Survey about creationism

[-=Vagrant=-]

I'm doing a small survey about creationists. If you believe that God created stuff, please give a short answer to the following questions.

1. How old is the Universe?

2. How old is the Earth?

3. How old is life?

4. Was there a Flood? If there was, when?

5. Was there one Ice Age or more? When?

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Checkmite]

I believe your post has overgeneralized. I guess one could say that I believe "God created" stuff, but I don't think I could be called a "Creationist". I think your mistake comes from assuming that everyone who believes in God, or even every Christian, must adhere to the Young-Earth "Creationism" theory.


Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-


1. How old is the Universe?

Somewhere between 11 and 15 billion years old - I think

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
2. How old is the Earth?

Around 4.5 billion years old, I believe.

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
3. How old is life?

Just under 4 billion years old. But remember, these numbers are always changing as we learn more.

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
4. Was there a Flood? If there was, when?

I don't know if there was a Flood, but there have been lots of floods throughout the earth's history.

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
5. Was there one Ice Age or more? When?

There were more - four, to be precise. They are:
Proterozoic - 800 to 600 million years ago
Ordovician/Silurian - 460 to 430 million years ago
Pennsylvanian/Permian - 350 to 250 million years ago
Neogene/Quaternary - within the last 3 to 4 million years or so (we're living in the tail end of it).

There was glacial advancing and retreating many times throughout these periods.

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
Thank you for your cooperation.

Not at all. :D

[Darwin]

Surprising take from a christian Joshua (assuming you are)
I´m not trying to lead this thread off the tracks but would you also accept evolutionary theory as certain liberal christians?
Just curious.

[stamenflicker]

I´m not trying to lead this thread off the tracks but would you also accept evolutionary theory as certain liberal christians?

I don't think Josh is a Christian. He's specifically mentioned in other threads he is not. I however am a liberal Christian. I think there is a host of evidence to support evolution--particularly within species. Trans-species evolution however lacks a significant fossil record, as well other key indicators to substantiate it fully. That doesn't mean it's not the case, only that it lacks enough weighted evidence to tip the scales in its favor.

Practically speaking, evolution offers science, particularly medicine a great deal. I hardly think the theory should be abandoned due to a lack of evidence, nor to I particularly feel threatened by the theory as a Christian.

Flick

[Checkmite]

Stamen is correct, I am not Christian.

[MRC_Hans]

Trans-species evolution however lacks a significant fossil record, as well other key indicators to substantiate it fully. That doesn't mean it's not the case, only that it lacks enough weighted evidence to tip the scales in its favor.
Uhh, I'd say the number of species, extinct and extant, is extremely solid evidence of trans-species evolution. Or how else would you explain that new species have been appearing for as long as life has existed on Earth? Is God still going around: "Mmmm, this place could need some camels --- Zap!"?

Hans

[Jethro]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Trans-species evolution however lacks a significant fossil record, as well other key indicators to substantiate it fully. That doesn't mean it's not the case, only that it lacks enough weighted evidence to tip the scales in its favor.

29 Evidences for Macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

[Kashyapa]

I'm an ecologist, and my work frequently deals with issues concerning evolution. Therefore, I would consider my understanding of the subject to be relatively comprehensive. I'd be happy to furnish details if it's really necessary, but rest assured that there is an overwhelming and absolutely airtight argument in favor of evolution- micro and macro. The scientific community generally regards it as a fact, and in fact all of modern biological science is based around it. The post above provides excellent proof in favor of it. Among those whose opinions on the issue are informed and valid, it's not even an issue. There's always a Jack Chick out there trying to convince people that it's somehow debatable, but they're in the minority and totally misinformed.

[Darwin]

"Stamen is correct, I am not Christian."
I see.
Sorry.

"Trans-species evolution however lacks a significant fossil record, as well other key indicators to substantiate it fully. That doesn't mean it's not the case, only that it lacks enough weighted evidence to tip the scales in its favor."
Those exact mechanisms is what we need to know more about but it seems to me that transitional events are not as much of a problem as in the old days,the sore point where naysayers would like to stab at.
Would probably be interesting to find out more about the character of transition.

"Practically speaking, evolution offers science, particularly medicine a great deal. I hardly think the theory should be abandoned due to a lack of evidence, nor to I particularly feel threatened by the theory as a Christian."
It is nice to notice that it indeed is possible to honestly discuss evolution with christian ppl.
I do not think you should feel "threatened",the case of God is a different matter in my opinion and should be kept separate.

[Gregor]

Josh

I was curious about your reply to ice ages. As an amateur fan of historical geology and paleontology, I was surprised that you listed several ice ages that pre-dated the Cenozoic Era. I had assumed that we date ice ages as a result of surficial evidences (terminal morains and valleys). I would think - perhaps incorrectly - that we have almost no surficial features that pre-date 50 MYA, so it would be difficult to date an ice age to 250 MYA.

[Looking for the lazy way out] - Is there a reference for your response?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
I'm doing a small survey about creationists. If you believe that God created stuff, please give a short answer to the following questions.

...

Thank you for your cooperation.

-=Vagrant=- I cannot answer your questions because I do not think that God created stuff.

However, given your target auidence, why do you post those questions here at JREF? Would it not be more efficient to post them on a Christian BBS of some sort?

Thanks in advance for the clarification!

[Ruby]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
I'm doing a small survey about creationists. If you believe that God created stuff, please give a short answer to the following questions.

1. How old is the Universe?

I think this seems plausible http://home.att.net/~rubypoetry/infin.jpg :p

2. How old is the Earth?

between 5000 and ten million yrs

[b]3. How old is life?

Around 3000-5000 yrs

4. Was there a Flood? If there was, when?

Yes. Unsure of time.

5. Was there one Ice Age or more? When?

Not sure about that. Need to look into it.

[Yahzi]

1. How old is the Universe?
4 hours, 29 minutes. The world was created by God just under 4.5 hours ago - complete with the appearence of past history. Not only were light waves created as if they had been in transit for billions of years, but dinosaur fossils and even your memories were all created ipso nihilo just four and a half hours ago.

2. How old is the Earth?
See #1.

3. How old is life?
See #1.

4. Was there a Flood? If there was, when?
No, but the historical traces of the Flood were created - but deliberatly vague, so as to test our faith.

5. Was there one Ice Age or more? When?
There are the traces of several, but there weren't actually any - although the physical record is indistinguishable from what it would be if there were.

I defy you to prove that the universe was not created 4.5 hours ago. All the evidence of history you can cite is simply proof that the creation came complete with apparent history. The fact that it's air-tight proves God did a perfect job. And the fact that everyone was just now created eliminates the problem of Theodicy. After all, there never was a Holocaust, or billions of unsaved condemned to Hell - since those people only exist as created memories. There is no problem reconciling God and Evil when you realize that Evil never actually existed - we only have memories of it to make the world look real and to underscore certain moral lessons.

So there. Go on, prove me wrong. You can't? Then I must be right. I'll spare you the details and skip right to the final conclusion: stand up straight, stop smoking, and send me $200 in small bills immediately.

:D

[Dub]

Originally posted by Ruby


2. How old is the Earth?

between 5000 and ten million yrs



So the rocks containing elements whose half-lives show that the rocks are many millions of years old are fakes? And Fossils older than ten million years are also fake?


3. How old is life?

Around 3000-5000 yrs


Those damn fake fossils again.



4. Was there a Flood? If there was, when?

Yes. Unsure of time.


Your proof of this flood?

[Darwin]

There have been tons of floods in this world...
Flood rebuttal is not of high value.
:cool:

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Dub
[/b]

So the rocks containing elements whose half-lives show that the rocks are many millions of years old are fakes? And Fossils older than ten million years are also fake?

[/b]

Those damn fake fossils again.

[/b]

Your proof of this flood? [/B]

Well Dub, you obviously need a lesson in logic.

God made the world 3,000 years ago. So if anything appears to be more then 3,000 years old then obviously we are mistaken. Whether we are just idiots or maybe the black, blue, and green devils are deliberately trying to trick us (making us sorta-idiots for falling for it) doesn't matter. We know that the world is only 3,000 years old because GOD SAID SO.

[Kashyapa]

Please, please tell me you're joking, Rusty.

[Darwin]

He must be joking.
Not even young earth dudes talk about 3000?
And old earthies would tell young earthies to reconsider their take on 6000.
:)

[c4ts]

The flood theory does not explain the geological layers where only certain kinds of fossils show up. There was a large human presence that got wiped out by the flood in the story, yet there are no fossils of human skeletons turning up at the same depth as the dinosaurs. Human bones don't float, do they?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Gregor

[Looking for the lazy way out] - Is there a reference for your response?

Yes, the Illinois State Museum (http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/).

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Crossbow
[B]

-=Vagrant=- I cannot answer your questions because I do not think that God created stuff.

That's ok.

However, given your target auidence, why do you post those questions here at JREF? Would it not be more efficient to post them on a Christian BBS of some sort?

Like this? ;) http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62767
I've posted these questions on numerous different boards. I'm such a sneaky bugger.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dub
[/b]

So the rocks containing elements whose half-lives show that the rocks are many millions of years old are fakes? And Fossils older than ten million years are also fake?

[/b]

I believe in fossils...I do, I do!:D I honestly have no idea how old they are. I can't give a definitive age for this earth as I have not studied enough data, (on both the evolution and creation side.) That's why I said it was between 5000 and ten million yrs.....perhaps I should have said billion yrs, or trillion.....


Your proof of this flood?

And your proof there wasn't one? One thing is for sure, there are thousands of similar flood stories like the bible account all over the world. The closer you get to Asia Minor, the closer the stories resemble the bible account. Still, this could be legend and myth floating all over the world. There are extra-biblical accounts of the flood like what was found on some ancient babylonian tablets. These tablets talk about the Ark too. There have also been various explorers, scientists, and archeologists who have studied layers in the earth and concluded that in some point in history there was a world wide flood.

[Kashyapa]

1. The earth has been confidently dated to 4.55 billion years. This was calculated using the decay rate of various lead isotopes. It can be relied upon to be fairly accurate. Here's a link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

2. There is no geologic evidence for a flood of Biblical proportions in any geologic era. None whatsoever. There is evidence for coastal flooding in times of climate change, and of course for plate tectonics. There have been a variety of inland seas that have come and gone, and changing sea levels. But there is simply no way that a flood as described in the bible could have existed. Creationists like to trot out theories like aquifers emptying, or the polar caps melting, but there is no evidence that that has happened either. The reason that Babylonian and Assyrian tablets refer to floods and Arks is that those religions provided the stock material for Judeo-Christian mythology. Much of Judeo-Christian beliefs are actually ancient Babylonian and Assyrian and Persian in origin. I would not rule out a devastating flood of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in the pre-historic past, that provided the original seed that grew into the "worldwide flood" idea. Given the propensity for rivers to flood, it is not inconcievable that other cultures worldwide have experienced devastating floods that were later exaggerated and amplified, especially if it was one climatic event that triggered them. Perhaps an ancient comet impact that created a period of climate change that caused massive flooding more or less all over the world? Or perhaps some freak El Nino incident, or a massive forest fire that threw the climate out of whack.

The take-home message here is that there is no way, using the principles of objective logic and Occam's Razor, that the Bible could be literally accurate. The non-Biblical explanations are much simpler and by definition take much less on faith and belief than do creationist theories.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
1. The earth has been confidently dated to 4.55 billion years. This was calculated using the decay rate of various lead isotopes. It can be relied upon to be fairly accurate. Here's a link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

2. There is no geologic evidence for a flood of Biblical proportions in any geologic era. None whatsoever. There is evidence for coastal flooding in times of climate change, and of course for plate tectonics. There have been a variety of inland seas that have come and gone, and changing sea levels. But there is simply no way that a flood as described in the bible could have existed. Creationists like to trot out theories like aquifers emptying, or the polar caps melting, but there is no evidence that that has happened either. The reason that Babylonian and Assyrian tablets refer to floods and Arks is that those religions provided the stock material for Judeo-Christian mythology. Much of Judeo-Christian beliefs are actually ancient Babylonian and Assyrian and Persian in origin. I would not rule out a devastating flood of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in the pre-historic past, that provided the original seed that grew into the "worldwide flood" idea. Given the propensity for rivers to flood, it is not inconcievable that other cultures worldwide have experienced devastating floods that were later exaggerated and amplified, especially if it was one climatic event that triggered them. Perhaps an ancient comet impact that created a period of climate change that caused massive flooding more or less all over the world? Or perhaps some freak El Nino incident, or a massive forest fire that threw the climate out of whack.

The take-home message here is that there is no way, using the principles of objective logic and Occam's Razor, that the Bible could be literally accurate. The non-Biblical explanations are much simpler and by definition take much less on faith and belief than do creationist theories.

Thanks for your informative post. I've heard so much debate in the past on this issue, and I have remembered very little of the information from both sides of the argument so I feel pretty much clueless...as if I've got to start over again studying the issue. Anyhow, you have given me some food for thought. Could you give me some links?

[Kashyapa]

www.talkorigins.com is a fantastic site. They sort of let you come to the decision on your own, instead of bludgeoning you over the head. There was also a fantastic Scientific American article about it a few months back that I bet you could find if you emailed them and asked nicely.

Another option isn't too obvious. One day, a very nice old lady called the biology department I'm in, and asked to talk to someone who was knowledgeable about the creationsim vs. evolution issue. The professor she was referred to was leaving for a trip, but he shunted her to me- I'm a grad student. So I sat down with this very cool and witty and extraordinarily openminded old lady, who was a strong but quiet Christian and wanted to get to the bottom of it. Her minister joined us, and we talked for about two hours over coffee. It was a pleasant conversation, and both of them were quite openminded and accepting of a non-literal Bible interpretation. And we all hashed it out, and at the end the old lady walked away smiling, having integrated evolution and science into her faith seamlessly and painlessly. The point to this little anecdote is that academics aren't just locked away in their ivory towers, and the vast majority of biology professors (or students) would be more than happy- honored even- to take an hour or two to educate and inform someone out of the general public.

Hope your search for information is fruitful!

[Darwin]

www.religioustolerance.com
is quite a good,actually non-evo/creat. centered site with some good information (it promotes religious freedom,thus the name)

[Dub]

Originally posted by Ruby


And your proof there wasn't one?



The burden of proof is on the you, the person making the claim. Its not up to me, or anyone else, to prove a negative.


One thing is for sure, there are thousands of similar flood stories like the bible account all over the world. The closer you get to Asia Minor, the closer the stories resemble the bible account. Still, this could be legend and myth floating all over the world. There are extra-biblical accounts of the flood like what was found on some ancient babylonian tablets. These tablets talk about the Ark too.

Fallacy of argumentum ad populum (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pop.htm) . Many years ago, it seems likely that local floods would have been interpreted as 'being everywhere', i.e. encompassing their entire 'world', to peoples with limited means of transportation, whose maximum range is only a few hundred miles.


There have also been various explorers, scientists, and archeologists who have studied layers in the earth and concluded that in some point in history there was a world wide flood. [/color

Care to give any sources for this?

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dub


The burden of proof is on the you, the person making the claim. Its not up to me, or anyone else, to prove a negative.

[/b]

Well, I should have known I'd get that response!:rolleyes:

Part of Vagrant's opening post stated "I'm doing a small survey about creationists"...then his question about the flood 1. Was there a Flood? If there was, when?

My answer to that was "Yes. Unsure of time"

I did not know from Vagrant's post that I had to *prove* there had been a flood.

I am neither a paleontologist or an archeologist or a geologist. It has only come through reading some scientific studies coupled with the history in many nations that leads me to believe there was a worldwide flood.


Care to give any sources for this? [/B]:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html#kinglist
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-285.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-116a.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Ruby


1. How old is the Universe?

I think this seems plausible http://home.att.net/~rubypoetry/infin.jpg :p

2. How old is the Earth?

between 5000 and ten million yrs

3. How old is life?

Around 3000-5000 yrs

4. Was there a Flood? If there was, when?

Yes. Unsure of time.

5. Was there one Ice Age or more? When?

Not sure about that. Need to look into it.

*sigh*

I question your intellect. :rolleyes:

[Martin]

ICR? You must be joking...

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
I'm doing a small survey about creationists. If you believe that God created stuff, please give a short answer to the following questions.

1. How old is the Universe?

2. How old is the Earth?

3. How old is life?

4. Was there a Flood? If there was, when?

5. Was there one Ice Age or more? When?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Hey I like the Preacher pic!

1. Current knowledge probably limits answers on this one, estimates are inot the tens of billions I think. More than 5998 years old.

2. More than 7 days old, more than 5998 years. Estimates of age of solar system 4 to 6 billion years. (oldest rocks on earth are almost 4 Billion)

3. Define life. The 1st anerobic bacteria? The predecessors to organelles? proteins? DNA? Tough one. Where is the starting point where can you point with certainty and say, "There it is, evidence of the emergence of life."

4. The Mississipi floods, As do many river plains around the world, but I suspect you are asking about the Bible Flood.

Many places at different times could have been the origin of the story. Floods are common in history. They are devastating and have affected many lives.

I heard one wild theory (speculation, with no evidence) that the civilization wiped out may have been a people habitating where the Red Sea is now. Continental Drift created the rift and a barrier between the "Red" Rift/Valley and Indian Ocean Collapsed shortly after the last Ice Age (12,000 to 15,000 years ago, pre-history).

Perhaps it was like the Missoula floods. Similiar circumstances as Red Sea re: Ice Age thaw, but different continent. Apparently the largest floods evidenced in geological record.

http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/1001/missoula/

A similiar event may have happened in ancient India, with a glacial "wall" collapsing to release a destructive cascade. Texts written in Sanskrit have stories of a flood.



Eventually the water cut underneath the glacial wall and the dam of ice collapsed over an expanse of about 100 miles. The water rushed over the ice and onto the land with incredible force. An interesting read.

Floods are common and many cultures have stories about floods.

5. Likely many Ice Ages. Homo Sapien's history has been influnced by the Last ice age, but the geological evidence can not tell us much about any Ice ages before the last one. The last ice age "rubbed out" the evidence of previous ice ages. Add to that the consideration of the complexities of evaluating the many factors, some mentioned here:

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/why_4_cool_periods.html

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/why_glaciations1.html

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Yes, the Illinois State Museum (http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/).

ah there we go, good stuff, thanks Joshua, I needn't have had to post the link if I had read all the posts :)

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi



There were more - four, to be precise. They are:
Proterozoic - 800 to 600 million years ago
Ordovician/Silurian - 460 to 430 million years ago
Pennsylvanian/Permian - 350 to 250 million years ago
Neogene/Quaternary - within the last 3 to 4 million years or so (we're living in the tail end of it).

There was glacial advancing and retreating many times throughout these periods.



Not at all. :D

Once again you have done excellent "research" Joshua.

[evildave]

The universe was created by me, the Pan-Galooptic Moodlebreistnastikatorum!

You were created with all of your memories of "the past" along with dinosaur bones, light and signals already on its way between stars, and all that other stuff... as well as all of these zany notions and conflicts about a universe being more than a day old!

1. How old is the Universe?
A day.

2. How old is the Earth?
A day.

3. How old is life?
A day.

4. Was there a Flood? If there was, when?
Well, only the ones from today. I planted the other evidence.

5. Was there one Ice Age or more? When?
I planted the misleading evidence of Ice (and other) ages just to give some people something to do.

...

Of course, you'll dismiss this all as "nonsense", and rightly so. I designed you to do so.

Proof: Because this is not falsifiable, it can't possibly be false.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


*sigh*

I question your intellect. :rolleyes:

Well, I have not claimed to have a great intellect. There is much for me to learn in life. But isn't it better to be a gentle teacher to someone with a lesser intellect like me than to be sarcastic? :eek:

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Lots of flood stories, eh?

How many cultures worshipped the sun and moon?

:rolleyes:

Honestly, Ruby, I have no clue how someone could be so stupid and thoughtless.

It's not a "both sides" issue, when talking about creationism vs. evolution.

Rather, it's an "who-is-an-idiot-trying-to-rationalize-their-preconcieved-notions" issue.

You appear to fit the bill.

Thank you for your astute summation of my intelligence and character. I am a bit shocked you could be so hard and cruel. It is true that I have very little education in the Creationism vs. Evolution debate. I responded to questions...perhaps haphazardly....and certainly with little information in my noggin.

I will now leave this thread to those of higher intellect than mine. I really was trying to learn some things....seeing another view from the one I had been taught, but there's no point in staying where someone can verbally abuse me....call me stupid, thoughtless...and insinuate that I am idiot.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Ruby


Thank you for your astute summation of my intelligence and character. I am a bit shocked you could be so hard and cruel. It is true that I have very little education in the Creationism vs. Evolution debate. I responded to questions...perhaps haphazardly....and certainly with little information in my noggin.

I will now leave this thread to those of higher intellect than mine. I really was trying to learn some things....seeing another view from the one I had been taught, but there's no point in staying where someone can verbally abuse me....call me stupid, thoughtless...and insinuate that I am idiot.

Ruby, I think it is a commendable for you to come to a forum and attempt to broaden your horizon on topics you don't know much about. You certainly aren't stupid or thoughtless.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Lots of flood stories, eh?

How many cultures worshipped the sun and moon?

:rolleyes:

Honestly, Ruby, I have no clue how someone could be so stupid and thoughtless.

It's not a "both sides" issue, when talking about creationism vs. evolution.

Rather, it's an "who-is-an-idiot-trying-to-rationalize-their-preconcieved-notions" issue.

You appear to fit the bill.

Dark Cobra, got some issues?
Why are you attacking Ruby?
If you have a concern with her voluntary responses to a survey then either present evidence to the contrary, or (if you are too angry) consider not responding if you are going to be rude and insulting.


Please read Vagrant's origional post Dark Cobra.




I'm doing a small survey about creationists. If you believe that God created stuff, please give a short answer to the following questions.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Ruby


1. How old is the Universe?

I think this seems plausible http://home.att.net/~rubypoetry/infin.jpg :p

2. How old is the Earth?

between 5000 and ten million yrs

3. How old is life?

Around 3000-5000 yrs

4. Was there a Flood? If there was, when?

Yes. Unsure of time.

5. Was there one Ice Age or more? When?

Not sure about that. Need to look into it.

Thankyou for participating in a survey and being honest Ruby. The purpose most people come to this forum is to expose themselves to various views and not to look for individuals to insult.

I imagine you already realize there are many people that will debate honorably here, even when there is a difference of opinion or people interpret evidence differently or have different values.

I am impresssed that you are here to consider other views and you are participating in your own learning.

I can only speak for myself as I say, the purpose for me being here is to learn as well. I am working on considering other points of view.

[-=Vagrant=-]

This was meant to be a small insignificant survey, not a name-calling-thread. I'd never call someone, who I've never met, stupid. (Except AForce1)

Thank you for your answers Ruby.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Ruby, I think it is a commendable for you to come to a forum and attempt to broaden your horizon on topics you don't know much about. You certainly aren't stupid or thoughtless.



Thank you!:) I am glad to know there are some kind people on here!

[Gregor]

Well - Let me suggest that it's not a great idea to attempt to answer questions with flawed statements, then defend them by stating, "Well don't attack me. I don't have any knowledge to support what I just posted - it's just some platitudes I've heard at church and oh, here's a link to the bogus Institute for Creation Research."

Hint: place disclaimers of lack of any scientific knowledge at the start of you post, not several posts later when you've been called out.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


Thankyou for participating in a survey and being honest Ruby. The purpose most people come to this forum is to expose themselves to various views and not to look for individuals to insult.

I imagine you already realize there are many people that will debate honorably here, even when there is a difference of opinion or people interpret evidence differently or have different values.

I am impresssed that you are here to consider other views and you are participating in your own learning.

I can only speak for myself as I say, the purpose for me being here is to learn as well. I am working on considering other points of view.



I guess I don't take insult very well. I love to learn about other points of view...........and not always keen on sharing mine. I avoid debates if I can, but thought the survey would be harmless. I am so pleased to discover that there are some really cool people on these on these forums who have been nice to me considering I am something of a Christian....that dirty word! http://home.att.net/~jandk.pan/smiling.gif

[Ruby]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
This was meant to be a small insignificant survey, not a name-calling-thread. I'd never call someone, who I've never met, stupid. (Except AForce1)

Thank you for your answers Ruby.

Thank you!!!!http://home.att.net/~jandk.pan/smile12.gif

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Gregor
Well - Let me suggest that it's not a great idea to attempt to answer questions with flawed statements, then defend them by stating, "Well don't attack me. I don't have any knowledge to support what I just posted - it's just some platitudes I've heard at church and oh, here's a link to the bogus Institute for Creation Research."

Hint: place disclaimers of lack of any scientific knowledge at the start of you post, not several posts later when you've been called out.

Huh?:rolleyes: Are you suggesting that I have falsely accused Cobra of attacking me? Does having a discussion or debate have to include insult in your eyes? If he had not called me *stupid* *thoughtless* and *idiot*, I would not have been upset and would have continued to post to him.

Besides, this thread was a survey, not a debate. Go back and read the first post.

I NEVER EVER once mentioned anything about my information or knowledge on the flood coming from what "I've heard from church". I am way too much of a rebel and a skeptic to just sit like a robot in church believeing all I see and hear. I like to study and research things for myself.

My responses were "One thing is for sure, there are thousands of similar flood stories like the bible account all over the world. The closer you get to Asia Minor, the closer the stories resemble the bible account. Still, this could be legend and myth floating all over the world. There are extra-biblical accounts of the flood like what was found on some ancient babylonian tablets. These tablets talk about the Ark too. There have also been various explorers, scientists, and archeologists who have studied layers in the earth and concluded that in some point in history there was a world wide flood. "

and " I am neither a paleontologist or an archeologist or a geologist. It has only come through reading some scientific studies coupled with the history in many nations that leads me to believe there was a worldwide flood."

Calling any of the links I left "bogus" is just your opinion. If you want to teach me another view, you will have to show me how you feel these links are bogus.

Your hint is noted. In future, I will be sure to make it clear in my opening posts that I don't have proper knowledge of what I am posting about.

[Jethro]

http://www.talkorigins.org is one of the best resources for info about the origins of life on earth and the subsequent development of the life forms we see around us today.

While there are certainly people who expouse a pro-creationist view who deserve scorn, Ruby here does not appear to be one of those people.

[Kashyapa]

I'd have to say that there were some remarkably cruel things said to Ruby. Just because someone doesn't posess your remarkable levels of sheer knowledge doesn't mean they're open season for s**tty comments. Shame on you.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Jethro

... there are certainly people who expouse a pro-creationist view who deserve scorn...

Why?

Who determines this, you? Are you on a board of directors that determines who deserves scorn?

I refer you to:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17618

[Martin]

Of course some creationists deserve scorn. Scum like Hovind and Gish come to mind.

Ruby, pay no attention to DC. No one else does.

[Ruby]

Thank you all so much.!!:D :D

[Lord Kenneth]

How the HELL can you think the earth is 5000-10 million years old?!

[Jethro]

Originally posted by Martinm
Scum like Hovind and Gish come to mind.Exactly whom I had in mind when I said that.

[Kashyapa]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
How the HELL can you think the earth is 5000-10 million years old?!

How the hell do you get off talking to someone like that? No matter what a person may know or not know or know in error, YOU SIMPLY DON"T TALK TO SOMEONE LIKE THAT. You know why? It's not nice. Simple as that. You should have learned that in pre-school.

Everyone can hereby feel free to ignore everything this joker says.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Kashyapa


How the hell do you get off talking to someone like that? No matter what a person may know or not know or know in error, YOU SIMPLY DON"T TALK TO SOMEONE LIKE THAT. You know why? It's not nice. Simple as that. You should have learned that in pre-school.

Everyone can hereby feel free to ignore everything this joker says.

DC is just threatened by her femininity.

Ruby, I was going to post earlier in this thread but I just wanted to say that while I find some of your conclusions mind boggling, I'm glad you are sharing them with us and discussing the issue further. :)

[Gregor]

Kashaya

Dark Cobra is free to say anything he wants to that is consistent with the terms of this board. All of his posts have been. So take your pedantic, PC platitudes elsewhere.

[Lord Kenneth]

I"m sorry, but there is no excuse for thinking the world is 6,000 years old. The information is out there, and it is taught to anyone who goes to school.

Only the uneducated or stupid think that the world is 6,000 years old or so.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
I"m sorry, but there is no excuse for thinking the world is 6,000 years old. The information is out there, and it is taught to anyone who goes to school.

Only the uneducated or stupid think that the world is 6,000 years old or so.

So... Is the proper response to say, "You're a dumb@$$ for thinking that," or to question why they think that way and see if you can bring them around to what science has discovered?

I think the uproar is less with your point than with the 'tude you presented it with.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Gregor
Kashaya

Dark Cobra is free to say anything he wants to that is consistent with the terms of this board. All of his posts have been. So take your pedantic, PC platitudes elsewhere.

You're $h!tt!ng me right?

Critiquing the style by which someone disagrees with someone who's a newbie minority on a board is PC?

I had no idea that JREF has a PC policy.

:rolleyes:

This is an educational forum. We can educate a lot better by saying, "I disagree with you, here's why, and can you accept that," than by just calling people morons and stupid.

[Kashyapa]

Originally posted by Gregor
Kashaya

Dark Cobra is free to say anything he wants to that is consistent with the terms of this board. All of his posts have been. So take your pedantic, PC platitudes elsewhere.

This isn't an issue of PC. This is an issue of being a normally-functioning social person. This is an issue of civility and general baseline standards of behavior- yeah, you and DC haven't broken any rules, but that still doesn't mean I should accept your adolescent behavior. Yes, some of Ruby's original assumptions are mind boggling- so what? I don't look at her posts and say, "what a #$@!% moron, she doesn't have the right to live", I think, hmm, there's someone with some bad information. Better help her out. She's never been anything but pleasant and open, and she's been receptive to the information she's been given. I notice that you never volunteered any information to her to help enlighten her- nooo, you just bashed her and ran. If you're so boggled at her "ignorance", why don't you try to do something to help her out?

Again, Gregor and DC, your attitudes are poison. I hope (for the sake of the people around you) that you don't feel free to behave this way in your real lives, and that you just hide behind the computer screen to be ********. Congradulations, bet you feel all strong and grown-up, now, eh?

Can't believe I've wasted this much time on you. I could continue with speculations as to your age and progress in maturation, but I won't. You're irrelevant. Have the good grace to realize it and slink away.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
How the HELL can you think the earth is 5000-10 million years old?!

I did have you on ignore, but saw your question in someone's post after yours. I will answer, although you will doubtless think I am a moron again.

The reason I put between 5000 and 10 million is because I have not yet studied enough data and info to make a conclusion. Most creationists say the world is around 5000-6000yrs in age. I think evolutionists believe the earth to be billions of years old. When I responded to the survey, I thought it was around 10 million instead of billion. Since I have not reached a descision on the age of the earth, I used both the creationist theory and evolution theory. What I should have put...instead of "between 5000 and 10 million years"...was 5000 OR 10 million years, and stated how I am unsure which one is accurate.

I happen to know several people who believe the earth is only around 5000-6000yrs, and I can assure you, they are not morons.

You need to learn to be open to other people's points of view and beliefs, even if you are certain they are wrong. I feel that you must be young and perhaps not in control of your emotions. I am not saying that to be mean. Forgive me if I am wrong about it.

I used to run a forum...it's on hiatus for now. It was a Christian forum open to people of all beliefs under the sun. If someone posted saying they believed in reincarnation or that John Edwards was really contacting the dead or that there was no God, I could not and would not insult them in any way. I questioned them.....and tried to understand where they were coming from and got in many civil debates..........well, some got heated, but there were not flame wars. Actually, I had more heated debates with Christians themselves. I have too many liberal views for a lot of Christians.

A lot of people of all kinds of personalities and beliefs can be so cool and make the best friends. I have friends who are highly college educated...one a PHD.....one can speak many languages.....another knows history like the back of his hand. I have other friends who can barely spell or form proper sentences. They would make much less sense to you than I do. :p

Anyhow, I know it must be hard to be very intelligent and to feel you are right about something, but don't use it as a weapon to alienate yourself from others. You won't go far in this world like that. My hubby is a brain..he's an engineer with all sorts of other talents. He has learned how to make friends with all sorts too. Even those who look at him with glazed eyes not grasping the things he is saying......sometimes I am one of those:D

My dear hubby even befriended a man who was a *forrest Gump* type. He became his friend and eventually helped him to read better. He never called him a moron.

I know I am rambling on here. I am sorry if you are unhappy in life in any way. Sometimes our frustrations come out on these type of message boards where we are essentially talking to strangers who we can't see. I bear you no malice. I was angry when I first read your insulting posts, but I am not angry now. I chill and forgive pretty quick. Just behave yourself now, ok?

I am interested in your view point on the age of this earth, but as my knowledge is very limited in this area, I can't really debate. I can only *listen* and learn.....and then agree or disagree.;)

http://home.att.net/~jandk.pan/dancfrog.gif

[Ruby]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


DC is just threatened by her femininity.

Ruby, I was going to post earlier in this thread but I just wanted to say that while I find some of your conclusions mind boggling, I'm glad you are sharing them with us and discussing the issue further. :)

:D I am also inclined to find some of my conclusions mind boggling!!!!!

http://home.att.net/~jandk.pan/Jumpzany.gif

[Denise]

Ruby, I am a little late to the thread here, but I want you to know that I think it's horrid when someone calls people names because the disagree with them. I think you should really take some time over at the talk origins website and really look at all the data they have available so that you can gain more knowledge on this issue if it's important to you. If it's not an issue of importance to you, I understand that as well. I like to read the Science forum, but when people start talking about quantum mechanics etc. you can hear the gigantic whooshing sound as it all passes over my head.

Wanting to learn about things is a noble endeavor and for people to discourage thirst for knowledge by personally attacking someone is irrational and unbecoming the JREF mission. This is my opinion as Denise the poster, and not Denise the moderator in case there is any confusion.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Denise
Ruby, I am a little late to the thread here, but I want you to know that I think it's horrid when someone calls people names because the disagree with them. I think you should really take some time over at the talk origins website and really look at all the data they have available so that you can gain more knowledge on this issue if it's important to you. If it's not an issue of importance to you, I understand that as well. I like to read the Science forum, but when people start talking about quantum mechanics etc. you can hear the gigantic whooshing sound as it all passes over my head.

Wanting to learn about things is a noble endeavor and for people to discourage thirst for knowledge by personally attacking someone is irrational and unbecoming the JREF mission. This is my opinion as Denise the poster, and not Denise the moderator in case there is any confusion.

Thank you!!!!:D

[Brian the Snail]

To Ruby, regarding the age of the earth:

The first thing you should realise about this issue is that in the scientific community it is pretty much universally accepted that the earth is billions of years old, based on the evidence available. So the "debate" you mention in some of your posts isn't really a debate between experts in a particular field, as normally happens in science.

Instead, what has happened, especially in the U.S., is that some people have decided that an old earth is incompatible with their religious views, so have decided to attack the scientific concensus. In other words, they start from the view that Bible is inerrant and that the creation account in book of Genesis should be read as being literally true. Since this kind of reading of the bible would imply a relatively young earth (less than about 10 000 years) then this would mean modern estimates of the age of the Earth would be false.

Note that this argument relies on a particularly view of the bible (one which is not the majority view even amongst Christians, BTW), not on the evidence from scientific studies. Unfortunately, many "Young Earth Creationists" have tried to put a scientific spin on their religious views (in order, amongst other things, to get their ideas taught in schools). Some of their "scientific" arguments can sound quite plausable, and have convinced many people, so I certainly don't think you're stupid for perhaps being taken in by some of them :) But you should know that their arguments have failed to convince the mass majority of scientists, especially in the relevant fields (mostly geology and astronomy).

Anyway, all of this is besides the point, and is my own personal take on the subject FWIW. The important thing is that if you're interested in the topic, that you look at the evidence as carefully and objectively as you can, and make up your own mind. The links others have posted will be useful as starting points. The link I've posted below also discusses perhaps the best way of dating the age of Earth, through radiometric dating of rocks. I'm afraid it can be pretty heavy reading at times, but I think it's worth slogging through it. And I'm sure if you have any questions at least some people who hang around these boards will be able to answer them.

Good luck! :)

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

[Renfield]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Uhh, I'd say the number of species, extinct and extant, is extremely solid evidence of trans-species evolution. Or how else would you explain that new species have been appearing for as long as life has existed on Earth? Is God still going around: "Mmmm, this place could need some camels --- Zap!"?

Hans

I think the creationists argue that the "great flood" somehow sorted out all the bones into the arrangement we find them now. How they think this works I have no idea. Correct me if I am wrong anyone.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Renfield
How they think this works I have no ideaNor do they, actually.

[Gregor]

I've never said a disrespectful word on this thread to anyone, especially Ruby. I've never said a disrespectful word to anyone on this entire site (save Stamenflicker).

So, Mr. Kashyapa, while you can jump to any conclusions you like, I suggest that you remove your head from your exhaust port in the future. Also, realize that people are free in this world (and site) to disagree with each other in whatever form they chose, so long as it doesn't violate the law (or forum rules).

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Gregor
I've never said a disrespectful word on this thread to anyone...

...I suggest that you remove your head from your exhaust port in the future.
Oops. There goes your perfect record. :D

[Gregor]

It was as respectfully disrespectful as possible.

[Kashyapa]

Sure. But people aren't going to respect your opinions if you're a dick about expressing them. That should be obvious to anyone over the age of, say, 10, but I guess not. And there are ways that civilized people disagree and act, and neither you or DC are adhering to those. I reserve the right to call people on behavior that would put a 10-year-old to shame, lawful or not. PC doesn't even come into it.

This is pointless. Let's get back on topic, and act like the adults that most of us are. I'm astonished that this even became an issue.

[Gregor]

Let me see . . . You’re attacking me and DC for using inappropriate language. Your attack on me is false, and your conduct is unmeritorious. Let’s review the tape of your comments on this thread.

“s**tty comments. Shame on you.”

“How the hell do you get off talking”

“You should have learned that in pre-school.”

“ignore everything this joker says”

“I should accept your adolescent behavior.”

“you just bashed her and ran”

“to be ********.”

“You're irrelevant. Have the good grace to realize it and slink away”

Now, what was that point about civilized behavior?

You’re a liar (I’ve never said anything inappropriate to Ruby), a
hypocrite (see above), and obviously very insecure. Why don’t you practice a little of what you preach about the treatment of people?

[Kashyapa]

This is getting tiring. I reserve the right to blast someone for their behavior. I blasted DC, you stepped in as his apologist, and I included you. Ruby deserved nothing of what she got- and you're damn right I'm going to step in with some harsh words for whoever thinks that's an acceptable thing to do.

I apologize for my aggressive comments to you, as you really weren't the source of the problem in the first place. I'll grant you that, although I still think DC's behavior is indefensible, and I retract nothing of what I said to him. I'm sorry, I was out of line. Now. We're off topic, and we need to move on and start actually discussing something.
Originally posted by Gregor
Let me see . . . You’re attacking me and DC for using inappropriate language. Your attack on me is false, and your conduct is unmeritorious. Let’s review the tape of your comments on this thread.

“s**tty comments. Shame on you.”

“How the hell do you get off talking”

“You should have learned that in pre-school.”

“ignore everything this joker says”

“I should accept your adolescent behavior.”

“you just bashed her and ran”

“to be ********.”

“You're irrelevant. Have the good grace to realize it and slink away”

Now, what was that point about civilized behavior?

You’re a liar (I’ve never said anything inappropriate to Ruby), a
hypocrite (see above), and obviously very insecure. Why don’t you practice a little of what you preach about the treatment of people?

[Gregor]

thanks -
now, I might question Ruby's constant attachments of full motion pictures - but that's another thread

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Ruby

I did have you on ignore, but saw your question in someone's post after yours. I will answer, although you will doubtless think I am a moron again.

The reason I put between 5000 and 10 million is because I have not yet studied enough data and info to make a conclusion. Most creationists say the world is around 5000-6000yrs in age. I think evolutionists believe the earth to be billions of years old. When I responded to the survey, I thought it was around 10 million instead of billion. Since I have not reached a descision on the age of the earth, I used both the creationist theory and evolution theory. What I should have put...instead of "between 5000 and 10 million years"...was 5000 OR 10 million years, and stated how I am unsure which one is accurate.


For one thing, the age of the earth has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Creationists, who are unscienfitic and generally stupid, try to lump it in with evolution mistakenly because it goes against their Christian dogma.

Creationism has no merit! How can you believe in something silly like that?



I happen to know several people who believe the earth is only around 5000-6000yrs, and I can assure you, they are not morons.

Then why such a moronic conclusion?



You need to learn to be open to other people's points of view and beliefs, even if you are certain they are wrong. I feel that you must be young and perhaps not in control of your emotions. I am not saying that to be mean. Forgive me if I am wrong about it.

I won't kill you for them but I won't like you either.



I used to run a forum...it's on hiatus for now. It was a Christian forum open to people of all beliefs under the sun. If someone posted saying they believed in reincarnation or that John Edwards was really contacting the dead or that there was no God, I could not and would not insult them in any way. I questioned them.....and tried to understand where they were coming from and got in many civil debates..........well, some got heated, but there were not flame wars. Actually, I had more heated debates with Christians themselves. I have too many liberal views for a lot of Christians.

Christianity is bogus.



A lot of people of all kinds of personalities and beliefs can be so cool and make the best friends. I have friends who are highly college educated...one a PHD.....one can speak many languages.....another knows history like the back of his hand. I have other friends who can barely spell or form proper sentences. They would make much less sense to you than I do. :p

Anyhow, I know it must be hard to be very intelligent and to feel you are right about something, but don't use it as a weapon to alienate yourself from others. You won't go far in this world like that. My hubby is a brain..he's an engineer with all sorts of other talents. He has learned how to make friends with all sorts too. Even those who look at him with glazed eyes not grasping the things he is saying......sometimes I am one of those:D

Go out and buy a science book... if you didn't learn about this stuff in school like you should have, I apologize.

No credible, intelligent person thinks the world is 6000 years old with today's data.



My dear hubby even befriended a man who was a *forrest Gump* type. He became his friend and eventually helped him to read better. He never called him a moron.

I know I am rambling on here. I am sorry if you are unhappy in life in any way. Sometimes our frustrations come out on these type of message boards where we are essentially talking to strangers who we can't see. I bear you no malice. I was angry when I first read your insulting posts, but I am not angry now. I chill and forgive pretty quick. Just behave yourself now, ok?

I am interested in your view point on the age of this earth, but as my knowledge is very limited in this area, I can't really debate. I can only *listen* and learn.....and then agree or disagree.;)



If your knowledge is limited, then educate yourself, buy a book from a credible source, not from a creationist.

Read peer-reviewed journals, papers, etc if you must.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Ruby
You need to learn to be open to other people's points of view and beliefs, even if you are certain they are wrong.

?!

What the hell does that mean?

[Ruby]

Originally posted by scribble


?!

What the hell does that mean?

Well, for instance, I think the evolution theory is probably wrong, but I am open to learning about it and seeing if there is merit to it.

[Martin]

What would it take to convince you?

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
To Ruby, regarding the age of the earth:

The first thing you should realise about this issue is that in the scientific community it is pretty much universally accepted that the earth is billions of years old, based on the evidence available. So the "debate" you mention in some of your posts isn't really a debate between experts in a particular field, as normally happens in science.

Instead, what has happened, especially in the U.S., is that some people have decided that an old earth is incompatible with their religious views, so have decided to attack the scientific concensus. In other words, they start from the view that Bible is inerrant and that the creation account in book of Genesis should be read as being literally true. Since this kind of reading of the bible would imply a relatively young earth (less than about 10 000 years) then this would mean modern estimates of the age of the Earth would be false.

Note that this argument relies on a particularly view of the bible (one which is not the majority view even amongst Christians, BTW), not on the evidence from scientific studies. Unfortunately, many "Young Earth Creationists" have tried to put a scientific spin on their religious views (in order, amongst other things, to get their ideas taught in schools). Some of their "scientific" arguments can sound quite plausable, and have convinced many people, so I certainly don't think you're stupid for perhaps being taken in by some of them :) But you should know that their arguments have failed to convince the mass majority of scientists, especially in the relevant fields (mostly geology and astronomy).

Anyway, all of this is besides the point, and is my own personal take on the subject FWIW. The important thing is that if you're interested in the topic, that you look at the evidence as carefully and objectively as you can, and make up your own mind. The links others have posted will be useful as starting points. The link I've posted below also discusses perhaps the best way of dating the age of Earth, through radiometric dating of rocks. I'm afraid it can be pretty heavy reading at times, but I think it's worth slogging through it. And I'm sure if you have any questions at least some people who hang around these boards will be able to answer them.

Good luck! :)

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Thanks for the link and the info.

[Socrates]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
1. How old is the Universe?


I can't say for sure. Can you?

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
2. How old is the Earth?


I can't say for sure. Can you?

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
3. How old is life?


I can't say for sure. Can you?

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
4. Was there a Flood? If there was, when?


Absolutely! We had flash floods here in Maryland just last week.

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
5. Was there one Ice Age or more? When?


You didn't define Ice Age, but I'll assume your aren't referring to the winters I spent in Germany. I will assume that you are referring to cyclical periods of glacial growth.

That being said, there is a good chance that there have been Ice Ages, but I'm not interested in counting them. As for when? I just don't know. I wasn't there.

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
Thank you for your cooperation.

You are very welcome my friend!

Love,
Socrates

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Gregor
thanks -
now, I might question Ruby's constant attachments of full motion pictures - but that's another thread

I love cute animations. I like to use them to express my mood or make a point or just for fun!

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


For one thing, the age of the earth has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Creationists, who are unscienfitic and generally stupid, try to lump it in with evolution mistakenly because it goes against their Christian dogma.
Creationism has no merit! How can you believe in something silly like that?
Then why such a moronic conclusion?
I won't kill you for them but I won't like you either. Christianity is bogus.
Go out and buy a science book... if you didn't learn about this stuff in school like you should have, I apologize.

No credible, intelligent person thinks the world is 6000 years old with today's data.
If your knowledge is limited, then educate yourself, buy a book from a credible source, not from a creationist.

Read peer-reviewed journals, papers, etc if you must.

You are so angry! It's ok....it really is ok! Calm down, relax. I will do my best to look at material such as you describe. :cool:

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Martinm
What would it take to convince you?

Apparently, it will take lots of study. I shall have to make time!:p

[c4ts]

DC is still arguing from popularity. Bad Cobra, you're making the smart people look like the Creationists!

[Martin]

If there's anything in particular about evolution you object to, I'd be happy to help out. Debating this issue is a hobby of mine.

[c4ts]

I can't think of anything right now, but I do remember a Chick Tract that actually made a few good points...

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

I don't know what particular theory it is refuting, or if it is even current, but the refutations appear valid in some places. Except for the part about petrified trees turning up through different depths because they're so tall. I don't see how that refutes anything.

[Martin]

:D

Yeah, I've seen that one before. Kent Hovind had a hand in it. It raises an interesting point though - if Jesus holds atoms together, does that make nuclear power the tool of the Devil?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by c4ts
I can't think of anything right now, but I do remember a Chick Tract that actually made a few good points...

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

I don't know what particular theory it is refuting, or if it is even current, but the refutations appear valid in some places. Except for the part about petrified trees turning up through different depths because they're so tall. I don't see how that refutes anything.

Ugh, Big Daddy is one of the worst chick tracts ever.

Here's a talk.origins critique that addresses both the straw men and bad creationist arguments.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy.html

You might also check out this Feedback (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/mar01.html). It's the first one so you won't have to scroll for it.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


Ugh, Big Daddy is one of the worst chick tracts ever.

Here's a talk.origins critique that addresses both the straw men and bad creationist arguments.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy.html

It may be bad, but it's no LAST GENERATION!

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0094/0094_01.asp

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Socrates


I can't say for sure. Can you?



I can't say for sure. Can you?



I can't say for sure. Can you?



Absolutely! We had flash floods here in Maryland just last week.



You didn't define Ice Age, but I'll assume your aren't referring to the winters I spent in Germany. I will assume that you are referring to cyclical periods of glacial growth.

That being said, there is a good chance that there have been Ice Ages, but I'm not interested in counting them. As for when? I just don't know. I wasn't there.



You are very welcome my friend!

Love,
Socrates

OOoooo! You are a good subjectivist. ;)

[Martin]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Ugh, Big Daddy is one of the worst chick tracts everAlso one of the funniest.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by c4ts


It may be bad, but it's no LAST GENERATION!

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0094/0094_01.asp

You're right, but comparing the relative awfulness of Chick Tracts is like comparing which diseases cause the most suffering.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


You're right, but comparing the relative awfulness of Chick Tracts is like comparing which diseases cause the most suffering.

After a while you get over the hate speech and laugh at the stupidity of it all. Or is it laugter of a madman?

[Martin]

Of course, if it wasn't for Chick, we wouldn't get Chick parodies (http://www.weirdcrap.com/chick/).

[c4ts]

We also wouldn't have my Franko comics (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12592) either, but we're getting off topic now. Back to the subject of Creationism, I think that it is opposition to science based on a misunderstanding of scientific thought in general.

[fishbob]

Back to the subject of Creationism, I think that it is opposition to science based on a misunderstanding of scientific thought in general. I think that those people that take the time to learn scientific principles generally quit believing in Creationism - automatic culling of the educated from the Creationist population. Which leaves the Creationists with more and more people that refuse to learn, people that are incapable of learning, and people that are afraid to learn.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by fishbob
I think that those people that take the time to learn scientific principles generally quit believing in Creationism - automatic culling of the educated from the Creationist population. Which leaves the Creationists with more and more people that refuse to learn, people that are incapable of learning, and people that are afraid to learn.

Survival of the least fit.

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO RUBY

The truth is that the bible is a fairy tale from the old Mesopotamia, like all other mythologies about Zeus, Hercules, Ra, Baal, etc from the area around the ancient Mediterranean! Creation Science is oxymoron, because "god did it" is not the way science work, since a scientific idea has an intrinsic potential to be proven wrong when tested. In example, evolution is a flawed theory if say; mutation is a hoax, but how can the "God did it" hypothesis be proven wrong? It cannot be proven wrong, therefore it is not science; the young earth hypothesis is proven wrong by modern science, and the so-called "creation science" has not done any scientific research either according to Court Verdicts in USA! Dr. Wickramasinghe was the creationists witness in the trial, why did they need him if they hade their own science? ;)

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education Decision, Court Judge William R. Overton!
The Court is at a loss to understand why Dr. Wickramasinghe was called in behalf of the defendants. Perhaps it was because he was generally critical of the theory of evolution and the scientific community, a tactic consistent with the strategy of the defense. Unfortunately for the defense, he demonstrated that the simplistic approach of the two model analysis of the origins of life is false. Furthermore, he corroborated the plaintiffs' witnesses by concluding that ``no rational scientist'' would believe the earth's geology could be explained by reference to a worldwide flood or that the earth was less than one million years old. The proof in support of creation science consisted almost entirely of efforts to discredit the theory of evolution through a rehash of data and theories which have been before the scientific community for decades. The arguments asserted by the creationists are not based upon new scientific evidence or laboratory data which has been ignored by the scientific community.

(6,000 to 20,000). Such a reasoning process is not the product of natural law; not explainable by natural law; nor is it tentative. Creation science as defined in Section 4(a), not only fails to follow the canons of dealing with scientific theory, it also fails to fit the more general descriptions of ``what scientists think'' and ``what scientists do.'' The scientific community consists of individuals and groups, nationally and internationally, who work independently in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy. Their work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science theory described in Section 4(a). Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was ``close-minded'' on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought.

The Creation Research Society employs the same unscientific approach to the issue of creationism. Its applicants for membership must subscribe to the belief that the Book of Genesis is ``historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs'' (28). The Court would never criticize or discredit any person's testimony based on his or her religious beliefs. While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.

23. The idea that belief in a creator and acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution are mutually exclusive is a false premise and offensive to the religious views of many. (Hicks) Dr. Francisco Ayala, a geneticist of considerable renown and a former Catholic priest who has the equivalent of a Ph.D. in theology, pointed out that many working scientists who subscribe to the theory of evolution are devoutly religious.
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/McLean_vs_Arkansas.html

Supreme Court of United States
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/edwards_v_aguillard.html

Soderqvist1: Various religious creation stories exists around our world, they all cannot be right, since they contradicts each other, but it is quite possible that they are all wrong! :D

[Dub]

Originally posted by Ruby


Well, for instance, I think the evolution theory is probably wrong, but I am open to learning about it and seeing if there is merit to it.

You havent studied it yet you think it's wrong. What do you base your opinion on?

Genetic Variation = Fact
Survival Pressures = Fact

Which part do you disagree with and why?

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


You're right, but comparing the relative awfulness of Chick Tracts is like comparing which diseases cause the most suffering.

Yeah, would you rather get peruvian hemoragic fever, or would you prefer ebola?

Speeking of Chick and diseases, I find it a-musing that Chick has absolutly no idea how AIDS works.

Franko! the comic is the best thing ever to happen to logical deism and chick tracts.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0054/0054_01.asp

This, by the way, is Chick at his absolute worst.

Anyway, back on topic.

Yes creationism lies, distorts and invents. It's very frustrating to debate because new arguements, all without substance, are brought up You have to debunk each one, and that can take a while.

Incedentaly, for anyone who debates creationism, either casualy or as an extension of profession, my hats off to you.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


You're right, but comparing the relative awfulness of Chick Tracts is like comparing which diseases cause the most suffering.

Yep! That's why I think all chick tracts should be burned!:mad:

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
[B] TO RUBY

The truth is that the bible is a fairy tale from the old Mesopotamia, like all other mythologies about Zeus, Hercules, Ra, Baal, etc from the area around the ancient Mediterranean!

This is not a truth....it is just your opinion. While I do believe that the current bible in all it's translations has some errors or distortions, I don't believe the original Hebrew and Greek texts were myths.

However, just because the bible gives an account for creation does not mean I buy it hook, line, and sinker.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Ruby


Yep! That's why I think all chick tracts should be burned!:mad:

Now do you really think it would be moral to subject the world to the fumes and vapours coming off of that?

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dub


You havent studied it yet you think it's wrong. What do you base your opinion on?



While I have not studied evolution in full detail, I have looked over some of it several years back, and was taught some of it as a child. It's been quite a long time since I delved into this sort of science.....and science has always been my weakest subject....Plus, I have a terrible memory for the facts I did learn.

When I became a Christian, I grappled with the lack of logic in the bible account of creation. I wanted to know where *ape-men* fitted into the bible, and I wanted to know how scientists had reached their conclusions on the big bang theory.

I was given several books to read by my pastor. Yes, they were all books by creationists. There's no way my pastor at that time would have given me a book on evolution. I was in a very legalistic church anyway.

The books gave me good answers. I dismissed all of the evolution theories that had boggled my mind.

The thing is, now I question the concept that the earth is 10,000 yrs or less old. I know there had to have been a Creator.....that will not change, but I ponder "what if this earth is millions of years old".

Which part do you disagree with and why?

I disagree with a big bang theory as I stated above. I cannot make sense of a world...universe.... just coming into existence without a Creator. Now, I might come to the belief that the Creator was the one who caused a *big bang*................but not sure how I feel about that for now.

I don't believe men evolved from apes. I don't believe any creature went through phases of evolution. I believe that whatever ape-man bones that were dug up were either planted or are actual bones of apes or gorillas. There are no genuine fossils found of any creature in some sort of transitional stage.

That's all I can think of for now. I need to go and do some much needed sewing for my little girls Easter dress.:D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon


Now do you really think it would be moral to subject the world to the fumes and vapours coming off of that?

:D :p :D

[Dub]

Originally posted by Ruby

I disagree with a big bang theory as I stated above. I cannot make sense of a world...universe.... just coming into existence without a Creator. Now, I might come to the belief that the Creator was the one who caused a *big bang*................but not sure how I feel about that for now.

The bing-bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. Remeber, just because you cant make sense of the existence of the universe doesnt mean it cant be made sense of. Making up an answer, or believing in one that someone else has made up just because it appears to give you an answer is silly. There's nothing wrong with not knowing. Chossing to believe in something just because it offers an answer is silly. Also, the 'Creator' answer, while appearing to provide an answer just misdirects the question. Saying "there was a creator" is not actually answering the question. You now have two further, unaswerable questions: 1) Who made the creator, and 2) Why did the creator make the universe. Of course, people reply "God has always been" or similar. If you can except this, why are scientific theories which propose an infinite universe unacceptable?



I don't believe men evolved from apes. I don't believe any creature went through phases of evolution.


Please tell me you are joking!! Its no a case of having to believe man evolved from apes, it is fact. Ignoring it and thinking otherwise is delusional.


I believe that whatever ape-man bones that were dug up were either planted or are actual bones of apes or gorillas.


Planted by who? you are right in one respect; the bones dug up were ape bones (gorillas are apes too btw). Humans are apes (the third species of chimp). So of course they will be ape bones.


There are no genuine fossils found of any creature in some sort of transitional stage.


Correction, we have not yet found any transitional fossils. This however, may be for a reason - punctuated equilibrium. Species will remain relatively unchaged for long periods of time - any changes are due to genetic drift. When periods of massive instability occur (climate change, natural disaster, etc) the evolutionary pressures become massive, inducing rapid periods of evolution. If a new species appears within say, 100,000 years, any of the transitional forms are extremely unlikely to become fossilised. 100,000 years is a mere blink of the eye in geological terms. I think people often greatly underestimate how rare fossilisation is. Some people it seems expect almost every animal that ever lived to be there waiting in the strata.

[Dub]

Originally posted by Ruby


The thing is, now I question the concept that the earth is 10,000 yrs or less old. I know there had to have been a Creator.....that will not change, but I ponder "what if this earth is millions of years old".


In no way does there 'have' to be a creator. That is biblical properganda. Dont bother pondering about the Earth being "millions of years old". You will want to start pondering "what if it is billions of years old", then you'll be on the right track.

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by Dub
The bing-bang theory

Sorry...just have to say that this is one of the funniest typos I've ever seen :D

Now why couldn't Fred Hoyle have called it the 'Bing-Bang' theory. It would have been way cooler...

[Martin]

Originally posted by Ruby
The books gave me good answers. I dismissed all of the evolution theories that had boggled my mindThey're good at that. The creationist movement has been playing this game long enough to know how to pass off their work as good science. Do you remember any of the most convincing arguments?The thing is, now I question the concept that the earth is 10,000 yrs or less oldGood. When multiple independent dating methods yield consistent results, it's hard to doubt them. For the Earth to be less than billions of years old would require a cosmic conspiracy of massive proportions.Now, I might come to the belief that the Creator was the one who caused a *big bang*There's nothing in Science to say that it didn't happen that way. I don't think anyone here would find that position in any way objectionable.................but not sure how I feel about that for nowDon't worry - we'll get there ;)I don't believe men evolved from apes. I don't believe any creature went through phases of evolution. I believe that whatever ape-man bones that were dug up were either planted or are actual bones of apes or gorillashttp://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

These are all either wholly human or wholly ape, according to creationists. Interestingly enough, despite the fact that they insist there is a fundamental difference, they disagree on which is which...There are no genuine fossils found of any creature in some sort of transitional stageThe definition of species is this -

Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are
reproductively isolated from other such groups.

Now, there's a place in Siberia where you will find two separate species of greenish warblers. The differences between these two species are in colour patterns and song. They are genetically distinct. That they are different species follows from the fact that they do not interbreed. Just to the South of this place is the Tibetan Plateau and the Taklamakan and Gobi Deserts. The warblers cannot live there, but the region is encircled by mountains where they do live.

Starting from the point on that circle where the two species co-exist, we move round a little. Here we find only one of those two species. Move a little further, and we find members of that same species, but these ones are subtly different from the originals. Further still, and we find the same species, but changed slightly more. Follow this round the circle and you will see one species gradually change into the other. At any point on the circle, the warblers are only slightly different to their neighbours. But those differences mount up until they are so great that we have two separate species. Of course, since they do not interbreed, these species can only become more distinct with time.

So - there are your transitional forms, living alongside the two species between which they fall.

In any case, it simply isn't true that there are no transitional fossils. There are countless examples - Archaeopteryx being the classic example.

[Gregor]

There are dozens of 'transitional' fossils. Every fossil is, to an extent, a 'transitional' fossil - meaning that it shares characteristics of phylogenic ancestors.

To the extent you want to trace speciation through fossils, there are plenty of examples in:

> hominid fossils showing more erect posture, larger braincase, bigger bodies.

> horse fossils from hyacotherium (f/k/a eohippus) all the way to modern horses showing loss of toes and enlargement of structures

> whales from semi-aquatic forms through fully aquatic forms

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Martinm
In any case, it simply isn't true that there are no transitional fossils. There are countless examples - Archaeopteryx being the classic example.
Not to mention whales with legs. (http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.4.html) (Yes, whales evolved from land mammals).http://www.stephenjaygould.org/images/figure2.gif

[Dub]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


Sorry...just have to say that this is one of the funniest typos I've ever seen :D

Now why couldn't Fred Hoyle have called it the 'Bing-Bang' theory. It would have been way cooler...

Hahaha! Didnt notice that one! :D Sounds better tbh :)

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ruby




While I have not studied evolution in full detail, I have looked over some of it several years back, and was taught some of it as a child. It's been quite a long time since I delved into this sort of science.....and science has always been my weakest subject....Plus, I have a terrible memory for the facts I did learn.

When I became a Christian, I grappled with the lack of logic in the bible account of creation. I wanted to know where *ape-men* fitted into the bible, and I wanted to know how scientists had reached their conclusions on the big bang theory.

I was given several books to read by my pastor. Yes, they were all books by creationists. There's no way my pastor at that time would have given me a book on evolution. I was in a very legalistic church anyway.

The books gave me good answers. I dismissed all of the evolution theories that had boggled my mind.

The thing is, now I question the concept that the earth is 10,000 yrs or less old. I know there had to have been a Creator.....that will not change, but I ponder "what if this earth is millions of years old".



I disagree with a big bang theory as I stated above. I cannot make sense of a world...universe.... just coming into existence without a Creator. Now, I might come to the belief that the Creator was the one who caused a *big bang*................but not sure how I feel about that for now.

I don't believe men evolved from apes. I don't believe any creature went through phases of evolution. I believe that whatever ape-man bones that were dug up were either planted or are actual bones of apes or gorillas. There are no genuine fossils found of any creature in some sort of transitional stage.

That's all I can think of for now. I need to go and do some much needed sewing for my little girls Easter dress.:D

OK, allow me to explain. There are basically two kinds of scientific progress- there is the slow, methodical progress of experimentation, and then there is the progress of scientific theory. Theory is pretty much the basis of science as a whole. In the case of experiments, a theory is assembled based on someone else's work, and that theory is tested through experiments. Either it is refuted by the experimental data, and a new theory based on the results is provided, or any new observations about the data will be worked into the theory itself, as it is confirmed for further testing. Either way, there is progress, and no absolute truth is ever reached. Now, the other kind of progression, of pure theory, is a slightly different approach. This is the sort of theory that, while untestible, can still be confirmed or refuted by evidence. For example, the natural philosopher Gaelen had devised a theory on the workings of the motions of the bloodstream and organs in a live animal, where the heart took in air and cooked blood, and that blood served to carry psychic pneuma from the brain, only to be refuted by Harvey in the 1500's, who actually vivisected animals. Darwin's theory comes from this sort of progression, where a series of observations are made, previous scientific theory is taken into account, and a new conclusion is reached. It is no closer to an absolute truth than a theory founded in experiments and results. As you can see, scientific theory is a rational progression of thought. If previous theory is to be believed on the basis of faith, then scientific progress becomes impossible. This is bad news for Creationists everywhere, becuase each time a single flaw in the theory of evolution is found, an improved version will arise. Creationism's theory, that God made the world according to the King James Version of the bible, is not a valid scientific theory. The only supporting evidence for it is a story in a book. There is no previous theory it is confirming or refuting, no rational basis to make the theory tenable, only blind acceptance that God faked all the evidence that proves it wrong. There can be no true theoretical progression in Creationism, because refutation of the theory of evolution does not add to the Bible. Refutation of Creationist theory is not met by anything but refutation of evolution or simple denial. This means that if you try to understand evolution from a Creationist's viewpoint, you will find mostly strawmen, and you will not gain any understanding.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by c4ts
DC is still arguing from popularity. Bad Cobra, you're making the smart people look like the Creationists!

What the hell are you talking about?

Peer-reviewed scientific material is more reliable then the rantings of a creationist madman who knows very little about science...

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Ruby




While I have not studied evolution in full detail, I have looked over some of it several years back, and was taught some of it as a child. It's been quite a long time since I delved into this sort of science.....and science has always been my weakest subject....Plus, I have a terrible memory for the facts I did learn.

When I became a Christian, I grappled with the lack of logic in the bible account of creation. I wanted to know where *ape-men* fitted into the bible, and I wanted to know how scientists had reached their conclusions on the big bang theory.

I was given several books to read by my pastor. Yes, they were all books by creationists. There's no way my pastor at that time would have given me a book on evolution. I was in a very legalistic church anyway.

The books gave me good answers. I dismissed all of the evolution theories that had boggled my mind.

The thing is, now I question the concept that the earth is 10,000 yrs or less old. I know there had to have been a Creator.....that will not change, but I ponder "what if this earth is millions of years old".



I disagree with a big bang theory as I stated above. I cannot make sense of a world...universe.... just coming into existence without a Creator. Now, I might come to the belief that the Creator was the one who caused a *big bang*................but not sure how I feel about that for now.

I don't believe men evolved from apes. I don't believe any creature went through phases of evolution. I believe that whatever ape-man bones that were dug up were either planted or are actual bones of apes or gorillas. There are no genuine fossils found of any creature in some sort of transitional stage.

That's all I can think of for now. I need to go and do some much needed sewing for my little girls Easter dress.:D

Never good in science? Why am I NOT suprised?

Oh, you read some apologist book, and now you are convinced? You don't even know the basics of evolution.

Ha! Man didn't evolve from apes, man evolved from a common ancestor with apes.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


What the hell are you talking about?

Peer-reviewed scientific material is more reliable then the rantings of a creationist madman who knows very little about science...

Can you explain why?

[Kashyapa]

Ruby-
1. There really are a huge number of transitional forms. Archaeopteryx is a perfectly transitional form with some reptilian features, some avian (bird) features, and some transitional features that seem to be in the process of change. There's also ambulocetus, as mentioned above, along with a number of other fossils from that family that vary between land-adapted, to seallike, to whalelike. And don't forget- the definition of a species is simply that they are either unwilling or unable to interbreed and produce fertile, viable offspring. There doesn't even really need to be a transitional form- a mutation of a single gene for behavior or physical morphology, if it creates a reproductive gap between two populations, can create a new species. Genetic drift and founder effect could also create a new species fairly quickly, if a population was isolated from its parent population. None of these models would even necessarily take that long of a time- two, three, maybe five generations is all it'd need. The process of evolution has been abundantly proven through genetics- the actual length of time between the present and when two species had a common ancestor can be determined with some accuracy. We have watched the formation of new species- orchids are a good example- and we have evidence that those new species are exploiting new evolutionary niches. That's evolution in a nutshell. Every branch of biology has a wealth of evidence for the accuracy of the theory of evolution; there's simply no doubt any longer in the scientific community. None.

2. I don't understand why it's possible to accept the theory of a creator versus a self-creating universe, especially when we can explain the universe's behavior very well without invoking a creator at all. Not to disrespect your beliefs, but why, precisely,is a Creator necessary? Does the universe need one, or do we? There is not a shred of evidence for anything other than a mechanistc origin for the big bang- and the body of evidence from the fields of cosmology and astrophysics is extremely convincing, even if all the answers aren't obvious yet. As Richard Dawkins said: the universe appears exactly as it would appear if there were no deity, no creator. Looking at things objectively, I'd have to agree.

Note also that we did not evolve FROM apes, but rather that we and apes share a common ancestor.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by c4ts


Can you explain why?

Gee, I don't know, I guess the validity of a apologist trying to rationalize their religion is the same as reproducing the observations and experiments of other scientists...

[Kashyapa]

DC, is there any reason that you continue to be unpleasant? I would think it's possible to refute a creationist's claims without being venomous (pun intended) about it. She's never been anything but pleasant and accepting to any of us. We should extend the same courtesy back. Now, if she had approached us like a fanatic or something, that might be one thing, but come on. Can we disagree with her and extend the same courtesy she does us?

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


Never good in science? Why am I NOT suprised?

Oh, you read some apologist book, and now you are convinced? You don't even know the basics of evolution.

Ha! Man didn't evolve from apes, man evolved from a common ancestor with apes.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
DC, is there any reason that you continue to be unpleasant? I would think it's possible to refute a creationist's claims without being venomous (pun intended) about it. She's never been anything but pleasant and accepting to any of us. We should extend the same courtesy back. Now, if she had approached us like a fanatic or something, that might be one thing, but come on. Can we disagree with her and extend the same courtesy she does us?



No matter how she acts, she is still a virus.

[Martin]

Better a virus than a git.

[Tricky]

Horses are another lineage of animals that are very good for showing transitional fossils. There is a very good series fossils from different ages that not only show how the size of equines increased, but also their feet gradually migrated from a toed-foot to a hoof.
http://www.monmouth.com/~bcornet/horsevo2.jpg

[Darwin]

"...There is no previous theory it is confirming or refuting, no rational basis to make the theory tenable, only blind acceptance that God faked all the evidence that proves it wrong. There can be no true theoretical progression in Creationism, because refutation of the theory of evolution does not add to the Bible. Refutation of Creationist theory is not met by anything but refutation of evolution or simple denial. This means that if you try to understand evolution from a Creationist's viewpoint, you will find mostly strawmen, and you will not gain any understanding..."

This sums it up in a nice manner.
In a way,creationist stand is seemingly strong because they remain relatively unharmed in the progress of debate.
Since their "theory" is not one,even though it is being called as such,they can feel free to look "from outside in" and bash evolutionary theory as much as they want-since they are coming from a non-falsifiable background.
Non-falsifiable being,all of the "evidence" that sometimes is brought up for creationism,is both literally impossible to check and based on my observations seems to be built on drilling holes to evo.theory which supposedly proves that creationist story suddenly becomes a law.Now if evo.theory was proved to be false,it still would not raise the prize of creation.
Badly flawed logic from the beginning.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Ruby, you should ponder why humans share _identical_ pseudogenes(genes that don't seem to work at all) with gorillas and chimps.
Common descent or God created us and gorillas with the same 'mistakes' in our DNA?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Dub
Correction, we have not yet found any transitional fossils.

I disagree. In fact we even have the descendants of possible transitionals (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html) walking around today.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Tricky
Horses are another lineage of animals that are very good for showing transitional fossils. There is a very good series fossils from different ages that not only show how the size of equines increased, but also their feet gradually migrated from a toed-foot to a hoof.


Mostly, but not entirely true. Horse evolution has been without sight and braching because that's how evolution is. The fact that there is only one genus alive today shows only the fact that it's easy to draw a straight line to the root when there's only one branch left.

But, along with the whales, a good example anyway. BTW, has anyone read any follow up material on the recently discovered transitional sirieneans recently discovered (miocene of the carribean)?

[UnrepentantSinner]

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/FHCimages/strat.jpeg

From a great site on the basics of horse evolution (http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/firstCM.htm)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
Ruby, you should ponder why humans share _identical_ pseudogenes(genes that don't seem to work at all) with gorillas and chimps.
Common descent or God created us and gorillas with the same 'mistakes' in our DNA?
This is very good V, but there is so much evidence for evolution that even Baptist schools (like Baylor, here in Texas) teach it because it is the only way that makes sense to explain many things. Among the pieces of evidence for evolution, (and excuse me because this is done from memory):

DNA similarities: Creatures that look alike have very similar DNA. The difference in human and chimp DNA is less than two percent.

Transitional fossils: (already discussed)

Homologous structures. Similar components of structures in different species. For example, the fin of the whale, the wing of a bat and the hand of a human have similar bone componants, although they are highly modified.

Relict structures: Humans have an appendix, which is of no apparent use, but many lower animals have a functional appendix which is used in digestion. Some primative snakes (pythons and boas) have a rudimentary pelvis. Some whales are born with tiny legs.

Ontogeny recapitulates phlogony: A fancy Latin phrase meaning that embryos go through various stages where they resemble lower animals. Human embryos at succesive stages resemble a colonial protozoan, a fish, a tadpole and a lower primate.

Observed evolution: We see evolution in action in a relatively short span of time, such as when we see certain pests develop resistance to pesticides.

There's much much more, but I don't want to bore you, Ruby. Examine any of these things and you will see that the wonders of evolution far surpass the stage magic of creationism. One of the added bonuses is that there are still so many things to learn about evolution. With creationism, there can never be any new information. If it's not in the Bible (or a similar book) it's not creationism.

[Jethro]

Here's (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html) a little talk origins piece on reconciling faith in God with knowledge of evolution.

[Dub]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


I disagree. In fact we even have the descendants of possible transitionals (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html) walking around today.

I was refering to the mistaken belief that some people have that there should be 'transitional' fossils between every new phila (sp?) e.g. an exactly half-and-half fossil.

[Lord Kenneth]

If it weren't for the unfounded religious dogmas of the past and of today, then no one would be getting into these silly debates.

And by 'silly' I mean the creationists denying evolution for the sole reason of what a +1,000 year old book says despite all of overwhelming evidence for it.

This is why I have little tolerance for Roby-- this is silly. If you didn't have such STUPID, unfounded "faith" (or elected ignorance), then you would be truly open to the evidence. Ruby says she is, but then again, she believes in things without a drop of evidence, things that aren't even plausible!

It's funny, the creationists want to paint one grand conspiracy among biologists and scientists in general, on their websites littered with bible quotes, with scientific inaccuracies I could spot when I was six.

You know, there is another group I can think of that denies evolution because it conflicts with their baseless dogma-- the Raelians. Oddly enough, they try to disprove it too. And equally oddly enough, they do a "piss-poor" job of it.

Gee, all these people challenging evolution sure seem to have unscientific reasons for doing so... why is that, Ruby?

They are trying to PROTECT something. You should know that, you yourself have been in that positition, O mindless sheep.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Dub


I was refering to the mistaken belief that some people have that there should be 'transitional' fossils between every new phila (sp?) e.g. an exactly half-and-half fossil.

Sorry Dub, I missed the "those in the know" point you were making with that of creationists. I agree with you completely. The common "missing link" misconception doesn't apply.

I'll try and read for the deeper context next time. :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
This is why I have little tolerance for Roby-- this is silly. If you didn't have such STUPID, unfounded "faith" (or elected ignorance), then you would be truly open to the evidence. Ruby says she is, but then again, she believes in things without a drop of evidence, things that aren't even plausible!

Her name is Ruby, not Roby and please don't transfer the malice you have for your mother to her. She's a fellow member of this forum who deserves your respect until she's earned such malice.

She hasn't yet.

[Dancing David]

The most telling flaw in creationsim is that there is this thing called selective breeding that shows the plastic nature of the genome.
Hey DC, I usually find your posts very funny, ripping into Ruby ain't fair. Just rip into the bible thumpers in general and I don't mind.
Why when i was a lad the mere mention of Chriatianity used to cause me to act like j. Knight except i spouted polemic against the church.
Classic quote: More abuse occurs in Sunday school every week than ever occured in any home.

Peace
dancing david

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Dancing David
The most telling flaw in creationsim is that there is this thing called selective breeding that shows the plastic nature of the genome.
Hey DC, I usually find your posts very funny, ripping into Ruby ain't fair. Just rip into the bible thumpers in general and I don't mind.
Why when i was a lad the mere mention of Chriatianity used to cause me to act like j. Knight except i spouted polemic against the church.
Classic quote: More abuse occurs in Sunday school every week than ever occured in any home.

Peace
dancing david

How could you take a Jedi-ish stance against religion without adopting another one and clinging to it in a febrile manner?

[Ruby]

Oh my goodness, you guys have given me a wealth of info. I have been looking up some stuff online, but my time is so limited with two little ones needing lots of my attention.

Please be patient with me....and my ignorance. I will try to respond to things when I can and feel I have more knowledge.

I really do appreciate the kindness shown to me in my clueless state. :D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by c4ts


Creationism's theory, that God made the world according to the King James Version of the bible, is not a valid scientific theory. The only supporting evidence for it is a story in a book. There is no previous theory it is confirming or refuting, no rational basis to make the theory tenable, only blind acceptance that God faked all the evidence that proves it wrong.

It seems to me that the validity of the bible must be destroyed in order to believe in evolution. How does one do that? There is so much extra-biblical writings and history to back up a lot in the bible. There are even accounts of most of the deaths of the apostles in other writings. Then we have the Jewish religion....how we explain them?

Then there's archeological evidence.

Who would write the bible and why ....if it's not a historical book inspired by God?

[Martin]

Originally posted by Ruby
It seems to me that the validity of the bible must be destroyed in order to believe in evolution

Why? Why can't you consider it a message from fallible humans who encoutered God? Within that there would be errors due to the understanding of the day. Accepting that doesn't change the basic message.

It's worth noting that the Universe as described in Genesis is nothing more than a rehash of existing Babylonian and Hebrew cosmologies. The Biblical view of the Universe is something like this -

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/enoch24.gif

How does one do that? There is so much extra-biblical writings and history to back up a lot in the bible

Well, much of the extra-biblical writing is irrelevant to the validity of the Bible. Most historical writings report the beliefs of Christians, not the events in which that belief is based.

There are even accounts of most of the deaths of the apostles in other writings

True. Unfortunately, the reports are widely divergent (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/4/4front97.html).

Then we have the Jewish religion....how we explain them?

How does one explain any religion?

Then there's archeological evidence

The city of Troy, once believed to be nothing more than legend, was discovered through information written in the Iliad. Does that mean that Zeus really exists? Archaeolgical evidence may support the more mundane parts of the Bible, but it lends no weight to the supernatural aspects.

Who would write the bible and why ....if it's not a historical book inspired by God?

Who knows? There are countless religious texts - they can't all be inspired by God.

In any case, if God created the Universe what better way to understand his creation than to study it? If God's creation and a book claiming to be God's word are in conflict, which should we believe?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ruby


It seems to me that the validity of the bible must be destroyed in order to believe in evolution. How does one do that?

Can you come up with an experiment to test the validity of Genesis? If so, then it means that the rejection of the Bible is not necessary in the understanding of scientific theory, and evolution thereof.

There is so much extra-biblical writings and history to back up a lot in the bible. There are even accounts of most of the deaths of the apostles in other writings. Then we have the Jewish religion....how we explain them?

Then there's archeological evidence.

Are you talking about the validity of the entire bible being at stake? If so, then it is not the case, because evolution only provides a theoretical account which is different than the biblical account of Genesis. The lives and deaths of the apostles, the existence of the Jewish religion, are in fact valid archaeological evidence, but they do not have anything to do with proving or disproving Genesis in particular. The situation is not "either all of the bible is true or it isn't," because some parts can be historical accounts, and others can be pure mythology. There is currently no archaeological evidence supporting Genesis, and we have not even uncovered anything that could be the flaming sword which turns every which way to cast man out of Eden.

Who would write the bible and why ....if it's not a historical book inspired by God?

Who would write the bible if it were a historical book inspired by God? I fail to see the point of the question. Aren't all books, historical or otherwise, in some way inspired by God?

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dub


The bing-bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. Remeber, just because you cant make sense of the existence of the universe doesnt mean it cant be made sense of. Making up an answer, or believing in one that someone else has made up just because it appears to give you an answer is silly. There's nothing wrong with not knowing. Chossing to believe in something just because it offers an answer is silly. Also, the 'Creator' answer, while appearing to provide an answer just misdirects the question. Saying "there was a creator" is not actually answering the question. You now have two further, unaswerable questions: 1) Who made the creator, and 2) Why did the creator make the universe. Of course, people reply "God has always been" or similar. If you can except this, why are scientific theories which propose an infinite universe unacceptable?
[/b]
If the bible is to be used as a guide, yes, God has always been. The universe was either a plan put into action or some sort of accident. I find it harder to believe in an accidental world than a Created world. I just don't have the faith for that at this time.

How can something so complex as this universe and it's population have come into being by chance. How can a mass of some sort of chemicals come together like magic to produce a living creature?


Please tell me you are joking!! Its no a case of having to believe man evolved from apes, it is fact. Ignoring it and thinking otherwise is delusional.

Delusional?:rolleyes: The ape belief is a theory, not a fact. Most findings of ape-men have been proven to be frauds. Some of those have been *Ramapithecus* *Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus)* *Piltdown man* *Neanderthal Man*. I'm sorry, but it sounds nuts to me that our morals and intellect was inherited from apes!

:D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


Never good in science? Why am I NOT suprised?

http://home.att.net/~jandk.pan/smile13.gif You are not surprised because I have given you the evidence that I am not good in science.

Oh, you read some apologist book, and now you are convinced? You don't even know the basics of evolution.

I knew about evolution before I knew about creationism. But yes, I barely know the basics....due to not remembering those basics very well.

Ha! Man didn't evolve from apes, man evolved from a common ancestor with apes.

Would you mind explaining that further?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Ruby



I'm sorry, but it sounds nuts to me that our morals and intellect was inherited from apes!]

:D But not nuts that we inherited them from the entity who did this?

And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle( I picked something seasonal..)

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


No matter how she acts, she is still a virus.

If you knew me...in person...you would not say or think that. You would see that by my own nature, I am not the invasive or virus type person. I am gentle, shy, and kind. Still, I guess you are calling me a virus due to my belief in God. I can understand that aspect. There are many Christians who are mean, legalistic, close-minded and judgmental. I detest spiritual abuse. I have gone through it myself. My dear hubby grew up in an isolated religious (Christian) cult community. It has left many scars on him and one of his younger brothers.

I have great compassion for you...no matter what you think of me. Like you, I am a social phobic. I know what it's like to live with it. I know how it cripples, hurts, and frustrates. I know the anger too. I have lived with this disorder for all my adult life since my teens, but I am SO much better now. It took me years and years to get help......that's why I lived so crippled for so long. It's hard as hell for a social phobic to feel comfortable enough to get help and take small steps to recovery. No one understands this unless they are there.

Sorry to go off topic and get personal. You don't have to like me.......but sure would be nice if you could stop the insults. I used to live with cut downs and insults......especially in my first marriage....and it attributed greatly to my social phobia. I thought for many years that I was a stupid waste of space. Please don't remind of that.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Ruby
How can a mass of some sort of chemicals come together like magic to produce a living creature?

Evolution is not a random process. It is directed through selection.

The ape belief is a theory, not a fact

Theory is the best science has to offer. Gravity is also a theory - better fasten your seatbelt ;)

Most findings of ape-men have been proven to be frauds

Feh. Take another look at the picture I posted. Every one a different species. It's not even an exhaustive list.

Ramapithecus

That was no fraud. It was suggested as a possible ancestor of man. Later evidence showed it to be closer related to orangutans.

Java Man

Again, no fraud here. Some creationists insist that it is human, other that it is ape. If the difference is so clear, why the confusion?

Neanderthal Man

Good heavens. Neanderthal man a fraud? Who on earth told you that?!

I'm sorry, but it sounds nuts to me that our morals and intellect was inherited from apes!

And yet apes do demonstrate rudimentary moral behaviour - for example, caring for members of their group who are incapable of leading a normal life. It would be no cost to the group to let them die - indeed, it would free up extra resources for the rest.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Ruby
Would you mind explaining that further?

He means that we did not evolve from the apes we see today. Rather, they are our cousins. All modern ape species (ourselves included!) evolved along different paths from the same creature.

[Kashyapa]

You're mistaking the definition of theory in this case. Among scientists, a hypothesis is a logical guess, a theoretical idea of how things appear to be. A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven, logically and beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why it's referred to as "the theory of gravity", for example. When you see the word "theory" in a modern scientific context, regard it as fairly established fact. There's always a level of uncertainty, and scientific thought regards nothing as absolutely true or false due to the difficulty (nay, impossibility) of accounting for every possible variable. That's why the "theory" terminology is used; but, as I've pointed out, there is no reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the evolution theory. There's always a level of doubt for anything, but in this case there's not enough to be meaningful.

The chemicals did not come together like magic- the chemistry and structure of biology has been developing for the past 3.75 billion years. That's a hell of a long time, enough to be almost meaningless to us. It's been a slow process of aggregation, as various structures and solutions to the challenge of survival have succeeded or failed. What we see around us in the biosphere today is there result of an unimaginably long period of trial and error, false starts and failed lines. Every organism that has ever lived has striven to be the ultimate stupendous badass at survival, the process of evolution refining and tweaking and weeding out the weak. If you want a great introduction to evolution, run and don't walk to the nearest bookstore and pick up a copy of Richard Dawkins' spectacular and superlative "The Selfish Gene", which is one of the best works I've seen on it, and approachable even for a non-science geek.

Ape-men is not necessarily the best term. "Hominid" is the most accurate. Java Man is physiologically identical (barring individual variations) to every other Homo Erectus fossil ever discovered; again, there is no question. Homo Neandtertalensis (Neandertal man) has likewise been established through a variety of means as being an offshoot of the Homo Erectus line, just as we are. Their skeletons display significant differences from both Homo sapiens and Homo erectus. Piltdown man was recognized as a fake in the 1800's; it's not a part of the hominid evolutionary tree. You may also be interested to know that early Homo sapiens are referred to as "anatomically modern humans"; the behaviorally modern ones have been around for a much shorter time, 60,000 years I believe. The anatomically (but not behaviorally) modern ones behaved much as Homo erectus and neandertalensis did, until the evolutionary advent of something a colleague of mine in the anthropology department refers to as "cognitive fluidity". That essentially means that humans were finally able to synthesize their skills and different types of intelligence; we were able to imagine and create, and had the mental flexibility to change our world and form culture. Our ability to concieve of morals, Gods, laws, technology, innovation, and complex tasks requiring cognitive synthesis are the outgrowth of our simian brains linking everything together. There's even a book out there that says that hallucinogens helped bring this about, which I won't disagree with.

Incidentally, the idea that our behavior is similar to the other apes is backed up by primatology. (and note that I'm not saying evolved from; they're not our parents and grandparents in the evolutionary tree, they're our brothers and sisters. We all shared a prototypical ape ancestor.) Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall are the best examples, but there is a massive body of work that shows that the minds of the apes and even primates in general are not particularly removed from our own, except that our brains are larger and we are cognitively fluid. I've personally observed startlingly human behavior and reasoning in monkeys and apes, including a gorilla in a zoo who loves to give hugs. (And good hugs they are, too, if a bit furry; she's one of the most affectionate beings of any species I've ever seen.) They have memories, a concept of time, and are able to express themselves creatively; so, incidentally, are dolphins, which I regard to be probably smarter than us. Gorillas have expressed (through sign language, which some of them have gotten quite good at) a conception of morality and a sense of good and bad. We're not so special and unique as we seem to think, is the message I'm getting at, and the divisions we create between our intelligence and other species' is probably not as meaningful as we think.

Delusional?:rolleyes: The ape belief is a theory, not a fact. Most findings of ape-men have been proven to be frauds. Some of those have been *Ramapithecus* *Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus)* *Piltdown man* *Neanderthal Man*. I'm sorry, but it sounds nuts to me that our morals and intellect was inherited from apes!

:D [/B][/QUOTE]

[Dub]

Originally posted by Ruby

If the bible is to be used as a guide, yes, God has always been. The universe was either a plan put into action or some sort of accident. I find it harder to believe in an accidental world than a Created world. I just don't have the faith for that at this time.

Of course you find the non-God explanation harder to believe, because its more complicated. You also dont have fanatical groups of people constantly forcing it down you neck. Have you ever seen someone preaching in the street about the big-bang theory? or going door-to-door handing out leaflets and trying to sell magazones? Also, the big-bang is too complex for small children to understand. They easily accept and believe the simpler answers given to them by their parents. However, if they grow up and most of the people close to them still say the God answer is right, its difficult to think otherwise.


How can something so complex as this universe and it's population have come into being by chance. How can a mass of some sort of chemicals come together like magic to produce a living creature? [/color]

Again, this is a problem with your ability, and others, to solve the problem. Faced with something overwhelmingly complex, and with little or any means of understanding it, alot of people opt for the easy answer.

Also, evolution is NOT CHANCE!!! This misconception about evolution seems to have been widely spread. Evolution is about survival pressures. These come from things such as other animals, the environment, the climate etc. The mutations of gene may be random, but whether they are successful or not is not random. It's not chance that allows only the fastest lions to catch the antelope. The slow one's die and do not pass on their genes.

If you'd like some serious information on this subject I'd suggest Richard Dawkin's - The Blind Watchmaker.

[quote][b]Delusional?:rolleyes: The ape belief is a theory, not a fact. Most findings of ape-men have been proven to be frauds. Some of those have been *Ramapithecus* *Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus)* *Piltdown man* *Neanderthal Man*. I'm sorry, but it sounds nuts to me that our morals and intellect was inherited from apes!

Well to be pedantic, everything is a theory, even reality. But there's comes a point where the evidence for a theory is so strong as to almost guaruntee it as being fact. For example, we share over 98% of our DNA with the other 2 speices of chimps. Infact the majority of the non-shared 2% is 'junk DNA' , meaning that is performs no function. Therefore, the actual difference, in term of the percentage of decoded DNA, between us and the chimps is probably less than 1%. We are a species of chimp - Fact.

I dont know who told you that "Most findings of ape-men have been proven to be frauds" but they were mistaken. While there have been a few frauds, the number of actual discoveries overwhelmingly out numbers them.

Why does it sound nuts that we inherited our morals and intellect from apes? You need some humility and to lose the belief that humans are in some way 'special'. Moral come from social interactions; hence different cultures have different morals. All social animals have morals. Infact, living in close-nit, social groups requires morals. As for intelligence, the growing of our intelligence can be traced through out ancestors. At some point we split from the other 2 chimp speices. Their ancestor went in one evolutionary direction, our in another. Because of various survival pressures, our ancestors started to develop their intelligence. I wont go into it in detail here for time and space reasons. However if you'd like to learn more about this a book book I would suggest i'd Jared Diamond's - The Third Chimpanze (also know as 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanze)

Also, Neanderthal Man did exist. It was however, not an ancestor of our, it was another, seperate speices of man. It is thought a mix of the arrival of modern-man and the climate led to it's extinction.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ruby

[color=firebrick] Delusional?:rolleyes: The ape belief is a theory, not a fact. Most findings of ape-men have been proven to be frauds. Some of those have been *Ramapithecus* *Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus)* *Piltdown man* *Neanderthal Man*. I'm sorry, but it sounds nuts to me that our morals and intellect was inherited from apes!

As has been pointed out by others, the only fraud among that list is the so-called Piltdown Man (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/piltdown.html). This is one of the most famous frauds in scientific history (though not the only one) and was most likely perpetrated by Charles Dawson for reasons that we can never be sure of, however we know he also that Dawson trafficked in fake antiques. He might have been wanting to sell his "find" to a museum.

But the lesson that scientists learn from such hoaxes is not to take anything at face value. It was scientists who discovered the hoax by applying newer and better age testing techniques. This is part of the beauty of science: It is self fixing.

Neanderthal Man (http://www.sandiego.edu/~pserviss/neandertal.html) (sometimes spelled Neandertal), which is not an ancestor of modern man, is a species of hominid that was so widely distributed that his authenticity is not questioned by any serious anthropologists. The main debate ranges about what his migration paths were and what caused him to die out. It is widely supposed that competition with Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) was responsible for this.

Some creationists like to pick up on the fact that we don't know everything about Neanderthal to throw out the enormous amount of evidence for his existence. In my mind, this is a tactic out of desperation. Would you throw out the entire theory of modern medicine because someone says, "Look! You haven't found a cure for AIDS!" ?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ruby

Most findings of ape-men have been proven to be frauds. Some of those have been *Ramapithecus* *Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus)* *Piltdown man* *Neanderthal Man*. I'm sorry, but it sounds nuts to me that our morals and intellect was inherited from apes!

:D

I highly suggest you Google those names before you say which ones are frauds. So far Piltdown Man was the only proven fake, and Neanderthan Man is not part of the same evolutionary branch which resulted in Homo Sapiens.

[Flatworm]

Hello, Ruby. Pardon me for butting in, but I thought I could point out a couple more ways to spot that a creationist is lying to you/doesn't know what he's talking about:

1. They argue about the lack of transitional fossils between species, and the lack of modern observed transitions between higher orders, such as family or order (the word kind is often employed to confuse the issue).

2. They try to tell you how unreliable carbon dating is. This is a dead giveaway of scientific ignorance: carbon dating is not a tool commonly used to date fossils on an evolutionary time scale. It isn't very useful past a few tens of thousands of years. It's mostly used for archaeology. Geologists and paleontologists tend to date finds with isochron dating techniques.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

3. They try to throw cosmology (the origin of the universe), biogenesis (the origin of life), and evolution (the diversification of life from common ancestry) into the same basket. They are actually different bodies of theory and knowledge.

4. They make arguments about probability based on a single observation. For instance, they will talk about how unlikely our universe is to have such and such properties- but can it be any other way? We don't know. No one knows- no one has ever seen a bunch of universes being born so they could know what the odds are. You can't make proclamations about probability based on a single observation.
To get around this, creationists often resort to information theory- a branch of mathematics, based entirely on probability and statistics, that is used to model communication systems. Because information theory is based on statistics and probability, the problem above still remains. What makes this tactic attractive to creationists is that much fewer people understand information theory than basic probability, so the flaw goes unnoticed.

The list goes on, but I've tried to keep it short. Please feel free to ask for explanations about any of the above. I hope you will find this useful.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ruby, thanks for ignoring Dark Cobra's continued venom and engaging in a dialonge on this issue with us.

You were provided earlier in the thread I believe a link to the Talk.Origins page detailing 29 Evidences for Macroevolution. The author of that essay is a pentecostal Christian who while offering up a powerful defense of evolution also maintains his devout Christian roots. I would really suggest that you contact him as he is very reasoned and thoughful in reconcilling his faith with a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

http://www.colorado.edu/Chemistry/grad/faculty/Wuttke/lab/members/doug.html

With regard to human morals and bahavior relating to that of our fellow animals, one of the best introductions to evolutionary psychology is Desmond Morris' books "The Naked Ape" and "The Human Amimal." If I hadn't been recently demoted, I'd send you copies of both via amazon.com, but since I can't, I'm sure your local library will have one or the other. Another that's very dense reading, but well worth slogging through is Carl Sagan's "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors." These three books present powerful evidence showing that being "human" doesn't mean we are that far removed from our fellow animals.

[Lord Kenneth]

A theory is not a proven hypothesis.

You may have heard:

Hypothesis ---> Theory ---> Law

That is incorrect.

They are each difference types of data.



Please note, Ruby, that there is no such thing as anything "spiritual", and if there is, no evidence of it currently exists.

Please stop dwelling on BS...

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Please note, Ruby, that there is no such thing as anything "spiritual", and if there is, no evidence of it currently exists.

Please stop dwelling on BS...

Saying that sort of thing is just going to cause people to cling even harder to their beliefs and superstitions.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by c4ts


Saying that sort of thing is just going to cause people to cling even harder to their beliefs and superstitions.

Those sort of people would never admit they are wrong, with their mental illness of "faith" so strong in them.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by c4ts


How could you take a Jedi-ish stance against religion without adopting another one and clinging to it in a febrile manner?

Are you implying that JK has febrile seisures? I mainly vented due to the percieved stupidity of the church and it's mindless guiltrip.

Peace
dancing david

[tamiO]

Originally posted by c4ts
Human bones don't float, do they?

I hope they don't !!:eek:
To be sure you must always remember to hack the body up and place it in a plastic bag with weights.:p

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Are you implying that JK has febrile seisures? I mainly vented due to the percieved stupidity of the church and it's mindless guiltrip.

Peace
dancing david

I am implying that religion has made him delerious, as if struck by fever.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


Those sort of people would never admit they are wrong, with their mental illness of "faith" so strong in them.

DC,

Obviously no one has explained the rules of the on-line discussion social game to you.

You are supposed to be polite at first, even if the person you are replying to says something incorrect or self-contradictory. As long as they said it in a polite way, the rule is that you are polite back. You can contradict them, but you are polite about it.

If they said it in a rude way, then you can usually get away with being rude back.

As long as the other posters are polite and reasonable, though, it looks really bad if you cast the first stone.

I know that religious zealots will often start hurling insults once you've poked their beliefs. But it's very bad form to assume that you are dealing with such a zealot and flame them pre-emptively. It lowers you to their level, and you just might end up insulting someone like Ruby who shows no sign of deserving it.

In fact, Ruby has been far more tolerant of you faux pas than I would have been in her place.

I think you owe her an apology, but if you can't bring yourself to see that you can at least pipe down.

I agree with you that superstition is a terrible thing and the world would be better off without it. But you aren't bringing the world closer to that saner state by mocking perfectly nice people who happen to have had the misfortune to grow up exposed to irrational influences.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Martinm


Evolution is not a random process. It is directed through selection.

Again, no fraud here. Some creationists insist that it is human, other that it is ape. If the difference is so clear, why the confusion?
Good heavens. Neanderthal man a fraud? Who on earth told you that?!

http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Martinm
[B]

Why? Why can't you consider it a message from fallible humans who encoutered God? Within that there would be errors due to the understanding of the day. Accepting that doesn't change the basic message.

Well, you do make a decent point with that. I do think the bible has some mistakes that were made in it's translations.


Well, much of the extra-biblical writing is irrelevant to the validity of the Bible. Most historical writings report the beliefs of Christians, not the events in which that belief is based.

I just don't find extra-biblical writing irrelevant, but I understand that you do...and can see why.



How does one explain any religion?

By studying it's origins and claims.



The city of Troy, once believed to be nothing more than legend, was discovered through information written in the Iliad. Does that mean that Zeus really exists? Archaeolgical evidence may support the more mundane parts of the Bible, but it lends no weight to the supernatural aspects.

Good point.



:D [/COLOR]

[Skeptical Greg]

Hear is an interesting esay on the Easter Celebration..

You may have seen this..

I believe it is keeping with the discussion about ' which religion is the 'TRUE' one'....

An Easter Blessing... (http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/blessing.html)

I Saved this link, having found it here in the forums, now I don't remember where I found it..:confused:

If anyone can set me straight, please do..

[Darwin]

Easter is just as much,if not much more a pagan/related celebration break.

[Dub]

Originally posted by Ruby


http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/


Ruby,

that site is a classic example of mis-information, inaccuarcies and down right lies. This is, unfortunately, almost always the case with creationist properganda. It is terrible how people can blatently lie to people like that. I dont have time atm to go through all the points on the website (perhaps some other people here will) but I'll explain a few of the points that site mentions, and why they are incorrect.


The Second Law of Thermodynamics -- This law tells us that anything which is organized , tends with time, to become disorganized. Any physical system left to itself will decay, or , lose energy and organization within the system.

Ok so far...


this law says the increase of information required for a life form to evolve could not happen as this increase in information by itself violates the law.

This is completely wrong. Evolution no more violates the 2nd Law than does a baby. You were once a baby, you have grown, and you did it all without violating the 2nd law. Evolutionary changes are in no way 'more ordered' than their ancestors.


Considering the amount of complex structures that went into the eye, as well as the highly integrated synchronization, it is difficult to understand how the evolutionists can believe the eye came from a natural trial and error process. The eye is well known to be useless unless fully developed. It is ridiculous to think that any organism could live, let alone develop, during the thousands of years evolutionists say it would take to develop an eye. That's not all, however. The eye did not develop once. There are five different types of eyes (that we know of) - man's, squids,vertebrates,arthropods, and trilobite eyes. Enough said!


A common point given, and again, all it is wrong and merely shows the ignorance of thr writter. For the fulle explanation of the evolution of the eye I would suggest Richard Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable" which as a whole chapter devoted to this.


Sea Slugs -- The sea slug is an truly impressive design that can be used to show evolution false. Sea slugs feed on the sea anemone. What makes this so impressive is that the anemones have poison harpoons that stick out and would paralyze anything that came in contact with it. The sea slug however, is able to put these darts inside its own stomach to store and use for its own defense. You would have to have all of these abilities from the start or the organism would die the 1st time it came in contact with the dart. A slow evolutionary process would have been deadly!

This shows ignorance of the Predator/Prey relationship. They are assuming that the anemone has always had the spines and strength of poison that it has today. An arms race between the predator/prey would lead to extremely effective defenses (i.e. deadly to almost everything else) but also an extremely resiliant predator.


DNA -- Evolution is dead with the advance of DNA technology. Information is always made by some intelligent personal being. First, the person must purpose, that is, originate in his mind, the concept of the final product, goal, or outcome. Then, the person must, by reason, determine the materials, tools, and specific sequence of steps needed to achieve the goal. So, clearly, information always comes from intelligent process, from an intelligent mind. In the case of the genetic information system it is very clear that this must be a mind of supreme intelligence and a person of awesome power.

This is a truly stupid point the author is making. The wreckage of a plane crash contains information, none of which was intentionally put their by an intelligent mind. This know as the 'blind watcher maker' argument. Richard Dawkins' book, also called "The Blindwatch Maker" addresses this point in depth.

If there are any specific points that site makes that you would like to know more about post them here and people will give you some guidance.

[Kashyapa]

That website is absolute rubbish, most of it taken out of context and interspersed with exaggerations and outright lies. Heed its scientific "information" at your peril. Case in point: the Leakey quote that had him "admitting" that humans' ancestors were "a big question mark." The quote is actually referring to the actual common ancestor we shared with chimps, NOT the entirety of the hominid fossil record. They denigrate being able to tell bipedality from "just a few leg and hip bones". If you know what to look for, there are very significant and unmistakable signs that point to bipedal locomotion, such as the shape of the femoral condyle (the ball of the femur). It's not bad science; it's absolute anatomical fact. I have personally examined many of these skeletons and absolutely accurate casts made of them; they are absolutely different species, and morphologically distinct from each other, from apes, and from modern Homo sapiens. This is easily discernable in cranial vault volume, shape and size of various skull and skeleton features, and joint anatomy. The creationists' insistence on trotting out the Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man fakes is tiresome; they were long since accepted by the scientific community as fakes, and we disregard them as such. If they're going to argue with the facts, at least they could argue with facts, not hysterically point to long-discarded suppositions.

The most egregious claim on the site was the Martin Luther quote that babbled on about cows only having cows and the like. Newsflash: Martin Luther was a German village preacher, a total Puritan, and completely unqualified to make any sort of statement about science. It's roughly analogous to me asking my trashman to put in a good word for evolution. It's made especially preposterous by the admitted fact that ML lived 350 years ago. That's right, back when we still thought the sun orbited Earth, the Earth was flat, and Earth was the center of the Universe. And we know what happened to those ideas, and in what disdain we hold those religious nutjobs that perpetuated them. Eventually this Creation ******** will die the death it richly deserves to.

Ruby, I know you hold your faith very dear, and I have no problem with that. But there are ways to integrate your religious beliefs with reality in ways other than clinging to a fable that's over 4,000 years old. Evolution and cosmology can be integrated with Christian beliefs more readily than the fanatics and fundamentalists would like you to believe.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Martinm
The city of Troy, once believed to be nothing more than legend, was discovered through information written in the Iliad. Does that mean that Zeus really exists? Archaeolgical evidence may support the more mundane parts of the Bible, but it lends no weight to the supernatural aspects.

Make sure to give Schliemann props whenever you use this argument. ;)

[Flatworm]

14. The Second Law of Thermodynamics -- This is my all-time favorite. To refute this law, you either have to be a liar or ignorant of science totally. This law tells us that anything which is organized , tends with time, to become disorganized. Any physical system left to itself will decay, or , lose energy and organization within the system.


A very simplistic and, when you get right down to the nitty-gritty, incorrect, interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


In other words, this law says the increase of information required for a life form to evolve could not happen as this increase in information by itself violates the law...


Tsk, tsk, tsk! Didn't I just tell you about information-theoretic arguments? This is one of them. The problem here is that the creationists get to define the "code book" (or in this case, determine what is complex and what is organized) after the fact. You see, evolution makes no claim about an ecosystem having to contain more information or be more "orderly" as time goes on. That's a creationist invention.



Neither of these things, or anything else, can assemble itself from raw materials.


Disproof by counterexample:

http://www.chemsoc.org/chembytes/ezine/2002/gross1_aug02.htm



ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate.


Is this a law of thermodynamics? Is this a scientific statement at all?



Also, the universe in total is a closed system.


Evolution does not require that the entropy of the entire universe decrease. This person obviously does not understand what entropy is. The earth radiating heat into space would reduce the entropy of the earth while increasing the entropy of the rest of the universe. The total net entropy change for the entire universe would still be positive.


To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law

Notice:

1. The deliberate confusion of scale: The entire universe has obviously not transformed itself into a brain. The purpose of this misdirection is obviously to get us to forget that...

2. The human brain is not a closed system, and therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't require its entropy to increase.

[c4ts]

The city of Troy, once believed to be nothing more than legend, was discovered through information written in the Iliad. Does that mean that Zeus really exists? Archaeolgical evidence may support the more mundane parts of the Bible, but it lends no weight to the supernatural aspects.

Sure the gods exist. I just got back from dating grey-eyed Athena. She really got upset when the waiter forgot to put an olive in her martini, so she hurled a javelin through his chest for insulting the gods. If you think that's overdoing it, you should have met her dad. He's the kind of guy who'll start a war to destroy your whole country if he thinks you're being a bad guest. The last guy to cross him was a member of his own family, and he kicked him off the tallest mountain in the world for it!

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO KASHYAPA


You wrote on page 4, 04-18-2003 07:29 PM: They have memories, a concept of time, and are able to express themselves creatively; so, incidentally, are dolphins, which I regard to be probably smarter than us. Gorillas have expressed (through sign language, which some of them have gotten quite good at) a conception of morality and a sense of good and bad. We're not so special and unique as we seem to think, is the message I'm getting at, and the divisions we create between our intelligence and other species' is probably not as meaningful as we think.


Soderqvist1: cultural development in time is the difference between humans, and animals! Of course, we share our ancestors with them, and some properties like, eating, sleeping, breeding, and similar zoological behaviors, but they don't share with us our intergenerational informational activity! A beaver is an excellent builder of dams, but these dams are quite similar in their features as they was 50 thousand years ago, compare that with a mud hut from the stone age in some forest, with a modern skyscraper in New York city today? Chimps has lived their lives in a similar fashion today as they have always done, but not so with humans.

This cultural development stems from our abilities to store our knowledge, in extra-neural means, like books, and historical records in general. We have the wheel and fire on record and we don't need to invent them again through trial and error. Humans are thus a symbolic, or a linguistic class of life! A cube has both deep and surface properties, but is not a surface, because a cube
has three dimensions, but a surface has only two dimensions,
analogically; a human has animal properties but is not animal anyway, or conversely; if humans are animals, a cube is a surface too! Extended phenotypes like beaver dams can be described in ecological, or zoological terms, but an artifact (extended phenotype) say; a computer cannot be described in zoological terms, therefore; humans are higher in dimensionality than animals!


Quote of the Day:

What distinguishes us from all other creatures?

- "A quarter inch of cortex."

- Alfred Korzybski
http://www.thisisnotthat.com/gs/otb.html

[Peter Soderqvist]

Mutations increase informational entropy in the gene pool, because it raises the question about which animals shall survive? But natural selection decreases this uncertainty in the system, by removing the unfit!

The Information Challenge By Richard Dawkins
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/dawkins1.htm

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by Ruby


http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/

Well, even the first paragraph of the site is ridiculous:

Most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. The list of creationist scientists is impressive. A sample: Physics: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin. Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay. Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz. Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier. Astronomy: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder. Mathematics: Pascal, Leibnitz.

Er...hello? Most of the scientists on the list were around back in the 17th and 18th centuries (or even earlier), while Charles Darwin published the Origin of the Species in the mid-19th century. Of course the scientists on the list were Creationists- everybody was then. The biblical creation story was pretty much taken for granted back then.

It was only with the growth of geology and the palaentology in the late 18th and 19th centuries that evidence arose of an old earth, and of the evolution of species. It was only with the discovery of radioactivity at the end of the 19th century that allowed us to date the earth with a degree of accuracy. It was only with the development of more powerful telescopes at the start of the 20th century that allowed us to measure the vastness of space and to infer the expansion of the universe, and so gain insight into the vast antiquity of the cosmos.

It was only through the tools of modern science that we could gain evidence of all these things, tools and evidence that the scientists mentioned did not have. So of course they had a different concept of these things than us. After all, they were great scientists but they weren't prophets- they couldn't have anticipated what we know today. And yet this simple point seems to have escaped the author of this site...

More later, when I have time...

[Edited to correct grammatical mistake]

[Brian the Snail]

Regarding the stuff about Neanderthals on the site:

http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/neanderthal.html

It's difficult to understand the point that the author is trying to make here. He certainly doesn't claim that the skeletons are fakes. He seems to be saying that because Neanderthals had larger brain capacities than modern humans, then that somehow present a challenge to evolution. I don't see how, though. In particular, the larger brains of Neanderthals is thought to be linked to their larger bulk. Also, brain size is only one indicator of intelligence- brain structure is important too. And finally, even if Neanderthals were more intelligent than modern humans, so what? Evolution doesn't claim to be a "constant upward progression" as he claims. The only thing that evolution cares about is how well adapted to the environment a particular species is- not how intelligent it is. So, his entire tirade seems to be based on some strange strawman version of evolution.

The other baffling thing about the article is when he starts talking about the "London Artifact." You can read an interesting article about it here (http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/hammer.htm). Basically, it is a hammer found in Texas, which is claimed by some creationists to be a "pre-flood" artifact. The article pretty much debunks this idea. But even if we accept its validity it is difficult to see any connection with Neanderthals, since Neanderthal skeletons have only been found in Europe and Asia (http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/), and there is no evidence that Neanderthals ever lived in North America. So to claim that the London artifact was work of Neanderthals seems like a very strange claim, even for a creationist.

[Darat]

Most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. The list of creationist scientists is impressive. A sample: Physics: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin. Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay. Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz. Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier. Astronomy: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder. Mathematics: Pascal, Leibnitz.


And even if this was true, which it isn't, so what? Doesn't matter who it is, or how many, believing something false is true doesn't make it so.

[Gregor]

Ruby has now posted two links to completely fallacious cites (ICR and this 'evolutionlie' nonsense).

Methinks she believes the garbage they post because it is in her comfort zone.

Ruby - if Xians will go so far as to post blatant lies for their position on evolution (a minor topic), what do you think they'd do for major theological points?

(psst: Answer: throw people out of windows - research the Defenestration of Prague)

[RichardR]

Most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. The list of creationist scientists is impressive. A sample: Physics: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin. Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay. Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz. Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier. Astronomy: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder. Mathematics: Pascal, Leibnitz.
This is a logical fallacy called Argument From Authority. (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm)

[Gregor]

I also love the irony in using Galileo's name as support for orthodoxy.

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by RichardR

This is a logical fallacy called Argument From Authority. (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm)

And a really, really pathetic argument from authority, as well.

I mean, if you're going to make a logical fallacy, you could at least try to do it well :D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Gregor
Ruby has now posted two links to completely fallacious cites (ICR and this 'evolutionlie' nonsense).
Guys, give Ruby a break. She looks at the information that others have told her about.

The fact that she is here on a skeptic website, behaving nicely in the face of scathing criticism shows that she is not just a blind follower. You really should wish that more people showed this kind of curiosity. Or is it your intention to confirm any suspicions she might have had about how non-believers behave?

[Darwin]

"I also love the irony in using Galileo's name as support for orthodoxy."

Nah.I prefer selected quotes from SJ Gould and Darwin to debunk evolution.

[Dancing David]

Arrgh The Second law of Thermodynamics Argument

As I live and breath I take in structured components and reduce them to more unstructured components. the law applies to the general state of the system, not to an inherent piece of the system

Take the phone system, is is ordered so it violates entropy right, unless you look at the fact that we have taken a concentration of mineral elements and spread it over the face of the earth, that it entropy.

Peace and Joy to you Ruby, you are brave and show great honor in this discussion in the sceptics forum, may all use decorum and respect.

Peace
dancing david

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dub
[B]


Ruby,

that site is a classic example of mis-information, inaccuarcies and down right lies. This is, unfortunately, almost always the case with creationist properganda. It is terrible how people can blatently lie to people like that.

This is the same type of thing that creationists say about evolution information. Both sides claim each other has inaccuracies and lies.

I wish I had more time to look at all info on the subject. There is so much information.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Ruby, I know you hold your faith very dear, and I have no problem with that. But there are ways to integrate your religious beliefs with reality in ways other than clinging to a fable that's over 4,000 years old. Evolution and cosmology can be integrated with Christian beliefs more readily than the fanatics and fundamentalists would like you to believe.

I am not sure how they can be integrated, but it's certainly interesting that it is possible.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ruby


This is the same type of thing that creationists say about evolution information. Both sides claim each other has inaccuracies and lies.

I wish I had more time to look at all info on the subject. There is so much information.

The Creationists are exibiting woo woo behavior at this point. They are merely reflecting accusations they do not understand the meaning of.

[Dub]

Originally posted by Ruby


This is the same type of thing that creationists say about evolution information. Both sides claim each other has inaccuracies and lies.

I wish I had more time to look at all info on the subject. There is so much information.

In my experience, creationist's attack on evolution are based on a mis-understanding of evolution. All they can do is attack straw-men. Of course, people that do not understand evolution themseleves are unable to see the flaws in the creationists arguement - this is what the creationisits rely on. with a bit of research of the true theory of evolution, creationist argument are clearly bogus.

I've posted some of the inaccuracies and lies in the site you posted - and hopefully explained why they are not true. If you have any examples of creationist attacks on the theory of evolution, please post some here. I can almost guarantee that the attacks will be based on straw-men.

[Dub]

Originally posted by Ruby


I am not sure how they can be integrated, but it's certainly interesting that it is possible.

Why try and integrate it? Thats just helpless holding on to your beliefs, inspite of evidence showing they are wrong. Why not using it a starting point from intellectual liberation.

[Kashyapa]

Athena? I heard she was sort of headstrong. I went out with Persephone for a while, but I found out during her long trips during the wintertime, she was seeing another guy. He was this total *******, and I sort of suspect he was a serial murderer. Apparently their relationship is really manipulative, and she's not happy with him. I heard her mom's a sweetie, too- a real earth-mother type.
Originally posted by c4ts


Sure the gods exist. I just got back from dating grey-eyed Athena. She really got upset when the waiter forgot to put an olive in her martini, so she hurled a javelin through his chest for insulting the gods. If you think that's overdoing it, you should have met her dad. He's the kind of guy who'll start a war to destroy your whole country if he thinks you're being a bad guest. The last guy to cross him was a member of his own family, and he kicked him off the tallest mountain in the world for it!

[Dub]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Athena? I heard she was sort of headstrong. I went out with Persephone for a while, but I found out during her long trips during the wintertime, she was seeing another guy. He was this total *******, and I sort of suspect he was a serial murderer. Apparently their relationship is really manipulative, and she's not happy with him. I heard her mom's a sweetie, too- a real earth-mother type.


errr...WTF!?!?! :confused: :confused:

[Kashyapa]

Sorry, just continuing c4ts' bit of randomness about dating Athena. Persephone is the goddess of spring, who goes to the underworld every winter because Hades (god of the dead) kidnapped her and forced her to be his queen for half the year. I know, I know...cheesy.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Dub


errr...WTF!?!?! :confused: :confused:

Blame me. I wanted to make fun of Ancient Greek polytheism.

[Darwin]

"I am not sure how they can be integrated, but it's certainly interesting that it is possible. "

Let´s say that there are christian believers who obviously think it is possible,they feel it is not appropriate to deny evolution but at the same time they feel it is not taking away from their faith either.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ruby, just wanted to send a public personal note and thank you for being open minded enough to investigate the evidence for the validity of evolution. :)

[Ruby]

This is an old thread. I am sorry for bumping it, but with recent discussions about how JREF has changed someone's beliefs, I could not help think how much it has changed mine...from fundamental Christian to Deist/Agnostic/humanist.

In this thread I found this old post to me by Lord Kenneth (then Dark Cobra) Originally posted by Dark Cobra
"Please note, Ruby, that there is no such thing as anything "spiritual", and if there is, no evidence of it currently exists.

Please stop dwelling on BS... "Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
[B]

c4ts posted back to him saying "Saying that sort of thing is just going to cause people to cling even harder to their beliefs and superstitions."


Lord Kenneth responded to him with "Those sort of people would never admit they are wrong, with their mental illness of "faith" so strong in them."

Guess what, I was WRONG!!! Most of what I still believed or was clinging to when I posted in this thread has been revaluated and found lacking. I thank everyone who kindly posted links and explanations. Sometimes, it was over my head, but I have worked hard to understand and grasp as much as I can in my puny brain.

I no longer have trouble believing in the big bang theory. I totally believe that ape-men...epecially Neaderthal's existed. I see the bible as being historically and scientifically inaccurate. I cannot accept creationism. This earth is an old earth. There seems no doubt...all the evidence is clear. Anyhow, these are just some of the things that I had problems with when I posted in this thread.

I don't know if Lord Kenneth is on JREF anymore. I would hope he would be happy that he was wrong when he made that statement about me. There are many Christians who are questioning and skeptical and not just spoon fed from their Pastors or brainwashed. If I can change and see the light....they can too!! So, hopefully, if any dare venture onto JREF, we can treat them gently and kindly and with as much patience as possible.................unless they come on to troll and attack and condemn us.:D

[espritch]

I’m not a creationist, so I not really qualified to take the survey. I did want to comment on the flood story. This story is indeed wide spread and very old. The Babylonians had a version of this story much older than the biblical one. Many other cultures have versions of the story as well. There is a theory that the story is based on an actual flood that occurred around the black sea about 7000 years ago when increased sea levels due to the melting of the ice sheets at the end of the ice age carved the Bosporus Straight and pored into the what had been a much smaller fresh water lake during the ice age. This flood made a strong impression on the locals who incorporated it into their legends. And since it was a good story, it spread. Details can be found here:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

Of course the site notes that flood stories were found among American Indians as well. While I suspect the story would have traveled well, it would seem unlikely that it traveled all the way to the new world, given that settlement of the new world occurred well before 7000 years ago. But who knows?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Ruby
This is an old thread. I am sorry for bumping it, but with recent discussions about how JREF has changed someone's beliefs, I could not help think how much it has changed mine...from fundamental Christian to Deist/Agnostic/humanist.

In this thread I found this old post to me by Lord Kenneth (then Dark Cobra) Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
[B]

c4ts posted back to him saying "Saying that sort of thing is just going to cause people to cling even harder to their beliefs and superstitions."


Lord Kenneth responded to him with "Those sort of people would never admit they are wrong, with their mental illness of "faith" so strong in them."

Guess what, I was WRONG!!! Most of what I still believed or was clinging to when I posted in this thread has been revaluated and found lacking. I thank everyone who kindly posted links and explanations. Sometimes, it was over my head, but I have worked hard to understand and grasp as much as I can in my puny brain.

I no longer have trouble believing in the big bang theory. I totally believe that ape-men...epecially Neaderthal's existed. I see the bible as being historically and scientifically inaccurate. I cannot accept creationism. This earth is an old earth. There seems no doubt...all the evidence is clear. Anyhow, these are just some of the things that I had problems with when I posted in this thread.

I don't know if Lord Kenneth is on JREF anymore. I would hope he would be happy that he was wrong when he made that statement about me. There are many Christians who are questioning and skeptical and not just spoon fed from their Pastors or brainwashed. If I can change and see the light....they can too!! So, hopefully, if any dare venture onto JREF, we can treat them gently and kindly and with as much patience as possible.................unless they come on to troll and attack and condemn us.:D

You're one of my favorite people here Ruby. :)
I envy you. A journey is just beginning for you, and there is so much to discover.
I hope you don't lose your sprituality, but instead may find that it changes into a sprituality that encompases all the grandeur of the cosmos, instead of a small part of it.

[fishbob]

I have to agree with Ratman_tf, Ruby, you are all right. Best of luck with your self-educaation and best wishes for the new year.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


You're one of my favorite people here Ruby. :)
I envy you. A journey is just beginning for you, and there is so much to discover.
I hope you don't lose your sprituality, but instead may find that it changes into a sprituality that encompases all the grandeur of the cosmos, instead of a small part of it.

Thanks!!!:D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


You're one of my favorite people here Ruby. :)
I envy you. A journey is just beginning for you, and there is so much to discover.
I hope you don't lose your sprituality, but instead may find that it changes into a sprituality that encompases all the grandeur of the cosmos, instead of a small part of it.

Thanks!!!:D