Elijah Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by Cjais Creationists base their life on assumptions. And your telling me that Evolutionist do not? WHAT THE HECK?! You assume that your Carbon dating is correct, how on earth do you know that that thing is really 15 million years old? Because your tests tell you? How do you know that the carbon dating is correct? How do you know that what the tests saying 15 million years old could really be only 15 years? At MT. St Helens they dated the fossils of dead deer they found under the lava to be around 15-20 millions years, when in fact it was only 15-20 years old. The eruption created canyons that people would assume to be millions of years old, however it is only 20. Ironic how your little tests prove nothing but how false they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 27, 2002 Author Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg And your telling me that Evolutionist do not? WHAT THE HECK?! You assume that your Carbon dating is correct, how on earth do you know that that thing is really 15 million years old? Because your tests tell you? How do you know that the carbon dating is correct? How do you know that what the tests saying 15 million years old could really be only 15 years? At MT. St Helens they dated the fossils of dead deer they found under the lava to be around 15-20 millions years, when in fact it was only 15-20 years old. The eruption created canyons that people would assume to be millions of years old, however it is only 20. Ironic how your little tests prove nothing but how false they are. Yet they have shown to be correct (nearly) all the time. See, "scientists" don't just use one type of dating method to determine the age of something, they use several in conjunction to get the most accurate result. See Skinwalker's post on dating. This isn't a fight against science, it's a fight versus two models: Evolution and Creation Not just c-14, but several dating means have shown that the earth is a lot older than a mere 10k years. That there are sometimes anomalies and weird errors is a fact, but that does not explain how they are apparently correct in every other instance. If the earth was eventually proven to be 6000 years old, it would not reveal that creationism, or the Christian world view is correct - it'd result in science making up a better model than the one they're currently using but it most definately would not prove God. If science arrived at the following conclusion: Everything race was created at the same time - people would begin to search for aliens that produced and placed these lifeforms on the earth, because that hypothesis is still far more plausible than accepting the notion of an assumed God creating it. Of course, it could result in revealing that your God are those aliens. As I said, creationists can't get evidence for the positive. If you're saying that you do not need evidence for God, then you are merely proving my point: You base your life on assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 And how would you assume that these aliens came to be? Evolutions Is just as hard to believe as a God creating you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian54 Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 You evolutionists say you want to believe you have a purpose rather than to just be a slave to God. That doesn't make any sens, your contradicting yourselves. You say your an accident, what purpose is there than, you say theres no right or wrong it's just oppinions, well than whats wrong with slavery? hun? I don't think were slaves to God, saying that just proves how ignorant you are. We were created to Please God, everything that is good pleases God, when we do wrong we displease God. Those who do not believe and obay God will go to hell after they die and those who believe and obay will go to heaven. What do you believe will happen when you die? Fade into non existance? If doing good and serving God isn't pupose I don't know what is. If making the world a better place isn't a purpose what else can be. Sex? Murder? Drugs? Evolution is just an excuse to do wrong and not feel guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 27, 2002 Author Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg And how would you assume that these aliens came to be? I don't. I was using it as an example of what would happen if scientists proved that everything was created at once, and if the earth was found to be 10k years old. Evolutions Is just as hard to believe as a God creating you. [/b] Not just as hard - it is harder. It is all too easy to simply make up a God each time you encounter something currently unexplained. It requires a conscious effot to realize that there is only you, that no higher power loves and protects you and that your existance could have been created from pure coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 You must realize you guys sound just as Insane to us as we do to you. Your not going to understand why we believe God unless you want to. and you, clearly do not. and I clearly, Dont NEED to believe evolution. for the simple reason that God supplies me with all my needs and I need not ask why and how I got here, Its as simple as this: I'm Here, The Time Is Now... I Shall Do What I May With The Time That Is Given To Me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 27, 2002 Author Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 You evolutionists say you want to believe you have a purpose rather than to just be a slave to God. That doesn't make any sens, your contradicting yourselves. You say your an accident, what purpose is there than, you say theres no right or wrong it's just oppinions, well than whats wrong with slavery? hun? We are a coincidence, not an accident. And no, we have no great purpose. What's right or wrong? That's personal opinion. I happen to think slavery is wrong. Saying that we have no sense of right and wrong is false in the extreme. We were created to Please God, everything that is good pleases God, when we do wrong we displease God. Those who do not believe and obay God will go to hell after they die and those who believe and obay will go to heaven. Which is exactly why religion is dangerous. Those opinions are clearly defined by an ancient book and they dictate your life. How far will you go to make certain you please God? Insult me? Insult non-believers? Burn the heretics? You're exemplifying the danger of religion here, 54. What do you believe will happen when you die? Fade into non existance? I don't know, but since our brain no longer works, we will probably feel nothing. Like sleeping, except there'd be no dreams and you won't ever wake up. I'd like it to be that way, but I can't ever be 100% sure can I? Evolution is just an excuse to do wrong and not feel guilty. [/b] Really? Christianity is just an excuse to insult, injure and kill non-believers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 27, 2002 Author Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg You must realize you guys sound just as Insane to us as we do to you. Your not going to understand why we believe God unless you want to. and you, clearly do not. and I clearly, Dont NEED to believe evolution. for the simple reason that God supplies me with all my needs and I need not ask why and how I got here, Its as simple as this: I'm Here, The Time Is Now... I Shall Do What I May With The Time That Is Given To Me. You never sounded insane to me, and I hope I didn't get across as insane to you guys. I respect your beliefs, and I can even understand why you believe in God. I could actually picture myself in your place - I simply chose not to believe in God. And you may of course believe what you want, unless you're starting to harm those whose beliefs do not coincide with yours. Since I can't see you as the type who'd do that, I have faith in you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by Cjais Really? Christianity is just an excuse to insult, injure and kill non-believers. I dont know where you got that info but christians are to love everyone no matter what they believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg I dont know where you got that info but christians are to love everyone no matter what they believe. So the crusaders and inquisition love the non believers so much that they killed them? And also 54,I didnt mean we did have a purpose since we are a coinincidence,I mean we didnt have a purpose because we are a coincinidence. Also,if god is perfect,why didnt he make us believe him? And yes,he'd make it so we were happy we believed them. And also,gods were mostly made so that dictators and power hungry men would follow them,would you honestly follow god if he said you'd go to hell anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted November 28, 2002 Share Posted November 28, 2002 Really? Quite the contrary I would say - we're no longer as ignorant as we used to be, and there's certainly less unjustified killing going on, in the name of God. There's less of that, which is a good thing. But I meant the state of the world, not the state of men. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Sheheit. I'm not one of those people who care, in fact I think God personified himself as a male to alleviate male arrogance ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He personified himself? You are saying someone actually saw him? Otherwise, It's up to each of us all to determine God's visage. One third of the "trinity" is personfied genderless. One third was personified linguistically as a "father". One became a human male - Jesus. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- but God is a person. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How can you say that with certainty? I'm saying God is a elephant - have you got anything against that? If what I believe is true, God is a person. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's get something straight: There's no scientific evidence of God. Everything thus far has proved that God does not exist - nothing has done the contrary, unless you count beliefs as evidence. Refer to "B" of my original quote. Beliefs alone mean...little. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You believe what you are told. Everything you have been taught could be a lie. How do you know? You cannot honestly say that you don't have to believe in everything you think exists to accept it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I say we keep the Matrix'esque ideas out of this - yes, the world could have been created by God - Yes, everything could have been created 10 seconds before you were born - yes, the entire world could merely exist in your mind alone - yes, God could be a product of your mind. Fact is, those who tell me something that I believe use sound calculations and research that has nothing with belief to do. That was actually in others' defense. Some people were questioning Christian's view of reality...why aren't they questioning their own? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to their definition. Which is modified from what can be found in the dictionary. How convenient. Purely psychological, I admit, but cheap nonetheless. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Listen, the scientific meaning of "Theory" was the original one. Then the common man stole the term and broadened it without asking the creators of it. Really? Can I have a source? (If you can't, it's fine, I'm just curious.) Well, as the purpose of being able to use the word "Theory" is to strengthen the case towards the common man, then it should be used as the common man understands it. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I accept that. The reason I am debating is to defend against that. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To what end? To save your postulated beliefs and views of the world? Not totally, but essentially. Isn't that...essentially...what you are doing? If not, what is the point of this debate? ^.^ quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jerks. Don't blame me. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We don't. We blame Christianity, not you. Christianity? That's like saying "I blame the continent of Africa for the pyramids!" Christians do not all share the same beliefs. We have a few shared basic beliefs. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We are not debating matters scientific alone here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the crux of the debate. If we aren't, then whatever I postulate will be just as good as the rest of you. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not arguing about plausibility of God, I'm arguing that God and what the Bible says is a possibility. That's all I've done from the start. ^.^ In fact we are: This debate is about the plausibility of God creating the earth. And we are using scientific methods to prove it - if we weren't, then there'd be no debate as whatever you say would be just as true as whatever I say. Well...I'm using science to argue that what the Bible says is not impossible, which has been continually stated here in one form or another. I believe plausibility is subjective to the person...am I wrong? While science as a tool does not include built-in beliefs, religion does. That those people murdered aboriginals was pure personal opinion. That millions of people died in the crusades were the will of God - they weren't jerks since God was with them. God was not with them. The government was with them. You realize most of them probably never read the Bible? It all went through those in power. What they said was law. This is why we have separation of church and state. Tyrion So the crusaders and inquisition love the non believers so much that they killed them? *sigh* Read what I said earlier. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We were created to Please God, everything that is good pleases God, when we do wrong we displease God. Those who do not believe and obay God will go to hell after they die and those who believe and obay will go to heaven. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which is exactly why religion is dangerous. Those opinions are clearly defined by an ancient book and they dictate your life. How far will you go to make certain you please God? Insult me? Insult non-believers? Burn the heretics? You're exemplifying the danger of religion here, 54. The dangers of human nature. Not the danger of Christianity. "Clearly defined?" Nothing to do with the argument, but you'd be surprised, if you read the Bible, how much is not...the stuff that is not is the stuff maniacs twist for their own ends. Also just-this-side-of-accurate translations...but I'll stop before I start ranting ^_~ (By the way, whoever posted that is wrong. According to basic Christianity (I'm not referring to Catholisicm note, where it IS based on how good you are), believe Jesus died to save you and he will.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 28, 2002 Author Share Posted November 28, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing There's less of that, which is a good thing. But I meant the state of the world, not the state of men. What are you referring to? The world is doing fine - oh, it'll of course not last forever, but it is thriving right now. How do you measure "world health"? One third of the "trinity" is personfied genderless. One third was personified linguistically as a "father". One became a human male - Jesus. If what I believe is true, God is a person. But that is simply another human's idea of God - he has yet to show himself, no? Not totally, but essentially. Isn't that...essentially...what you are doing? If not, what is the point of this debate? ^.^ My beliefs and views aren't postulated - they're what I can sense, prove and calculate, they're fact. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not arguing about plausibility of God, I'm arguing that God and what the Bible says is a possibility. That's all I've done from the start. ^.^ Oh, everything is possible if you put it that way. The bible might possibly be true, God might be possible - neither are plausible. Well...I'm using science to argue that what the Bible says is not impossible, which has been continually stated here in one form or another. I believe plausibility is subjective to the person...am I wrong? If it's subjective, it's a postulate. It's like me saying: "I find it very plausible that Bush is being mindcontrolled by blue bunnies..." - Possibility and plausibility are two very different things. The dangers of human nature. Not the danger of Christianity. Yes, but without Christianity, it wouldn't have given them the mandate to do such things, and neither would they be allowed to gather so many people under a common cause. God was with the people on the crusades - they fervently believed so. Are you to think that you have interpreted the bible better? You might have, but when so many people become zealots of God in their own mind, they can do some pretty nasty things. Religion acts like a drug that can cause you to do anything for God - which is why I secretly fear overly religious persons. (By the way, whoever posted that is wrong. According to basic Christianity (I'm not referring to Catholisicm note, where it IS based on how good you are), believe Jesus died to save you and he will.) Is it so difficult to imagine that without religion, there can still be good morals? Many non-believers are fine people, with morals as healthy as Christian's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 28, 2002 Share Posted November 28, 2002 Is it so difficult to imagine that without religion, there can still be good morals? Many non-believers are fine people, with morals as healthy as Christian's. And how many Christain are cold blooded killers that you can think of? How many Christains kill themsleves? How many Christains go into a life of crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 28, 2002 Author Share Posted November 28, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider And how many Christain are cold blooded killers that you can think of? I could name quite a few. The crusades, inquisition etc... How many Christains kill themsleves? 9/11, need I say more? Even though they were muslims, it's the same deal - they did it for God. Usually however, religious people are far too scared of killing themselves because they think they'll go to hell for it - leaving them to live out their lives in misery. How many Christains go into a life of crime? A life of crime? I honestly have no idea, since I live in heathen Denmark. But history shows a lot of people killing and maiming in order to preserve their skewed traditions and views (Galilei, Kopernicus). Also, may I add - How religious a country is, is usually reverse proportional with how well they take care of their weak. Examples include Iran, USA, states in South America and Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted November 29, 2002 Share Posted November 29, 2002 Limiting replies here to what I originally set out to debate. Short on time. Not very interested in trying to make stalemates...staler. Someone else can answer for me, or not ^.^ What are you referring to? The world is doing fine - oh, it'll of course not last forever, but it is thriving right now. How do you measure "world health"? Ummmm...I think I was tired when I wrote that, because it now makes no sense to me x.x quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One third of the "trinity" is personfied genderless. One third was personified linguistically as a "father". One became a human male - Jesus. If what I believe is true, God is a person. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But that is simply another human's idea of God - he has yet to show himself, no? Eh? Jesus WAS God, according to the Bible. ^.^ quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well...I'm using science to argue that what the Bible says is not impossible, which has been continually stated here in one form or another. I believe plausibility is subjective to the person...am I wrong? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If it's subjective, it's a postulate. It's like me saying: "I find it very plausible that Bush is being mindcontrolled by blue bunnies..." - Possibility and plausibility are two very different things. Everything is subjective. Ridiculous as your statement sounds, it's subjective to our point of view. Hee. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The dangers of human nature. Not the danger of Christianity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, but without Christianity, it wouldn't have given them the mandate to do such things, and neither would they be allowed to gather so many people under a common cause. They would have found something else. They always have and always will. God was with the people on the crusades - they fervently believed so. Are you to think that you have interpreted the bible better? You might have, but when so many people become zealots of God in their own mind, they can do some pretty nasty things. Religion acts like a drug that can cause you to do anything for God - which is why I secretly fear overly religious persons. I actually read the Bible, which is kind of better. Everything the Crusaders did violated everything Jesus said. I secretly fear some 'overly religious' people too. (If you mean what I think you mean.) quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (By the way, whoever posted that is wrong. According to basic Christianity (I'm not referring to Catholisicm note, where it IS based on how good you are), believe Jesus died to save you and he will.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is it so difficult to imagine that without religion, there can still be good morals? Many non-believers are fine people, with morals as healthy as Christian's. I am well aware of that. o_O Why did you point it out? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider And how many Christain are cold blooded killers that you can think of? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I could name quite a few. The crusades, inquisition etc... Yes, they thought they were doing the right thing. They would have called themselves Christians (Catholics, actually). But what they did was explicitally against Christianity. To all the rest of the comments: You can't lump all religions into one little ball and say "They're all the same." Here's an analogy of what you're doing, in different terms. "Insects. They're all the same. Better exterminate those butterflies before they start infesting our food, bite us, suck our blood, or give us infectious diseases. It's the same deal - they're still insects." (Are you arguing that the human race does not need religion? Or creation vs. evolution? Maybe you should make a new thread ) edit: Usually however, religious people are far too scared of killing themselves because they think they'll go to hell for it - leaving them to live out their lives in misery. No wonder you're scared of religious people. If I was like that, I know I would be scared of me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted November 29, 2002 Share Posted November 29, 2002 I think some of us here have stumbled across what some people now persecute the Muslims for, fundamental belief in religion. The fact that Christianity is about 500 yrs older than Muslim, puts it not too far off being about that far behind in thinking. Wasn't it during the Middle Ages that the Spanish had their inquisitions, and the Roman's went on Crusades, under the guise of Catholics? For religions that have almost the same beliefs, prophets, how are they so antagonistic? For the same supposed God, why is it these two religions that seem so much at each others throat? For those that do not believe too much in science, then why use a PC, or anything that is not from the hands of God? It is most likely a heathen that has created the things that you use in such everyday activities. Isn't that selective ignorance of what to believe in, that you believe the Bible, yet will ignore the others that have created the things that you take for granted..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 29, 2002 Author Share Posted November 29, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing Eh? Jesus WAS God, according to the Bible. ^.^ Hmm... I always thought he was the son of God... Even if he was, he's dead now and God is probably in another form - where should he reside, and how would he survive? Everything is subjective. Ridiculous as your statement sounds, it's subjective to our point of view. Yes.... Everything is subjective, everything a state of mind. But we really do need to draw a line somewhere - I suggest we define it as what everyone can sense and prove. I actually read the Bible, which is kind of better. Everything the Crusaders did violated everything Jesus said. As are America right now - killing other people to protect their country, lying stealing etc. I suppose none are real Christians from your POV unless they do exactly as is written in the Bible? Or what? I am well aware of that. o_O Why did you point it out? Can't remember who said it, but someone uttered that without religion we would have many more killings and no morals at all. Yes, they thought they were doing the right thing. They would have called themselves Christians (Catholics, actually). But what they did was explicitally against Christianity. And so are the Afghanistan bombings - regardless, I was under the notion that God forgives everything. To all the rest of the comments: You can't lump all religions into one little ball and say "They're all the same." Here's an analogy of what you're doing, in different terms. "Insects. They're all the same. Better exterminate those butterflies before they start infesting our food, bite us, suck our blood, or give us infectious diseases. It's the same deal - they're still insects." But Islam operates under much the same law - no killing, lying, cheating, many of the same virtues. And as ZDawg said: The Christian God is the Islamic God and vice versa - which is the better religion now? (Are you arguing that the human race does not need religion? Or creation vs. evolution? Maybe you should make a new thread ) I have honestly no idea I'm making this up as I go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 29, 2002 Share Posted November 29, 2002 Also,why arent we seeing big miracles today? I mean,why arent we seeing an ocean splitting in two? Or the three plagues? Or why isnt jesus here, helping and saving a ton of people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 29, 2002 Share Posted November 29, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider And how many Christain are cold blooded killers that you can think of? Jim Jones.... remember Guyana? How many Christains kill themsleves? See above. How many Christains go into a life of crime? Jerry Falwell; Jim Jones; anti-apartheid cleric Allan Boesak; Rev. Dennis B. O'Neill (bottom of the page); James William Bell; Episcopalians; Rev. John Alexander; religious reform school exploitation; Baptist Foundation of Arizona; etc., etc., SkinWalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 29, 2002 Share Posted November 29, 2002 [Force:Obscenelylongpost] [Force:Replytoobscenelylongpost] originally posted by RedwingI should have worded it: "If I think God did it, there's exactly the same amount of proof as for evolution doing so - None." It doesn't matter what I've postulated. The fact remains that until either of us sees the evolution of the cosmos/creation, we both have no proof. We have provided you with more than accurate proof. I'll deal with your definition of 'proof' below. originally posted by RedwingI should have added the all-important clause: "God did it." Remember, I'm not using science to explain everything. Before you say that's invalid, think about it - can science explain everything now? I take it that by that you mean that science will be useless until it can explain everything. Well, when it claims that it can, it will cease to be scientific, and therefore, to be science. I have thought about this. At great length. You are falling back on the God-of-the-Gaps view. The problem with the God-of-the-Gaps concept is that it impedes scientific research, as it encourages priests to discourage it (even more than they do already) in order to hold on to their power. originally posted by RedwingYou said that in the beginning. I said: God manipulated the light so it reached Earth immediately. You said: Why? So he could give evidence against his existence? I said: Well, no, so we could have stars. Then God would have to continue teleporting the light to the Earth, or black out the stars for several hundred million years. This means that the stars that we see now must be the ones that are still out there, making any space projects beyond the imidiate neighbours of the Sol system moot, as they would be hostile to human life. You asked before why I want to disprove your ideas. This is one example. If your hypothesises aren't disproven (and they have been) NASA could go seriously underfounded. Thus: Our perception of the past has effects on the present. originally posted by RedwingMy belief in the existence of God was not spawned directly from a scientific fact. Therefore why would I stick to them? I'm only trying to show that my belief in God does not contradict science. Besides, most scientific fact is greatly informed postulating anyway ^_~ "Greatly informed postulating" my back! Scientific fact is always backed by every available external reference. originally posted by RedwingHow do you know what is unexplainable? Wouldn't it just be the "unexplained at this time"? And according to your definition, the word "supernatural" has no use because to exist in reality is to be natural. I've been fudging a bit because it's confusing me that we even have that word if your definition is the right one ^_~ The words "unexplainable" and "supernatural" have become synonymus with "as yet unexplained". But they have only been so for a few centuaries: Science emerged in the 19th centuary (and spent most of it trying like [insert cussword here] to avoid being burned at the stick for heresy). http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ This really has nothing to do with my post, but I think that it is such a great site that I wanted to advocate it again. originally posted by RedwingMeh? Okay. All six definitions of theory: the·o·ry n. pl. the·o·ries 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. I used the first one. Which are you referring to? I am referring to the first one too. But you are obviously not: Creationism hasn't been "devised to explain [...] facts or phenomena", nor is it useful in making "predictions about natural phenomena". Therefore it falls short of that definition. originally posted by Redwing-.-* I never said they all died. I said he didn't try to save them. See above on the destruction of seabed biospheres (for new readers my point revolves around the fact that the biospheres that depend on the seabed and a specific pressure would be destroyed by the increased pressure from the extra water, and be unable to regenerate without evolution so extensive that every other creationistic 'point' becomes moot). originally posted by RedwingThat was quite a shabby argument, I admit. But you're missing my point - you don't know. By making that 'point' you just showed, no offence inteded, that you have not understood anything that we have previously said. originally posted by RedwingMmmmmmmmmm. Perhaps it's just blinder now? Besides, the separate books were written over centuries. [...] They're doing a lovely good job of it aren't they. ^_^ Besides, only a social scientist should be doing that, because God is more concerned with man than the universe he created, destined to end in fire. We're doing just fine all by ourselves? How can you say that, not knowing whether God is involved? I don't really see what you are getting at. BTW: I think that 'social science' is but a shabby copy of real science. originally posted by RedwingSaying "it is a much more plausible theory than the Bible's" is opinion and shouldn't be taught as fact. Wrong. According to http://www.yourdictionary.com 'fact' means, among other things: "Knowledge or information based on a real occurance." That is the definition that I have used throughout this thread. Since God does not fullfil that criterium, he must be unfactual, and therefor it is a fact that he does not exist. originally posted by RedwingI missed his post. He didn't list any nearly 100% accurate dating methods except the old C-14. Of course I am well aware that it is not the only possible method. SkinWalker doesn't need accuracy in order to make his point. At least one of the methods he speaks of can date objects up to several millions of years back. Even if you substract the entire inaccuracy, it will still give results that are incompatible with creationistic dogma. originally posted by Redwing*sigh* This is getting tiring. -.- Proof - "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." You only have evidence that doesn't prove. Not right, but not all wrong either: According to http://www.yourdictionary.com 'proof' means, among other things: "The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions." Realise that this is the definition that should be used when debating wether something is proven or not. Because it is verifiable (ie: You can check if the criteria are fulfilled). originally posted by Redwing*sigh* Again, I am not trying to do either... Well you are doing your level best, even if it isn't your intention. Some of what I have said here may overlap what other people have already said, as I am too lazy to read the entire thread before beginning to reply. [/Force:Replytoobscenelylongpost] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 29, 2002 Share Posted November 29, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing Remember what the counter argument for Earth's rapid magnetic field decay was? Just because that's what it is now doesn't mean that's what it's always been. That, Redwing, is called "selective quoting" or, if I am to say my flat opinion, manipulative quoting. The outcome of that debate was that science extrapolates from the current situation. The current situation shows, however, that there has been several polar turns, and that we are overdue for one as of now. Therefore, the magnetic field decay is entirely compatible with the method of extrapolating from current material. It is therefore entirely justified when SkinWalker concludes that tectonic activity can be read from current signs in the crust (for details, ask SkinWalker himself; I don't know enough about it). Originally posted by Redwing The Flood could have created them. And see above. I think that I have already dealt with the Flood. At lenght. With diagrams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 29, 2002 Share Posted November 29, 2002 Originally posted by Rogue15 Man created Science. Science did not create Man. God created man in his own image Man sins Man creates god in his [sinful] image Your point being? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 29, 2002 Share Posted November 29, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg let me explain: When I was run over, The Tractor was backing up at a 45 Degree angle and I was behind it next to a brick wall. The Tractor turned straight and the bucket smashed me (several thousand pounds) into the brick wall... Now, the size I was at the time I was about chest high to the top of the bucket... Anyways, before the bucket hit me, something PICKED ME UP (apx) 4 feet in the air and the bucket didn’t hit my chest or head... what picked me up? I would like that question answer, if it was just pain/stress that I saw an Angle please do tell me what lifted me 4 feet in the air before the tractor hit me? No offence intended, but you have a rather broad definition of approximate. If someone throws a dagger at an 11-years old kid's neck, he'll have to jump 2' straight into the air to have it pass between the middle of his thighs. At most. I am 6'4'' tall, give or take a little. Neck to mid-thigh on me is 3' give or take a little. That gives a factor of (3*12)/(6*12+4)=36/76=2-point-something. Take your height at the time of the accident and divide it by two. This would give you roughly the height that you would need to clear in a standing jump in order to avoid the tractor. You do the math, but 4' is clearly inconsistent with the rest of your story. Also you can factor in anything between appr. .5 and 1.5 for your estimate of the height of the tractor at that time, from what you have told us now, and the tractor would still have killed you had you not moved. Which means that, from your story so far, you would at best have to jump about 1/4 of your height and at worst have to jump about 3/4 of your height. Originally posted by ZDawg Paramedics picked me up and took my to the hospital, I Quote the paramedic "What the hell?! Its a Miracle this kid Is Not Dead", the doctor said the same... he told me the chances were very very high that I wouldn’t walk again, and even if I did I'd have extreme knee problems... Ironic that after friends and family prayed for me I was on crutches at just 6 weeks. (Although I do have knee problems, but that’s from something different) When paramedics talk like that they usually refer to the aforementioned one-in-a-million chance. BTW: If it wasn't for technological advancement, and therefore science, your family could never afford a six-week prayer vigil. Besides it sounds as if you were religious at the time, contrary to what you told us previously. PS: I think that I forgot to tell you before: I do feel sorry for your accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted November 29, 2002 Share Posted November 29, 2002 x.x I replied to this already and the stoopid forum ate it quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing Eh? Jesus WAS God, according to the Bible. ^.^ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hmm... I always thought he was the son of God... Even if he was, he's dead now and God is probably in another form - where should he reside, and how would he survive? God is a Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three persons in one. God created nature. So he would have to be able to exist outside of it. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Everything is subjective. Ridiculous as your statement sounds, it's subjective to our point of view. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes.... Everything is subjective, everything a state of mind. But we really do need to draw a line somewhere - I suggest we define it as what everyone can sense and prove. But not everyone can sense God, and no one can prove God. So if we draw the line there, this debate has no point. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I actually read the Bible, which is kind of better. Everything the Crusaders did violated everything Jesus said. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As are America right now - killing other people to protect their country, lying stealing etc. I suppose none are real Christians from your POV unless they do exactly as is written in the Bible? Or what? No. I already defined what makes a "real" Christian. Look earlier quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, they thought they were doing the right thing. They would have called themselves Christians (Catholics, actually). But what they did was explicitally against Christianity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And so are the Afghanistan bombings - regardless, I was under the notion that God forgives everything. If they're defending innocent people, I don't see how that parallels the Crusades. Besides, I don't need to defend others' actions, especially when they don't represent those of my side ^.^ God doesn't automatically forgive everything. Only if the person repents and asks for forgiveness. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To all the rest of the comments: You can't lump all religions into one little ball and say "They're all the same." Here's an analogy of what you're doing, in different terms. "Insects. They're all the same. Better exterminate those butterflies before they start infesting our food, bite us, suck our blood, or give us infectious diseases. It's the same deal - they're still insects." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But Islam operates under much the same law - no killing, lying, cheating, many of the same virtues. Really? How much do you know about these religions anyway? Virtues like that are held in many places in everyday society, too. But everyday society isn't necessarily Christian, nor is morality, as you or someone else pointed out. And as ZDawg said: The Christian God is the Islamic God and vice versa - which is the better religion now? According to Islam, Jesus was not God, just a prophet. But the basic concept is the same - all-powerful creator of nature. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- originally posted by RedwingI should have worded it: "If I think God did it, there's exactly the same amount of proof as for evolution doing so - None." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It doesn't matter what I've postulated. The fact remains that until either of us sees the evolution of the cosmos/creation, we both have no proof. That's exactly what I said, except worded differently yet again. We have provided you with more than accurate proof. I'll deal with your definition of 'proof' below. I'm beginning to suspect something here. Proving it to yourself doesn't prove it to me, you know. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- originally posted by RedwingI should have added the all-important clause: "God did it." Remember, I'm not using science to explain everything. Before you say that's invalid, think about it - can science explain everything now? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I take it that by that you mean that science will be useless until it can explain everything. Well, when it claims that it can, it will cease to be scientific, and therefore, to be science. Straw Man alert! I never said that and I certainly don't believe it. The use of science has done many great and invaluable things. It's a tol for understanding nature. From my position, why would God have put it there, and given humankind our insatiable curiosity, if he didn't want us to use it? I have thought about this. At great length. You are falling back on the God-of-the-Gaps view. Clarify. I don't remember. I suspect a Straw Man in use again... The problem with the God-of-the-Gaps concept is that it impedes scientific research, as it encourages priests to discourage it (even more than they do already) in order to hold on to their power. Firstly: Belief in God does not and should not impede scientific research. Secondly: Priests? I think you're referring to Catholicism. So I digress, because I'm not Catholic. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- originally posted by RedwingYou said that in the beginning. I said: God manipulated the light so it reached Earth immediately. You said: Why? So he could give evidence against his existence? I said: Well, no, so we could have stars. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then God would have to continue teleporting the light to the Earth, or black out the stars for several hundred million years. I might be missing something important, but I don't see where you got that conclusion from ^.^ This means that the stars that we see now must be the ones that are still out there, making any space projects beyond the imidiate neighbours of the Sol system moot, as they would be hostile to human life. Huh? Er....see above. You asked before why I want to disprove your ideas. This is one example. If your hypothesises aren't disproven (and they have been) NASA could go seriously underfounded. Thus: Our perception of the past has effects on the present. Really. It seems to me that's just your hypotheses would result in that affect. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- originally posted by RedwingMy belief in the existence of God was not spawned directly from a scientific fact. Therefore why would I stick to them? I'm only trying to show that my belief in God does not contradict science. Besides, most scientific fact is greatly informed postulating anyway ^_~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Greatly informed postulating" my back! Scientific fact is always backed by every available external reference. That's the greatly informed part. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- originally posted by RedwingHow do you know what is unexplainable? Wouldn't it just be the "unexplained at this time"? And according to your definition, the word "supernatural" has no use because to exist in reality is to be natural. I've been fudging a bit because it's confusing me that we even have that word if your definition is the right one ^_~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The words "unexplainable" and "supernatural" have become synonymus with "as yet unexplained". But they have only been so for a few centuaries: Science emerged in the 19th centuary (and spent most of it trying like [insert cussword here] to avoid being burned at the stick for heresy). So there you go. That's what I was trying to say when someone accused me of raping the English language... quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- originally posted by RedwingMeh? Okay. All six definitions of theory: the·o·ry n. pl. the·o·ries 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. I used the first one. Which are you referring to? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am referring to the first one too. But you are obviously not: Creationism hasn't been "devised to explain [...] facts or phenomena", nor is it useful in making "predictions about natural phenomena". Therefore it falls short of that definition. Yes it has. Simplified version - Why is the world here and how did it get here? God did it. The second part has an especially clause in there, so it doesn't always have to fit it. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- originally posted by Redwing-.-* I never said they all died. I said he didn't try to save them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See above on the destruction of seabed biospheres (for new readers my point revolves around the fact that the biospheres that depend on the seabed and a specific pressure would be destroyed by the increased pressure from the extra water, and be unable to regenerate without evolution so extensive that every other creationistic 'point' becomes moot). Okay, I think I'll do my first "argument steal from an outside source" here because I have limited time ^.^ If such a flood [as Noah's Flood] took place, it would have laid down multiple layers of mud full of the remains of plants and animals which died in the Flood. These layers would be widespread (since the Flood was global) and give evidence of having been laid down rapidly. While we can't be certain of the exact nature of the Flood, it certainly involved tsunamis (sometimes called tidal waves)—incredibly energetic shock waves in the ocean, traveling at the speed of sound, which pummeled the land with towering walls of water. Likewise, it involved underwater mudflows, which even today are known to flow at up to 100 miles per hour, following an underwater earthquake or other disturbance. Volcanism, tectonism, erosion, redeposition, etc., occurred at rates, scales, and intensities far beyond similar processes occurring today. [...] Noah and his family, and two representatives of each "kind" of land-dwelling, air-breathing animal (seven of each "clean" kind), were protected and preserved on board Noah's Ark. Outside, "all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died" (Genesis 7:22). But what about the fish and other marine creatures? Obviously, they weren't taken on board the Ark. How could they survive, particularly both fresh and salt water forms? As a matter of fact, most of them didn't survive. Over 95 percent of all fossils are marine creatures. They died, and are fossilized, by the trillions. Many are buried in great fossil graveyards, tightly packed together, choked with sediments, buried before they had time to decay. Obviously, they didn't live in the environment in which they died. But how could any have survived? In the complex of events and conditions that made up the Flood, certainly there were pockets of fresh and/or clean water at any one time. Remember, it was raining in torrents, and we can expect that the rain was fairly fresh water. Many studies have shown that waters of various temperatures, chemistries, and sediment loads do not tend to mix; they tend to remain segregated into zones. It would be unlikely for any one area to retain such zones for very long during the tumult of the Flood, but on a worldwide scale, some such segregated zones would have existed at any given time. Furthermore, we don't know the tolerance levels of pre-Flood fish for sediment, salt, and temperature. Modern fish have a great variety of responses to different environments. Perhaps before the Flood, fish were even more adaptable. There is also the possibility that great amounts of vegetation were dislodged from the pre-Flood continents and remained intertwined during the Flood as floating mats. Many creationists feel that the decay and abrasion of these mats are responsible for our major coal seams, but underneath these mats, the turbulence of the surface would have been lessened. Perhaps many fish found shelter and nutrition under them, as insects may have, on the mats themselves. - From http://www.icr.org because if I had written all that, it would have taken at least two hours quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- originally posted by RedwingSaying "it is a much more plausible theory than the Bible's" is opinion and shouldn't be taught as fact. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wrong. According to http://www.yourdictionary.com 'fact' means, among other things: "Knowledge or information based on a real occurance." That is the definition that I have used throughout this thread. Since God does not fullfil that criterium, he must be unfactual, and therefor it is a fact that he does not exist. That isn't quite the argument. Any production of the world shouldn't be taught as absolute fact because it cannot be duplicated or observed. fact n. 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy. 2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact. b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case. c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts. 3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact. Interesting. Your argument is wrong very simply because according to other definitions of fact, God IS a fact. Because it doesn't fit the definition you picked, that means he isn't a fact to you. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- originally posted by RedwingI missed his post. He didn't list any nearly 100% accurate dating methods except the old C-14. Of course I am well aware that it is not the only possible method. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SkinWalker doesn't need accuracy in order to make his point. At least one of the methods he speaks of can date objects up to several millions of years back. Even if you substract the entire inaccuracy, it will still give results that are incompatible with creationistic dogma. Then do so. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- originally posted by Redwing*sigh* This is getting tiring. -.- Proof - "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." You only have evidence that doesn't prove. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not right, but not all wrong either: According to http://www.yourdictionary.com 'proof' means, among other things: "The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions." Realise that this is the definition that should be used when debating wether something is proven or not. Because it is verifiable (ie: You can check if the criteria are fulfilled). Well, can you check to see how the world came into existence? Got a time machine? Got pocket lin---*cough*---never mind that part quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- originally posted by Redwing*sigh* Again, I am not trying to do either... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well you are doing your level best, even if it isn't your intention. No, I am not. I have checked up on something exactly once in this entire debate, when the best I could do is check ever possible source, rather than relying on my memory. I am not trying to argue every facet of the debate, because I don't feel like it. My best would be to do so. This is a very informal debate by nature, you realize? ShadowTemplar quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing Remember what the counter argument for Earth's rapid magnetic field decay was? Just because that's what it is now doesn't mean that's what it's always been. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That, Redwing, is called "selective quoting" or, if I am to say my flat opinion, manipulative quoting. The outcome of that debate was that science extrapolates from the current situation. The current situation shows, however, that there has been several polar turns, and that we are overdue for one as of now. Therefore, the magnetic field decay is entirely compatible with the method of extrapolating from current material. It is therefore entirely justified when SkinWalker concludes that tectonic activity can be read from current signs in the crust (for details, ask SkinWalker himself; I don't know enough about it). I didn't intend to do so. You are free to disregard my appeal to SkinWalker, so now it's my argument. My apologies to SW But what I see you doing is called "the red herring argument" - introducing irrelevant material to push aside the argument quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing The Flood could have created them. And see above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that I have already dealt with the Flood. At lenght. With diagrams. All of which I have answered. At length. With diagrams. (Stolen diagrams, but diagrams nonetheless ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 29, 2002 Author Share Posted November 29, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing But not everyone can sense God, and no one can prove God. So if we draw the line there, this debate has no point. Yes, but that would be assuming and not sticking to what we sense - why should we draw the line there? To "prove" your beliefs? No. I already defined what makes a "real" Christian. Look earlier But the people in the middle ages thought they were real christians too. WHo are you to judge them? Some day, the people in the future will look at you and say that you weren't any better than them, IMHO. Views changes, but in the present, it's all for real. If they're defending innocent people, I don't see how that parallels the Crusades. Besides, I don't need to defend others' actions, especially when they don't represent those of my side ^.^ Yet killing is wrong, no matter what, no? Am I wrong here? BTW, I'm glad that you do not condone that act. Really? How much do you know about these religions anyway? Virtues like that are held in many places in everyday society, too. But everyday society isn't necessarily Christian, nor is morality, as you or someone else pointed out. Exactly my point. We do not need religion for morals, nor society. However, modern society is in fact built on Christian dogmas. You can ask the people against abortion for evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.