col, I was addressing the source of the quote - you will have to admit that whoever made that site is a dumb sh*t
sadly, too many people are intrigued by the conspiracy theory that 'science wants to destroy man and thus hides the truth (creation)'
Should we take the bible literal?
- Thread starter Phydeaux
- Start date
col, I was addressing the source of the quote - you will have to admit that whoever made that site is a dumb sh*t
sadly, too many people are intrigued by the conspiracy theory that 'science wants to destroy man and thus hides the truth (creation)'
Its like teasing goldfish. Anyone can do it, but there's no real sport in it.
well if there is anything i learn for this is the palaentologists will cuss anyone out who doen't agree with him. that in itself is a bad sign IMHO. the poll show a few days ago that most believe evolution so why all the angre over the minority . of course history points out the majority not always right. I feel both sides has trouble proving by science they're right so the battle continues on. I seen holes in both theories so in the end most everybody will choose according to their beliefs no matter what anyone says.
P.S. scienctist are just like court lawyers . they try their best to make the facts fit their case to prove their side is right
P.S. scienctist are just like court lawyers . they try their best to make the facts fit their case to prove their side is right
omichyron
Highly-Pixelated Globe
I disagree with evolution just because I find it highly doubtful that God would waste the time "evolving" his physical body into grain producing plants to save our souls. Grist is definately not a product of evolution, so that brings the whole theory into question.
Gothmog
Dread Enforcer
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,352
Heh, nice carlosMM - I've been away. I have nothing to add atm, and just a few moments here - but I wanted to ask a question of the Creationists.
Why do you look to science to bolster your faith?
All the things you see on these sites have no evidence to back them up, a vapor layer in the sky, a giant flood, God creating man in 1 day etc. etc. Why try to pretend they are scientific theories? What do you gain from that? Scientists are simply interested in describing the world, if there were evidence of a worldwide flood - they would be very interested. Just as they have found evidence of giant floods that occured when the ice ages ended (not world wide, but amazing in their scale). Couldn't all of the Bible be true without your having to discredit and disparage scientists?
I also want to point out that the absolute 'truth' of a scientific theory really isn't important. What is important is the predictions that can be made from them. Can we predict how to fly to the moon, or when the next eclipse will be, or when a solar storm will reach the earth, or the rate of decay of a particular isotope? If so then we have a useful theory, if not then we need to think up a better one. This has nothing to do with it being true, or not.
Why do you look to science to bolster your faith?
All the things you see on these sites have no evidence to back them up, a vapor layer in the sky, a giant flood, God creating man in 1 day etc. etc. Why try to pretend they are scientific theories? What do you gain from that? Scientists are simply interested in describing the world, if there were evidence of a worldwide flood - they would be very interested. Just as they have found evidence of giant floods that occured when the ice ages ended (not world wide, but amazing in their scale). Couldn't all of the Bible be true without your having to discredit and disparage scientists?
I also want to point out that the absolute 'truth' of a scientific theory really isn't important. What is important is the predictions that can be made from them. Can we predict how to fly to the moon, or when the next eclipse will be, or when a solar storm will reach the earth, or the rate of decay of a particular isotope? If so then we have a useful theory, if not then we need to think up a better one. This has nothing to do with it being true, or not.
Mescalhead
Vincebus Eruptum
Is grist an ingredient in SPAM?! Hah ha ha. "'It is funny' said the lord Yeastus Ghrist."
Moderator Action: Warning. I will not have any religion mocked. col
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
omichyron
Highly-Pixelated Globe
how about some religious tollerance? I don't see you mocking muslims or jews
Moderator Action: Mescalhead 3 days and omichyron 7 days for spam campaign, bashing, and conspiracy
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Mescalhead
Vincebus Eruptum
That is because the ADL does not yet protect Gristians. I will now desist before the moderators detect our hijacking.
Moderator Action: Too late. Consider this a final warning.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Too late for warning, actually. Lefty
Moderator Action: Too late. Consider this a final warning.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Too late for warning, actually. Lefty
He said that the Bible says that God made the world and that He could have used Evolution so I said that the Bible says that God made man. Thanks. There's just 1 more thing that I would like to ask you, do you understand what I ment by the sedment forming side ways? If you do, doesn't that mean dating up and down would not work?
@Gothmog
The polonium-halo thing you said that polonium is formed from Uranium. Uranium is the part that takes a long time what this guy has found is Polonium with out any evidence of Uranium. That would mean that the granite was formed really fast. Is that true?
The polonium-halo thing you said that polonium is formed from Uranium. Uranium is the part that takes a long time what this guy has found is Polonium with out any evidence of Uranium. That would mean that the granite was formed really fast. Is that true?
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
Don't pull that majority/minority crap. The furor is over the fact that even though your theories have been completely debunked by reason numerous times, you still cling to them and insist upon others accepting your unsupported and infantile "facts" rather than other's thoughtful and substantiated "opinion".
And usually it's the people that refuse to think that are wrong.
I guess the difference you and them is that the court lawyers and scientists actually have a case, and perhaps an inkling of intelligence.
Packer-Backer
Conservative Christian
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 763
I have only read the first and last page of this thread, but...
Why aren't you mocking the bloodthirty beasts otherwise known as Muslims. Moderator Action: bashing, trolling. restricted until I figure out WTH you are up to
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889There are a couple things that you can't deny. Somebody on the first page said that the seven day creation was a metaphor for the billions of years of evolution. If the earth is billions of years old it would have to start the size of a baseball because with all of the fossils it couldn't be possible. And if evolution is true howcome there are still apes, fish, lizards, who come everything hasn't evolved into actually civilizations and built magnificent cities? There was lots of stuff that Darwin couldn't explain, like finding a animal reaching for a leaf off a tropical tree, frozen underneath layers of ice! Also Christianity is the only religion ever to claim to have risen from the dead, and Mohammad was openly a warmongerer while Jesus said that the hardest thing to do will be to love thy enemy. I know that I am right and that you are wrong.
Why aren't you mocking the bloodthirty beasts otherwise known as Muslims. Moderator Action: bashing, trolling. restricted until I figure out WTH you are up to
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889There are a couple things that you can't deny. Somebody on the first page said that the seven day creation was a metaphor for the billions of years of evolution. If the earth is billions of years old it would have to start the size of a baseball because with all of the fossils it couldn't be possible. And if evolution is true howcome there are still apes, fish, lizards, who come everything hasn't evolved into actually civilizations and built magnificent cities? There was lots of stuff that Darwin couldn't explain, like finding a animal reaching for a leaf off a tropical tree, frozen underneath layers of ice! Also Christianity is the only religion ever to claim to have risen from the dead, and Mohammad was openly a warmongerer while Jesus said that the hardest thing to do will be to love thy enemy. I know that I am right and that you are wrong.
omichyron
Highly-Pixelated Globe
indeed. if evolution were true, then every species on the planet would have its own civilization. Since they'd probably also be nuclear powers, believing in evolution is going against nuclear nonproliferation.
Gothmog
Dread Enforcer
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,352
Sedimentary rock by definition forms in layers perpendicular to the force of gravity. We have a number of independent dating methods that confirm that idea, there are places where the layers have been turned sideways due to large scale motions of the earth. If all you had to go on was dating 'up and down' that would be pretty shakey, but fortunately there are many independent dating methods that can be applied to any specific area or question.
My point is that they could be true regardless of any evidence or theories elucidated by the scientific method. Your ideas assume an all powerful God that you can not understand, this God can do anything it likes. You will never know if the ideas are true, never. Stick with faith. From the perspective of the scientific method the ideas have no merit because they have no predictive power. That doesn't make them true or false, simply non-predictive and reliant on an all powerful force outside the realm of science.
That is simply wrong. The earliest theories of the solar system could predict most lunar and solar eclipses, but still put the earth in the center. We know now with great certainty that the sun is in the center of the solar system. The old theory has been disproven, but it had utility at the time. The reason why people went looking for an alternate theory had to do with things that the old theory got wrong, that is how science advances. You find something that the current theory is wrong about and create a new theory that explains all the evidence the old theory explained, and that can explains whatever the current theory got wrong, and that predicts something new.
No, that would mean that the halo was not formed from Polonium. There would necessarily be Uranium, as well as numerous other elements from the Uranium decay chain in very specific and well known ratios. Whether or not the granite formed fast has no bearing on that question.
Of course it could be that God created Polonium atoms in the granite for reasons I can not fathom, but that is not a useful theory and would tell us nothing even if we believed that to be true.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
We are equal opportunity mockers of all imbecillic fundamentalists. It's usually the fundamentalists who like to single themselves out to try to pretend that they are specifically targeted.
Because that the probablity of intelligent life is rather small. Because when you flip a coin, you don't always end up with heads.
Your examples are getting worse and worse. Can you explain how it cannot explain?
And how is that relevant? If I can conjour up a religion right now that somehow involves "rising from teh dead", how does that make it any more (or less) relevant than all the other BS?
I guess that is the only claim that we can't really dispute, although it does say a lot about your intelligenceModerator Action: flaming, here and above 4 days
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
