Creation over Evolution

[mooK]

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.

 

[pupa]

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]

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.

 

[pupa]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[mooK]

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]

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.

 

[mooK]

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]

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]

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)

Pray to whom do You believe in a god?

 

[Prometheus]

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]

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]

How it really started Read again Mook!

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Creation as a science not a religion!

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]

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?