The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

Status
Not open for further replies.
carlosMM said:
That gives the majority a voice

nope.

evolved w/o God: 13%. Evolution guided by God: 27% Created by God in present Form: 55%
 
ybbor said:
nope.

evolved w/o God: 13%. Evolution guided by God: 27% Created by God in present Form: 55%

Oh my non-existing God. We are all doomed. It's strange that one of the, if not the, most scientifically advanced nation in the planet is not able to properly educate its population :confused:
 
@masquerouge

Well to be fair, most people only spend time on issues that matter to them, and that puts TV head and shoulders ahead of the nature of the universe for the majority of western civilization.

One of my favourite quotes:
"Against ignorance, the gods themselves contend in vain"

At the end of the day it's not the issue you are worked up about it's the apparent* ignorance of those you are arguing with.

*Note I'm not taking sides with this comment.
 
Masquerouge said:
Oh my non-existing God. We are all doomed. It's strange that one of the, if not the, most scientifically advanced nation in the planet is not able to properly educate its population :confused:


;) what are you talking about, China isn't the most scientifically advanced nation ;)
 
JoeM said:
@masquerouge

Well to be fair, most people only spend time on issues that matter to them, and that puts TV head and shoulders ahead of the nature of the universe for the majority of western civilization.

Yeah, but still... To me, the whole idea of things popping up out of nothingness in a finite state is much, much more disturbing than the idea of things very gradually and very slowly evolving.

And I don't even want to speak about trusting the nth translation of a book written thousands of years ago by some middle-east farmers more than the cosmogony reasonned and deduced by men all around the world.

If the majority of your population believe this, then there's something badly wrong with your education system.
 
ybbor said:
nope.

evolved w/o God: 13%. Evolution guided by God: 27% Created by God in present Form: 55%

nope - there is, though you may have missed that fact, a large christian population OUTSIDE 'God's own country'. And they tend to be more capable of a differentiating point of view, thus see no problem with science contradicting a literal interpretation of the bible.
 
Hmmmm, sorry to bump, and sorry if this has already been said before...

This is for those that believe God created everything:

If Adam and Eve were either black, white, or some other colour entirely, and even if they were both different, then how come we have people with different skin colours and builds to accomadate their environment?
 
That's the Intelligent Tinkerer in action for you! :p

Oh, and I thought I'd share this one with you:

Ray Martinez said:
Scientific Proof of the Great Flood

It appears in the sky after it rains.

Genesis 9:12

"And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me
and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all
generations to come: 13 I have set my RAINBOW in the clouds, and it
will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever
I bring clouds over the earth and the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, 15
I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures
of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy
all life. 16 Whenever the RAINBOW appears in the clouds, I will see it
and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living
creatures of every kind on the earth."

There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.

I always said the scientific evidence for the Flood was spectacular and
could be OBSERVED by anyone.
 
@TLC:
Holy fcuk. Holy fcuking fcuk. Argh. Ahhh. Ahhhhhhhhh!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
*Blasphemous runs screaming into the night.*
 
What???!!

The scientific evidence just gets worse everytime :shakehead.
 
Ray Martinez said:
There is no reason the rainbow should appear, except that it was
created by God as a sign that He will not destroy by flood ever again.

I always said the scientific evidence for the Flood was spectacular and
could be OBSERVED by anyone.
If so, how can explain this:

21New_Orleans_Double_Rainbows_on_6-25-04.jpg
 
OMG, this thread is so funny! I love watching the creationists huff and puff and try to blow our house down by speaking out of their ... hats. :lol: :woohoo: :smug:

My personal summary would be, that if you THINK that evolution could be true, then looking at the evidence, it looks like it very probably is? But, if you FEEL that some sort of religious creation/changing of life is true, then you can ignore all of the observations that don't fit your worldview because they might make you feel uncomfortable?

By scientific method, you can only DISprove evolution (OK, or show it - yet again - is more likely to be true), but the only evidence that creationists would accept as showing that evolution is true would be god writing on the sky "hey guys! The bible was a set of metaphores! Why not think about things rather than just blindly trusting that book you think is the only way to know me, and refusing everything else?" (Or for the even more close-minded, a personal visit with a signed chit to say evolution is true).

Or if you want some logic-chopping: evolution could theoretically be disproved. No-one has yet thought up an experiment to disprove god. So i'd better trot along to the nearest church? :mischief:
 
Sophie 378 said:
OMG, this thread is so funny! I love watching the creationists huff and puff and try to blow our house down by speaking out of their ... hats. :lol: :woohoo: :smug:

My personal summary would be, that if you THINK that evolution could be true, then looking at the evidence, it looks like it very probably is? But, if you FEEL that some sort of religious creation/changing of life is true, then you can ignore all of the observations that don't fit your worldview because they might make you feel uncomfortable?

ignoring my instinctive reaction to ignore any post that begins with "OMG" :rolleyes: ...

I would say exactly the same thing to you about this thread, with the roles reveresed
 
ybbor said:
ignoring my instinctive reaction to ignore any post that begins with "OMG" :rolleyes: ...

I would say exactly the same thing to you about this thread, with the roles reveresed
You're always welcome to pick apart problems in evolutionist arguements to justify that.
 
Sophie 378 said:
My personal summary would be, that if you THINK that evolution could be true, then looking at the evidence, it looks like it very probably is? But, if you FEEL that some sort of religious creation/changing of life is true, then you can ignore all of the observations that don't fit your worldview because they might make you feel uncomfortable?
I both know and think that God exists and that he created the world. I don't think you should assume that creationists just "feel" it and just go on that.

Or if you want some logic-chopping: evolution could theoretically be disproved. No-one has yet thought up an experiment to disprove god. So i'd better trot along to the nearest church?
Yes, actually you should. Especially as if there is a God and you don't believe in him he'll likely be ticked - if there isn't and you do believe in him then you've lost nothing at all. ;)

If so, how can explain this:
Well, sometimes when it rains.... :rolleyes:

ignoring my instinctive reaction to ignore any post that begins with "OMG" ...
It makes you feel like your intelligence is slowly draining away, but you can do it. :goodjob:
 
Elrohir said:
I both know and think that God exists and that he created the world. I don't think you should assume that creationists just "feel" it and just go on that.
No, but from my perspectie an emotional componant is apparent in creationism.

Elrohir said:
Yes, actually you should. Especially as if there is a God and you don't believe in him he'll likely be ticked - if there isn't and you do believe in him then you've lost nothing at all. ;)
But if it's the wrong god he'll be more ticked then if you didn't believe in a god at all


Elrohir said:
Well, sometimes when it rains.... :rolleyes:
Well, Babbler's just demonstrating the silliness of Ray Martinez's arguement that TLC was so kind to share.


Elrohir said:
It makes you feel like your intelligence is slowly draining away, but you can do it. :goodjob:
Yeah, Sophie 378 needs to learn a little bit more about debatin'.
 
Perfection said:
You're always welcome to pick apart problems in evolutionist arguements to justify that.

as I have
 
Elrohir said:
Yes, actually you should. Especially as if there is a God and you don't believe in him he'll likely be ticked - if there isn't and you do believe in him then you've lost nothing at all. ;)
Pascal's wager rests on assumptions no Christian should accept. To borrow a motif from the Bible, the demons would go to Heaven if it holds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom