws in the macroevolution theory. The oldest human fossils are human. Same with all other animals. If there were was this massive transition from one species to another the fossil record would be full of these hybrid creatures. But this is probably the subject of another thread.
We tend to repeat the same discussions on these boards. :)
What are you talking about there are plenty of transition fossils? Theres plenty of evidence to show that there was a logical progression from one species to the next all the way to modern day humans.
What traits do you think about when you think about irreducible complexity?
The oldest fossils that are considered to be modern day homo sapiens are from what i remember 250,000 yrs old if you believe in modern day radiometric dating techniques why arent there modern day human fossils that date back to the time of dinosaurs? The bible says that all creatures where made together right? at the same time? if thats true then you would have modern day human remains found with ancient dinosaurs why dont we find this?
-
What are you talking about there are plenty of transition fossils? Theres plenty of evidence to show that there was a logical progression from one species to the next all the way to modern day humans.
What traits do you think about when you think about irreducible complexity?
The oldest fossils that are considered to be modern day homo sapiens are from what i remember 250,000 yrs old if you believe in modern day radiometric dating techniques why arent there modern day human fossils that date back to the time of dinosaurs? The bible says that all creatures where made together right? at the same time? if thats true then you would have modern day human remains found with ancient dinosaurs why dont we find this?
No there aren't. That's one of the gaping holes in the theory of evolution. The oldest fossil of a human is human. The oldest fossil of a dog is a dog. Etc., etc.
I don't think about traits when I think about irreducible complexity. I think about how it's impossible for certain components of the body that are completely dependent on each to have evolved independently of each other.
-
NO...... JUST A COMPLETE AND UTTER LACK OF BELIEF. I think atheism is a joke.
-
No there aren't. That's one of the gaping holes in the theory of evolution. The oldest fossil of a human is human. The oldest fossil of a dog is a dog. Etc., etc.
I don't think about traits when I think about irreducible complexity. I think about how it's impossible for certain components of the body that are completely dependent on each to have evolved independently of each other.
ok componenets?
Im not sure i understand what youre saying are you saying the austrolapithecus etc...was human? B/c there are plenty of transition fossils that are not taxonomically considered human that show a logical progression from one species to another up to us as we are now...are you saying that all those species are human?
please address the time difference issue for me, what arent human remains found with dinosaurs? Why arent fossils of all creatures that are known found within the same timeframe when we do radiometric dating? why is it that certain fossils only appear to come about at certain times? if all creatures were made together then their fossils would all be found in the same time frame correct?
-
Here's what happened.
God took a snap shot of what "reality" would look like at a certain point in a "time line" if there was a big bang, evolution, dinosaurs etc.. And then created reality, the universe etc. based on that. End of story.
There it is! Nothing but net!
Don't even try and mess with me on this.
-
your logic is poor, simply b/c humans can produce life doesnt mean God didnt create life first does it? Humans producing life doesnt mean no God only that humans can make life as well...
where is the logic in that? why introduce a hypercomplex being into the equation when we have a perfectly natural and repeatable explanation?
I not sure you understand logic, because your scenario is not logically in the slightest.
-
No there aren't. That's one of the gaping holes in the theory of evolution. The oldest fossil of a human is human. The oldest fossil of a dog is a dog. Etc., etc.
I don't think about traits when I think about irreducible complexity. I think about how it's impossible for certain components of the body that are completely dependent on each to have evolved independently of each other.
every fossil is a transitional fossil, you dont see hybrids because evolution is slow and the organism has to be able to survive.
Irreducibly complex is a joke and proven as such.
Again every fossil is a transitional fossil, your misunderstanding of evolution requires you demand a half bird/half human hybrid in order to be a transition, which is simply not reality.
-
where is the logic in that? why introduce a hypercomplex being into the equation when we have a perfectly natural and repeatable explanation?
I not sure you understand logic, because your scenario is not logically in the slightest.
very true, good point...religion isnt necessarily logical for the most part though i will say that...fact is though that man made life doesnt disprove Gods existance.
-
very true, good point...religion isnt necessarily logical for the most part though i will say that...fact is though that man made life doesnt disprove Gods existance.
agreed nothing can disprove gods existence as you cannot disprove something that is invisible, immaterial and everywhere.......
its make is less probable however.
religion is the very definition of irrational as faith is irrational at its core.
-
Thread reported to Jesus.
-
Thread reported to Jesus.
thread might as well be reported to Zeus or Thor.
-
thread might as well be reported to Zeus or Thor.
Watch out or they're next.
-
Does this mean you will not be joining a national atheist organization? http://www.atheists.org/ http://www.atheistalliance.org/
Or watching the Atheist Viewpoint TV show? http://atheistviewpoint.tv/
Or attending the national atheist convention? http://www.atheists.org/convention/
Or attending an atheist church, aka "humanist centers"? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.html
All this organizing around something they don't believe exists sounds a little nutty to me.
National atheist convention?
Hmmmm.....isn't that the one that just happens to be held on the Resurrection Sunday/Easter weekend? I remember an atheist poster, with whom I once had a number of interesting debates on another forum, attending something like this every year.
-
I think it can be seen as hopeful too. I think it means they really are searching for or do have a genuine interest in God. ...but maybe are angry at Him.
If there was ever any evidence of any kind of Divine Spirit, I would definitely believe it. Of course.
But since there has yet to be presented any, there is the state of no God.
So what we have are our own morals and I think that's a very interesting topic.
You don't see us frequenting leprochaun boards arguing against their existence.
You argue that God exists here.
Why are you doing that?
You have any kind of proof?
Seems like many people want God to be how they want Him to be.
If there is no God, you can pretend that "God" is exactly the way you want, and that he/she/it is ok with anything you do. Eg, Bush claims that God was on his side when he started a war on Iraq.
Since we as humans are not omniscient, we simply can't understand why certain things are allowed to happen...like child abuse, etc. if there is an all-powerful God that could stop it.
Since there is no God (at least there is no proof of a God yet) these horrible acts will "be allowed to happen". Since there is no one in control.
We can't understand all things and so become angry and reject the fact that He could be real...because in our minds, if He were real, these things would not take place.
The big fear is probably that there is so much we cannot understand - so therefore we need to fill in the blanks with something. That "something" is "God". "God" becomes the great explanation for everything and also someone we can turn to when we are alone.
But the thing is, He gave us free-will. And there are jag offs that do stupid and evil things. And there are people that do things w/o intending to hurt others but it still can result in something terrible.
Pure speculation on your part.
You have no proof that there is a God. So you cannot claim that a God gave us free will. The argument about "free will" is a big cop out for those who start question their faith IMO.
The first time you use the heroin, all you want is to get high, but later you hang yourself in a jail and your family and friends and your children are destroyed.
How do you know this about heroin?
-
I think it can be seen as hopeful too. I think it means they really are searching for or do have a genuine interest in God. ...but maybe are angry at Him.
If there was ever any evidence of any kind of Divine Spirit, I would definitely believe it. Of course.
But since there has yet to be presented any, there is the state of no God.
So what we have are our own morals and I think that's a very interesting topic.
You don't see us frequenting leprochaun boards arguing against their existence.
You argue that God exists here.
Why are you doing that?
You have any kind of proof?
We are all stating our beliefs here. You believe there is no God, I believe there is a God. I converse here to learn, share what knowledge/beliefs I do have and hope to clear up misconceptions people have about the bible. For instance, you have said before that in the bible Jesus never claimed to be God. That is incorrect.
Seems like many people want God to be how they want Him to be.
If there is no God, you can pretend that "God" is exactly the way you want, and that he/she/it is ok with anything you do. Eg, Bush claims that God was on his side when he started a war on Iraq.
But do you see, even if there is a God, people can pretend He is exactly the way they want.
Since we as humans are not omniscient, we simply can't understand why certain things are allowed to happen...like child abuse, etc. if there is an all-powerful God that could stop it.
Since there is no God (at least there is no proof of a God yet) these horrible acts will "be allowed to happen". Since there is no one in control.
We can't understand all things and so become angry and reject the fact that He could be real...because in our minds, if He were real, these things would not take place.
The big fear is probably that there is so much we cannot understand - so therefore we need to fill in the blanks with something. That "something" is "God". "God" becomes the great explanation for everything and also someone we can turn to when we are alone.
But the thing is, He gave us free-will. And there are jag offs that do stupid and evil things. And there are people that do things w/o intending to hurt others but it still can result in something terrible.
Pure speculation on your part.
You have no proof that there is a God. So you cannot claim that a God gave us free will. The argument about "free will" is a big cop out for those who start question their faith IMO.
I'm stating my beliefs. How is believing that we have free will a cop out for people who start to question their faith? I don't get this.
The first time you use the heroin, all you want is to get high, but later you hang yourself in a jail and your family and friends and your children are destroyed.
How do you know this about heroin?
This just happened to a guy I grew up with. I'm not saying all heroin users do this or have children etc. I was upset when I wrote it and probably unclear.
-
I can definitely sympathize with you becoming frustrated in a situation like that.
The heroin addicted buddy I mean.
-
I can definitely sympathize with you becoming frustrated in a situation like that.
The heroin addicted buddy I mean.
Thanks Hedge. The worst really was seeing all the youngsters crying so hard at the visitation.
-
I think it can be seen as hopeful too. I think it means they really are searching for or do have a genuine interest in God. ...but maybe are angry at Him.
If there was ever any evidence of any kind of Divine Spirit, I would definitely believe it. Of course.
But since there has yet to be presented any, there is the state of no God.
So what we have are our own morals and I think that's a very interesting topic.
You don't see us frequenting leprochaun boards arguing against their existence.
You argue that God exists here.
Why are you doing that?
You have any kind of proof?
Seems like many people want God to be how they want Him to be.
If there is no God, you can pretend that "God" is exactly the way you want, and that he/she/it is ok with anything you do. Eg, Bush claims that God was on his side when he started a war on Iraq.
Since we as humans are not omniscient, we simply can't understand why certain things are allowed to happen...like child abuse, etc. if there is an all-powerful God that could stop it.
Since there is no God (at least there is no proof of a God yet) these horrible acts will "be allowed to happen". Since there is no one in control.
We can't understand all things and so become angry and reject the fact that He could be real...because in our minds, if He were real, these things would not take place.
The big fear is probably that there is so much we cannot understand - so therefore we need to fill in the blanks with something. That "something" is "God". "God" becomes the great explanation for everything and also someone we can turn to when we are alone.
But the thing is, He gave us free-will. And there are jag offs that do stupid and evil things. And there are people that do things w/o intending to hurt others but it still can result in something terrible.
Pure speculation on your part.
You have no proof that there is a God. So you cannot claim that a God gave us free will. The argument about "free will" is a big cop out for those who start question their faith IMO.
The first time you use the heroin, all you want is to get high, but later you hang yourself in a jail and your family and friends and your children are destroyed.
How do you know this about heroin?
Scandinavia=very irreligious=very good
-
ok componenets?
Im not sure i understand what youre saying are you saying the austrolapithecus etc...was human? B/c there are plenty of transition fossils that are not taxonomically considered human that show a logical progression from one species to another up to us as we are now...are you saying that all those species are human?
please address the time difference issue for me, what arent human remains found with dinosaurs? Why arent fossils of all creatures that are known found within the same timeframe when we do radiometric dating? why is it that certain fossils only appear to come about at certain times? if all creatures were made together then their fossils would all be found in the same time frame correct?
There are lots of examples (the eye, etc.). I think I mentioned a few in the "Darwin's Black Box" thread a while back.
I don't believe there are any half-human transitional fossils. If there is a fossil that isn't considered human, that's because it isn't human.
Not sure what you want me to address regarding the time difference issue, because it's not an issue for me. I don't know if human remains have been found with dinosaurs, etc. There are actually far more and greater question regarding the monkey business than intelligent design. You should check out the "Billions of Missing Links" thread (which I haven't updated in a while).
-
every fossil is a transitional fossil, you dont see hybrids because evolution is slow and the organism has to be able to survive.
Irreducibly complex is a joke and proven as such.
Again every fossil is a transitional fossil, your misunderstanding of evolution requires you demand a half bird/half human hybrid in order to be a transition, which is simply not reality.
We don't see any "hybrids" because they don't exist.
-
We don't see any "hybrids" because they don't exist.
everything is a hybrid, look at a platapus if you want to overt physical signs.
you dont understand what a transitional fossil is, everything is in transition.
-
We don't see any "hybrids" because they don't exist.
You sound like a caveman when you say that... :-X
-
Awsome, I'm a Hybrid 8)
-
There are lots of examples (the eye, etc.). I think I mentioned a few in the "Darwin's Black Box" thread a while back.
I don't believe there are any half-human transitional fossils. If there is a fossil that isn't considered human, that's because it isn't human.
Not sure what you want me to address regarding the time difference issue, because it's not an issue for me. I don't know if human remains have been found with dinosaurs, etc. There are actually far more and greater question regarding the monkey business than intelligent design. You should check out the "Billions of Missing Links" thread (which I haven't updated in a while).
if i remember correctly i believe the eye developed in its early form as a way of detecting sunlight underwater and eventually, everything has an explination beach...
Ok so humans now are the only way they have ever been is what you believe? again then why arent there human remains further back then 250.000 yrs? there arent b/c humans as we know them now didnt exist further back then that they developed from another species and that species from another and so on and so on. The reason i ask you is b/c as a person who believes in ID you probably believe that God made all creatures at the same time correct? if thats what you believe why do you think there is such descrepency in time between species? This descrepency falls right in line with evolution.
I really dont think you have studied evolution or more specifically the evolution of humans, there is a fairly clear logical progression in features and taxonomic classification from earliers species to modern day humans.
-
if i remember correctly i believe the eye developed in its early form as a way of detecting sunlight underwater and eventually, everything has an explination beach...
Ok so humans now are the only way they have ever been is what you believe? again then why arent there human remains further back then 250.000 yrs? there arent b/c humans as we know them now didnt exist further back then that they developed from another species and that species from another and so on and so on. The reason i ask you is b/c as a person who believes in ID you probably believe that God made all creatures at the same time correct? if thats what you believe why do you think there is such descrepency in time between species? This descrepency falls right in line with evolution.
I really dont think you have studied evolution or more specifically the evolution of humans, there is a fairly clear logical progression in features and taxonomic classification from earliers species to modern day humans.
of course there is, everything that has been discovered or questioned so far has had a reasonable natural explanation. It makes sense to conclude this progression would keep occuring.
-
if i remember correctly i believe the eye developed in its early form as a way of detecting sunlight underwater and eventually, everything has an explination beach...
Ok so humans now are the only way they have ever been is what you believe? again then why arent there human remains further back then 250.000 yrs? there arent b/c humans as we know them now didnt exist further back then that they developed from another species and that species from another and so on and so on. The reason i ask you is b/c as a person who believes in ID you probably believe that God made all creatures at the same time correct? if thats what you believe why do you think there is such descrepency in time between species? This descrepency falls right in line with evolution.
I really dont think you have studied evolution or more specifically the evolution of humans, there is a fairly clear logical progression in features and taxonomic classification from earliers species to modern day humans.
No, there isn't an explanation for everything. Regarding the eye, there are parts of the eye that are dependent on each other that could not have evolved in stages. This is true for other biological organisms, etc.
If you think there is an explanation for everything, then try and answer some of the unanswered questions in this thread (Billions of Missing Links): http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179381.0
Yes I believe humans were created in their present form. You simply saying humans evolved doesn’t make it true. It's nothing more than assumption.
I don't know if there is a time discrepancy between species.
I really don't think you have ever taken a serious look at the gaping holes in the theory of evolution.
-
No, there isn't an explanation for everything. Regarding the eye, there are parts of the eye that are dependent on each other that could not have evolved in stages. This is true for other biological organisms, etc.
If you think there is an explanation for everything, then try and answer some of the unanswered questions in this thread (Billions of Missing Links): http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179381.0
Yes I believe humans were created in their present form. You simply saying humans evolved doesn’t make it true. It's nothing more than assumption.
I don't know if there is a time discrepancy between species.
I really don't think you have ever taken a serious look at the gaping holes in the theory of evolution.
There are big discrepencies in time between species if you believe radiometric dating is correct and if all creatures were made at the same time you wouldnt see that would you?
Give me a book beach that you think sums up your point of view best and ill try and read it, i will send you my old text books if you like so you can read on the logical progression shown in physical and other features from species to species all the way up to modern day humans.
Its an assumption backed up with alot of research beach done by countless ppl and over decades bro, im not saying that everything about evolution is 100% correct.
the simple fact modern day human skeletons arent found past 250,000 years ago and that other species of animals are much much much older shoots a major hole in ID's idea that man was made at the same time as all creatures and how they look today.
-
There are big discrepencies in time between species if you believe radiometric dating is correct and if all creatures were made at the same time you wouldnt see that would you?
Give me a book beach that you think sums up your point of view best and ill try and read it, i will send you my old text books if you like so you can read on the logical progression shown in physical and other features from species to species all the way up to modern day humans.
Its an assumption backed up with alot of research beach done by countless ppl and over decades bro, im not saying that everything about evolution is 100% correct.
the simple fact modern day human skeletons arent found past 250,000 years ago and that other species of animals are much much much older shoots a major hole in ID's idea that man was made at the same time as all creatures and how they look today.
I've read plenty about evolution. (See all of the classes I mentioned that you asked about earlier in the thread.)
If you're really interested in challenging what we've been taught, I'd highly recommend "Darwin's Black Box" and "Billions of Missing Links." They don't make a case for ID per se. They point out the glaring problems with the theory of evolution. It's hard to make it through a chapter of Billions of Missing Links and conclude this is all an accident IMO. Very good book. Or you can just read the excerpts I posted in the thread. :)
-
There are lots of examples (the eye, etc.). I think I mentioned a few in the "Darwin's Black Box" thread a while back.
I don't believe there are any half-human transitional fossils. If there is a fossil that isn't considered human, that's because it isn't human.
Not sure what you want me to address regarding the time difference issue, because it's not an issue for me. I don't know if human remains have been found with dinosaurs, etc. There are actually far more and greater question regarding the monkey business than intelligent design. You should check out the "Billions of Missing Links" thread (which I haven't updated in a while).
Over ten years old and thoroughly debunked by scientists. Just shows how little you know.
-
I've read plenty about evolution. (See all of the classes I mentioned that you asked about earlier in the thread.)
If you're really interested in challenging what we've been taught, I'd highly recommend "Darwin's Black Box" and "Billions of Missing Links." They don't make a case for ID per se. They point out the glaring problems with the theory of evolution. It's hard to make it through a chapter of Billions of Missing Links and conclude this is all an accident IMO. Very good book. Or you can just read the excerpts I posted in the thread. :)
you obviously didnt get into a class that shoowed the complex intricacies of it, you seem to have simply taken classes that give you a glancing overview, you ever take a class specifically about evolutionairy processes and reasons for the theories being the way they are like the species, taxonomic classification, genealogical trees etc? id be willing to be you haven't again ill read your book and you read mine hows that sound...I dont mean to talk down to you beach and i hope im not coming across like that but its obvious that you have a great deal of misinformation on the topic. I dont mean to try and disprove God in your mind as i believe in God only to open your mind to other possibilities.
Id rather read a book b/c i can do that away from the computer if i get on the computer i get add and ill be all over the place and i watch T.V. through my computer so it would never happen.
-
you obviously didnt get into a class that shoowed the complex intricacies of it, you seem to have simply taken classes that give you a glancing overview, you ever take a class specifically about evolutionairy processes and reasons for the theories being the way they are like the species, taxonomic classification, genealogical trees etc? id be willing to be you haven't again ill read your book and you read mine hows that sound...I dont mean to talk down to you beach and i hope im not coming across like that but its obvious that you have a great deal of misinformation on the topic. I dont mean to try and disprove God in your mind as i believe in God only to open your mind to other possibilities.
Id rather read a book b/c i can do that away from the computer if i get on the computer i get add and ill be all over the place and i watch T.V. through my computer so it would never happen.
Theists believing in evolution are weird.
-
Theists believing in evolution are weird.
not really i dont take a literal view of all biblical events especially events in which nobody was around to see and even those the bible was written by man and b/c of that is subject to bias and exageration. Do I believe the concept and teachings ya i do, is it really important how these concepts and teachings came to be? not to me really.
-
Theists believing in evolution are weird.
Yeah, so, what of it?
:D
-
Over ten years old and thoroughly debunked by scientists. Just shows how little you know.
Thanks for your participation. ::)
-
you obviously didnt get into a class that shoowed the complex intricacies of it, you seem to have simply taken classes that give you a glancing overview, you ever take a class specifically about evolutionairy processes and reasons for the theories being the way they are like the species, taxonomic classification, genealogical trees etc? id be willing to be you haven't again ill read your book and you read mine hows that sound...I dont mean to talk down to you beach and i hope im not coming across like that but its obvious that you have a great deal of misinformation on the topic. I dont mean to try and disprove God in your mind as i believe in God only to open your mind to other possibilities.
Id rather read a book b/c i can do that away from the computer if i get on the computer i get add and ill be all over the place and i watch T.V. through my computer so it would never happen.
Have I ever taken a close that taught nothing but evolution? No. I don't think a class like that was offered when I was in school. Did I take numerous courses that taught the theory? Yes.
I don't think you're talking down to me at all. I'm always open to new ideas. I seriously doubt I will read anything that will cause me to believe in the monkey business, but if you have a book you want to recommend let me know and I'll check it out.
I'm sort of backed up on my reading now. I usually alternate between fiction and nonfiction with each book, but I've been cheating and reading fiction for the most part lately. I did order a book by someone who was formerly one of the world's most notorious atheists and now believes in God, but it hasn't come in yet.
-
Have I ever taken a close that taught nothing but evolution? No. I don't think a class like that was offered when I was in school. Did I take numerous courses that taught the theory? Yes.
I don't think you're talking down to me at all. I'm always open to new ideas. I seriously doubt I will read anything that will cause me to believe in the monkey business, but if you have a book you want to recommend let me know and I'll check it out.
I'm sort of backed up on my reading now. I usually alternate between fiction and nonfiction with each book, but I've been cheating and reading fiction for the most part lately. I did order a book by someone who was formerly one of the world's most notorious atheists and now believes in God, but it hasn't come in yet.
the book i would recommend is actually a text book from one of my anthro classes, In all classes you mentioned that ive taken none went into detail about evolution why they theory is the way it is and what information has led them to believe this all they said is this is what evolution is and if thats where your education stops you really need to do yourself a favor and do some more research.
Ill dig out my old text book and give you the name shoot i could mail it to you if you wanted.
-
No, there isn't an explanation for everything. Regarding the eye, there are parts of the eye that are dependent on each other that could not have evolved in stages. This is true for other biological organisms, etc.
If you think there is an explanation for everything, then try and answer some of the unanswered questions in this thread (Billions of Missing Links): http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179381.0
Yes I believe humans were created in their present form. You simply saying humans evolved doesn’t make it true. It's nothing more than assumption.
I don't know if there is a time discrepancy between species.
I really don't think you have ever taken a serious look at the gaping holes in the theory of evolution.
dude this crap has been debunked over and over..........
are you serious with this? because i thin even if it gets debunked you will continue beleiving.
Look i use to have some pantheistic leanings, theistic even at one point but reading the evidence, looking at the facts i concluded that a benevolent creature does not exist. However,the impossibility of a complete set, eternity, infinity, godel, math among other things does leave you awe inspired. Its ok to say you dont have the answers, but being intellectually dishonest is not cool, like these ID people, they wouldn't even defend the theory the expouse in court. What does that say? they refused to take the stand and the case was thrown out...................
-
the book i would recommend is actually a text book from one of my anthro classes, In all classes you mentioned that ive taken none went into detail about evolution why they theory is the way it is and what information has led them to believe this all they said is this is what evolution is and if thats where your education stops you really need to do yourself a favor and do some more research.
Ill dig out my old text book and give you the name shoot i could mail it to you if you wanted.
Let me know the title of the book.
-
dude this crap has been debunked over and over..........
are you serious with this? because i thin even if it gets debunked you will continue beleiving.
Look i use to have some pantheistic leanings, theistic even at one point but reading the evidence, looking at the facts i concluded that a benevolent creature does not exist. However,the impossibility of a complete set, eternity, infinity, godel, math among other things does leave you awe inspired. Its ok to say you dont have the answers, but being intellectually dishonest is not cool, like these ID people, they wouldn't even defend the theory the expouse in court. What does that say? they refused to take the stand and the case was thrown out...................
That's your opinion. I've actually read and experienced enough to conclude macroevolution really doesn't make sense.
Whether you like it or not, we both have a faith-based belief in the origin of life on earth.
-
Let me know the title of the book.
I cant find it i might have thrown it out :-X LOL i did a little research though and the class it was for was called "Human Origins" and was anth 3361 class. I searched the online school store but they dont have any books specified for this class yet maybe in another week or two for their summer students ill keep you informed...Ill try and email the prof and maybe she will remember or recommend another text.
-
I emailed my old professor so hopefully she gets back to me.
-
That's your opinion. I've actually read and experienced enough to conclude macroevolution really doesn't make sense.
Whether you like it or not, we both have a faith-based belief in the origin of life on earth.
i have no faith in the origin of life, evolution doesnt deal with that, another misnomer by you indicating you really havent examined the material.
Macroevolution has been demonstrated numerous times in the lab and in nature, its ok if it doesnt make sense but it is a verifiable fact. You can review the peer reviewed papers yourself.
IT HAS BEEN WITNESSED AND REPEATED AND DOCUMENTED JUST LIKE GRAVITY. why do you contend it doesnt make sense, it makes perfect sense. A creator making everything from nothing makes no sense becuase you have to explain the creator and it adds more info to the argument which is unexplanible.
do you realize that the vast majority of well educated people and professionals accept evolution? That it is perhaps the most widely used theory in history. We owe medicine to evolution.
-
i have no faith in the origin of life, evolution doesnt deal with that, another misnomer by you indicating you really havent examined the material.
Macroevolution has been demonstrated numerous times in the lab and in nature, its ok if it doesnt make sense but it is a verifiable fact. You can review the peer reviewed papers yourself.
IT HAS BEEN WITNESSED AND REPEATED AND DOCUMENTED JUST LIKE GRAVITY. why do you contend it doesnt make sense, it makes perfect sense. A creator making everything from nothing makes no sense becuase you have to explain the creator and it adds more info to the argument which is unexplanible.
do you realize that the vast majority of well educated people and professionals accept evolution? That it is perhaps the most widely used theory in history. We owe medicine to evolution.
What is your scientifically based belief in the origin of life on earth?
When has macroevolution ever been witnessed, documented, etc. in a lab?
Yes, I do realize that a large number of well educated people and professional accept evolution. I also recognize that a majority of the country does not. And that a number of well educated, extremely bright people do not accept the theory of evolution. In any event, I don't typically form opinions based on percentages of people who agree or disagree with me.
-
What is your scientifically based belief in the origin of life on earth?
When has macroevolution ever been witnessed, documented, etc. in a lab?
Yes, I do realize that a large number of well educated people and professional accept evolution. I also recognize that a majority of the country does not. And that a number of well educated, extremely bright people do not accept the theory of evolution. In any event, I don't typically form opinions based on percentages of people who agree or disagree with me.
ihave no belief on origins as i do not know. I think autocatalysis might be correct as computer models have showed it to work. However, i without a definite belief until it is a fact..
i can post papers if you like.
the majority of the country are theists. 99% of scientists agree on evolution, a few people may disagree, i bet they are theists and have a hidden agenda. Basing anything off publc polls is ridiculous as the majority of people beleive in alien abduction. However, when the scientific community agrees almost completely on the basics of a theory it holds much more water.
-
ihave no belief on origins as i do not know. I think autocatalysis might be correct as computer models have showed it to work. However, i without a definite belief until it is a fact..
i can post papers if you like.
the majority of the country are theists. 99% of scientists agree on evolution, a few people may disagree, i bet they are theists and have a hidden agenda. Basing anything off publc polls is ridiculous as the majority of people beleive in alien abduction. However, when the scientific community agrees almost completely on the basics of a theory it holds much more water.
Interesting. You have no belief at all about how life began on earth? No views at all on what the first organism was? How it got here?
No, don't post papers. A link will do.
So now you're talking about the scientific community and not "the vast majority of well educated people and professionals" who believe in the theory of evolution? What's your opinion of all of the well educated people and professionals who don't believe in the theory?
-
Interesting. You have no belief at all about how life began on earth? No views at all on what the first organism was? How it got here?
No, don't post papers. A link will do.
So now you're talking about the scientific community and not "the vast majority of well educated people and professionals" who believe in the theory of evolution? What's your opinion of all of the well educated people and professionals who don't believe in the theory?
the vast majority of educated people in beleive in evolution. I was referring to the scientific community not the arts community who could be well educated, just not on evolution, hence their opinions do not matter.
my opinion on those who have an education in biology at a high level and do not beleive in evolution is that they have a hidden agenda. These people are religious, there arguments are insignificant and usually full of holes.
There are legitamite arguments in evolutionary biology but if you are asking specifically about those who use god to explain origin and diversity then above is my answer.