Has anyone else considered that it's not terrorism

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Fine. How about evil, ridiculous, and complete bullshit to boot?

 

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

- Thomas Jefferson

 

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

- Thomas Paine

 

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things - that takes religion."

- Steven Weinberg

[Guest Cancer Marney]

some people are blasting RobJohnstone for his religious beliefs. That's wonderful. How 'bout just letting him believe what he wants to

Oh, and get off the righteous defender kick. You can have all the religious beliefs you want - hell, I like Christianity - but if you ever claim you have EVIDENCE for something as ridiculous as Noah's Ark or the direct divine creation of species, and you claim you can "disprove" evolution, be damned well prepared to defend yourself because someone's going to nail your hide to the wall. Note that no one attacked Phr33k for saying he believed in God, Jesus, the Apostles, the Holy Spirit, "and all of that." Phr33k is religious and welcome; Rob Johnstone is ridiculous and whiny.

There's a difference.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

My theory is that no one can be right about the whole religion vs evolution debate because we will never ever know the 100% truth while we are alive on earth.

[Guest ScorpionDanceofDeath]

I have seen the Missing Link. I even have pictures. My sister is dating the beast. Therefore, evolution really happened.

 

So there.

[Guest CanadianChick]

I am Christian and I believe in evolution. I really think that some Christians take the bible WAY too seriously. I think that it is meant to be a moral guidance rather than a acurate description of history.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

In my opinion, arguing for or against Christianity using things like logic and evidence gets you nowhere. The Bible hinges on faith, and it's full of things which are beyond proof. Either the Spirit hits you, or it doesn't, and if it does, you've got God in you, and you swallow the Bible whole, evidence be damned. "Because God made it that way." ceases to be a cop out and becomes a way of life. My dad is born again, and I've presented him with evidence disproving that the Bible is the word of God. He admits that he can't argue against it, but it doesn't change his faith, cause he's got the Holy Spirit in him, God knows all, and no man can.

[Guest The Flying Dutchman]

Eh. Say what you want to say, Marney. Doesn't really bother me none. Just felt like stating my opinion.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

<<<I fell it's a joke that man and monkey have a common ancestor yet no one has found this "missing link".>>>

 

I've really never understood the whole "missing link" argument. Many different specimens have been found, from four million years or so ago (give or take a couple million) to now, and they show a gradual progression from more chimp-like creatures to more human-like creatures. Over time, the brain size has increased from 500cc to 1500cc and the creatures have gone from walking on four legs to standing upright. There are some jumps along the way, but it's still a pretty steady, progressive trend. I think calls for all important "missing link" are just a way for people to hang on to their blind faith in the face of reason.

 

<<<BTW eskimo, if you are going to believe in evolution, you could atleast say the big bang theory right.>>>

 

The big bang theory and evolution are completely different theories. Evolution deals *just* with the progression of species on Earth. Whether the universe is expanding and how it was created have absolutely nothing to do with it. Saying that because you don't believe in the big bang, you also don't believe in evolution doesn't make any sense. Many anthropologists are unsure as to how the universe was created, and many even think it was created by God, but that doesn't stop them from believeing in evolution.

 

<<<According to evolutionists, 1 piece of matter, the size of a period on a piece of paper started spinning. Apparently it spun so hard and so fast it just exploded and created shit the way we know it now.>>>

 

Where in the hell are you getting your science from? Big bang theorists talk about how the universe was created, not evolutionists. The way you put it, you make it sound like people who believe in evolution believe that a charged piece of paper spun so fast that it spit zebras and elephants out. No. You don't understand the big bang theory, and you sure as hell don't understand evolution. Evolution deals just with organism progression. That's it. The creation of the universe is neither here nor there.

 

<<<I'm sorry I cannot believe that. It's way easier for me to believe there is a creator (god) that rocks exploding.>>>

 

What created God? The spinning piece paper theory makes just as much sense as God just being "there".

 

<<<To top that, evolutionists also state that we come from rocks. Have you guys ever witnessed a rock turn into living matter? How about dirt? When I see something that proves evolution, such as "The Missing Link" maybe I will understand. Oh Well>>>

 

If you actually bothered to educate yourself about science instead of discounting science outright because it doesn't agree with the Bible, you'd be able to put up a better argument. The reason you don't understand is because you literally don't understand. You have all these bogus ideas about what the theories actually are, and then you disagree with your bogus ideas, which have little to nothing to do with the actual theories.

 

But hey, who needs actual knowledge when you've got the Bible, right?

[Guest KoR Fungus]

<<<My theory is that no one can be right about the whole religion vs evolution debate because we will never ever know the 100% truth while we are alive on earth.>>>

 

Maybe not, but we already know the 99% truth. Evolution is supported by a huge amount of empirical evidence, Biblical creation is supported by none. The Biblical argument is that if you can find fault with *anything* in any area of science, then the entire branch of science is wrong and the Bible is right. No, the fossil record isn't 100% perfect, but it's sure as hell better than anything the Bible thumpers have come up with to counter it. If they could provide a shred of hard evidence for their theories besides pointing out minor flaws in the accepted theories and pretending that's somehow irrefutable fact that the Bible is right, then maybe people would take them seriously. Until then, we've got to go with the evidence.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

You guys keep with the point that christianity has no evidence, I can live with that. But where is your proof for evolution? Please let me know of the proof that is evolution. Shoot some "facts" at me and maybe I can reconsider, but until I see facts of evolution I'd much rather belive god created me than I was formed from dirt.

 

Also, how can you just throw around the length of millions of years without hesitation. Carbon dating and the geologic column are so fucked, there is no way in hell you could tell for sure. Did you know they carbon dated a living seal and it tested the same as a dino fossil? Also fungus, BTW if you believe in evolution you have to believe in the big bang. It is a huge part of your beliefs of the evolutionist religion. The world is about 6,000 years old give or take maybe 100 years.

 

--Rob

[Guest EricMM]

See this is what happens when schools try to teach creationism.

 

Hopefully.

 

Otherwise... what happened?

 

Like KoRFungus SAID. You point out individual accidents. Give me proof the bible is 100% fact, other than you "prefer" it.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

EricMM I am trying to convince any of you that the bible is truth. It's what I believe but I could be wrong. What I am saying is evolution is wrong, and no one, including you can state facts that it is truth. The bible tells me the world is about 6,000 years old and about 4400 hundred years ago there was a great flood. Now seeing that the oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old, and the oldest living tree in the world is about 4300 years old. Things such as these convince me that the bible is right and evolution is wrong. Also there are no historical records dating past 6,000 years. Come on, stop bashing me and prove evolution right. It's very easy to make fun of ones opinions but if you can't prove your statements you are just ignorant.

 

--Rob

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I am Christian and I believe in evolution. I really think that some Christians take the bible WAY too seriously. I think that it is meant to be a moral guidance rather than a acurate description of history.

I agree absolutely. Hell, the Bible doesn't even get the number of legs on a locust right...

 

the oldest living tree in the world is about 4300 years old

Wrong. The bristlecone pines in California are well over 6000 years old.

Just shut up. I'm sure most of us have had this same pointless argument a thousand times before with people equally fuckheaded. Go away and rot somewhere before you really piss someone off and get a Jingus dissection of doom~! or the equivalent.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

<Religion argument, Agent sense tingling>

 

Here's some facts for you supporting evolution as biological FACT.

 

The Peppered Moth. Probably my favorite example of evolution at work.

 

In a nutshell, evolution is the gradual change in a specie or species over time, in order to adapt more succesfully given certain stimuli in their environment. The Peppered Moth of merry ole England is the most condensed example of that we've found.

 

The peppered moth, which resides primarily in treebark, shingles of houses, basically any nook and cranny you'll find. It's an extremely common insect. In pre-industrial revolution England, pollution wasn't too much of a problem Pre-industrial England was fairly clean, and the peppered moths were for the most part lighter shades of grey and brown, with flecks of black and white, hence their name. This coloration gave them the best possible camouflage from predators such as birds, and as a result, the most predominant coloration in the moths was the lighter color. This is documented and can be found quite easily if you care to look. I'll post sources in a bit, but for now, I'm reciting from memory.

 

Cue the industrial revolution: The skies of Britain are now choked with burning coal, and fumes from smelting metals. The soot produced settled on EVERYTHING near a factory. trees, houses, old walls, basically all habitats of the moth. As a result of this, the lighter colors were no longer beneficial to their survival, and many of the lighter moths were preyed upon by their natural enemies. Thus, the darker color became the predominant coloration due to the change in their environment.

 

Now, enter into the cleanup phase. Factories are fewer, and not running on huge stacks of burning coal and oil. As a result, there isn't as much soot on things, making the now-plentiful darker colored moths more prone to predation. The lighter colored moths have now returned to dominance.

 

It is documented fact that both subspecies of moth were always present, however the one with the more beneficial traits (correct coloration given it's environment) lived longer, and thus had the opportunity to reproduce more, and was the more successful type.

 

That's called "Survival of the fittest" which is essentially Darwin's main point.

 

This whole period took place between the mid-1800's to the present. The peppered moth was present before the 19th century, of course, but that was when this was first documented. Roughly 150-200 years, one moth, two subspecies, adapting to their environment to become more successful.

 

Evolution in a jar.

 

EDIT: Here's some links for you. The moth link even has pictures for those that are the visual type.

 

Peppered Moths

That Wacky Charles Darwin.

[Guest MrRant]

::Claps::

[Guest Spaceman Spiff]

Shoot some "facts" at me and maybe I can reconsider, but until I see facts of evolution I'd much rather belive god created me than I was formed from dirt.

Says Genesis 2:7

The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

 

Also, the name Adam derives from the Hebrew word "adamah" (sp?), which translates to "taken from the ground" or "transitory".

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Heh. Good shot old boy.

[Guest DrTom]

Sheesh, haven't we had the evolution vs. Creation argument before?

 

Dutch, no one is "persecuting" Rob for his religious beliefs. However, he's basically come in here and said that the Bible is right, that evolution doesn't exist, and demanded proof that it does. He's offered nothing other than the typical "defense" of, "It's in the Bible," which isn't defending your argument, IMO. What's happening to him is the justifiable attacking and challenging of his posts, not of Rob himself or whatever religious beliefs he may have.

 

Rob:

What I am saying is evolution is wrong, and no one, including you can state facts that it is truth.

Evolution is an accepted scientific fact, and has been for some time. No credible scientist speaks against it. Instead of demanding that we prove it to you, why don't you get off your intellectual duff and do your own research?

 

Also there are no historical records dating past 6,000 years.

There is a stretch of I-68 in Maryland that was literally carved out of a mountain. Its exhibit center refers to it as "Sideling Hill," and there is geological and biological evidence in the rock formations that dates back several million years. Recorded history is a completely different matter, and very old historical records tend to be of dubious reliablility and authenticity to begin with.

 

It's very easy to make fun of ones opinions but if you can't prove your statements you are just ignorant.

And "The Bible said so" is supposed to be proof? Physician, heal thyself.

[Guest danielisthor]

And the reason Hebrews don't eat pork is because wild pigs eat meat?!?!?!?!

 

What does this have to do with anything. Because it's only partly true. The enemies of the Hebrews ate alot of pork and they needed a reason to forbid themselves from partaking of pork.

 

Considering the old testament was written by the Hebrews, does it not make sense, that the first man would have a Hebrew name. The bible also said that Moses lived to be something past 500yrs old.

 

My name is Daniel. it can be translated to either God is my Judge, Judge for God or Judge of God. Depends on which relative on my fathers side i talk to and whether they are orthodox or not.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Sheesh, haven't we had the evolution vs. Creation argument before?

Yes we have, which is why I couldn't be bothered to respond in depth this time. Since my old rants on this dumbfuck subject vanished when the board moved, I'll just repost what I said then.

 

"Dick?" Heh. That has to be the least appropriate name I've ever been called...

 

Anyway, of course it's beyond you, because you're pontificating about biology, which is something about which you seem to have very little information beyond what you've picked up from Paley and Morris and Whitcombe and the rest of the submoronic "intelligent design" crowd. I'm sure you could write a 500 page thesis on this. I'm also quite sure that all 500 pages would be full of the same ignorant bullshit you've put on display here.

 

Biology is imperfect. There are countless examples I can cite off the top of my head. The panda's thumb is actually a modified wrist bone. If an intelligent being had created the panda, don't you think it would have been a digit? And why do whales need hipbones? Why do snakes? Humans have several totally useless body parts. Ever heard of the appendix? What about tonsils? Are you aware that our eyes have quite possibly one of the most ridiculously inefficient structures in the natural world? Why the hell would anyone design a retina backwards? If your God deliberately designed the creatures of the world this way, he must be completely retarded, fantastically incompetent, or both.

 

Your contention that highly complex systems (such as humans) cannot arise out of simple elements (such as the one-celled creatures you cited) really made me laugh. Do you know anything about chaos theory? A complex and totally unpredictable iterative model can be created from relatively few variables, and there are a lot of variables in DNA.

 

I belive someone, something made it happen.  But I am naive I guess.

Yes, you are. You "belive." This is the crux of my problem with religion, and this is where I draw the line between smart religious people and dumb religious people. You fall squarely in the second category. Why? Because dumb religious people have a marked tendency to talk about subjects in which they have no background, and they make absolutely idiotic claims about the world. When you say that complexity cannot arise without divine guidance, I (and anyone else who has actually studied biology and mathematics, even at an undergraduate level) hear the equivalent of "the sky is green." You're talking nonsense and you're too dumb, uneducated, and yes, naive, to even realise it.

 

Is that a better argument, "dick?"

 

"It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world - respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing."

- St Augustine, De Genese ad litteram

 

Chrissakes. Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact. It has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The mechanism of graduated natural selection is a theory, and even so it isn't a "theory" in the casual sense of "speculation" or "conjecture." It is a sound, falsifiable, uncontradicted, scientifically acceptable set of rules that adequately explains observed phenomena.

 

There is very good evidence of it, but there is no real way of actually proving it.

Wrong.

1) Pepper moths have been observed to vary in coloration according to pollution density. Because of their short lifespan, it is possible to actually transplant moth populations and watch them change. Viruses evolve resistances to medicines all the time. This is direct evidence of evolution in action. Genetic variation through recombination and mutation is a fact, and it comprises the basic mechanism by which evolution works.

2) Countless transitional fossils exist which prove that species change over time. Snakes with hipbones. Whales with sockets for legs. The archaeopteryx. Structures and organs in our own bodies demonstrate very the same thing. All of this evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that we and other animals have evolved. This is not a theory. This is solid verifiable fact.

I cited several concrete examples in my response to Ripper. If you intend to continue in this vein, please refute those first - before making any more baseless statements. Please see also what I said about the difference between fact and theory, and the difference between the scientific use of the term "theory" and the mundane use. If the earlier definition is unclear, please refer to the next point.

3) Fact and theory are fundamentally different things in the scientific lexicon. Evolution, if anything, is both fact and theory. SJ Gould put it thus:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science - that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

 

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Note: "Darwin's proposed mechanism" refers to the theory of natural selection, not the fact of evolution. The rest of Gould's column can be found here, along with even more extensive clarification.

 

One more time: evolution is a fact. No serious scientist anywhere in the world doubts this for an instant, and I get annoyed when I see people propagating a completely unfounded misconception of internal scientific debate and specialised nomenclature. Please don't make ignorant assertions that serve to perpetuate the completely unfounded idea that there is some kind of crippling flaw in evolution - as either a theory or a fact.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

<<<Also fungus, BTW if you believe in evolution you have to believe in the big bang. It is a huge part of your beliefs of the evolutionist religion.>>>

 

Sigh, that's complete bullshit. For one thing, evolution isn't a religion, and I wasn't talking about science as a religion, I was talking about *only* evolution, which, as Marney made so abundantly clear in her last post, is a scientific fact. The big bang is a completely unrelated theory. The only reason you are trying to link them is so that you can argue against the big bang theory, and then claim that since the big bang theory is wrong, evolution must also be wrong. It's the way people like you always argue, disecting the least defensable area of science and using that as verification that all of science is wrong.

 

<<<dating and the geologic column are so fucked, there is no way in hell you could tell for sure. Did you know they carbon dated a living seal and it tested the same as a dino fossil?>>>

 

And look, you did it again! Wow, you have come up with one example of carbon dating giving an incorrect result! Obviously that means that God created everything and the world was created 6000 years ago! You certainly showed me! Or wait, maybe it was one anomaly amongst thousands of other successful tests, and it doesn't prove anything. I guess you didn't show me after all.

 

<<<What I am saying is evolution is wrong, and no one, including you can state facts that it is truth.>>>

 

The reason I didn't go digging up facts is because I had no desire to, since I've had this argument many times before, and people like you always manage to dodge any facts thrown at them and continue to claim that no one has provided any facts. Now that Marney and AoO have laid the facts out for you, I will be interested in seeing how you respond.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Excellent, the "Earth is 6000 years old" theory, which is my second favorite thing to argue about with the devoutly religious.

 

Since this whole topic has been done here before, I'm sure this thread isn't going to get as good as it was then, but this is my first argument here about this topic, so I'm still going to enjoy myself at least.

 

Okay, since you said the Earth is only 6000 years old, I'm assuming you also believe that god created the heavens at the same time, if this assumption is incorrect, feel free to state the contrary.

 

We know that light travels at right around 186,300 miles per second, and have observed nothing faster. This is a fact. Doing a bit of simple math, we can find that light travels a distance of 5,875,156,800,000 miles in a year. That's a number almost impossible to comprehend, but it's correct. The part that makes it more amazing is that there are stars we can observe eminating light that are literally millions of light years away.

 

The point I'm making is this. We observe light that is millions of years old from stars from far-away galaxies. A whole lot more than a paltry 6000.

[Guest WhenDanSaysJump]

My main problem with the whole creation "science" thing is that rather than just searching for answers to a particular why, there are a bunch of Christian Fundamentalists who already have the answer in their heads of God being responsible for a young Earth and are working backwards to try and prove it, filtering out the myriad details that neuter their ideas and including the sketchier, purely faith-based ones that give their ideas "credibility".

 

Personally, I believe that God created the universe - The Big Bang, if you will - and it all took shape via the process known as evolution. There.

[Guest danielisthor]

Personally, I believe that God created the universe - The Big Bang, if you will - and it all took shape via the process known as evolution. There.

I could go along with that theory.

 

My personal believe is that "god" does exist, but he has way more important things to do than care what the hell happens on this little blue and green ball floating around a big bright yellow sun.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

Once, a kid said to me that evolution couldn't exist, because how could something as perfect as eyes exist by pure chance? I then had to excuse myself, because my contacts were killing me.

I've only got two little things to say. One, sorta like Danielisthor said, wouldn't it be pretty efficient for a creator to create a world, and then set up a way for life to adapt to that world, and then sit back and watch the show? I mean, sure, it isn't perfect, but it's probably a lot less likely said creator would accidentally add in one major flaw and screw everything up, making the creator (I'm avoiding any and all pronouns, you notice?) look quite silly. But if he/she/it just up and created evolution, then alls you gots to do is sit back and watch the fireworks.

And my second point is, the way I choose who to slam in an evolution vs. creationism match up, is to ask them why they believe in the bible. If within 15 seconds they say they believe in the bible because there is a place somewhere in the bible that said the bible is true (Trust me! Why? Because you can trust me!), than that person deserves to be blasted into the stratosphere. And 9 times out of 10 with those people, it's pretty easy. Of course, the same is said for evolutionists who believe in it purely because their textbook says it's a fact. They're fun too. Take'em all on! Bwa ha ha!

Boy, I hope I don't sound like a complete idiot...

[Guest B-X]

Sigh. You are all stupid. Life has we know it is a gigantic computer simulation.

 

"God" is just a user who found how to hack the system. God's a hacker.

 

Now, if you will excuse me, I need to sleep off these shrooms.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Personally, I believe that God created the universe - The Big Bang, if you will - and it all took shape via the process known as evolution. There.

 

I am in the same boat as you. I also believe that God does not interfere with the universe, but is there to console you when you need it and as a guide to get through life. It is up to you whether you want to follow his advice.

[Guest Some Guy]

Am I the only one who doesn't give a shit why we're here and is concerned with what we should do while we're here?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Yep, SG is right. Why we're here has no bearing on what we should do.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Yep, SG is right. Why we're here has no bearing on what we should do.

Still, don't you think it's a pretty vital bit of information? I mean, how did we get here, and why do we exist? It's a question that's not getting answered in our lifetime or any other, but if there was an answer to it, one that was incontrovertible, would we be involved in this conflict we're in? You, more than anyone here, seem to believe this is motivated by Islam, what if a certain religion was proved right, or all of them proved wrong? Hell, I could deal with being wrong my whole life if god came to earth, proving his existence and his power. At least that would be a straight answer.

 

So many problems in life would be solved, if the answer to that question were known. We've all got theories, and we all think we're right, especially me.