Creation over Evolution [Archive]

Highflyer_GP

13-04-2006, 06:51 PM

so in other words creationists insist that something magical up there descended upon us, took two grains of dust, created adam and eve and thats how we came to be? which also btw gives rise to inbreeding if that did in fact occur. thats a much harder story to accept but yet even though science may not be 100% correct, at least theres evidence showing that science is moving in the right direction in terms of fossils etc. and they refuse to accept scientific evidence - which may not conclusively prove anything but its parts of the puzzle nonetheless.

what do creationists have to show for their few thousand year old story told by peasants and bored housewives? talking about how scientific theories change, why not look at how religious perspectives have changed as times changed? the way those stories are written are such that it may be interpreted a number of ways, much like nostradamus where something only makes sense once an event has occurred. i too can write a story in a cryptic way and "predict the future" for i know that there will always be wars fought among men, whether it be over religion, territory or whatever the case. so its easy to predict anything negative, but why weren't they able to predict anything positve - the information age and gender equality for one.

show me one piece of evidence proving creationism. better still, show me noahs ark and then lets talk. cos he must have been a genius to build such an advanced boat that was able to gather each type of animal from around the world before the flood that supposedly destroyed everything, yet a dove returns after the flood with an olive branch. how did the olive tree survive the great flood? silly me i forgot theres always a magical answer that backs up the fairytale. no offense to any religious folk :)

Prometheus

13-04-2006, 07:12 PM

show me one piece of evidence proving creationism. better still, show me noahs ark and then lets talk. cos he must have been a genius to build such an advanced boat that was able to gather each type of animal from around the world before the flood that supposedly destroyed everything, yet a dove returns after the flood with an olive branch. how did the olive tree survive the great flood? silly me i forgot theres always a magical answer that backs up the fairytale. no offense to any religious folk :)
Finally something where i can test whether or not you actually believe what you're preaching here. You say noah must have been a genius to build such an advanced boat. So we can both agree that he did not design it, which means someone thousands of years more technological must have done did. If you say he did not built such a boat then we would not be here today. He had to have built it, because there was a great flood that "supposedly destroyed" everything. Your very own scientists which you put all your faith in have proven that it is so.

Are you now going to dismiss their claims and selectively belief what you want to belief. So which being warned him about the flood, isn't it possible that the very same being is responsible for our creation. You want me to show you the ark, I can't. You can't show me an actual dinosaur. We can only show each other fossils, I'll see if I can find one for you.

Rkootknir

13-04-2006, 07:34 PM

Finally something where i can test whether or not you actually believe what you're preaching here. You say noah must have been a genius to build such an advanced boat. So we can both agree that he did not design it, which means someone thousands of years more technological must have done did. If you say he did not built such a boat then we would not be here today. He had to have built it, because there was a great flood that "supposedly destroyed" everything. Your very own scientists which you put all your faith in have proven that it is so.This is a cut and paste from one of my favourite posters (the 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank) at the Panda's Thumb to show why the whole Noah story is impossible:
According to the creationists, all humans alive today are descended from 8 people who got off a Really Big Boat. Anyone who understands junior high genetics will know that 8 people have between them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic locus (in reality, the 8 people on the Big Boat would have had even FEWER, since some of them were descended from others and thus shared alleles, but for the sake of argument we will give the creationists every possible benefit of the doubt and assume that they were ALL heterozygous and shared no alleles at all in common). That means, if the creationists are correct that “most mutations are deleterious” and that “no new genetic information can appear through mutation”, there can not be any human genetic locus anywhere today with more than 16 alleles, since that is the MAXIMUM that could have gotten off the Big Boat.

But wait ————— today we find human genetic loci (such as hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have well over *400* different alleles (indeed some have over *700* different alleles). Hmmmm. Since there could have only been 16 possible on the Big Boat, and since there are over 400 now, and since 400 is more than 16, that means that somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED from the time they got off the Big Boat until now.

That raises a few questions ——- (1) if genetic mutations always produce a LOSS in information, like the creationists keep telling us, then how did we go from 16 alleles to over 400 alleles (perhaps in creationist mathematics, 400 is not larger than 16). (2) if these new alleles did not appear through mutations, then how DID they get here.

But wait — there’s more:

Not only, according to creationists, must these new alleles have appeared after the Big Boat, but, according to their, uh, “theory”, all of these mutations must have appeared in the space of just *4,000 years* — the period of time since the Big Flood. That gives a rate of BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS, which add NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, of one every 10 years, or roughly two every generation ———- a much higher rate of beneficial mutation than has ever been recorded anywhere in nature. Nowhere today do we see such a rate anywhere near so high. So not only would I like to know (1) what produced this extraordinarily high rate of non-deleterious mutations, but (2) what stopped it (indeed, what stopped it conveniently right before the very time when we first developed the technological means to study
it).

But wait —- we’re not done YET ……

Since less than 1% of observed mutations are beneficial (the vast majority of mutations are indeed deleterious or neutral and have no effect), that means for every beneficial mutation which added a new allele, there should have been roughly 99 others which did not. So to give us roughly 400 beneficial mutations would require somewhere around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH GENERATION. Do you know what we call people who experience mutation rates that high? We call them “cancer victims”. The only people with mutation rates even remotely comparable were victims of Chernobyl.

But wait, we’re STILL not finished ……

In order for any of those mutations to be passed on to the next generation to produce new alleles, they MUST occur in the germ cells - sperm or egg. And since any such high rate of mutation in a somatic cell (non-sperm or egg) would have quickly produced a fatal case of cancer, if the creationists are right this mutation rate could ONLY have occurred in the germ cells and could NOT have occurred in any of the somatic cells.

If one of our resident creationists can propose a mechanism for me which produces a hugely high rate of mutation in the germ cells while excluding it from any other cells, a Nobel Prize in medicine surely awaits —- such information would be critically valuable to cancer researchers. But alas, no such mechanism exists. The rate of mutations made necessary by creationist “arguments” would certainly have killed all of Noah’s children before they even had time to have any kids of their own. In order to produce 400 beneficial alleles in just 4,000 years, humanity would have been beset with cancers at a
rate that would have wiped them all out millenia ago.

Conclusion? The Noah's ark story (while not completely false - it seems to based on a flood that ocurred in Sumaria at that time) certainly has some big problems in explaining the genetic diversity we see today.

scatlett

13-04-2006, 07:38 PM

agh...religion.

when will mankind realise that religion is a virus of the mind.

Highflyer_GP

13-04-2006, 07:41 PM

Rkootknir

13-04-2006, 07:44 PM

From the 9/11 thread:
With all the hole in their theories how can you still claim for their theories to be correct. All they have proven to me is that they are constantly changing their mind when they are proven wrong and will continue to do so. At least the "creationist" theory is more or less consistant.You have yet to show such a hole. When you think you've found one, please make sure that you are aware of what the TOE predicts and does not predict.

Rkootknir

13-04-2006, 07:58 PM

back on the subject of evolution and creationism, animals adapt depending on which part of the earth they are, their surrounding environment etc. this obviously gives rise to animals evolving based on their surroundings. lets take the wooly mammoth versus elephants example. obviously the same family, yet mammoths evolved from this family and developed fur and thick skins due to the nature of their environment. elephants on the other hand had to deal with high heat, hence large ears and minimum fur. this is just a simple example obviously, and before stating that they lived continents apart consider that the continents weren't always apart and to this day are drifting apart from each other.You're straying a bit here. The theory of evolution doesn't state that organisms adapt to their environment (giraffes developing long necks because their food is in high trees), but that all genetic diversity can be explained by two simple mechanisms: Random Mutations and Natural Selection.

An extremely simplified way of describing evolution is:
-Random mutations in the genes of organisms occur all the time.
-Most of these mutations are neutral or deleterious
-However, some of these mutations have a beneficial effect on survivability
-These beneficial gene mutations are "naturally selected" over time as the gene is transferred between generations
-The resulting traits are expressed in the organisms as per genetic theory

Highflyer_GP

13-04-2006, 08:08 PM

jabulani

13-04-2006, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by Prometheus
With all the hole in their theories how can you still claim for their theories to be correct. All they have proven to me is that they are constantly changing their mind when they are proven wrong and will continue to do so. At least the "creationist" theory is more or less consistant.

But that is the nature of most scientific "knowledge" - theories that are the "best fit" that we can think of. Newton's laws explained a lot, but there were anomalies, anomalies that were catered for by Einstein's theories. And so it goes. Creationism is a matter of faith. It is typically not falsifiable, therefore not proper science. Anyone can posit a theory about a great pumpkin in the sky who created everything including funny fossils to mislead us - you can't prove it and you can't disprove it.

Rkootknir

13-04-2006, 08:19 PM

this isn't exactly my field, but wouldn't adaptation give rise to mutations and natural selection which is then transferred between between generations? for eg. developing a long neck over a period of time is a mutation of sorts?You've got it the wrong way round. :p What probably happens is that there is some sort of animal (the ancestor of the giraffe). This animal undergoes a random mutation in its genes that causes its offspring to "suddenly" have long necks. These long necks are probably a beneficial mutation (the animal can now forage on material that is too high for other animals to reach) and so it's naturally selected in each sucessive generation.

That's how I understand it (and how it has been explained to me), but this example is hopelessy simplified. However, it does help to understand the mechanisms involved.

supersunbird

13-04-2006, 08:20 PM

Feels like Anantech News and Politics

/me soaks in soothing warmth of debates, discussions and flamewars...

Puhleeease, you should all know by now that the universe was created by the Flying Spagetti Monster, I propose his teachings to be taught in school to everyone! Ramen!

Prometheus

13-04-2006, 08:22 PM

Conclusion? The Noah's ark story (while not completely false - it seems to based on a flood that ocurred in Sumaria at that time) certainly has some big problems in explaining the genetic diversity we see today.
Not necessarily. What this 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank is not realizing is that most creationists are not in agreement over everything. I don't know of any which claim that "genetic mutations always produce a LOSS in information". Whatever these alleles are (if only they would use plain english), I'll assume they refer to some kind of gene. Most people don't claim that they went from 16 to 400 in 4000 years time. I for one tend to look at the scientific evidence which shows that the flood occured as far back as 50,000 years.

Found a link...
Noah's Ark Search (http://www.noahsarksearch.com/links.htm)
Don't have time to look through everything though.

supersunbird

13-04-2006, 08:23 PM

You've got it the wrong way round. :p What probably happens is that there is some sort of animal (the ancestor of the giraffe). This animal undergoes a random mutation in its genes that causes its offspring to suddenly have long necks. These long necks are probably a beneficial mutation (the animal can now forage on material that is too high for other animals to reach) and so it's naturally selected in each sucessive generation.

That's how I understand it (and how it has been explained to me), but this example is hopelessy simplified. However, it does help to understand the mechanisms involved.

Another thing is dogs, look at the many breeds we have created, breeds of cat as well, heck, 20 years ago someone managed to breed black faced zebra finches, and now they are not even too scarse anymore. leave these things lone for long enough and eventually you will have different species.

jabulani

13-04-2006, 08:24 PM

the universe was created by the Flying Spagetti Monster, I propose his teachings to be taught in school to everyone! Ramen!

/jabu bows to the great Flying Spaghetti Monster in awe and reverence

Ramen! Ramen!

Highflyer_GP

13-04-2006, 08:25 PM

What probably happens is that there is some sort of animal (the ancestor of the giraffe). This animal undergoes a random mutation in its genes that causes its offspring to "suddenly" have long necks. These long necks are probably a beneficial mutation (the animal can now forage on material that is too high for other animals to reach) and so it's naturally selected in each sucessive generation.

ahhh that explains it ;)

Highflyer_GP

13-04-2006, 08:29 PM

What this 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank is not realizing is that most creationists are not in agreement over everything.
so in other words...

Are you now going to dismiss their claims and selectively belief what you want to belief
;)

The question is... where did apes evolve from...
argument works both ways...if intelligent design and creation existed then who created God?

Rkootknir

13-04-2006, 08:41 PM

Not necessarily. What this 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank is not realizing is that most creationists are not in agreement over everything. I don't know of any which claim that "genetic mutations always produce a LOSS in information".I've just done a quick search of the three "top" creationist websites: Kent Hovind (Dr Dino) (http://www.drdino.com/), Answers In Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/) and the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/). They all make this claim in one way or another, Kent's being the most idiotic, while AIG tries to obfuscate the issue.
Whatever these alleles areSimply a fast way of saying: "One of two or more alternative forms of a gene that can have the same locus on homologous chromosomes and are responsible for alternative traits".
(if only they would use plain english), I'll assume they refer to some kind of gene. Most people don't claim that they went from 16 to 400 in 4000 years time. I for one tend to look at the scientific evidence which shows that the flood occured as far back as 50,000 years.Fine, but I'm quite sure that if you do the calculation you will find that 50 000 years are still not quite long enough.

Prometheus

13-04-2006, 08:52 PM

You have yet to show such a hole. When you think you've found one, please make sure that you are aware of what the TOE predicts and does not predict.
Seems you missed this one in my post...

Their theories claim for our brain capacity to have doubled in only a few thousand years, an increase over four times as much as in any other period throughout history. Again where are their explanation.

argument works both ways...if intelligent design and creation existed then who created God?
Only one problem with you argument: intelligent design and creation is bound to the physical universe, God exists outside of it.

Highflyer_GP

13-04-2006, 09:02 PM

Only one problem with you argument: intelligent design and creation is bound to the physical universe, God exists outside of it.
that seems even more flawed :) if God exists outside the physical universe then surely he can have his way outside the universe and he has no effect on what exists inside? kinda like you existing on earth but being able to water plants on pluto

scatlett

13-04-2006, 09:03 PM

If God made the universe, then who made God?

If you can accept that God simply exists, then why can't you accept that the universe simply exists?

Highflyer_GP

13-04-2006, 09:11 PM

If you can accept that God simply exists, then why can't you accept that the universe simply exists?
lol thats called hypocracy, instead of trying to make sense of things they find every possible excuse to try and make the fairytale seem real. instead of looking towards the future and trying to better understand the known universe which may eventually answer the question of where we came from, lots of people instead try and look back to an ancient story to provide answers. if it wasn't for this backward way of thinking we could be progressing at a much faster rate

Prometheus

13-04-2006, 09:27 PM

that seems even more flawed :) if God exists outside the physical universe then surely he can have his way outside the universe and he has no effect on what exists inside? kinda like you existing on earth but being able to water plants on pluto

If God made the universe, then who made God?

If you can accept that God simply exists, then why can't you accept that the universe simply exists?
Again, your thinking is based on the laws of a physical universe, which didn't exist at first...

Prometheus

13-04-2006, 09:33 PM

instead of trying to make sense of things they find every possible excuse to try and make the fairytale seem real. instead of looking towards the future and trying to better understand the known universe which may eventually answer the question of where we came from, lots of people instead try and look back to an ancient story to provide answers. if it wasn't for this backward way of thinking we could be progressing at a much faster rate
I thought we were progressing at a very fast pace, but then again it seems that supercomputers, atom-smashers, quantum computers, and quantum physics (which seem to suggest a universe outside our own) were only a dream. :eek:

Rkootknir

13-04-2006, 09:34 PM

Seems you missed this one in my post...
Their theories claim for our brain capacity to have doubled in only a few thousand years, an increase over four times as much as in any other period throughout history. Again where are their explanation.Actually, IIRC it was approximately 4 million years. From a brain size of 450cc to the 1400cc of a modern male brain (I'm assuming you mean size by capacity?). What is interesting is that the Neanderthals had brains which were approximately 1600cc in size yet all evidence shows that they were quite a bit less intelligent than modern humans.

Anyway, the unusually fast evolution of the brain (4 million years is quite fast on the evolutionary timescale) is usually explained in the following way:

Some distant ancestor underwent a mutation that resulted in a larger brain, this mutation was so beneficial that it became one of the dominant evolutionary forces in the ancestral human species. Much of the genes involved in brain development and the "housekeeping" of the brain are related and so a small mutation could have a large nett effect. It is this extreme selective pressure of more complex brains that probably caused the fast evolution of the brain in humans.

You can find lots of articles and studies on this with a simple Google search.

scatlett

13-04-2006, 09:36 PM

We know that our ancestors were backward in their way of thinking for most things, why would we trust their teachings about some superior force that even they admit they have never seen?

Its called brainwashing. You were taught by your parents/guardians (who you trusted) when you were small and now you can't imagine a world different to the world you were taught about.

Highflyer_GP

13-04-2006, 09:40 PM

I thought we were progressing at a very fast pace, but then again it seems that supercomputers, atom-smashers, quantum computers, and quantum physics (which seem to suggest a universe outside our own) were only a dream. :eek:
wasn't referring to technology but to the overall understanding of the universe. but if we talking technology wise here, imagine how much further ahead we could have been if certain religious organisations hadn't dimmed any hopes and put a stranglehold around creative ideas during and before the middle ages. it's only after the renaissance that people were allowed more freedom of expression, and this was only barely 300 years ago that people were allowed to think out of the box ;)

bottom line: people back then were forced into believing and following certain things, they had no choice in the matter. choosing otherwise would mean a punishment in one way or another. just ask the witches. or heretics.

Prometheus

13-04-2006, 10:24 PM

wasn't referring to technology but to the overall understanding of the universe. but if we talking technology wise here, imagine how much further ahead we could have been if certain religious organisations hadn't dimmed any hopes and put a stranglehold around creative ideas during and before the middle ages. it's only after the renaissance that people were allowed more freedom of expression, and this was only barely 300 years ago that people were allowed to think out of the box ;)
Finally I can agree with you on something. That mindset is still however alive in many parts of society through laws which have absolutely nothing to do with "protection" as they claim. Today however the punishment seem to be prison time.

kilo39

14-04-2006, 01:03 AM

What I would like to know is what gives us our ideas for quantum theory or the bow and arrow? Why don't dolphins have similar ability - besides the fact they live in the ocean? :D

Where does our particular quirk come from - the ability to reason and make tools? I still say man came from apes (or a related ancestor!?) - but - reality is still open to interpretation - and does not exclude God.

Magic dust, Adam & Eve are just parables - but that does not exclude some germ of an idea - usually there is some element of truth in all great tales.

In fact - now that I remember - there is an archetypal Adam and Eve... the story of the seven eves. A quick search on google yields these two interesting links:

http://globaltv.workopolis.com/servlet/News/qprinter/20010526/FC26FRON

http://www.ramsdale.org/dna7.htm

Prometheus

14-04-2006, 01:19 AM

kilo39

14-04-2006, 01:42 AM

Regarding evolution cruncher - all I have to do is scan the title page for this gem amongst others: Why the Earth is not millions of years old.

The point is non-arguable. I am fully happy to accede reality is not what we know - but any talk of god creating adam and eve is pure mumbo-jumbo. Now perhaps there is some other force in the universe - the universe is only that which we know - our small island in the great unknown - but that does not include subjects like the age of the earth or the dna tree.

mooK

14-04-2006, 01:58 AM

Promotheus, that site is a load of bull!

Check this out ppl:

"Some stars are so enormous in diameter that it is thought that they could not have existed for even a few million years, otherwise their initial larger mass would have been impossibly large."

This is just untrue, stars grow larger as they burn out. i.e. they start off small and get larger and larger until they go supernova. Also, their mass it not related to their size. Heard of black holes?

Prometheus, why don't you find a reputable source of information and open your eyes? I beseech you to do so for your own good. The age of enlightenment began 300 years ago. Catch up.

Prometheus

14-04-2006, 02:19 AM

Prometheus, why don't you find a reputable source of information and open your eyes? I beseech you to do so for your own good. The age of enlightenment began 300 years ago. Catch up.
Why don't you give me reputable information on evolution that cannot be debunked. What's good for the goose is good for the ganda you know.

Tell me this:

Why are evolution theorists not willing to take part in any discussions between them and creationists. Because every time they do their theories get debunked while they are unable to debunk the creationist theory.

Why are there many sub-species of animals because of genetic mutations, but there aren't enough different species of animals to link all of them together. Evolution claims that all land animals evolved from sea animals. Supposedly they grew both legs and lungs that were able to sustain them both on land and in the water. If such creatures existed then the natural selection theory gives the impression that they would be far superior than land or sea animals as they would be able to get away from their predators in the sea by escaping to land and vice versa. Why are they not around today then.

The only logical explanation is that both land and sea animals were created separately in God's "Lab".

ps. How do sites stating Eve's daughters prove anything with regard to evolution. The bible doesn't mention any daughters from Adam or Eve afaik. But it also doesn't mention a lot of female descendants from the twelve nations of Israel when it does mention whole lines of male descendants. Does that mean the bible tells us there wasn't any woman around? Of course not.

kilo39

14-04-2006, 02:30 AM

Why are there many sub-species of animals because of genetic mutations, but there aren't enough different species of animals to link all of them together. Because each animal is unique and a (potential) family unto itself - diversity is exponential.

pookfuzz

14-04-2006, 02:44 AM

And people want to convince me that this is less absurd than:
Nothing + Intelligent Being = Matter + Intelligent Being = All living creatures + Intelligent Being.
At least this makes sense to me if everything did indeed start from nothing.

It may make sense to you; I however do not suffer from whatever meme malady is afflicting your judgment. To me it is perfectly obvious that neither the creationists nor the evolutionists have all the answers. What is clear is that of the two the evolutionists are the only ones making any effort to actually find the truth, and as time goes by more and more pieces of the missing puzzle get filled in, something that cannot be said for the people punting creationism.

Do you not see the paradox in your ideas? If everything started from nothing there would be no designer, since that would be more than just nothing. I would suggest you spend a little more time reading up on this subject, I mean no disrespect but your grasp of the topic seems rather weak.

I would also suggest you avoid linking to articles which are nothing more than pseudo-logic and anecdotal inference, try find your own reasons to validate creationism - it is after all something you apparently believe, so I would hope you have some compelling logical reasons to cling to this belief. If you must link to articles, at least try find ones that tackle the subject objectively and are not encumbered by obvious religious agendas.

My personal viewpoint is that evolution is by far the most probable answer. Sure the odds of life just starting up by itself are very small, but so is chance of winning the lotto - yet people still manage to win.

Why are evolution theorists not willing to take part in any discussions between them and creationists.

Creationists do not present a theory, they claim fact which has absolutely no foundation to prove or disprove it. How can any rational discussion take place when one side refuses to apply logic.

Because every time they do their theories get debunked while they are unable to debunk the creationist theory.

Perhaps you are not noticing, but quite the opposite appears to be happening in this thread, and in all the previous threads on a similar topic. I very much doubt this reality is changed in a more formal setting.

Why are they not around today then.

There are also no dinosaurs around today, does this mean you believe they never existed? To simply say something could not and did not exist because we lack fossil evidence is naive.

The only logical explanation is that both land and sea animals were created separately in God's "Lab".

What you call logic, I call wild assumptions lacking factual basis.

jabulani

14-04-2006, 04:46 AM

Nice post Pookfuzz, as usual.

But you won't win - these religious zealots believe what they want to believe come what may. Talking of which, time to again pay homage to the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster who created all DNA in its own image. :)

supersunbird

14-04-2006, 05:43 AM

Ramen! I pray to be one day touched by His Noodly Appendage.

jabulani

14-04-2006, 06:36 AM

All bow your heads and partake in the sacrament of Bolognaise.

Ramen! Ramen! Noodly! Noodly!
Noodly! Noodly! Ramen! Ramen!

Prometheus

14-04-2006, 03:47 PM

What is clear is that of the two the evolutionists are the only ones making any effort to actually find the truth, and as time goes by more and more pieces of the missing puzzle get filled in, something that cannot be said for the people punting creationism.
They are trying to find the body of Je$us for instance which they never will and this is seen as 'great effort'. Suddenly all the time spent refuting the evidence of evolution is seen as wasting time. And what about all the time spent finding and piecing together the bible is seen as wasting time just because you don't belief a word what it says.

Do you not see the paradox in your ideas? If everything started from nothing there would be no designer, since that would be more than just nothing. I would suggest you spend a little more time reading up on this subject, I mean no disrespect but your grasp of the topic seems rather weak.
The paradox lies with the evolutionists that want us to belief nothing->something. And you're telling me that sounds more plausable than an all powerful being creating something. Their own theories state that matter or energy cannot be created out of nothing, but when it comes to the bigbang then that theory flies out the window and suddenly a big bunch of "nothing" decides to cling together and the "gravity" of that "nothing" makes it explode in one big kaboom. Do you even notice the terminology used in that "logic"

I would suggest you avoid linking to articles which are nothing more than pseudo-logic and anecdotal inference, try find your own reasons to validate creationism - it is after all something you apparently believe, so I would hope you have some compelling logical reasons to cling to this belief. If you must link to articles, at least try find ones that tackle the subject objectively and are not encumbered by obvious religious agendas.
Tell that to people linking to "the seven daughters of eve".

My personal viewpoint is that evolution is by far the most probable answer. Sure the odds of life just starting up by itself are very small, but so is chance of winning the lotto - yet people still manage to win.
Sure the odds of God existing is small, but so is the chance of winning the lotto.

Creationists do not present a theory, they claim fact which has absolutely no foundation to prove or disprove it. How can any rational discussion take place when one side refuses to apply logic.
It's clear that evolution is illogical while it claims disproven theories to be true. They have their own people proving them wrong while not a single theory about creation has been proven wrong. Yet people belief that which has been disproven. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you are not noticing, but quite the opposite appears to be happening in this thread, and in all the previous threads on a similar topic. I very much doubt this reality is changed in a more formal setting.
Haven't seen any evidence to that "fact"

There are also no dinosaurs around today, does this mean you believe they never existed?
Dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteorite according to their theory. Plausible - Yes. Same cannot be said for this land-sea creatures as the meteorite would have wiped out the land creatures and sea creatures as well.

To simply say something could not and did not exist because we lack fossil evidence is naive.
So your saying that there's no fossil evidence of these creatures which should have presented a third of the inhabitants of earths. But there's fossils of everything else. Where did a third of the inhabitants of earth disappear to? :eek:

What you call logic, I call wild assumptions lacking factual basis.
Where's the factual basis for evolution? :p

Prometheus

14-04-2006, 03:51 PM

jabulani

14-04-2006, 05:56 PM

nice to know that people look like spaghetti to you :D

AND meatballs! Ramen to you my brother! :)

kilo39

14-04-2006, 06:12 PM

Tell that to people linking to "the seven daughters of eve" The 7 daughters of eve is real research - peer reviewed and published in medical journals - more than can be said for any "creationist theory."

It's clear that evolution is illogical while it claims disproven theories to be true. They have their own people proving them wrong while not a single theory about creation has been proven wrong. Yet people belief that which has been disproven. Let's get it straight: there is no "theory of creation" - it is a story - handed down through generations until eventually written. There is nothing to prove - it is a "fairy tale" - and any reasonable person should realise this - a story, not a "theory."

So your saying that there's no fossil evidence of these creatures which should have presented a third of the inhabitants of earths. But there's fossils of everything else. Where did a third of the inhabitants of earth disappear to? No - there are not "fossils of everything else" - there are only the fossils that have been found - and fossils are not produced at some factory - they are rare specimens - not just lying around. The more fossils we discover the more we know - as opposed to your view - a story as irrefutable fact.

Where's the factual basis for evolution? Uum, global warming?

What you should understand Prometheus - is believing in science and "fact" - does no harm to your story - but your myopic view would keep the world in the dark ages, denying science and the very real advances around you. Your lack of acknowledgement of science is inhibiting your view of the world - nothing can be gained except more disease, more poverty, and more suffering.

kilo39

14-04-2006, 06:21 PM

/edit/ and if you had actually read the two links I posted regarding the 7 daughters you would find some amazing things - one, there was a archetypal adam and eve - and - if you're living in CT you're living in the biblical eden. Open your eyes and your mind as your Good Creator would wish you too - instead of your early christian/pagan view of the world.

Highflyer_GP

14-04-2006, 06:35 PM

its pointless arguing with a creationist or for that matter any religious fanatic. its like speaking to a brick wall, no matter how much evidence one provides them with, they still stand by their fairytale without a single piece of evidence to back up their claim. yes science hasn't provided any hard proof...yet. but thats because no organism lives for a million years so that the theory may be proven. but at least scientists are making an attempt to prove their theories, they have evidence, pieces of a puzzle so to speak. what attempt is being made by fairytale folk have to back up their claim? words of wisdom?

the thing that most people dont realise is that science and faith dont necessarily have to be on opposing sides. if one can back up their claims with hard scientific evidence (not necessarily proof, but pieces of the puzzle in their respective theory) then they may be able to gain respect within scientific communities for at least making a damn effort. where's the effort in finding noah's ark? surely the bible states the final resting place for the animals have to have disembarked the vessel somewhere. but thats not the point, the point is making a real effort to prove to everyone that their theory has a valid claim and not just sprouting words of wisdom to brainwash people and make it seem like you talking sense. anybody can fabricate a story and make it seem real.

as i said before, the evidence is there, what you make of it is your problem. quantum theory may not be physically obversable due to the miniscule nature of the size at which it becomes relevant, but yet we know it works. components within your computer use quantum theory, does that mean you dont believe in science when the fact that the computer works is right in front of your eyes?

Rkootknir

14-04-2006, 07:13 PM

What I can't understand is how crazy all these evolution theories are, yet some people still belief them and call everything rational to be fictionist old tales.

So I am suppose to belief that:So I am suppose to belief that:

Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.
Dirt + water + time = living creatures.
And people want to convince me that this is less absurd than:
Nothing + Intelligent Being = Matter + Intelligent Being = All living creatures + Intelligent Being.
At least this makes sense to me if everything did indeed start from nothing.

I refer you to the EVOLUTION CRUNCHER (http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm)Aaah, so you are a fan of the good "Dr" Kent Hovind. Whatever does the synthesis of the elements have to do with the TOE?

Dirt+Water+Time=Living creatures? That has to be the most astoundingly stupid thing I've ever read on these forums. Please note that your profound misunderstanding of the TOE does not in any way provide any evidence against it. I recommend that you pick up a very elementary book on Biology so that you can start constructing rational sentences if you wish to continue this discussion.

Please let me know when you have done so.

Rkootknir

14-04-2006, 07:33 PM

Why don't you give me reputable information on evolution that cannot be debunked. What's good for the goose is good for the ganda you know.Why certainly my dear Prometheus. First of all I refer you to your local library, biology can be found from Dewey 550 to 599. That will be in the non-fiction area. When you have a basic grasp on the principles of the TOE, you may proceed to Talk Origins where the information may be a little bit more difficult to understand. After that there is the publicly accessible Arxiv.org and Google Scholar where you can find a wide selection of preprints and abstracts on the TOE. If you're willing to spend a bit of money, I recommend a subscribtion to Nature.
Tell me this:

Why are evolution theorists not willing to take part in any discussions between them and creationists. Because every time they do their theories get debunked while they are unable to debunk the creationist theory.Nope, you're wrong. The reason that scientists don't debate Creationist is that there is nothing to debate. Creationism is religion, not science. The supernatural can never be used to explain the natural, because then you can prove anything.

eg. I am God, I have created you and everything around you one picosecond ago and implanted you with years of memory. I have also put some fossils into the ground to confuse scientists. Now: Please disproof my statement.

Another thing: Why don't creationists publish anything? Why are all their "research" found in books and not one article found in a reputable scientific journal? If you have proof that the TOE is wrong I'm sure that a lot of biologists would like to know so that they can stop wasting their time. And lastly, I've never, ever, heard of a creationist debunking anything related to the TOE. Please let me know if you think otherwise.
Why are there many sub-species of animals because of genetic mutations, but there aren't enough different species of animals to link all of them together. Evolution claims that all land animals evolved from sea animals. Supposedly they grew both legs and lungs that were able to sustain them both on land and in the water. If such creatures existed then the natural selection theory gives the impression that they would be far superior than land or sea animals as they would be able to get away from their predators in the sea by escaping to land and vice versa. Why are they not around today then.You do know that most of the creatures living in the sea today are fish (ie. have gills)? Do you also know that the TOE predicts that the organisms who moved on to land were already mammals (like dolphins or whales) \ reptiles (like crocodiles)? You do know that a lot of amphibious creatures still exist today (crocodiles, penguins, seals, walrusses, ...)? What
was your point again?
[edit]
I direct your attention to volume 440 of Nature where the recent fossil find of Tiktaalik roseae and the accompanying research is discussed. A nice article on the find can be found at Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php)
The only logical explanation is that both land and sea animals were created separately in God's "Lab".Really? Please let us know where this "lab" is. God is not science. End of story.

Prometheus

14-04-2006, 07:58 PM

The 7 daughters of eve is real research - peer reviewed and published in medical journals - more than can be said for any "creationist theory."

Let's get it straight: there is no "theory of creation" - it is a story - handed down through generations until eventually written. There is nothing to prove - it is a "fairy tale" - and any reasonable person should realise this - a story, not a "theory."Should check your facts first. The "story" you're talking about is contained in the Pentateuch or the Torah as it was handed down in written form before being told, not the other way around. It was written by Moses and possibly Joshua. In Jewish tradition it is considered the literal word of God as revealed by Him to Moses at Mount Sinai. The two tablets holding the ten commandments however were written by God Himself.

No - there are not "fossils of everything else" - there are only the fossils that have been found - and fossils are not produced at some factory - they are rare specimens - not just lying around. The more fossils we discover the more we know - as opposed to your view - a story as irrefutable fact.
There are fossils of a whole range of land and sea animals, but none of this land-sea animals. Did evolution now selectively decide to leave out a third of earths inhabitants when it comes to fossils. There should at least be one not to mention an equal amount of all three categories.

Uum, global warming?
Are you serious here, what does climate have to do with proving evolution.

What you should understand Prometheus - is believing in science and "fact" - does no harm to your story - but your myopic view would keep the world in the dark ages, denying science and the very real advances around you. Your lack of acknowledgement of science is inhibiting your view of the world - nothing can be gained except more disease, more poverty, and more suffering.
I believe in every science that has been proven. It's a fact that atoms consist of electrons, protons, and neutrons and that neutrons consist of a proton, an electron and a neutrino. The fact that an electron can jump from its current path to theoretically anywhere in the known universe proves quantum physics to be correct. Not to mention the existence of dark matter. I believe in science that has been proven. And none of it has proven evolution and disproven creation or anything else in the bible.

So you basically believe in evolution on the basis of faith, yet find it unfathomable that someone should belief in creation on the basis of faith.

JBFRobisher

14-04-2006, 08:08 PM

There are fossils of a whole range of land and sea animals, but none of this land-sea animals.

Such a fossil has been found - it was in the news last week.

I wish you would give up punting your religious drivel - it is getting very tedious as you will not listen to any other point of view.

Rkootknir

14-04-2006, 08:10 PM

There are fossils of a whole range of land and sea animals, but none of this land-sea animals. Did evolution now selectively decide to leave out a third of earths inhabitants when it comes to fossils. There should at least be one not to mention an equal amount of all three categories.See my edit in the post above.
I believe in every science that has been proven. It's a fact that atoms consist of electrons, protons, and neutrons and that neutrons consist of a proton, an electron and a neutrino.You're profound lack of understanding seems to continue in physics as well. Neutrons consist of 2 down quarks and an up quark. Protons consist of 2 up quarks and a down quark. The neutrino is an elementary particle (as far as science knows ATM) and is not a part of the structure of atoms.
The fact that an electron can jump from its current path to theoretically anywhere in the known universe proves quantum physics to be correct. Not to mention the existence of dark matter. I believe in science that has been proven.You do know that the existence of dark matter hasn't been proved, don't you? It's postulated, because there is not enough visible matter around to account for all the gravitational influences in space and yes, the Big Bang (So you accept it after all :p ). I must say I still prefer the term THSK (The Horrendous Space Kablooey :D )
And none of it has proven evolution and disproven creation or anything else in the bible.The Bible and God are not science.
So you basically believe in evolution on the basis of faith, yet find it unfathomable that someone should belief in creation on the basis of faith.Please let me know what "faith" is involved in the TOE. I am someone who doesn't understand the concept of religious faith so your answer should be most insightful. :rolleyes:

kilo39

14-04-2006, 08:12 PM

Should check your facts first. The "story" you're talking about is contained in the Pentateuch or the Torah as it was handed down in written form before being told, not the other way around. There were human beings around before moses - they had religion - a spiritual understanding of the world - these were oral traditions - and still very much alive in Africa today.

So you basically believe in evolution on the basis of faith, yet find it unfathomable that someone should belief in creation on the basis of faith. Where you get it wrong is - I don't believe in anything - except the wonder of science... this is not a belief - it is an understanding - that I live in a truly amazing universe with forces unknown. This does not include blindness to science or the assumption that the bible must literally be true. It does not exclude the possibility of god or forces unknown. I do not blindly believe something as you do - the literal truth of a tale.

Prometheus

14-04-2006, 08:14 PM

where's the effort in finding noah's ark? surely the bible states the final resting place for the animals have to have disembarked the vessel somewhere. but thats not the point, the point is making a real effort to prove to everyone that their theory has a valid claim and not just sprouting words of wisdom to brainwash people and make it seem like you talking sense.
Seems you missed this post:

Found a link...
Noah's Ark Search (http://www.noahsarksearch.com/links.htm)
Don't have time to look through everything though.
But then again all creationist's efforts are overlooked and people only see the evolutionist's efforts... :rolleyes:

components within your computer use quantum theory, does that mean you dont believe in science when the fact that the computer works is right in front of your eyes?
Actually quantum physics is hindering the working of your computer, since it makes it unreliable, which is why Intel cannot seem to reach 5Ghz on their Pentium chips.

Prometheus

14-04-2006, 08:21 PM

Dirt+Water+Time=Living creatures? That has to be the most astoundingly stupid thing I've ever read on these forums.
So we are in agreement that this sounds stupid. Since afaik this is the only theory there is on how life started. A lightning bolt supposedly hit a cloud of carbon, therby giving it a structure that allowed it to replicate itself and charge over the generations. Glad we can agree that the basis for evolution sounds astoundingly stupid. :p

kilo39

14-04-2006, 08:25 PM

Just came across this - latest news:

Fossil Find Is Missing Link in Human Evolution, Scientists Say
John Roach
for National Geographic News (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0413_060413_evolution.html)

April 13, 2006
When the famous skeleton of an early human ancestor known as Lucy was discovered in Africa in the 1970s, scientists asked: Where did she come from?

Now, fossils found in the same region are providing solid answers, researchers have announced.

Rkootknir

14-04-2006, 08:28 PM

So we are in agreement that this sounds stupid. Since afaik this is the only theory there is on how life started. A lightning bolt supposedly hit a cloud of carbon, therby giving it a structure that allowed it to replicate itself and charge over the generations. Glad we can agree that the basis for evolution sounds astoundingly stupid. :pUnfortunately for you, I actually know the TOE. It says no such thing. Only someone who doesn't have any conception of science can express such utter drivel.

I take exception to being compared to a creationist, as insults go it's just about the worst.

supersunbird

14-04-2006, 08:32 PM

A evolutionist would be stupid to say there was nothing before the big bang, best they can do is theorise but no one knows, what we do know is that other stars are moving away from us and each other.

Creationists claim to know without a doubt.

Does it (Dirt+Water+Time=Living creatures - its called chemistry) sound any worse than floating energy ball with sentience creating stuff?

Someone still has to explain away that we (us humans) can change animals (dogs, cats, birds) over short timespans to look almost completely like different species (Great Dane vs Yorkshire Terrier)

Rkootknir

14-04-2006, 08:35 PM

A evolutionist would be stupid to say there was nothing before the big bang, best they can do is theorise but no one knows, what we do know is that other stars are moving away from us and each other.I don't think an evolutionary biologist would have anything to say about the THSK. You probably mean theoretical physicist.
Someone still has to explain away that we (us humans) can change animals (dogs, cats, bird) over short timespans to look almost completely like different species (Great Dane vs Yorkshire Terrier)It's called unnatural selection :D

mooK

14-04-2006, 08:35 PM

Supersunbird, there always were different strains of particular species of animals, we simply cross-bred certain types to get a more specific kind of animal to suit our needs, like a terrier or whatever.

The same way people created new races when they bred with people from different parts of the world. Pretty simple, no?

PS: Rkootknir, you're mah hero!

supersunbird

14-04-2006, 08:39 PM

About

A evolutionist would be stupid to say there was nothing before the big bang, best they can do is theorise but no one knows, what we do know is that other stars are moving away from us and each other.

Creationists claim to know without a doubt.

True, but prometheus jams it all together, so I just jammed it all together so he can grasp it.

Does it (Dirt+Water+Time=Living creatures - its called chemistry) sound any worse than floating energy ball with sentience creating stuff?

Someone still has to explain away that we (us humans) can change animals (dogs, cats, birds) over short timespans to look almost completely like different species (Great Dane vs Yorkshire Terrier)

This is aimed at the creationists too...

mooK

14-04-2006, 08:57 PM

To discuss evolution and the creation of the universe in such simple terms is counter-productive. In order for the scientific theories to make sense, they have to be studied in their entirety, and one has to have a comfortable grasp of general science theory.

Without this knowledge you're arguing against something you don't fully understand.

No disrespect intended, I'm far from being a scientist myself!

Prometheus

14-04-2006, 09:17 PM

The neutrino is an elementary particle (as far as science knows ATM) and is not a part of the structure of atoms.
Wikipedia:
"Outside the nucleus, neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 886 seconds (about 15 minutes, uncertainty about 2 s, decaying by emitting an electron and antineutrino to become a proton."
"Despite their massive nature, it is still possible that the neutrino and antineutrino are in fact the same particle"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
Know your own science before trying to convince me of mine. :rolleyes:

mooK

14-04-2006, 09:22 PM

Promotheus, if you make any point in your post, I fail to see it, please explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particles

Prometheus

14-04-2006, 09:25 PM

Unfortunately for you, I actually know the TOE. It says no such thing. Only someone who doesn't have any conception of science can express such utter drivel.
Since this is a scientific theory I'll assume your comment means you agree with me that scientists "doesn't have any conception of science" :p

Prometheus

14-04-2006, 09:29 PM

Promotheus, if you make any point in your post, I fail to see it, please explain.
I told you what a neutron consists of, Rkootknir told me i'm wrong, I proved I'm right. Point made. Can't you understand this? :D

mooK

14-04-2006, 09:47 PM

No, I don't. You quoted Rkootknir:

"The neutrino is an elementary particle (as far as science knows ATM) and is not a part of the structure of atoms."

Then you proceed to quote something from wikipedia about neutrons, not neutrinos.

"Outside the nucleus, neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 886 seconds (about 15 minutes, uncertainty about 2 s, decaying by emitting an electron and antineutrino to become a proton."

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything Rkootknir said. Then you quote:

"Despite their massive nature, it is still possible that the neutrino and antineutrino are in fact the same particle"

Now this statement isn't even a fact, it is stated that 'it is still possible...' And it has no bearing on what was discussed before, needless to say... WTF?!?!

Hopefully now you can understand my confusion as nothing you said has anything to do with the statement you quoted Rkootknir on.

EDIT: Also, when did you mention anything about what neutrons consist of? Try reading the whole article instead of skimming through the first paragraph.

Prometheus

14-04-2006, 10:06 PM

EDIT: Also, when did you mention anything about what neutrons consist of?
I can understand now that you might be confused mooK ;)
Post #57

I believe in every science that has been proven. It's a fact that atoms consist of electrons, protons, and neutrons and that neutrons consist of a proton, an electron and a neutrino.
Post #59

You're profound lack of understanding seems to continue in physics as well. Neutrons consist of 2 down quarks and an up quark. Protons consist of 2 up quarks and a down quark. The neutrino is an elementary particle (as far as science knows ATM) and is not a part of the structure of atoms.
Post #70

Wikipedia:
"Outside the nucleus, neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 886 seconds (about 15 minutes, uncertainty about 2 s, decaying by emitting an electron and antineutrino to become a proton."
"Despite their massive nature, it is still possible that the neutrino and antineutrino are in fact the same particle"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
Know your own science before trying to convince me of mine. :rolleyes:

As you can see I was trying to make the point that I know a lot about science and that I'm not so clueless as some of these people want you to belief. All they seem to do however is to show that they indeed know less.

ps. As for the neutrino-antineutrino difference - my first source was the Encyclopedia Britannica 2004 which states a neutron as consisting of a proton, electron and a neutrino, not an antineutrino.

Rkootknir

14-04-2006, 10:07 PM

I told you what a neutron consists of, Rkootknir told me i'm wrong, I proved I'm right. Point made. Can't you understand this? :DWhat are you on about? A neutron is the electro-neutral particle that is found in the nucleus of an atom. It is made up of two down quarks and one up quark. It decays into a proton by emitting an electron and an antineutrino when not in the nucleus.

A neutrino is an electro-neutral particle that is not found in an atom, in general it just passes through anything without disturbing it.

You are just plain wrong when you state "that neutrons consist of a proton, an electron and a neutrino". This is untrue. Try to read the Wikipedia entries before you go off sprouting nonsense.

[edit]
Jeez, just saw your above post. You seem to be unable to follow logic. You just disproved your own statement. "Neutrons consist of a proton, an electron and a neutrino" my a*s. Wherever you get this from, it's bloody hilarious.

ghoti

14-04-2006, 10:11 PM

since we are basicaly an advanced type of bacteria colony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory), that has learnt to adapt to its environment.

I believe in evolution and creation, as they are the same thing, just percieved on different timelines :P Theories like the M-Theory+String Theory make me honest believe in a grand design and creationism. However, I completely believe in evolution, and anyone who does not comprehend evolution should have a chat to the dodo, it was just as thick.

Evolution is real, wether the religions like it or not.

Evolution can be divided into two parts, macro and micro. Micro evolution is a fact, where as macro evolution remains a theory due to debates on the exact steps of the evolutionary process. EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN we simply can’t trace the exact evolutionary steps of the of the 3 trillion plus species on earth. Considering there is no way that we can even prove if we have located all the species on earth, this may always remain a theory. We can prove though, beyond a doubt, that humans have evolved. We can trace it back conclusively 3.6 million years. 97% of all scientists accept evolution (so does the Catholic Church).

Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea is completely absurd. Science states that monkeys and humans evolved from a shared forefather and are hence relatives, (all primates are) but we are in no way direct descendants of them.

Rkootknir

14-04-2006, 10:24 PM

ps. As for the neutrino-antineutrino difference - my first source was the Encyclopedia Britannica 2004 which states a neutron as consisting of a proton, electron and a neutrino, not an antineutrino.It does no such thing. Britannica clearly states that a neutron consists of two down quarks and one up quark. Outside of the nucleus it decays into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino.

You seem to be confusing the "consist of" part with the decay sequence.

[edit]
For the above decay sequence, the following takes place: By the workings of weak interaction one of the down quarks in the neutron changes into an up quark (this produces the proton) by emitting a W boson. The W boson then breaks up into a high energy electron and an antineutrino. High energy electrons are more commonly called beta radiation, which is why this decay sequence is known as beta decay.

Prometheus

15-04-2006, 02:12 AM

Ok, sorry for this misunderstanding.
Just installed Britannica and got this...
"the neutron appears to consist of three quarks"
"It can break down into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino"
Giving the impression that it consists of a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. I realised the part about the down quark changing into an up quark. One can however also argue that both down quarks change into up quarks and the up quark changing to a down quark if this has not been disproven. Thanks for your insight.

And in case you're wondering, yes I do question the bible in exactly the same way. Why? Because God Himself tells us to do so. It's not a question of having blind faith. That's why he gave the Egyptians 10 signs of his might and the Israelites numerous other signs.

kilo39

15-04-2006, 02:16 AM

"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."
-
A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.

national geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html)

Prometheus

15-04-2006, 01:00 PM

Prometheus

15-04-2006, 01:05 PM

It seems creationists doesn't have to prove any of their theories since the evolutionists are doing it for them.

Rkootknir

15-04-2006, 01:33 PM

Australopithecus evolved into the genus Homo, which evolved into Homo habilis and ultimately Homo erectus which lived between 1.5 million to 300 thousand years ago. Molecular biology however gives us a common ancestor which lived ~50,000 years ago. This is while making calculations based on a generous population figure for the evolutionist theory. If we make the calculations based on a larger population figure as evolutionists wants us to belief is the case then we actually get our common ancestor at up to 25,000 years ago.

So molecular biology disproofs that our common ancester evolved from Homo habilis since it was extinct by that time. So much for poor feeble Lucy which hasn't even been proven to have walked upright.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b47d7b94f92.htm

btw. 37 references were used for this article. I just love it when an evolutionist's own science proves him wrong... :D :pYour information seems incomplete. Currently it is thought that hominid evolution proceeded as follows:

Homo habilis: 2.4mil - 1.5mil years ago
Homo erectus: 1.8mil - 0.3mil years ago
Homo heidelbergensis (Homo sapiens): 0.5mil - 0.2mil years ago
Homo neanderthalensis (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis): 0.23mil - 0.03mil years ago
Homo sapiens sapiens: 0.195mil years ago - current

[edit]
If you intentionally leave out some of the steps then it will seem that there are "gaps", so don't do it. It fails one of the basic requirements of a relevant argument: true representation of the other side's view.
It seems creationists doesn't have to prove any of their theories since the evolutionists are doing it for them.Since creationists are the ones postulating a theory other than that of the TOE, the burden of proof falls on them to construct such a theory and provide us with the evidence, mechanisms (Goddidit ATM) and predictions of said theory.

Evolutionary biologists are finding new evidence all the time, and for some reason, it all fits in with the TOE.

Highflyer_GP

15-04-2006, 03:21 PM

Actually quantum physics is hindering the working of your computer, since it makes it unreliable, which is why Intel cannot seem to reach 5Ghz on their Pentium chips.
please provide me with proof of this. as with any device there are physical limitations. do you suggest an alternative method to fit 100 million transistors on a chip without using quantum theory? if it wasn't for this we would still be stuck using vacuum tubes with computers the size of a city block.

JBFRobisher

15-04-2006, 03:50 PM

Since the blasted creation lovers persist in arguing, please would one of them explain, in terms of their viewpoint, why over 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct. Your god cock it up?

Prometheus

15-04-2006, 10:16 PM

Evolutionary biologists are finding new evidence all the time, and for some reason, it all fits in with the TOE.
Seems you're missing a few viewpoints from your own biologists. But that's excusable seeing that the evolutionists participating in this discussion seem to be so mucked up in the head that they call their theory for the creation of life the most astoundingly stupid thing they've ever read. And if you think I was being unfair about that comment, I am only following the lead of the people who decided to get nasty on this forum and resort to using rude names. If you can dish it out then you should be able to take it. :p

please provide me with proof of this. as with any device there are physical limitations. do you suggest an alternative method to fit 100 million transistors on a chip without using quantum theory? if it wasn't for this we would still be stuck using vacuum tubes with computers the size of a city block.
The physical limitations are in fact due to quantum physics. Silicon transistors can't reach atom size, because quantum effects cause them to function unreliably. Now scientists have to find new devices to use in place of silicone transistors. I guess however that with your limited brain capacity you're somehow unable to understand this.

Highflyer_GP

15-04-2006, 11:15 PM

The physical limitations are in fact due to quantum physics. Silicon transistors can't reach atom size, because quantum effects cause them to function unreliably. Now scientists have to find new devices to use in place of silicone transistors. I guess however that with your limited brain capacity you're somehow unable to understand this.
lol no need to pick on my brain capacity, im not the one saying that we magically appeared from grains of dust. regarding the microprocessor issue, i advise you to do some research before commenting. i refer you to the follwing link:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/quantum-leap/2006/03/05/1141493547589.html

The biggest barrier to the future of semiconductor manufacture is the transistors' size, which need to shrink to fit in the same amount of space. The pathways etched into the original 4004 processor in 1971 were 10 microns wide, about 1/10th the width of a human hair. But the pathways on the latest Intel processors are 65 nanometres (nm) wide, or about 1/1500th the width of a human hair.

Dr Steve Duvall, a microprocessor engineer and 23-year veteran and a fellow at Intel, expects things to go even further in the future, "down to below 5 nm, possibly even 1 nm, although there's probably a practical limit at 10 nm".

Given the width of your average atom is only about 1/10th of a nanometre, we're getting to the point where the atoms themselves are simply too big and clunky for our engineering purposes. A remarkable situation, to say the least.

Even with continual developments in semiconductor materials, manufacturing and an emphasis on parallelism rather than producing faster and faster single chips, the days of the microprocessor as we know it appear to be numbered. The US-based Semiconductor Industry Association sees a point in about 15 years where the barriers to continued scaling of transistors get the better of us.

At this point we depart from conventional semiconductor engineering and go quantum in order to see computing's future.

the physical limitation is in fact due to the size of the actual transistors and that the insulating barrier between a transistor gate and its channel between source and drain is continuously shrinking in order to accomodate more transistors. eventually the size of this channel will reach a point where the actual atom is larger than the channel. at this point quantum tunneling comes into effect. if you're an electrical engineer you'll know what im talking about. if not, and if you're going to question something, please provide proof. you are yet to provide a link stating that quantum mechanics is the cause, on the contrary its the solution to the dilemma facing the semiconductor industry. i take it that you've heard of moore's law? this applies to semiconductor technology, not quantum mechanics.

nocilah

16-04-2006, 12:44 AM

hrmm i think this will all end when they develop the quantum cpu or even better the hyper dimensional cube cpu. as the article above states... atoms are getting to clunky and i think it might force engineers to start thinking laterally...

but what has this got to do with evolution vs creation?

what if God made it so that the world evovled?

Highflyer_GP

16-04-2006, 12:54 AM

but what has this got to do with evolution vs creation?

that according to certain people (no names mentioned ;) ) evolution is just another scientific theory. and according to said people, scientific theory has no factual basis.

what if God made it so that the world evovled?
then that would completely debunk the story about creation and basically everything the bible states about how we came into being. one would then question everything the bible states. which is why creationists will not see things any other way, because it would ultimately go against everything they believe in.

PS: prom no disrespect mate. even though some of us have opposing views from you and and others, lets not let personal beliefs degrade us into personal attacks regarding brain capacity and the like :)

nocilah

16-04-2006, 12:55 AM

Since the blasted creation lovers persist in arguing, please would one of them explain, in terms of their viewpoint, why over 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct. Your god cock it up?

so lets get this right.

there is a whole bunch of goo on earth. somehow something happens and we have the first amino acids forming that start to form protiens that over time build more proteins and eventually dna is born and thus the building block of life.

now i read somewhere that for just the amino acids to happen is like getting the equivalent of a 37 symbled 30km slot machine to get all the same pictures to win the prize. chances are something insane... but somehow it happened.

further more to get protiens and eventually some form of a dna is something of the same but to the power of 1000 or a billion or something even more absurd, random and 1 in a billion to the power of a billion million zillion.

but that happened.

now from simple dna strands we start having the formation of cells. amebo's that have no concious thought, but are merely cells that decide one day that they should form organisms. these organisms eventually decide to become more and begin to form the beggenings of some form of animal. cells decide to become eyes... ears etc...

but this also happened...

i could go on and on but i fail to see the accident in all of this. to say we are accidental. Sure i think evolution happened and IS happening. todeny that is being plain stupid. But i think somehow there must have been some form of devine intervention. wether that devine intervention can be described as a God or the very energy that holds us together, the earth and the universe.

i have an interesting question for evolutionists... why is it that man is the ONLY animal that can think. that has some form of consioucness? Why didn't other animals inheret this kind of mind? Is this related purely to brain size? If so are octopus more intelligent then man?

Prometheus

16-04-2006, 02:23 AM

Halicon I applaud you for realising that under such high odds it cannot be considered a mere accident. You seem to be more intelligent that most of the people on this forum. :)

PS: prom no disrespect mate. even though some of us have opposing views from you and and others, lets not let personal beliefs degrade us into personal attacks regarding brain capacity and the like :)
Firstly, I am not the one who resorted to terms such as "Spaghetti Monster" so I'm sure you can see the reason I feel like resorting to personal attacks. If you are not part of that group then I apologise for this, but I didn't see you standing up against it either.
Secondly, if you followed the posts carefully you can actually see that it was the evolutionists who first introduced the term "creation" (as if they have something to fear from it) when I wasn't planning on doing anything of the kind. I didn't suggest that "so in other words creationists insist that something magical up there descended upon us, took two grains of dust, created adam and eve and thats how we came to be?". You suggested that.

if God exists outside the physical universe then surely he can have his way outside the universe and he has no effect on what exists inside? kinda like you existing on earth but being able to water plants on pluto
No, it's like you stepping on an ant hill. You are not part of the ant's universe, but you can surely cause major disruption to their world. :)

With all these evolutionists seeming so hellbent on trying to convince people that their theory is absolute fact that they have to resort to rude names, none of them seem to have realised that there is in fact a third option which could in fact fit in with both theories. Does Planet X ring any bells at all? Isn't it possible that this is in fact the biblical Eden which no human will set foot in ever again?

Highflyer_GP

16-04-2006, 02:37 AM

Halicon I applaud you for realising that under such high odds it cannot be considered a mere accident. You seem to be more intelligent that most of the people on this forum. :)

Firstly, I am not the one who resorted to terms such as "Spaghetti Monster" so I'm sure you can see the reason I feel like resorting to personal attacks. If you are not part of that group then I apologise for this, but I didn't see you standing up against it either.

neither did i refer to anything as spaghetti monster. if you read my other posts on similar topics in the past you'd see that regardless of my own belief, i respect everyone elses beliefs. after all we each entitled to our own opinion right? and if i didn't stand up against using derogatory terms then i apologise, but it would be like repeating myself over and over again asking people to respect others beliefs. if they dont want to, well theres nothing i can do about that :)

back on topic, and re the high odds: have a look at the sheer size of the universe. billions of galaxies, each galaxy containing billions of stars and planets. why is it hard to believe that considering the sheer amount of amount of matter that exists in the universe that life evolved on earth?perhaps conditions were ideal for life to evolve here. yes its a small chance, but a chance nonetheless.

re the ant hill: i can cause disruption to their world, but i cannot create an ant with super intelligence nor influence their decisions either positively or negatively. that is left for themselves to sort out. also i cannot determine who has been a good ant or a bad ant, because the ants definition of good and bad may vary between each individual. at this point you'd probably bring in the commandments into the equation, but consider that the commandments were written into the bible by mortal men. if i send an ant who claims to be my son to communicate my ideal commandments to the other ants, this would then make me an ant too :confused: which we all know isnt true. so the question remains, why humans? why does "God" portray himself as human by choosing to send J3sus in human form? why not send him as a dolphin? surely we cant be so conceited to think that earth was created soley for humans, and animals created to serve humans. what about the rest of the universe? why create one planet among trillions and trillions on which to create life? why create the other planets and stars in the first place?

Prometheus

16-04-2006, 02:49 AM

neither did i refer to anything as spaghetti monster. if you read my other posts on similar topics in the past you'd see that regardless of my own belief, i respect everyone elses beliefs.
I know you didn't. I know exactly who said it and who agreed with it. Again, if you were mistakenly treated like that group then I apologise for it. Sorry for that misunderstanding.

jabulani

16-04-2006, 08:01 AM

Firstly, I am not the one who resorted to terms such as "Spaghetti Monster" so I'm sure you can see the reason I feel like resorting to personal attacks.

With all these evolutionists seeming so hellbent on trying to convince people that their theory is absolute fact that they have to resort to rude names, none of them seem to have realised that there is in fact a third option which could in fact fit in with both theories. Does Planet X ring any bells at all? Isn't it possible that this is in fact the biblical Eden which no human will set foot in ever again?

You lot are so blinded by your religion that you assume the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster posts were personal attacks. Not so. To put it simply so that maybe even you get the message - there is no more evidence about the existence and identity of the so-called "creator" to suggest your biblical god as opposed to our pasta one. Other than primitive myth and legend, that are as credible in a literal sense as Jacob Zuma.

You, Prometheus, also miss the point I made earlier about "scientific fact", that it is not absolute fact but humankind's "best effort". You should maybe do some reading on the nature of scientific knowledge.

I don't know about Planet X - the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster has Planet Y where he does his cooking - its out beyond the Kuiper Belt. Does Planet X suggest we are actually aliens from outer space?? You and Manto should compare notes!

Ramen! Noodly!

pupa

16-04-2006, 10:32 AM

You lot are so blinded by your religion that you assume the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster posts were personal attacks. Not so. To put it simply so that maybe even you get the message - there is no more evidence about the existence and identity of the so-called "creator" to suggest your biblical god as opposed to our pasta one. Other than primitive myth and legend, that are as credible in a literal sense as Jacob Zuma.

You, Prometheus, also miss the point I made earlier about "scientific fact", that it is not absolute fact but humankind's "best effort". You should maybe do some reading on the nature of scientific knowledge.

I don't know about Planet X - the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster has Planet Y where he does his cooking - its out beyond the Kuiper Belt. Does Planet X suggest we are actually aliens from outer space?? You and Manto should compare notes!

Ramen! Noodly!

You sound like a antichrist, a non religieos individual that have nothing to live for. Shame! The boer's called them now a now ilegal name so I will rephrain from using it. I would then be blamed racist again!
I pity folks like you. Shame again! The world can just become one great party as there is nothing else out there, we have no reason to exist and all will end one day with nothing left of the human race the "Fluke" existence of man would just end!

nocilah

16-04-2006, 10:35 AM

back on topic, and re the high odds: have a look at the sheer size of the universe. billions of galaxies, each galaxy containing billions of stars and planets. why is it hard to believe that considering the sheer amount of amount of matter that exists in the universe that life evolved on earth?perhaps conditions were ideal for life to evolve here. yes its a small chance, but a chance nonetheless.

if you localise everything that is required to start life which scientifically is a huge question mark, but assuming it as they say. amino acids... the chances of that happening are not small, they are incredibly small. so small in fact it would be 1 in so many zero's i would crash this server trying to fill it with the zero's.

but the fact remains. we are alive here and today however it may have started.

if you want to read a great objective an subjective book on the subject and many other intersting subjects read: A short hostory of almost everything.

there the author describes what has been established wrt evolution and the building blocks of life. incredibly fascinating and interesting stuff.

arf9999

16-04-2006, 11:46 AM

This is the most entertaining thread in ages!!

I think that the argument can be broken down in one line:

The story of creation vs. the theory of evolution.
Neither of them is neccessarily true, but at least the theory is investigated and put to some kind of testing.

Just for those on the forum who have brought the proverbial knife to an intellectual gunfight, here are some definitions of scientific theory and an overview of the scientific method:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3ATheory&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3AScientific+method&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

edit: Just so you know where I stand on this issue: it is my opinion that the rejection of the three central tenets of the Enlightenment (i.e. the use of reason, the scientific method, and the importance of progress), means that we may as well be wearing skins and worshipping the sun. The one thing that separates homo sapiens from the rest of the species in the world is our ability to reason in the abstract - or so I thought until I read some of the drivel written here.

arf9999

16-04-2006, 12:02 PM

icyrus

16-04-2006, 12:10 PM

You sound like a antichrist, a non religieos individual that have nothing to live for. Shame! The boer's called them now a now ilegal name so I will rephrain from using it. I would then be blamed racist again!
I pity folks like you. Shame again! The world can just become one great party as there is nothing else out there, we have no reason to exist and all will end one day with nothing left of the human race the "Fluke" existence of man would just end!

Do you pity the ancient Greeks who believed in Zeus and the rest of Olympus? They to believed in the super-natural and pitied anyone who didn't share their beliefs. Eventually time moved on, and so did people's beliefs. What makes you think yours will not share the same fate?

People are allowed to believe whatever they like so you are completely entitled to yours, but save your pity for something that doesn't make you look like a fool.

jabulani

16-04-2006, 12:47 PM

You sound like a antichrist, a non religieos individual that have nothing to live for. Shame!

I pity folks like you. Shame again!

Thanks man! You know, one of the more attractive traits of some religious people is a genuine concern for their fellow man, so I appreciate your concern. However, I would prefer you save your sympathy for those who 1. deserve it and 2. want it. I have plenty to live for! I'll have to answer some of these posts more fully when my brain is more in gear - today is Pasta Sunday in our church, and I have so overindulged in the sacrament of lasagne that I fear I cannot think clearly.

Ramen, brothers!

pupa

16-04-2006, 01:53 PM

Shame I got the responses I was looking for! Shame again I pity you guys! at least I have a believe in something, You guys? Shame My pity is really on you. If having a religion of some sorts make you a fool then I am happy to be one. For one if at least even if only my beliefs makes mine a better life I still have something to look forward too after death, What have you got????? a miserable life in South Africa, knowing it will end soon forever! what are you doing here, go have fun man it is short lived! if you believe there is no reason for our existence but a mere fluke in the past eons of history! What a waste of breath!

pupa

16-04-2006, 02:04 PM

Do you pity the ancient Greeks who believed in Zeus and the rest of Olympus? They to believed in the super-natural and pitied anyone who didn't share their beliefs. Eventually time moved on, and so did people's beliefs. What makes you think yours will not share the same fate?

People are allowed to believe whatever they like so you are completely entitled to yours, but save your pity for something that doesn't make you look like a fool.

They also beleved in God's like some PPL believe in the supernatural also as in a God. Look up the definition of a God and see what it means and how you can apply it to yourselve for whatever you want. The fact remain some PPL believe our existence is there for a reason and making kids is not the only reason. Some PPL even today preach for their god's as statues. But they still believe in something not nothing! If that makes him a fool so be it, better the fool that believed in something and got nothing but a decent life than the fool that believes in nothing and will definatly get nothing. What a empty thought, must be miserable just thinking about it!

pupa

16-04-2006, 02:15 PM

If you need to find meaning for your existence in a book written by semi-civilised nomads, go for it...

Those semi civilised Nomads had more intelligence in their beings than many a nation today. After 2000 years their believe systems and knowledge is still active and are the basis for many scientific knowledge and findings even today. If that make them less than than the intellect shown by nations today especially in African nations, that have no achievements to show, then Yes I prefer their wisdom to what is available today! At least 2000 years ago they were highly sophisticated "semi-civilised" people compared to civilised Africa today which by the way only became civilised 200 Years ago by introduction of the descendant's of the "semi civilised" people at the time. I wonder why?

Prometheus

16-04-2006, 03:09 PM

Some people seem to be getting the point now. Evolution has never been proven to be an absolute fact, yet some people belief that it's the only possible explanation. I never wanted to introduce religion in the first place, but since the evolutionists on this site seem to want to attack it as if it's something sinister I honestly have no choice but, to defend it.

The evolutionists don't even do any research for the basis of their claims with regard to religion. I did research on the subject of evolution therefor I am able to show you what has been proven and disproven.

As for planet X, it exists. It's a scientific fact. It's over 5 times the size of earth and over 100 times its mass. It has a magnetic core so powerful that it clashes with the electromagnetic fields of other planets in the solar system. A magnetic core powerful enough to swing around the magnetic core of earth. And guess what, it's heading our way again. Seems like now is the time for the nonbelievers to go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth exactly like the bible said they would.

mooK

16-04-2006, 03:42 PM

jabulani

16-04-2006, 03:57 PM

The evolutionists don't even do any research for the basis of their claims with regard to religion. I did research on the subject of evolution therefor I am able to show you what has been proven and disproven.

I think you are now starting to flip. What qualifications do you have in either evolutionary science or theology, apart from a few trivial net lookups?

As for planet X, it exists. ...
And guess what, it's heading our way again. Seems like now is the time for the nonbelievers to go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth exactly like the bible said they would.

Lo, the end of the world is nigh! It will come like a mighty wind, like a thief in the night! You know, looking out over the valley below, I saw strange shadows playing on the ground. Behold - the Four Meatballs Of The Apocalypse winging over the sky! For the great day of his Noodliness is come; and who shall be able to stand?

You know, in Jeremiah 54:14 it says:

Believeth not the idiot who maketh ceaseless noise - the wise man holdeth his own counsel.

You should take heed my son!

mooK

16-04-2006, 04:01 PM

Highflyer_GP

16-04-2006, 04:06 PM

As for planet X, it exists. It's a scientific fact. It's over 5 times the size of earth and over 100 times its mass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_x

Planet X disproved
The distant space probes Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, and Voyagers 1 and 2 disproved the existence of Planet X, as hypothesized by Lowell, in two ways. First, as they passed each of the outer planets, the acceleration gained by the gravitational pull of the planet was used to refine the masses of those planets. It turned out that the masses of the outer planets, calculated by Earth-based observatories, were low by as much as 1%. When the correct masses were used to determine the orbits of the outer planets, the remaining discrepancies vanished.
Second, the trajectories of the space probes have revealed no discrepancies that can be accounted for by the gravitational pull of a large undiscovered object in the solar system. Many astronomers consider this the end of the Planet X hypothesis. This does not preclude the existence of objects potentially as massive as the Earth, which could escape detection in this manner, and would not create noticeable discrepancies in the orbits of the outer planets. Such an object could be considered "Planet X" only in the popular sense, not in the scientific sense.

pupa

16-04-2006, 04:08 PM

Planet X does not exist, it's a myth.

Prometheus, I don't know where you get your info from but I understand how easy it is to find information on the web which appears to be true and legitimate, when in fact it's all a lie. There are a lot of self-serving conspiracy theorist idiots on the net who write out absolute b/s trying to convince people to conform to their twisted beliefs.

So take everything you read out here on the net with a large pinch of salt, and always try to get an objective source of information to compare with so you can find some semblance of truth in a matter.

Exit Mundi explanation of Planet-X, very interesting site about *possible* end of the world scenarios, I was up all night once reading them, very interesting!
http://www.exitmundi.nl/Planet-X.htm

Wiki entry for Planet-X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_x

Yeah just again someones viewpoint again. What about this recent discovery? Http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050729_new_planet.html Not planet X yet? but just make you ponder on how much or rather little we know about the solar system and then just base our beliefs on it! History as written by the ancients have been proven more factual and correct than a lot of PPL want to give credit for. Maybe you must read the experiences of the PPL 2000 years ago and relate to it Velikovsky's literature would be a good start although controversial

JBFRobisher

16-04-2006, 04:12 PM

On my comments "If the shoe fits wear it" and post a derrogotive reply Else post some facts so I can determine if You have the intellegence to change my mind!

I suggest you learn to spell before expecting an intelligent reply.

pupa

16-04-2006, 04:18 PM

Also, I'd like to share something that just occured to me.

I find it quite sad how religious people harp on about respecting people's religion as soon as something even mildly anti-religion is said. What it comes down to is having respect for other people's belief, which I agree with, however, there's a huge double standard. People who are not religious, still have their own beliefs, and they too should be respected. There's no reason for these rights to be exclusive to the religious. Atheists do have their own beliefs, and they have the right for their beliefs to be respected.

So pupa, I'd like to point out that most atheists or agnostics probably feel sorry for you.
Read my new signature! At least I believe in "Something" I have nothing against their belief system but referring to believers in derrogative ways is another issue. If a poster say here "I am a atheist or non believer" I will respect him for his honesty and would not say anything to his beliefs, I may pity them so they can pity me too, I feel for them. I am not a preacher neither affiliated to any church or other group, I just believe there is more to it than we know and it will be revealed or become common knowledge one day.

pip

16-04-2006, 04:23 PM

As for planet X, it exists. It's a scientific fact. It's over 5 times the size of earth and over 100 times its mass. It has a magnetic core so powerful that it clashes with the electromagnetic fields of other planets in the solar system. A magnetic core powerful enough to swing around the magnetic core of earth. And guess what, it's heading our way again. Seems like now is the time for the nonbelievers to go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth exactly like the bible said they would.

What a pile of unadulterated ****e.

pupa

16-04-2006, 04:23 PM

I suggest you learn to spell before expecting an intelligent reply.
You replied! Thanks for your "intelligence" , much appreciated but this is not a spell or literature forum and have nothing to do with intelligence as you just revealed yours. I do use the primitive Google spell checker at times but is not really bothered. For an Afrikaans bred grown and schooled person I think my English could be better than your other capabilities!

Edit! By the way just your attitude and not even correcting the wrongly spelled word you found so frustrating shows your arrogance in life

mooK

16-04-2006, 04:30 PM

At least I believe in "Something"

This sounds so defensive. Do you believe the mere belief of something makes you better than others? Clearly you do. In fact, I question your reasons for believing. Based on what you've said earlier, and your pity for others that don't believe, it seems to me that you believe what you believe purely to make yourself feel better and more comfortable.

A man once told me he believes in God because it makes his life easier and it allows him to set his mind at ease. I think this is true for most people, even if they're not completely aware of it. Unfortunately, I'm not able to forego my logic, close my eyes and believe in something blindly.

Pity me if you must.

pupa

16-04-2006, 04:37 PM

This sounds so defensive. Do you believe the mere belief of something makes you better than others? Clearly you do. In fact, I question your reasons for believing. Based on what you've said earlier, and your pity for others that don't believe, it seems to me that you believe what you believe purely to make yourself feel better and more comfortable.

A man once told me he believes in God because it makes his life easier and it allows him to set his mind at ease. I think this is true for most people, even if they're not completely aware of it. Unfortunately, I'm not able to forego my logic, close my eyes and believe in something blindly.

Pity me if you must.

I do pity you. why does it offend you so much? Worried? I am not! I can tell you this I do not believe in the ANC or communism if that helps! But defending christianity? any time!

Highflyer_GP

16-04-2006, 04:44 PM

pupa

16-04-2006, 04:57 PM

i pity people who blindly follow and defend a 2000 year old story without making an attempt to make sense of it first. if one is born into a family of a certain religion, chances are they will stick to it, blindly following it, because they were raised with that belief in mind.

Referring to me? Nope You have it wrong my dear? I grew up in a orphanage since very young and the NG church as religion, were forced there with living parents! by the NG church. Then got outta there under a Stepfather who was an Jehovah Witness. I then hated the church until today for what they did to me and my family. I hated the JW group for their lies and deceit! but I accepted god and Christ during this period and it never changed. So family religion took no part in this! As the book you refer too, just funny how many of the history and predictions comes to play and how many events is proven today as factual yet written by PPL that saw it in a religious light, but the Incas, Chinese, Indians and Russians saw it from different view points, yet they tie up with these "legends" of the old "book"!

Highflyer_GP

16-04-2006, 05:02 PM

no pupa not referring to you mate, referring to people who blindly follows something. i have more respect for people who question a faith, try to make sense of it, and still choose to follow it because it made sense to them. but someone who blindly follows and defends something because it was hardwired into their brains due to their upbringing will get little sympathy from me.

Prometheus

16-04-2006, 05:38 PM

From wiki
The distant space probes Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, and Voyagers 1 and 2 disproved the existence of Planet X, as hypothesized by Lowell, in two ways.
Aren't these probes the same ones belonging to a space agency who fitted the Hubble telescope with encryption so that they alone are privy to the information sent back and to what is released to the public and what is not. Give me an actual independant source without a clear agenda behind their motives. But, oh wait, there aren't any except scientists with actual credentials behind their names whos opinions who seem to disregard because it doesn't fit in with what you belief. Hahaha, How's that for hypocrisy.

History as written by the ancients have been proven more factual and correct than a lot of PPL want to give credit for. Maybe you must read the experiences of the PPL 2000 years ago and relate to it Velikovsky's literature would be a good start although controversial.
I think you hit the nail on the head. The Giza pyramids were built with such precision that we today are unable to match. Clearly the ancients were more advanced than us.

Roman4604

16-04-2006, 06:02 PM

I think you hit the nail on the head. The Giza pyramids were built with such precision that we today are unable to match. Clearly the ancients were more advanced than us.So let me get this straight ... the engineering knowledge & precision required to design & build the Giza pyramids was more complex then say .... the twin Petronas towers?

Prometheus

16-04-2006, 06:17 PM

So let me get this straight ... the engineering knowledge & precision required to design & build the Giza pyramids was more complex then say .... the twin Petronas towers?
Yep you got it right. Well done.

As for people posting things like this:
http://www.exitmundi.nl/Planet-X.htm
If you want to refer me to disinformation sites then at least refer me to ones that have their facts right. The sumerians refered to planet X as the twelfth planet not the eleventh one as stated on that site. They viewed both the sun and the moon as planets, so if you count the planets in that drawing it adds up to twelve. Please refer me to people that know how to count next time. :p

Highflyer_GP

16-04-2006, 06:29 PM

Yep you got it right. Well done.

As for people posting things like this:
http://www.exitmundi.nl/Planet-X.htm
If you want to refer me to disinformation sites then at least refer me to ones that have their facts right. The sumerians refered to planet X as the twelfth planet not the eleventh one as stated on that site. They viewed both the sun and the moon as planets, so if you count the planets in that drawing it adds up to twelve. Please refer me to people that know how to count next time. :p
the part that you are referring to refers to the myth surrounding planet x. it says that
Planet X is the supposedly eleventh planet of our solar system.whether the sumerians believed there were eleven or twelve planets is irrelevant because we know that thats wrong in any case. sumerian belief has no basis for argument since its just that, a belief.
then it goes on to explain the true story behind the myth
But eventually, in the 1980s and 1990s, the riddle was solved. There appeared to be no mystery planet involved at all. Neither is there some mysterious force pulling on Neptune’s orbit. The astronomers simply had their orbit calculations wrong. But with better techniques, it all added up. By now, no serious astronomer believes in Planet X anymore. Exit Planet X.
please scrutinize an article based on the merit on which it was written. if the article says something according to the myth, then dont quote it as saying that the article states this. selectively taking things out of context in order to try and prove a point actually disproves your point to someone who can look at the article in its entirety. wherever you look, the riddle behind planet x can be explained by an earth based cock-up on calculations used to predict the outer planets orbits

Prometheus

16-04-2006, 06:30 PM

'Nibiru' is just the ancient word for 'ferry boat'.
Hahaha. What a laugh. Nibiru actually means "planet which crosses the skies" or "planet of the crossing".

Oh gosh, just saw this:

please scrutinize an article based on the merit on which it was written. if the article says something according to the myth, then dont quote it as saying that the article states this. selectively taking things out of context in order to try and prove a point actually disproves your point to someone who can look at the article in its entirety.
You read my post wrong. The article states that the myth says there's eleven planets when the myth says there's twelve planets. Again misinformation. They don't even know what the myth says.

jabulani

16-04-2006, 06:36 PM

So let me get this straight ... the engineering knowledge & precision required to design & build the Giza pyramids was more complex then say .... the twin Petronas towers?

These clappers would say so. They are now experts in theology, nuclear physics, astrophysics, and engineering - see what you can achieve in a coupla days with internet access!
:eek:

BTW The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster is offering free fettucine on Friday to any who would accept him into their stomachs and their lives!

Ramen!

arf9999

16-04-2006, 06:40 PM

Jabulani, If I accept The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster into my life... er ..stomach, do I need to make a tithe of 10% of all my linguini?

Highflyer_GP

16-04-2006, 06:40 PM

You read my post wrong. The article states that the myth says there's eleven planets when the myth says there's twelve planets. Again misinformation. They don't even know what the myth says.
perhaps you missed this part of my post
whether the sumerians believed there were eleven or twelve planets is irrelevant because we know that thats wrong in any case. sumerian belief has no basis for argument since its just that, a belief.
for them to consider the sun and moon as planets? come on reason with me here, if they can say that, what reason do we have to believe anything else that they hypothesised about.this is probably how this planet x thing became so talked about, because of sumerian belief. when astronomers got their orbital calculations of the outer planets wrong, this seemed to tie in with the belief that there had to be something else. sorry to burst any bubbles but there isnt

Roman4604

16-04-2006, 06:42 PM

Yep you got it right. Well done.And this you know by drawing on your years of experience & masters in civil engineering?

jabulani

16-04-2006, 06:44 PM

Jabulani, If I accept The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster into my life... er ..stomach, do I need to make a tithe of 10% of all my linguini?

The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster is most generous by nature, and asks for only 5% of your linguine. In fact, his next big marketing thrust is based upon the value proposition of cut-price religion - HALF the price of Christianity and Islam. Who can resist???

;)

pupa

16-04-2006, 06:54 PM

the part that you are referring to refers to the myth surrounding planet x.

it says thatwhether the sumerians believed there were eleven or twelve planets is irrelevant because we know that thats wrong in any case.
sumerian belief has no basis for argument since its just that, a belief.
then it goes on to explain the true story behind the myth

please scrutinize an article based on the merit on which it was written. if the article says something according to the myth, then dont quote it as saying that the article states this. selectively taking things out of context in order to try and prove a point actually disproves your point to someone who can look at the article in its entirety. wherever you look, the riddle behind planet x can be explained by an earth based cock-up on calculations used to predict the outer planets orbits

Who the hell knows really what they were refering too? Was it maybe this they refered too? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050729_new_planet.html
Did they again know more than we do today?

Prometheus

16-04-2006, 06:58 PM

And this you know by drawing on your years of experience & masters in civil engineering?
No, by drawing on the years of experience from people with actual degrees in civil engineering.

when astronomers got their orbital calculations of the outer planets wrong, this seemed to tie in with the belief that there had to be something else. sorry to burst any bubbles but there isnt
You mean the NASA astronomers who got it wrong the first time and are now saying the newest calculations are right. If they were wrong the first time then they surely can be wrong now. That's assuming they aren't lying now. :D
.
.
.
Just realised that Jabulani has contributed what afrikaners call f@k@l to this thread. All he seems to want to do is criticise religion. How's that for disinformation? :rolleyes:

pupa

16-04-2006, 07:07 PM

These clappers would say so. They are now experts in theology, nuclear physics, astrophysics, and engineering - see what you can achieve in a coupla days with internet access!
:eek:

BTW The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster is offering free fettucine on Friday to any who would accept him into their stomachs and their lives!

Ramen!

Do not get me wrong Jabu, Its not a shame that the Sub Saharan Africans did not achieve anything of mentioning in history, it was their culture to wait for evolution. But I must say there is lots of questions on how and with what the old folk did things eons ago at such precision with the knowledge we think the folks had thousands of years ago.

Then again your joke of a contribution to this thread is really and indication of your respect to others that do believe on something other than their stomachs such as the natives of southern Africa did as major reason to live 200+ years ago!

arf9999

16-04-2006, 07:11 PM

Hey Pupa, if the shoe fits...

pupa

16-04-2006, 07:15 PM

Hey Pupa, if the shoe fits...

I am glad Arf999 so now you can try it in he mouth Hehe.
Joking aside It is important to eat but the joke is on you pal!

Highflyer_GP

16-04-2006, 07:18 PM

Who the hell knows really what they were refering too? Was it maybe this they refered too? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050729_new_planet.html
Did they again know more than we do today?
was referring to this post:

As for planet X, it exists. It's a scientific fact. It's over 5 times the size of earth and over 100 times its mass. It has a magnetic core so powerful that it clashes with the electromagnetic fields of other planets in the solar system. A magnetic core powerful enough to swing around the magnetic core of earth. And guess what, it's heading our way again.
also remember that Planet X does not imply the tenth planet as in roman numerals, but as an actual name. its quite possible that more planets may exist, but not of the scale of size mentioned by Prometheus. pupa the link you posted is already common knowledge, however the object in question is at most twice the size of pluto, but estimate to be 1.5 times the size of pluto. nowhere near the 5 times the size of earth as mentioned earlier. i will try and post a link providing the planets sizes in relation to each other to give everyone a perspective on how relative the size of each body is to each other

You mean the NASA astronomers who got it wrong the first time and are now saying the newest calculations are right. If they were wrong the first time then they surely can be wrong now. That's assuming they aren't lying now.
if you actually read the wikipedia entry you'd realise that they used dated measuring equipment and techniques which accounts for the error in the first place. im sure you would agree that they weren't as technologically advanced in 1930 as we are now

Planet X was a large hypothetical planet orbiting beyond the orbit of Neptune. The X stands for "unknown", not the Roman number 10; there were only 8 known planets at the time. Its existence, first as a ninth planet, and after 1930 as a tenth, was postulated on the basis of apparent discrepancies in the orbits of the gas giants, especially those of Uranus and Neptune. Those discrepancies have largely been resolved by modern measurement, removing the basis for Planet X. besides this what you're saying is that although they realised where they were at fault and admitted to the public where it was, their explanation still isn't good enough? so let me ask you something, which explanation would satisfy you? going on erroneous calculations just so that it would tie in with your beliefs? thats not science my friend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_x
for anyone else still having difficulty grasping the concept please read the entire entry before commenting any further.

jabulani

16-04-2006, 07:27 PM

Do not get me wrong Jabu, Its not a shame that the Sub Saharan Africans did not achieve anything of mentioning in history, it was their culture to wait for evolution.

Now this is screamingly funny! Do I detect a .. hem hem... RACIAL slur here???? Are you inferring from my name that I am a bit on the ( monster forbid! ) DARK side???? So I must, therefore, be an ignorant "******"???? Is that what you think?

Methinks I am getting under their skin:

Just realised that Jabulani has contributed what afrikaners call f@k@l to this thread. All he seems to want to do is criticise religion. How's that for disinformation?

Just because you cannot understand my contribution does not mean it is not there! Just as because you cannot understand science and evolution, it must be rubbish???

Personally, not admitting to anything, I'd rather contribute f@k@l than the load of k@k you lot are contributing.

Sadly you condemn yourselves. The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster's Commandment Number 4 is:

Thou shalt not be f**king stupid!

Ramen! ;)

Prometheus

16-04-2006, 07:30 PM

if you actually read the wikipedia entry you'd realise that they used dated measuring equipment and techniques which accounts for the error in the first place. im sure you would agree that they weren't as technologically advanced in 1930 as we are now
Strange that the "error" seem to be so astronomically large, yet they have calculated the sizes of the other 9 planets more or less correctly... :rolleyes:

The X stands for "unknown", not the Roman number 10
Funny the X also stands for ten, it was some of the original astronomers who found it that dubbed it X for this reason.

****, just saw this.

The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster's Commandment Number 4 is:

Thou shalt not be f**king stupid!
What the hell are you trying to say, talk english or at least some other african language. Even though I don't know any african language, just maybe I'll understand a translation of it.

btw. I chose "african language" because that's the only thing left as I'm afrikaans, so it wasn't meant as a racial slur.

Highflyer_GP

16-04-2006, 07:37 PM

dude read the wiki entry before commenting on things that are answered there. X is for unknown, not 10. im seriously getting tired of repeating myself over and over. as i said before, if you have proof pertaining to something then please provide us with it. but dont speculate on things. provide proof that "the original astronomers" dubbed it X for reason of calling it 10. if thats the case you just disproved your own theory that its five times larger than earth. if you read the link posted by pupa, they believe they may have found something approximately 1.5 times the size of pluto. look at the picture below in order to get a sense of how big everything is in relation to each other. and please validate any future argument with proof, and not just speculation by using terms like "scientists say this" and "scientists say that". if you're going to mention anything that a scientist has claimed, then validate it with proof. otherwise you have no basis for argument.

as promised heres a picture showing each body in our solar system in relation to each other.
http://img217.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture18nk.jpg

pupa

16-04-2006, 07:38 PM

Now this is screamingly funny! Do I detect a .. hem hem... RACIAL slur here???? Are you inferring from my name that I am a bit on the ( monster forbid! ) DARK side???? So I must, therefore, be an ignorant "******"???? Is that what you think?

Methinks I am getting under their skin:

Just because you cannot understand my contribution does not mean it is not there! Just as because you cannot understand science and evolution, it must be rubbish???

Personally, not admitting to anything, I'd rather contribute f@k@l than the load of k@k you lot are contributing.

Sadly you condemn yourselves. The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster's Commandment Number 4 is:

Ramen! ;)

You said it all! And I see you quote Ramen regards yourself #4 ? I am having a laugh as I read your post. I take it where it comes from. Hehe!
And we know you got the shiite you vomit here http://www.venganza.org/ as reference from another thread a few days back. and yes your contribution is F*All

jabulani

16-04-2006, 07:50 PM

and yes your contribution is F*All

Now now, no need to get perthonal and be nathty to me! ( Thorry - got thome thpaghetti thtuck in my teeth! )

Thtill think I'm an ignorant darkie???

pip

16-04-2006, 08:02 PM

Now now, no need to get perthonal and be nathty to me! ( Thorry - got thome thpaghetti thtuck in my teeth! )

Thtill think I'm an ignorant darkie???

ROFL
:D :D

Roman4604

16-04-2006, 08:04 PM

No, by drawing on the years of experience from people with actual degrees in civil engineering.Yeh ...pull the other leg.

I have been to, and inside, the great pyramid of Giza. I too have been to Las Vegas where I found a similar sized pyramid infinately more complex, designed and built with far more precision than those at Giza .... its called the Luxor Hotel!

If you and your 'people' believe that modern civil engineering cannot match, nevermind be orders of magnitude more advanced than, the Giza builders, then you are hoplessly ignorant of the world you currently occupy and your 'people' aren't qualified to build little matchstick houses with glue.

pupa

16-04-2006, 08:04 PM

Now now, no need to get perthonal and be nathty to me! ( Thorry - got thome thpaghetti thtuck in my teeth! )

Thtill think I'm an ignorant darkie???

Snope snot sperthonal me stink snothink of snou! (sorry gritting teeth to hold in laughter!)

Edit. Did a google spel check. It thinks you spelling sucks Hehe and yes dark you are only if only in mind Hehhe

jabulani

16-04-2006, 08:07 PM

Snope snot sperthonal me stink snothink of snou! (sorry gritting teeth to hold in laughter!)

Edit. Did a google spel check. It thinks you spelling sucks Hehe

I'm still interested in what you meant about my race? Care to expand a bit?

Or are you just going to avoid it?

pupa

16-04-2006, 08:10 PM

I'm still interested in what you meant about my race? Care to expand a bit?

Or are you just going to avoid it?

All in your mind I said nothing about race, Sleep on it and suit yourself. Read my signature! Hehe

jabulani

16-04-2006, 08:13 PM

All in your mind I said nothing about race,

What did you mean by this then?

Do not get me wrong Jabu, Its not a shame that the Sub Saharan Africans did not achieve anything of mentioning in history,

Or are you going to duck that one too? Methinks you are a bit lacking in guts.

Prometheus

16-04-2006, 08:15 PM

Pupa, thanks for a good laugh. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. lol. Seems like someone aiming to bring back piratism.

Still, why the hell would someone want to introduce this to an evolution thread.

pupa

16-04-2006, 08:16 PM

What did you mean by this then?

Or are you going to duck that one too? Methinks you are a bit lacking in guts.
Me think you do not read all in context, Thus me waste no time on you! forget it. If you are bored find something else to do! Read my signature and then play somewhere else!

JBFRobisher

16-04-2006, 08:16 PM

By the way just your attitude and not even correcting the wrongly spelled word you found so frustrating shows your arrogance in life

The words you want are "derogatory" and "intelligence". A derogatory comment would be "You are somewahat lacking in intelligence."

Capiche now?

JBFRobisher

16-04-2006, 08:18 PM

Do not get me wrong Jabu, Its not a shame that the Sub Saharan Africans did not achieve anything of mentioning in history, it was their culture to wait for evolution.

Can we keep racist comments out of this forum please. There is no need for them in this day and age.

pupa

16-04-2006, 08:22 PM

The words you want are "derogatory" and "intelligence". A derogatory comment would be "You are somewahat lacking in intelligence."

Capiche now?
Capiche and thanks. Always willing to learn more of the soutie language! Next must be Chineze as they will Rulez the world!

pupa

16-04-2006, 08:23 PM

Can we keep racist comments out of this forum please. There is no need for them in this day and age.

It was not meant as racist read it in context with the whole thread regards to evolution, creation and the added connotations of religion as well as the added remarks by the jokers!

jabulani

16-04-2006, 08:27 PM

What the hell are you trying to say, talk english or at least some other african language. Even though I don't know any african language, just maybe I'll understand a translation of it.

Ramen! A challenge!

Take your fist. Knock on your head at the top. Harder! If you hear a hollow echo, you are probably going to have problems in the First Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, specifically in terms of Commandment Number 4 which reads:

Thou shalt not be f**king stupid!

The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster also has commandments, just like Moses had!

JBFRobisher

16-04-2006, 08:29 PM

It was not meant as racist

Yeah Right!!!

:eek:

pupa

16-04-2006, 08:33 PM

Ramen! A challenge!

Take your fist. Knock on your head at the top. Harder! If you hear a hollow echo, you are probably going to have problems in the First Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, specifically in terms of Commandment Number 4 which reads:

The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster also has commandments, just like Moses had!

Does this not fit your heretic Speghetti Monster joke about religion or believers?

Ramen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A typical packet of instant ramenThis article discusses Japanese food. For other meanings, refer to Ramen (disambiguation).
Ramen (ラーメン or らーめん rāmen /ɺaːmeɴ/) is a Japanese dish of noodles and broth, with a variety of toppings such as sliced pork, seaweed, naruto, green onions and even corn. Almost every locality or prefecture in Japan has its own variation of ramen, from the tonkotsu ramen of Kyushu to the miso ramen of Hokkaido.

Outside of Japan, "ramen" most commonly refers to instant ramen (see picture at right), some well-known North American brands including Sapporo Ichiban, Maruchan and Nissin. A number of North American supermarkets also have their own generic ramen. Despite some health concerns detailed below, instant ramen is a diet staple of university students as well individuals on a budget--as of 2006, one packet could be bought for as little as 5-15 cents. Instant ramen is resistant to spoilage and can be easily prepared with boiling water, making it a favorite of backpackers and travelers in conditions offering few technological conveniences.

ajak

16-04-2006, 08:33 PM

Well I know this much, some of us have been out of the trees for a long time, but then on the other hand, some have only recently learned to walk upright, and make a foot print like a human being.:D :D

pupa

16-04-2006, 08:34 PM

Yeah Right!!!

:eek: Believe as you please. Read my signature!

Prometheus

16-04-2006, 10:01 PM

Ramen! A challenge!

Take your fist. Knock on your head at the top. Harder! If you hear a hollow echo, you are probably going to have problems in the First Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, specifically in terms of Commandment Number 4 which reads:

The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster also has commandments, just like Moses had!
wt*? Don't tell me you actually take any of that garbage seriously. If you do then you should knock YOURSELF on the head, because then you, at least you anyway evolved from a bloody ape. Anyone who looked carefully at the terms used on that site can see that it is intended to mock one very specific religion in general and to make a few bucks in the process. Did you see the references to Darwin? Clearly an evolutionist agenda and you still wonder why I differ from you. Give me a break!

If you did know all this then you clearly support all this mockery and have absolutely no respect for religion at all. You have just wasted us hours on this thread with all this garbage since you've proved absolutely nothing at all, except your utter contempt for religion and your natural stupidity. :mad:

icyrus

16-04-2006, 10:06 PM

Choosing a religion and presenting it as truth or fact is worthless in any discussion. You are entitled to believe what ever you want, but you cannot compare evolution to creationism as one is scientifically proved fact and the other is a story that, by is very nature cannot be proved or disproved.

There is overwhelming evidence of evolution. The fact of this world is that things evolve. The begging of time though, still has its mysteries and might have for some time, or there might be a break-through in our time. Science, unlike religion, doesn't claim to have all the answers. As humanity progressed we understand our world better and refine and/or change existing theories to keep up with our new found knowledge.

Religion, on the other hand, isn't based on facts or theories. It based on belief. You believe it or you don't and thats your right. But it doesn't give anyone a deeper understanding of their world or drive human progress.

I guess you believe that jabulani hasn't contributed anything to this thread as you didn't quite get his point. Time to spell it out then:

Believing in a religion like the Flying Spaghetti Monster in just as valid in believing in any other religion as they are all non-verifiable stories not based on facts.

Prometheus

16-04-2006, 10:45 PM

You are entitled to believe what ever you want, but you cannot compare evolution to creationism as one is scientifically proved fact and the other is a story that, by is very nature cannot be proved or disproved.
Again, evolution HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AS FACT.

Science, unlike religion, doesn't claim to have all the answers.
Clearly you don't seem to know enough about religion to comment on it. It is the basis of most religions that our understanding of anything it infinitly small.

Religion, on the other hand, isn't based on facts or theories. It based on belief. You believe it or you don't and thats your right. But it doesn't give anyone a deeper understanding of their world or drive human progress.
Wrong! Religion is based on what people thought to be fact. Did some of it get twisted along the way? Sure it did! But the majority of all "myths" has their roots in what is indeed fact.

I guess you believe that jabulani hasn't contributed anything to this thread as you didn't quite get his point. Time to spell it out then:

Believing in a religion like the Flying Spaghetti Monster in just as valid in believing in any other religion as they are all non-verifiable stories not based on facts.
Let me spell it out:
That site seems to be nothing more than a lame attempt to mock religion. In other words, it is not a religion. If they are indeed serious then it's only an attempt to brainwash people into belonging to their cult. Did you actually take a look at any of those pictures. I could do better than that, an old movie called "The Blob" looks more realistic. :D

icyrus

16-04-2006, 11:00 PM

Again, evolution HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AS FACT.

Could you please tell us then what you believe evolution to be. Define it, as you see it, for us.

Clearly you don't seem to know enough about religion to comment on it. It is the basis of most religions that our understanding of anything it infinitly small.

Perhaps you could explain it to me. What does religion (any one you choose to explain) say about the beggining of life? If you could give your side it may help me understand.

Wrong! Religion is based on what people thought to be fact. Did some of it get twisted along the way? Sure it did! But the majority of all "myths" has their roots in what is indeed fact.

Huh? All myths have their roots in facts? Err, ok...

Let me spell it out:
That site seems to be nothing more than a lame attempt to mock religion. In other words, it is not a religion. If they are indeed serious then it's only an attempt to brainwash people into belonging to their cult. Did you actually take a look at any of those pictures. I could do better than that, an old movie called "The Blob" looks more realistic. :D

It is indeed a parody. The question though is what makes it any less valid as a religion than any of the mainstream religions out there?

Highflyer_GP

16-04-2006, 11:06 PM

Wrong! Religion is based on what people thought to be fact.
please explain what you mean by this? to me it seems like your perception of religion is different from other peoples perceptions. in other words, religion isn't based on morality, word of God, path to enlightenment etc etc.? but on what people of the time thought to be fact?
by stating this you then completely agree that religion is based on people of the times perceived notions as to what their own ideals were. so cool, we both on the same page that religion is a complete hoax based on what people thought to be true ;)

mooK

16-04-2006, 11:33 PM

Ramen, Jubalani!

Prometheus

16-04-2006, 11:34 PM

Could you please tell us then what you believe evolution to be. Define it, as you see it, for us.
Why should I define it. You clearly seem to know more about it since you think that it has been proven as an absolute fact that humans evolved from apes. If that was the case then that piece evidence you seem to have discovered would have made headlines in all languages around the world. :eek:

Perhaps you could explain it to me. What does religion (any one you choose to explain) say about the beggining of life? If you could give your side it may help me understand.
Read Genesis. You'll immediately see it doesn't claim to know all the facts, unlike you. :p

It is indeed a parody. The question though is what makes it any less valid as a religion than any of the mainstream religions out there?
You really don't seem to get this, so now I'm going to spell it out to you not in letters, but as in the lines and curves that make them. A religion is something that someone actually believes in. Do you really think the people who put up that site believe any of what they wrote there? It practically screams out the words "I am mocking God and Christ". :mad:

pupa

16-04-2006, 11:39 PM

mooK

16-04-2006, 11:44 PM

This thread makes me sad.

Highflyer_GP

16-04-2006, 11:50 PM

Too many heretics in this country! No wonder this country is in such a mess. It will only get worse as they run the GVT so they look after themselves not the citizens!
Im outta this thread. Said my piece. PEACE!
Prometheus do you agree with this? you guys want respect from non-believers but dont want to return the favour? so in other words people not conforming to any religion are responsible for events taking place in this country? should i bring up the witch hunts and murdering of women carried out by religious organisations during the 1600's? murder is murder. by the way pupa, if i recall correctly most people in government conform to christianity. an overwhelming majority of the country's population is christian. have a look at the population census and do some proper research before commenting on something like this ;)

Prometheus

17-04-2006, 12:02 AM

I agree that the people that run the government are a bunch of idiots that only look after themselves and doesn't give a dahm about the citizens. Whether they are religious, non-religious, white, black, coloured, pink, purple or even martian I don't give a dahm as they are for the most part self serving bastards. Does that answer your question? :cool:

pupa

17-04-2006, 12:05 AM

Prometheus do you agree with this? you guys want respect from non-believers but dont want to return the favour? so in other words people not conforming to any religion are responsible for events taking place in this country? should i bring up the witch hunts and murdering of women carried out by religious organisations during the 1600's? murder is murder. by the way pupa, if i recall correctly most people in government conform to christianity. an overwhelming majority of the country's population is christian. have a look at the population census and do some proper research before commenting on something like this ;)

Hey PAL it was the non believers or Anti Christs that started calling up all the crap referring to religion as a basis of creativity and mocking not respecting the beliefs of others and started to make derogatory comments! Nobody here stated that Genesis or the world religions is the truth as written in the Bible, which use many story''s to make a point. A guide rather than a document claiming to be 100% correct. The fact that it lasted for 2000 Years + and is still highly regarded by billions speaks for itself! I for one do not believe that everything literally, there are things that have to still become clear to whoever reads the book. I believe there was a major intervention in the Evolution process that allowed us to be created. Ditto . By whom or what superior being is still open for debate! That does not make me a non believer it actually strenthens my belief in the supernatural events that took place eons ago. There were some other threads on the same topic, go back and read them if you are so interested.

Highflyer_GP

17-04-2006, 12:11 AM

Prometheus

17-04-2006, 12:12 AM

please explain what you mean by this? to me it seems like your perception of religion is different from other peoples perceptions. in other words, religion isn't based on morality, word of God, path to enlightenment etc etc.? but on what people of the time thought to be fact?
by stating this you then completely agree that religion is based on people of the times perceived notions as to what their own ideals were. so cool, we both on the same page that religion is a complete hoax based on what people thought to be true ;)
Again you seem to be twisting around everything I say to accomodate your own belief. So I will spell it out for you as well. Moses saw proof that God exists (you can't prove He doesn't) so he wrote it down for us. That is the basis of my religion. Does that mean there's indisputable proof that God exists? No, but I still belief He does. ;)

There's no indisputable proof for evolution either, yet you belief in it. So I shall call it a hoax, which is what you just called religion. If this is not true then please explain to me why you are not a hypocrite. :rolleyes:

Highflyer_GP

17-04-2006, 12:15 AM

Hey PAL it was the non believers or Anti Christs that started calling up all the crap referring to religion as a basis of creativity and mocking not respecting the beliefs of others and started to make derogatory comments! Nobody here stated that Genesis or the world religions is the truth as written in the Bible, which use many story''s to make a point. A guide rather than a document claiming to be 100% correct. The fact that it lasted for 2000 Years + and is still highly regarded by billions speaks for itself! I for one do not believe that everything literally, there are things that have to still become clear to whoever reads the book. I believe there was a major intervention in the Evolution process that allowed us to be created. Ditto . By whom or what superior being is still open for debate! That does not make me a non believer it actually strenthens my belief in the supernatural events that took place eons ago. There were some other threads on the same topic, go back and read them if you are so interested.
it wasn't me mocking anything, so i'd appreciate not being classified into a certain group and generalised upon to an extent where im directly one of the people to blame for messing up the country. as i said, i respect everyones beliefs regardless of whether or not i agree with them. and respect works both ways, want me to respect your beliefs then please return the favour and respect mine. calling me anti-christ and damning me based on my belief shows very little acknowledgement and respect for my beliefs, but more as a way of making you feel better about your own.

im out of this thread, if one cant hold an intelligent discussion, theres no need to resort to becoming personal in order to make oneself feel better about themselves and their beliefs. this is a sign of insecurity and i suggest that anyone resorting to such tactics seek help. cheers people

pupa

17-04-2006, 12:19 AM

i agree with that, but pupa's comment seems to imply that if you aren't religious then you're the one responsible for screwing the country up. point is respect works both ways. there's no such thing as everybody should be treated equal, but some people are more equal than others. question is, do you as a believe agree with him. do you think its right to label and generalise people in that manner? i certainly don't and i take offense to being blamed for the mishaps of the country.
Nope not what I said. It's in Your mind read my Signature, it explains all!
It is a known fact that anarchy breeds where there is no belief, that means if PPL believes their existence in meaningless!

pupa

17-04-2006, 12:21 AM

it wasn't me mocking anything, so i'd appreciate not being classified into a certain group and generalised upon to an extent where im directly one of the people to blame for messing up the country. as i said, i respect everyones beliefs regardless of whether or not i agree with them. and respect works both ways, want me to respect your beliefs then please return the favour and respect mine. calling me anti-christ and damning me based on my belief shows very little acknowledgement and respect for my beliefs, but more as a way of making you feel better about your own.

im out of this thread, if one cant hold an intelligent discussion, theres no need to resort to becoming personal in order to make oneself feel better about themselves and their beliefs. this is a sign of insecurity and i suggest that anyone resorting to such tactics seek help. cheers people

I did not say who did the mocking, That is clear in the thread! Gawd if someone do not believe in christ he must be an antichrist, Have I missed something? I did not blame anyone messing up the country I was making a comment based on if all rulez and beliefs fall away tere is no hope Ditto.
Again read my signature for clarity

Prometheus

17-04-2006, 12:24 AM

i agree with that, but pupa's comment seems to imply that if you aren't religious then you're the one responsible for screwing the country up. point is respect works both ways. there's no such thing as everybody should be treated equal, but some people are more equal than others. question is, do you as a believe agree with him. do you think its right to label and generalise people in that manner? i certainly don't and i take offense to being blamed for the mishaps of the country.
Agree with you completely. If people are idiots then they are idiots regardless of their religion or lack thereof. But God does tell us to spread His gospel to those who don't belief. God gives them the choice to believe it or not. It's called free will and Gods own law seems to forbid Him from taking it away and making this world perfect. :cool:

pupa

17-04-2006, 12:31 AM

Well I hope it end all here now. Religion were not the Topic Creativity versus Evolution is the topic. There is creations going on in the labs worlwide now and the subject came about where the USA is allowing this as a viable alternative to be explorered in the classroom. It is possible to create a human being and an animal for that matter. Proven facts. Who has done in in history is a story still to be verified! I have my beliefs and so have others.

icyrus

17-04-2006, 12:38 AM

Why should I define it.

Because I don't think you understand it.

You clearly seem to know more about it since you think that it has been proven as an absolute fact that humans evolved from apes. If that was the case then that piece evidence you seem to have discovered would have made headlines in all languages around the world. :eek:

It would be helpful if you defined what you believed it to be. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution however is a theory. Its clear you dont know the difference but thats not my problem.

Read Genesis. You'll immediately see it doesn't claim to know all the facts, unlike you. :p

I never claimed to know the facts. The reason I asked you was so that we could be on the same page and understand the starting points on either side and have an intelligent conversation about it. Perhaps that was my mistake. It seems rather than having a conversation, you are far happier just to attack those you don't agree with.

You really don't seem to get this, so now I'm going to spell it out to you not in letters, but as in the lines and curves that make them. A religion is something that someone actually believes in. Do you really think the people who put up that site believe any of what they wrote there? It practically screams out the words "I am mocking God and Christ". :mad:

It is a parody, but your ability to constantly miss the points people are making to you makes me wonder if you are really here to discuss your point of view or if you are just another one of the thousands of nameless, faceless internet trolls.

Now, you can rant and rave and call me whatever you like, but when you are ready to grow up - put your point across in a civilized manner and actually hear what other people say rather than just waiting for your turn to speak - I will be here.

mooK

17-04-2006, 12:39 AM

Again read my signature for clarity

Pupa, could you please rephrase your signature to it actually makes some sense, the grammar is incorrect and it's simply incomprehensible. Please do so, for clarity.

Wikipedia definition for antichrist:

"In Christian eschatology, the Antichrist has come to mean a person, image of a person, or other entity that is the embodiment of evil and utterly opposed to truth, while convincingly disguised as wholly good and a bringer of truth."

Now, that's fcking insulting to call someone the antichrist just because he's not religious so you're way out of line, for the love of God, man, have some decency.

Well I hope it end all here now. Religion were not the Topic Creativity versus Evolution is the topic. There is creations going on in the labs worlwide now and the subject came about where the USA is allowing this as a viable alternative to be explorered in the classroom. It is possible to create a human being and an animal for that matter. Proven facts. Who has done in in history is a story still to be verified! I have my beliefs and so have others.

The argument was creation vs evolution, not creativity, get a dictionary and look up the difference. It comes down to a question of science vs religion. Creationism is basicaly the belief that God created the universe or whatever, and obviously there a few scientific theoretical alternatives to this belief.

Prometheus

17-04-2006, 12:48 AM

The argument was creation vs religion, not creativity, get a dictionary and look up the difference. It comes down to a question of science vs religion. Creationism is basicaly the belief that God created the universe or whatever, and obviously there a few scientific theoretical alternatives to this belief.
Nope, you're both wrong. Look at the title of this thread. It's creation vs evolution. :p :D

Highflyer_GP

17-04-2006, 12:48 AM

i know i promised not to post again until a sense of maturity returns, but this will definitely be the last one until that stage arrives.
@pupa: an antichrist is not a non-believer, it's an evil person who commits evil deeds in the disguise of a good person. this is your religion yet i have to provide you with definitions? please do some research before posting drivel like that. also you seem to be fascinated with your signature by asking everyone to refer to it in order to try and prove a point, how about i refer you to mine ;)

atheists and agnostics seem to know alot more about religions than people who actually follow it. how about listening to the other side of the arguement, you may actually learn something. it's not our intention to convert you, thats something better left for religious organisations. it's our intention to educate you as to why we choose the path that we did. if you cant accept that or its beyond your comprehension then thats your choice. so take care and i'll return when things are back to normal

Nope, you're both wrong. Look at the title of this thread. It's creation vs evolution. :p :Di think thats what he meant :)

[EDIT]

I called nobody the antichrist. If you are anti you are anti that was never the meaning and if it is so offensive I will edit it. Iam not an Wiki expert and if it became the meaning of anything do not blame me. Thanks for correcting me . FOR the record I did not say anybody IS THE Antichrist. Thats in the mind! and not my meaning i refer you to your previous post

Gawd if someone do not believe in christ he must be an antichrist

pupa

17-04-2006, 12:49 AM

Pupa, could you please rephrase your signature to it actually makes some sense, the grammar is incorrect and it's simply incomprehensible. Please do so, for clarity.

Wikipedia definition for antichrist:

"In Christian eschatology, the Antichrist has come to mean a person, image of a person, or other entity that is the embodiment of evil and utterly opposed to truth, while convincingly disguised as wholly good and a bringer of truth."

Now, that's fcking insulting to call someone the antichrist just because he's not religious so you're way out of line, for the love of God, man, have some decency.

The argument was creation vs religion, not creativity, get a dictionary and look up the difference. It comes down to a question of science vs religion. Creationism is basicaly the belief that God created the universe or whatever, and obviously there a few scientific theoretical alternatives to this belief.
I called nobody the antichrist. If you are anti you are anti that was never the meaning and if it is so offensive I will edit it. Iam not an Wiki expert and if it became the meaning of anything do not blame me. Thanks for correcting me tho . FOR the record I did not say anybody IS THE Antichrist. Thats in the mind! and not my meaning

Again you state the meaning of creationism as creation The whole point were made as a religious connotation by the non believers that started mocking the believers as a religion. Read the thread from the start again!

Again I am not an Englishman. Please correct the syntax and I will edit it with pleasure else the content is clear to me and it will stay in my signature!

mooK

17-04-2006, 12:51 AM

pupa

17-04-2006, 12:54 AM

i know i promised not to post again until a sense of maturity returns, but this will definitely be the last one until that stage arrives.
@pupa: an antichrist is not a non-believer, it's an evil person who commits evil deeds in the disguise of a good person. this is your religion yet i have to provide you with definitions? please do some research before posting drivel like that. also you seem to be fascinated with your signature by asking everyone to refer to it in order to try and prove a point, how about i refer you to mine ;)

atheists and agnostics seem to know a lot more about religions than people who actually follow it. how about listening to the other side of the argument, you may actually learn something. it's not our intention to convert you, that's something better left for religious organisations. it' our intention to educate you as to why we choose the path that we did. if you cant accept that our its beyond your comprehension then that's your choice. so take care and i'll return when things are back to normal

i think that's what he meant :)

I apologise and will remove that word, It was not my meaning! Sorry. As you can see I state the religion must be kept out of the fact in my last post. If the initial poster wanted to discuss religion then I did not want to be part of this. I merrily commented on the posts by the mockers! that was it

mooK

17-04-2006, 01:04 AM

pupa

17-04-2006, 01:05 AM

Back to the topic! Creation was achieved in the labs and is and an ongoing research topic. Why is it then so inconceivable that someone in past history have not created the human being as we know him today as apposed to the unlikely event of evolution as claimed by Darwin. Time is off essence here and thus I believe creation have more value than evolution of how and why we exists today!

mooK

17-04-2006, 01:12 AM

Creation was achieved in the labs and is and an ongoing research topic.

What do you mean by creation in this context? This thread is about the creation of humans by God vs evolution. Do you propose that scientists created humans in labs and is an ongoing research topic? Ramen.

Why is it then so inconceivable that someone in past history have not created the human being as we know him today as apposed to the unlikely event of evolution as claimed by Darwin.

Um, yeah. So it's more likely that 'someone' created human beings in a lab compared to the ongoing evolution of organisms through millions of years of evolution and natural selection? Right...

Time is off essence here and thus I believe creation have more value than evolution of how and why we exists today!

Time is of the essence? What the hell you talking about? So because we're running out of time, creation is more acceptable than evolution? What the hell is your basis for argument?

PS: I understand that perhaps you didn't actually intend to imply that people created humans in a lab or whatever, but that is literally what you posted.

Prometheus

17-04-2006, 01:14 AM

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution however is a theory.
Perhaps this is where we got our lines crossed. I know the difference, the fact that both white and black people exist proves evolution to have some basis. The question is how far can evolution go. Can it create an entirely different creature. In general people talk about evolution when they refer to the theory of evolution. Why do terms have to be so confusing. Just to get it strait, in every post I referred to the theory of evolution and will continue to do so even if I only state evolution. ;)

It seems rather than having a conversation, you are far happier just to attack those you don't agree with.
My "attack" started because of those other people who were attacking religion.

It is a parody.
I still don't see how it could be a parody since that site wasn't intended to be a religion, but is instead mocking religion. If you want to call me stupid for not getting your point then by all means go ahead, but I can't understand what you're saying if you keep restating the same things to me. :cool:

Did you actually visit that site? Do you find it funny? Personally it disgusts me.
http://www.venganza.org/

mooK

17-04-2006, 01:33 AM

I still don't see how it could be a parody since that site wasn't intended to be a religion, but is instead mocking religion.[/URL]

parody noun (parodies) 1 a comic or satirical imitation of a work, or the style, of a particular writer, composer, etc. 2 a poor attempt at something; a mockery or travesty. verb (parodies, parodied, parodying) to ridicule something through parody; to mimic satirically

Dude, get some sleep and wake up with a clear mind. I'll pray for you.

PS: Give any evidence that your religion is more credible than this spaghetti thing, other than the fact that yours has been practised for a long time by millions of people. (The majority is not always right, look at SA)

Prometheus

17-04-2006, 01:37 AM

As far as I could tell, from the very first post in this thread, religion was a fundamental part of this whole thread:

Creation over Evolution = Religion over Science

Creationism is a religious belief.
Evolution is a scientific theory.
Yes, you're correct. I should know because I started this thread. But, it was the evolutionists who brought up religion (creation) in the other thread and even there someone started to get nasty and mock religion which was completely uncalled for. So I'm sure you can understand why I was defensive towards people in this thread.

As for my correction, that was merely some sarcasm. If you know me in person you'll find me to actually be amusing at times. Actually I didn't really care whether you corrected it or not. :D

mooK

17-04-2006, 01:47 AM

Hey Prom, it's very difficult to sense sarcasm in forum posts, so please forgive me. [/sarcasm]

Also, mockey and nastiness is common in all discussions of this type (religion), even when atheists are not involved. Get two people of different religions and they will argue to no end about who is right and wrong. This is simply the way of humans, I guess. We all feel that our particular beliefs are correct and enlightened and that it's our duty to try and convince others of this 'fact'.

One last thing: As far as I'm concerned religion is "anything to which one is totally devoted and which rules one's life" and this also applies to atheism, agnosticism (?) and absurdism. These "belief' systems are not generally regarded as religion and as such people feel free to denounce them and insult the people who believe in them, if such behavior was conducted towards followers of mainstream religions, they would not be allowed. Personally, I think they should be given the respect they deserve, and if you check out some of the posts in this thread, there have been just as many insults towards these beliefs as there have been to yours.

pupa

17-04-2006, 01:56 AM

What do you mean by creation in this context? This thread is about the creation of humans by God vs evolution. Do you propose that scientists created humans in labs and is an ongoing research topic? Ramen.

Yes in a way?

Um, yeah. So it's more likely that 'someone' created human beings in a lab compared to the ongoing evolution of organisms through millions of years of evolution and natural selection? Right...

Intervered with evolution as Darwin haved it!

Time is of the essence? What the hell you talking about? So because we're running out of time, creation is more acceptable than evolution? What the hell is your basis for argument?

Evolution takes millions of years, to go from ape to human was thousands of years?

PS: I understand that perhaps you didn't actually intend to imply that people created humans in a lab or whatever, but that is literally what you posted.
This is literally what you read!

\Some PPL have a neck to distort what they read if they pull pieces out of context.
I said creation is ongoing in labs today. DNA development! Plants animals next humans?
Why is it inconcievable that someone interfered with evolution and created the Human? God? or another super beign? Allah?

pupa

17-04-2006, 01:57 AM

Prometheus

17-04-2006, 02:00 AM

parody noun (parodies) 1 a comic or satirical imitation of a work, or the style, of a particular writer, composer, etc. 2 a poor attempt at something; a mockery or travesty. verb (parodies, parodied, parodying) to ridicule something through parody; to mimic satirically

Dude, get some sleep and wake up with a clear mind. I'll pray for you.
Ok, now I get it. Not everyone here is english as a first language. I go for #2. Obviously I still take offence to it. I can actually agree on the sleep part, this has been a long day and a long thread. :)

PS: Give any evidence that your religion is more credible than this spaghetti thing, other than the fact that yours has been practised for a long time by millions of people. (The majority is not always right, look at SA)
I give evidence, you give evidence. In the end I won't be able to prove religion and you won't be able to prove the theory of evolution. As for being more credible, just look at those pictures, they scream FAKE. And the bible can actually be explained in scientific terms. It's just more difficult than with evolution. Once we find something like the ark (both of them) and the Holy Grail it will be easier however. Come to think of it, I think they actually found that last one, although they haven't proven it to be authentic yet.

pupa

17-04-2006, 02:05 AM

Hey Prometheus, I'm sorry I got my words mixed, I'm kinda pissed. What can I say, it's Easter. I'm gonna edit my post now to what it should be, thanks for pointing out the error.

EDIT: Pupa, about your sig, I understand the first line: On my comments "If the shoe fits wear it"...

Then it continues: "and post a derogatory reply Else post some facts so I can determine if You have the intelligence to change my mind!"

I don't know if this refers to a previous thread or something, but I can't really bridge the gap here, you say "If the shoe fits, wear it" then you continue: "...and post a derogatory reply Else post some facts..."

Are you saying that if we want to, we should either go ahead and say something derogatory and insulting of a personal nature or post some facts so you can deem us intelligent enough to sway your opinion? The whole sig seems to be a bit out in terms of structure, it's difficult to grasp it completely, I'm not sure what you're trying to get across.

Some PPL need a little to grasp others need text books. It is intended for you to decide what you want as you please! This is meant for those that as soon as someone, as this thread have shown again, have no answer to an argument or view they start joking and mocking and calling of names etc. Jabulani is one great example. Then others jump on the band wagon not really knowing what it is all about! Simple! so now it is easier to mock them back! It pisses them off!

pupa

17-04-2006, 02:11 AM

Hey Prom, it's very difficult to sense sarcasm in forum posts, so please forgive me. [/sarcasm]

Also, mockey and nastiness is common in all discussions of this type (religion), even when atheists are not involved. . Personally, I think they should be given the respect they deserve, and if you check out some of the posts in this thread, there have been just as many insults towards these beliefs as there have been to yours.

Topic #1 Creation over Evolution

Who beliefs that the evolution theory is full of holes while the creation theory has been more or less consistent?
Refer to 9/11 Very interesting (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=41280&page=3)

post #4
http://www.enkispeaks.com/Essays/14EnkiThothNinmahCreateSlaveSpecies_2.html

Post #8
You gotta admit that there are some pretty compelling arguments to support intelligent design... or creation...

http://www.family.org/cforum/pdfs/fosi/origins/Fact_Sheet_4_(2).pdf

Post #22
Feels like Anantech News and Politics

/me soaks in soothing warmth of debates, discussions and flamewars...

Puhleeease, you should all know by now that the universe was created by the Flying Spagetti Monster, I propose his teachings to be taught in school to everyone! Ramen!

The mockery starts. Good discussions and references followed untill above post #22 and then #46

Post # 46

Nice post Pookfuzz, as usual.

But you won't win - these religious zealots believe what they want to believe come what may. Talking of which, time to again pay homage to the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster who created all DNA in its own image. :)

Wiki
Zealotry was a movement in first century Judaism, described by Josephus as one of the "four sects" at this time. The term Zealot, in Hebrew kanai, means one who is jealous on behalf of God. In modern English it is used to refer to any form of zeal in excess, especially to cases where activism and ambition in relation to an ideology have become excessive to the point of being harmful to others, oneself, and one's own cause. A zealous person is called a zealot.

And post #48
All bow your heads and partake in the sacrament of Bolognaise.

Ramen! Ramen! Noodly! Noodly!
Noodly! Noodly! Ramen! Ramen!
Which stems from here http://www.venganza.org/

Now read post #91 on where someone felt offended and with reason as he did not even know aboutt the link as per above and then I posted also feeling offended as from post #95 for the first time! then comment again!
They deserved what they got and my respect for them is non existent if that is what they do and their respect for me I do not need neither desire
To make a mockery of someone belief is worse than what they blame me for so who cares about their ego's?

mooK

17-04-2006, 02:16 AM

Pray to whom do You believe in a god?

To the Flying Spaghetti Monster, of course. WHO ELSE?!?!? RAMEN!

just look at those pictures, they scream FAKE.

Is it the Spaghetti Monster's fault that his prophets were not blessed with a ability to create beautiful works of art? Forgive me if I'm tongue-in-cheek, but you must admit this is no real basis for legitimate religion.

Once we find something like the ark (both of them) and the Holy Grail it will be easier however. Come to think of it, I think they actually found that last one, although they haven't proven it to be authentic yet.

Um, no. They have not. The Holy Grail is a romanticised legend/myth.

captainwifi

17-04-2006, 02:17 AM

You're straying a bit here. The theory of evolution doesn't state that organisms adapt to their environment (giraffes developing long necks because their food is in high trees), but that all genetic diversity can be explained by two simple mechanisms: Random Mutations and Natural Selection.

An extremely simplified way of describing evolution is:
-Random mutations in the genes of organisms occur all the time.
-Most of these mutations are neutral or deleterious
-However, some of these mutations have a beneficial effect on survivability
-These beneficial gene mutations are "naturally selected" over time as the gene is transferred between generations
-The resulting traits are expressed in the organisms as per genetic theory

And this post in a nutshell reflects what Fred Hoyle wrote somewhere
in a book:"....biologists have become mentally ill in a sense"
This mental illness is the main reason why Hoyle did not pursue a career in
biology. Collectivly society's mind is confused because the language is
confused. Who did the 'selecting' and what 'naturaled' ?

Dr. Massimo Pugliucci now even talks about 'fascillitated' evolution.
The term 'evolution' is essentially undefined. Words which imply teleological
goal setting or consciousness are used by biologists and laymen alike.

There is no such thing as 'natural selection'. Nature is an effect not a cause
in an of itself. And how do you know that a 'mutation' is 'random'?
Prof Robert Herrmann a fully tenured prof in mathematics has called the
use of the term random as used in popular publications a 'strong delusion'. www.raherrmann.com

Prof. Herrmann also proved via his theory of Ultra-Logics that the laws of
physics as we understand them today need not have applied in the distant
past. How for example did a dynosaur bird manage to fly without breaking
it's wings?

Also don't make the fallacy of 'appeal to abstract authority'.
For example someone would say:"According to science'. No according to
humans, 'science' doesn't say or declare anything.

mooK

17-04-2006, 02:22 AM

pupa, is it really necessary to perputuate the insult if you are so offended by it? Let it go, so we can continue with the "good discussions and references".

Highflyer_GP

17-04-2006, 02:31 AM

great post captainwifi. if one is to put forward a compelling arguement in favour of creationism in a logical way, that is the way to go about doing it. as biology isn't exactly my field of expertise, i'll the the quoted person provide the answers.

however i can state that given time as the genetic make-up is passed from generation to generation these mutations can occur. it doesn't happen overnight and may only be evident in generations to come. for instance one may bear a slight resemblance to their grandfather, however one does not look exactly the same nor necessarily share the same characteristics as their grandfather. such characteristics may be behaviour patterns, intelligence and so forth. the intelligence of the human race has evolved over the past 300 years, anybody who doesnt see this obviously isn't getting the bigger picture. had there not been a stranglehold on freedom of thought for so many years, there's no telling where we could have been at. yes im agnostic, meaning i do not believe in God, especially the God portrayed in religions. however im open to the possibility that he (or she) may exist.

there are still alot of things unknown to us, and as science progresses im sure we'll find answers. however just because there is no plausible explanation for something does not necessarily mean that its the work of God.

pupa

17-04-2006, 02:33 AM

Topic! restated. Creation was achieved in the labs (DNA science) and is an ongoing research topic. Why is it then so inconceivable to believe that someone in past history have not created the human being as we know him today as apposed to the unlikely event of evolution (as chance) as claimed by Darwin. Time is off essence here, evolution takes millions of years) and thus I believe creation have a higher probability than evolution of how and why we exists as humans exists today!

If above is conceivable why then is it unlikely that the human was created by some interference in the past! By a "God" or the other? or alternate what have accelerated nature so much that everything dinosaur disappeared and the human changed from Neantherdal to Intelligent beings in such a short time-span opposing evolutionary principals as a whole!

pupa

17-04-2006, 02:40 AM

there are still alot of things unknown to us, and as science progresses im sure we'll find answers. however just because there is no plausible explanation for something does not necessarily mean that its the work of God.

This is the crux of the matter IMHO. To be open for alternate thoughts! to strengthen my beliefs not break it down. I love the Adam and Eve story or metaphor! for lack of correct work it proved its value, But the real truth is what we are after and it will be revealed by science?

mooK

17-04-2006, 02:45 AM

Why is it then so inconceivable to believe that someone in past history have not created the human being as we know him today as apposed to the unlikely event of evolution (as chance) as claimed by Darwin. Time is off essence here, evolution takes millions of years) and thus I believe creation have a higher probability than evolution of how and why we exists as humans exists today!

If above is conceivable why then is it unlikely that the human was created by some interference in the past! By a "God" or the other? or alternate what have accelerated nature so much that everything dinosaur disappeared and the human changed from Neantherdal to Intelligent beings in such a short time-span opposing evolutionary principals as a whole!

It is not inconceivable, that's why millions of people do believe in religion. But I'll tell you what it is: Unlikely and unfounded.

Frankly, in my opinion evolution is more probable than creation of the universe by God, simply because there's scientific evidence thereof. This does not mean that I'm absolutely sure that God does not exist and did not create the universe, it's simply that at current, all evidence I'm aware of, points me in this direction.

Ultimately, it comes to down to a question, what do you gain by believing that God created everything and we all simply cannot understand it, etc.? Personally, I don't see any point in believing this, what is that purpose in believing something that perpetuates ignorance of the universe?

Answer me this, truly, if we could discover the way the universe was created scientifically, would you not want to know? Why are we arguing about this? We're all the same, we all feel the need to know about why we exist and how we came about coming into existence, don't we all seek knowledge? Don't we want to discover these things? Do you truly feel satisfied believing in a God that gives you no answers? Don't you want more? Be truthful, surely there's a part of you that longs for this knowledge! It's only human.

Prometheus

17-04-2006, 02:46 AM

One final post before going to bed. Very tired now. The anti-christ is actually the embodiment of the Devil who will portray himself as Christ. So I take offence to anybody being called an anti-christ. So whether you belief in Him or not, if he returns one day and says he is God then according to God's word he will be the Devil.

mooK

17-04-2006, 02:48 AM

But what if it's actually JesVs or whatever? Y'know, the advent? And then like, we all, like, think he's the devil and such?

pupa

17-04-2006, 02:55 AM

It is not inconceivable, that's why millions of people do believe in religion. But I'll tell you what it is: Unlikely and unfounded.

Frankly, in my opinion evolution is more probable than creation of the universe by God, simply because there's scientific evidence thereof. This does not mean that I'm absolutely sure that God does not exist and did not create the universe, it's simply that at current, all evidence I'm aware of, points me in this direction.

Ultimately, it comes to down to a question, what do you gain by believing that God created everything and we all simply cannot understand it, etc.? Personally, I don't see any point in believing this, what is that purpose in believing something that perpetuates ignorance of the universe?

Answer me this, truly, if we could discover the way the universe was created scientifically, would you not want to know? Why are we arguing about this? We're all the same, we all feel the need to know about why we exist and how we came about coming into existence, don't we all seek knowledge? Don't we want to discover these things? Do you truly feel satisfied believing in a God that gives you no answers? Don't you want more? Be truthful, surely there's a part of you that longs for this knowledge! It's only human.

Yes I want to know. I believe that science will prove to us that we were created, not evolved only from an ape but the evolution process were tampered with to allow controlled mutations at large. I believe the everlasting life will come, again due to science, as we defeat as humans illness and diseases as well as through DNA manipulation. I believe that humans will be able to be recreated in far future due to DNA storage after death! Why not?
I believe this knowledge and science were given to us by something or someone, who cares, as long as it can help us!

mooK

17-04-2006, 02:57 AM

If something out there *gave* us all this scientific knowledge, then what about all the previous generations that won't be able to benefit from the advent of this newfound scientific knowledge that was supposedly *given* to us? Why wasn't it given earlier? Why now? As much as I'd like to think we're the chosen generation, there's no reason to believe so, other than to comfort oneself.

I'm off to go get some sleep given to me.
Night.

Highflyer_GP

17-04-2006, 03:32 AM

I believe that science will prove to us that we were created, not evolved only from an ape but the evolution process were tampered with to allow controlled mutations at large.
pupa your logic is flawed and proves that you dont understand anything relating to evolution. darwin claimed we evolved from apes, but any serious scientist will tell you that evolution and darwin shouldnt be associated with each other. we did not evolve from apes. apes and humans both evolved from a common ancestor, all of us belonging to the primate family. this has been discussed earlier in this thread so you can find out the exact details by reading the whole thread

pupa

17-04-2006, 03:41 AM

pupa your logic is flawed and proves that you dont understand anything relating to evolution. darwin claimed we evolved from apes, but any serious scientist will tell you that evolution and darwin shouldnt be associated with each other. we did not evolve from apes. apes and humans both evolved from a common ancestor, all of us belonging to the primate family. this has been discussed earlier in this thread so you can find out the exact details by reading the whole thread
I read the thread, it did not convince me as yes I believe we had a common ancestor. I actually meant from the later stages of evolved humans to what we are today. Is my logic is flawed concerning the advances they gained in DNA manipulation as is possible today? if so how and if not why not ? How do you explain the time factor required for evolution?

jabulani

17-04-2006, 06:54 AM

Greetings Pastafarians!

And it came to pass that the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster came to me last night in a vision. Winging in over the gentle moonlight, he appeared and summoned me to his noodles.

"I am angry and I am tired of those who ridicule me" he said, "and I will vent my wrath upon them. Henceforth those who take my name in vain shall DEVOLVE! Their brains will congeal and their thoughts slow down until they becometh Cranial Meatballs, their voices evermore inarticulate, their utterances evermore dogslobber on the sands of time! And their names shall be Pupa and Prometheus. Make this known by My command!"

Whereupon His Great Noodliness left in a flash of lightning and a crash of thunder.

pip

17-04-2006, 08:04 AM

A derogatory comment would be "You are somewahat lacking in intelligence."

Apt and appropriate, and he didn't even get it. LOL :D :D

pupa

17-04-2006, 10:05 AM

Apt and appropriate, and he didn't even get it. LOL :D :D

Just read my Sig and be happy if you meet the criteria!

BOREDOFTELKOM

17-04-2006, 10:07 AM

i saw a dc on discovery, it said we come from EVE(adam coundnt b traced), this is biological science, not archaeology . eve was black

(archeohohloge:rolleyes: ), okay that worst joke

pupa

17-04-2006, 10:12 AM

i saw a dc on discovery, it said we come from EVE(adam coundnt b traced), this is biological science, not archihohology . eve was black

Did you mean the local version of Alcohology? Sound like it?

pip

17-04-2006, 11:01 AM

Just read my Sig and be happy if you meet the criteria!

And your sig means what exactly? It is not even English LOL:D

pupa

17-04-2006, 11:05 AM

And your sig means what exactly? It is not even English LOL:D
Its written for guys like you! LOL Hehe!

Rkootknir

17-04-2006, 11:54 AM

And this post in a nutshell reflects what Fred Hoyle wrote somewhere
in a book:"....biologists have become mentally ill in a sense"
This mental illness is the main reason why Hoyle did not pursue a career in
biology. Collectivly society's mind is confused because the language is
confused. Who did the 'selecting' and what 'naturaled' ?OK then, just one quick post (my CPU at home fried itself on Saturday... @ the office now to do some work, but came across this).

You've tried this argument on me once before. I will respond as I did then: Your sentence doesn't make any sense. Nobody did the selecting, that's why it's called "natural selection". If, on the other hand, you refer too cross-breeding \ polination (as in apples or dogs) then humans did it. Please try to explain the concept of the word "naturaled" to me. I can't seem to find it in any of my dictionaries. BTW, Fred Hoyle, while a great physicist, was not an evolutionary biologist.
Dr. Massimo Pugliucci now even talks about 'fascillitated' evolution.
The term 'evolution' is essentially undefined. Words which imply teleological
goal setting or consciousness are used by biologists and laymen alike.Evolution is defined as "a change in the allele frequencies within a population"
There is no such thing as 'natural selection'. Nature is an effect not a cause in an of itself. And how do you know that a 'mutation' is 'random'? Prof Robert Herrmann a fully tenured prof in mathematics has called the use of the term random as used in popular publications a 'strong delusion'. www.raherrmann.com

Prof. Herrmann also proved via his theory of Ultra-Logics that the laws of
physics as we understand them today need not have applied in the distant
past. How for example did a dynosaur bird manage to fly without breaking
it's wings?Robert Hermann is a mathematician (and an IDer) and not an evolutionary biologist. Please consult expert relevant to current field of discussion.
Also don't make the fallacy of 'appeal to abstract authority'. For example someone would say:"According to science'. No according to humans, 'science' doesn't say or declare anything.I can refer you to quite a number of published, peer-reviewed articles in respected journals that were made by evolutionary biologists if you so wish.

rwenzori

17-04-2006, 12:48 PM

jabulani

17-04-2006, 01:03 PM

It is with a heavy heart that I feel I must join this thread.

Hey lighten up old chap! You can always become a Pastafarian :)

pupa

17-04-2006, 01:07 PM

Hey lighten up old chap! You can always become a Pastafarian :)
LoL Jabu, I was afraid to even answer!

Rkootknir

17-04-2006, 01:18 PM

It is with a heavy heart that I feel I must join this thread. I have become disappointed and alarmed by the posts from some of my brothers in the Lord, and feel I must say what I have to say.

Are we not enjoined to bring non-believers to the fold? Are we not bound to let the Light of the Lord shine through what we post? Should not the non-believer see in us that which makes them want to be part of the Lord?

But what do we see here - those who profess J_E_S_U_S but whose hearts are consumed by aggression and self-interest, whose postings stray wide from the teachings of the Lord, who do not take issue with the blasphemy uttered all around? Is THIS our witness? Is THIS our example? I despair for the true Church in this time. Where is the caring for our fellow man? Where is the Love we bound to offer? How will the non-believers be brought to salvation?

I ask the believers here to let the Light of our Lord shine through them.Disclaimer: If you're sensitive about religion, please just skip this post. I've hidden it so that you have to make a conscious decision to read it, I'm not interested in debating religion.

[WAY off topic]
rwenzori, while I appreciate your sentiment (I've heard it often enough in my own life, and I was once a vigorous supporter of evangelical Christianity), I must admit that proselytising of any kind gets on my nerves these days.

[My religious opinion]
I was once an adherent of one of the most conservative sections of the Christian Church (strict Calvinism), basically because my parents were. However, after listening to the preaching of untold numbers of evangelical Christians, I became utterly disillusioned with the entire concept of religion. I couldn't listen to any more "dominees" preaching love and forgiveness on one hand, but filling their preaches with their own prejudices (racism, anti-science, us vs them), so I became an apathetic atheist - I don't care about religion and I don't believe in God.

My distaste became so bad (due to people like my dominee, Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell) that my brand of "believe" now resembles the following: Even if it was proven beyond doubt that God exists (and so Satan and Hell as well) and that the whole biblical account was literally true, I would still rather give God the middle finger and burn in Hell for eternity.

But that's just me.
[/My religious opinion]
[/WAY off topic]

love56k

17-04-2006, 01:31 PM

pupa

17-04-2006, 01:34 PM

A bit drastic but there we are, each .... on his own thrown! Honesty is good! just brings me a lot of trouble. But then I also have an middle finger to those mocking my beliefs. I also had my fair share of experience regards to religion! I do not believe in the Church, they are the same as GVT's, I believe in a God and Christ as stated below as well as in a more modern creation theory in that creation influenced or altered the evolutionary process! Somewhat different from what the mockers tried to instill. Churches brought me and my family lost of grieve in the past, with no thought of love compasion and humanity!

pupa

17-04-2006, 01:35 PM

rotf!!!! this post, in fact the entire thread, is the funniest i've ever seen here... where do i find that star rating thingi??? :D
Hi Love it is, confession day today, Join the queue

ajak

17-04-2006, 01:35 PM

W. D. Fard taught that the white man is the result of genetic manipulation by an evil black scientist named "Yakub." Through a special method of birth control, Yakub bred the black out of his experimental creatures until they were white. This took about 600 years to accomplish. According to the theology of Elijah Muhammad, black really is the symbolic color of good and white symbolic color of evil. His reasoning is that all colors are present in black, and all colors are taken out of white. His conclusion is that the whiter Yakub's creatures became, the less good there was in them and the more evil there was in them. The final product was so evil, they became devils. Black Muslims call the white man Blue Eyed Devils and blame all of the suffering in the world upon them. The creation of the white man occurred some 6,600+ years ago. HE HE HE HE HE :D :D

love56k

17-04-2006, 01:42 PM

sorry.. can't stay... telkom is screwing me as we speak :p

Prometheus

17-04-2006, 02:17 PM

But what if it's actually JesVs or whatever? Y'know, the advent? And then like, we all, like, think he's the devil and such?
Here's the way I see it. If it is Him then we must also belief His word to be true. And His word says the Devil will impersonate Him before He returns. The Devil won't be able to do real miracles so he will impersonate the loved ones who passed before you to make you belief his lies. When He really returns the Devil will be no match for Him and you will see real miracles as they happen. There will be no question in your mind then that it is Him.

"And their names shall be Pupa and Prometheus. Make this known by My command!"
There you have it people. If you want proof that this vision wasn't real, Jabulani has just provided it. If it was real he would have given our real names. This is my last response to idiotic comments Jabulani.

Prometheus

17-04-2006, 02:18 PM

Rwenzori. There's only so much a person can say to someone mocking religion. I've said what I could say. All I can do now is hope that they will come to enlightenment and let God take care of them as He said that vengeance is His.

Rkootknir. It's sad that you had such an experience with the church. But people all over the world have similar experiences. I don't want to be in any church for the same reasons as you. But I chose a different option. Instead of blaming God for it, I instead belief only in Him.

jabulani

17-04-2006, 02:26 PM

rotf!!!! this post, in fact the entire thread, is the funniest i've ever seen here... where do i find that star rating thingi??? :D

Why thank you for the support love56k - just trying to add a little humour and expose a bit of the bogus in a somewhat dry subject.

:)

jabulani

17-04-2006, 02:56 PM

If you want proof that this vision wasn't real, Jabulani has just provided it. If it was real he would have given our real names.

Now I even have YOU half-believing in the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster! :p

Do you really think I believe in a Spaghetti Monster???

OF COURSE I DO!!!!!!!!
:) :)

pupa

17-04-2006, 03:11 PM

Now I even have YOU half-believing in the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster! :p

Do you really think I believe in a Spaghetti Monster???

OF COURSE I DO!!!!!!!!
:) :)

All I believe is your belief is your own Godless, brainless mockery with some sick trait of Sub Saharan humour! The only bogus here is in your mind.

Why thank you for the support love56k - just trying to add a little humour and expose a bit of the bogus in a somewhat dry subject.

:)

Got to go. Have a breakdown at Ngodwana and need to move.

Jabu laugh at yourself as I will when you meet your maker. That inner voice is the one you have to fear most and please do not take to head anything said! Enjoy your fun the short while it lasts as I really pity PPL like you! Shame

infoseeker

17-04-2006, 04:24 PM

If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism. -- Albert Einstein (bio)

captainwifi

17-04-2006, 04:53 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Which religion has provided us with a falsification test?
Well only Christianity has. In Mark 16 Christ said that "... and those that
believe , these signs will follow them: With new tongues shall they speak".
Christianity is the only religion that has provided a falsification test,because
the science of linguistics can easily determine if somebody is really speaking
in tongues or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics
Paul said in 1 Cor.14 ".... that tongues is a sign to the unbeliever.."

Falsification says that we can't prove the non-existance of
something. For example evolution can't be falsified. Popper stated that
evolution is "... the biggest metaphysical research project in the history of
science".

Reincarnation, buddish, hinduism and all the other religions make the most
grandious claims but we have no way of proving that Visna doesn't have
eight arms.

pip

17-04-2006, 05:07 PM

Which religion has provided us with a falsification test?
Well only Christianity has. In Mark 16 Christ said that "... and those that
believe , these signs will follow them: With new tongues shall they speak".
Christianity is the only religion that has provided a falsification test,because
the science of linguistics can easily determine if somebody is really speaking
in tongues or not.

But, sadly, if someone were actually "speaking in tongues", there could be other explanations ( collective unconscious maybe ), so no go there.

The nature of true religious faith is that its tenets CANNOT be proven in the physical world. Nor falsified.

pip

17-04-2006, 05:10 PM

For example evolution can't be falsified. Popper stated that
evolution is "... the biggest metaphysical research project in the history of
science".

Well, not yet anyway. I understand where Popper is coming from on this one, but it is like you know you have a ten-thousand-piece jigsaw, and you have only 100 pieces, and you are trying to see the completed picture. Give it time.

Edit : " For now we see through a glass, darkly"

jabulani

17-04-2006, 05:22 PM

Christianity is the only religion that has provided a falsification test,because
the science of linguistics can easily determine if somebody is really speaking
in tongues or not.

Well if there are speaking Italian, it will be the Spaghetti Monster who gave them the ability to do so - Italian is his native tongue!
:p

ajax

17-04-2006, 05:43 PM

Anybody thought WHY there's this constant fight going on?

At the root of the debate is the question of moral accountability. Evolution effectively removes G_od out of the picture meaning every man is his own boss with his own set of rules.

Us humans are by nature selfish, and being morally accountable to a supreme being will instill fear because we know that we are not perfect and have broken G_od's law (i.e. the 10 commandments). So when justice is served one day, just as in our courts of law, we will be found guilty for breaking that law and punishment will follow, even if we committed the crime 20 years ago.

If we (evolutionists) can "prove" there is no G_od, we can endulge ourselves in our every-man-for-himself lives until we die.

When one adds the way the (some) churches and self-professing "Christians" behave, plus the perception that submitting to G_od in all things equates to imprisonment, it is not surprising that there is a drive out there to remove G_od from society.

Obviously my attempt at objectivity has failed here as I have found total peace in G_od knowing that my fine for breaking the law was paid by J_esus on the cross - I only trust in him, as there is no other g_od who was willing to do that for me.

Highflyer_GP

17-04-2006, 05:44 PM

Reincarnation, buddish, hinduism and all the other religions make the most
grandious claims but we have no way of proving that Visna doesn't have
eight arms.
firstly reincarnation is not a religion but a fate endured in the afterlife. also islam and judaism is more closely related to christianity in terms of fate in the afterlife, than either hinduism or buddhism so its not 100% correct to say that every other religion except for christianity makes grandious claims. david vs goliath is not a grandious claim? the ressurection of christ? noah building an ark in 7 days? the idea of a holy war between good and evil powers? are these not grandious claims? if not, then why have we not witnessed such events on such a grand scale in the 2000 years or so since christianity?

also hinduism and buddhism as far as i know are the two most tolerant religions in the sense that one of a different belief is not condemned in one way or another for not following that specific religion. as long as one lives a good and moral life, one should be rewarded in the afterlife independent of belief. hinduism is unable to be traced back to a founder with a single set of ideas. a hindus main goal is to achieve perfect understanding, which is called moksha, and a release from life on this world. it takes them a very long time to achieve this and they must become reincarnated many times. they will reach moksha only if they have a good karma. hinduism is polytheistic, but families may choose which God they want to worship. a similar belief holds true for buddhism. the main difference between the two comes in the caste system which holds for hinduism and not buddhism. also gender is not discriminated, a God may be male or female.

however unlike religions of middle eastern origin one is not forced to follow a God as specified in their scriptures. one may call this choice in the sense that one is offered a choice whether or not to accept the lord. but i call this force because if one chooses not to accept him they are punished in one way or another, irrespective of whether they lived a good life filled with morals and values. here gender is discriminated, there is only one God and he's male. there's also no significant female figures in the scriptures which is representative of how men viewed women at the time when these religions came about. one may argue mary was a significant female figure, however this was not by choice - she was merely used as a vessel to bring j3sus to earth.

i don't conform to either western or eastern beliefs because they dont exactly tie in with whats physically possible. having said that i tend to have more respect for eastern beliefs due to their ability to be more accommodating to others of different beliefs.

Prometheus

17-04-2006, 06:52 PM

i don't conform to either western or eastern beliefs because they dont exactly tie in with whats physically possible.
I don't understand exactly what you're saying here. Sounds like you don't belief that what is said by religion could indeed happen. Could you please explain this to me.

ajak

17-04-2006, 06:55 PM

Prometheus

17-04-2006, 07:03 PM

"The being we call god is merely a pawn working for a powerful and rational force in some far-off galaxy. This force is trying to weed out people who are irrational by seeing who would be stupid enough to believe in his god illusion so easily. Those that believe in this illusion, he will send to eternal damnation and he will deliver the rational beings, those who stoically refused to believe in a god, to heaven."
- Nicholas Yee
That's the most astoundingly stupid thing i've ever heard. This implies that there is indeed a more powerful force in the universe. That force would then be called God, which would mean a person believing in Him wasn't stupid. :confused: Who is this Nicholas Yee?

pip

17-04-2006, 07:38 PM

"The being we call god is merely a pawn working for a powerful and rational force in some far-off galaxy. This force is trying to weed out people who are irrational by seeing who would be stupid enough to believe in his god illusion so easily. Those that believe in this illusion, he will send to eternal damnation and he will deliver the rational beings, those who stoically refused to believe in a god, to heaven."
- Nicholas Yee

Lovely - about the most intelligent thing I have read about god in a long time!

ajak

17-04-2006, 07:40 PM

Lovely - about the most intelligent thing I have read about god in a long time!
Now you have gone and done it....HIDE! THE FLAMES ARE GONNA EAT YOU ALIVE he he:D :D :D

Highflyer_GP

17-04-2006, 07:45 PM

I don't understand exactly what you're saying here. Sounds like you don't belief that what is said by religion could indeed happen. Could you please explain this to me.
no im saying that it doesn't tie in with the laws of physics and our current understanding of the universe. i refuse to believe in something which may or may not exist, i choose to follow proof and if not proof then at least some kind of solid evidence. science allows us this freedom to better understand things not yet known. which is why im agnostic, open to the possibility that something may exist, and if it can be proved beyond a doubt then only will i comfortably accept the idea that im not wasting my time. however currently i will not waste my time on something which makes absolutely no sense with respect to our current understanding of the laws of physics.

pip

17-04-2006, 07:47 PM

Now you have gone and done it....HIDE! THE FLAMES ARE GONNA EAT YOU ALIVE he he:D :D :D

Lol - Yes! If I can stay safe from flames until Friday I am thinking about signing up for Jabulani's free fettucine and Spaghetti Monster offer! ;)

( A bit hungry since my home-made H-bomb project went bad! )

ajak

17-04-2006, 07:49 PM

http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm

rwenzori

17-04-2006, 07:55 PM

Rwenzori. There's only so much a person can say to someone mocking religion. I've said what I could say. All I can do now is hope that they will come to enlightenment and let God take care of them as He said that vengeance is His.

Rkootknir, to you sir I owe an apology. I did not mean to get you write what you did, and I am sorry I provoked it.

You see, I am an atheist, and my last doom-and-gloom quasi-religious post was JUST TO GIVE THE HAPPY CLAPPERS A REV!!!!!
:D :D

captainwifi

17-04-2006, 10:42 PM

Wall Street Journal: Climate of Fear

Prof Richard Lindzen (from the famed MIT where people graduate on both legs)

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

There have been repeated claims that this past year’s hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science–whether for AIDS, or space, or climate–where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1033

mooK

17-04-2006, 10:50 PM

why don't u start a new thread, wifi?

Highflyer_GP

17-04-2006, 10:51 PM

but whats this got to do with evolution, creation or religion for that matter?

captainwifi

17-04-2006, 11:06 PM

Everything, the people who control the universities and propagating the lie
of 'global warming' also defend the reigning materialist paradigm through fear , intimidation and career ending moves of anybody that dares dissent.

The thought police gentlemen are directly threatening our physical security. Iran seems to be on a collision course with America and is emboldened by an oil price of $70. Partly because these evil people have convinced Germany
to shut down all it's nuclear plants forcing them to use precious gas for their energy needs.

On the BBC the reporter asked a global warming alarmist what about the people who disagree. His answer:"... they are on the same level as people who believe the earth is flat". Reverting to ad-hominim attacks is something you do when you can't answer the question.

And these same people also believe that if you wait long enough water will turn into a human. Lets just go back
a bit in history here. The standard evolution story is that 5bil years ago 'life began'. The earth was a molten lava
mass that slowly cooled down. Rocks began to form..... In other words we came from a rock. And if you believe that
you came from a rock you are suffering from a form of phsycological impairment. The trouble with evolutionists
are that they don't know what they believe, yet they have access to billions of dollars in funding to propagate their
illusions. Europe as a result has become pagan, the course of history has been altered. We have experienced two
world wars the murder of 200million people in Russia's gulags because one man Charles Darwin managed to make people
believe that things 'evolve'.

After these wars the insistance on democracy for all was forced on the rest of the world by Europe and America.
Which is why African countries got to govern themselves and America has been causing turmoil all over the world by forcing
dictatorships to fall.