RE: Science proves creatinists wrong.

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 8:35:33 AM

thezeppo

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/15/2012
Status: offline

You can't really prove a creationist wrong, you can only add more evidence to the argument for evolution. If you meet someone who is actually taking the bible literally then evolution is a useful counterargument, but you can't argue with faith.

(in reply to GotSteel)

Profile

Post #: 221

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 8:49:36 AM

jlf1961

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
There's remnants of a few middle eastern and Chinese boats that predate Christ cheerfully rotting away in museums, are there not?

yup but do ya not thunk wooden ships survivin' from 3000 bc are uncommon?

the remains of a 4000 year old ship were found in Egypt with timbers in good shape.

The flood of Noah supposedly took place about 2348 BCE, which means that the Egyptian pyramids and ruins are nothing more than holograms.

sometimes wood survives in particular conditions but the exception rather than da rule. even if it survived it would still need ta be discovered so its absence cant be used against da story. thought the flood is dated between 3,200 an 2,900 BC.

If you take the time when the flood happened, about 1650 years after creation, and figure in the ages of the patriarchs, it ends up being around 2348 BCE.

Even if we take your period, between 3,200 and 2,900 BCE, we have a problem with the ruins of thriving civilizations that were growing since 4000 BCE with no break, add to that the early Egyptian ruins...

Which means that the ruins dated to the time of the flood are nothing but holograms projected by aliens to fool us.

dont buy inta the 6000 yr old earth r strict biblical dating unless we accept noah really was 600 yrs old lol. way i see it is that egyptian history begins after 3000 bc an' a bit earlier wit sumer so some dating clash but not that much. some folks date da great flood ta just before da big cities of sumer & there is arch evidence of a flood dat may tie in wit noah.

Please note my comments about various ruins and the pyramids being elaborate alien produced holograms.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)

Profile

Post #: 222

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 8:50:20 AM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

This is a thread about creationists who have a very literal belief in the factuality of these fictional stories, a position which he acknowledges is really stupid.

Actually, this is a thread about creationists who don't believe in evolution. You'll find the clue to this obscure fact hidden in the OP. I realize, of course, that you'd rather it be about something else, and I'll admit that recent threads haven't provided you with much opportunity to enjoy your favorite pastime of raking the Bible for not being "factual". But life's like that sometimes, and two stupidities aren't better than one.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/11/2013 9:49:18 AM >

(in reply to GotSteel)

Profile

Post #: 223

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 10:47:43 AM

GotSteel

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
It is a waste of time, effort and he thinks he is always right anyway.

Then would you people at least stop quoting him so I can ignore him.

(in reply to Nosathro)

Profile

Post #: 224

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 12:21:34 PM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Can somebody explain to the guy that

It is a waste of time, effort and he thinks he is always right anyway.

My money is on Kirata.

_____________________________

"I tend to pay attention when Rule speaks" - Aswad

"You are sweet, kind, and ever so smart, Rule. You ALWAYS stretch my mind and make me think further than I might have on my own" - Duskypearls

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

(in reply to Nosathro)

Profile

Post #: 225

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 1:45:34 PM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

Please note my comments about various ruins and the pyramids being elaborate alien produced holograms.

(in reply to jlf1961)

Profile

Post #: 226

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 2:29:21 PM

WantsOfTheFlesh

Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
If you take the time when the flood happened, about 1650 years after creation, and figure in the ages of the patriarchs, it ends up being around 2348 BCE.

Even if we take your period, between 3,200 and 2,900 BCE, we have a problem with the ruins of thriving civilizations that were growing since 4000 BCE with no break, add to that the early Egyptian ruins...

Which means that the ruins dated to the time of the flood are nothing but holograms projected by aliens to fool us.

dont buy inta the 6000 yr old earth r strict biblical dating unless we accept noah really was 600 yrs old lol. way i see it is that egyptian history begins after 3000 bc an' a bit earlier wit sumer so some dating clash but not that much. some folks date da great flood ta just before da big cities of sumer & there is arch evidence of a flood dat may tie in wit noah.

Please note my comments about various ruins and the pyramids being elaborate alien produced holograms.

took yer comment bout holograms as a rebuttal coz ya said civilisation started bout 4000 bc after i said da floods came later. sense of humor fail?

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to jlf1961)

Profile

Post #: 227

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 2:36:32 PM

jlf1961

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
If you take the time when the flood happened, about 1650 years after creation, and figure in the ages of the patriarchs, it ends up being around 2348 BCE.

Even if we take your period, between 3,200 and 2,900 BCE, we have a problem with the ruins of thriving civilizations that were growing since 4000 BCE with no break, add to that the early Egyptian ruins...

Which means that the ruins dated to the time of the flood are nothing but holograms projected by aliens to fool us.

dont buy inta the 6000 yr old earth r strict biblical dating unless we accept noah really was 600 yrs old lol. way i see it is that egyptian history begins after 3000 bc an' a bit earlier wit sumer so some dating clash but not that much. some folks date da great flood ta just before da big cities of sumer & there is arch evidence of a flood dat may tie in wit noah.

Please note my comments about various ruins and the pyramids being elaborate alien produced holograms.

took yer comment bout holograms as a rebuttal coz ya said civilisation started bout 4000 bc after i said da floods came later. sense of humor fail?

Lets put it this way, if the earth is 6000 years old, then I am Hugh Hefner's long lost twin grandchild brother.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)

Profile

Post #: 228

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 2:59:59 PM

WantsOfTheFlesh

Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
I am Hugh Hefner's long lost twin grandchild brother.

any relation ta da two-second-man has my deepest sympathy

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to jlf1961)

Profile

Post #: 229

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 7:35:53 PM

Nosathro

Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Can somebody explain to the guy that

It is a waste of time, effort and he thinks he is always right anyway.

My money is on Kirata.

As the old saying goes "A Fool and his money are soon departed"

< Message edited by Nosathro -- 2/11/2013 7:36:46 PM >

(in reply to Rule)

Profile

Post #: 230

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 12:23:07 AM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

As the old saying goes "A Fool and his money are soon departed"

That's actually a fairly new saying. If I recall correctly, it was invented by some boozed up ex-cop from California after he was dragged out of a casino by the Vegas police for threatening a dealer with a wooden sword. I used to have the clipping, but I can't find it now.

K.

(in reply to Nosathro)

Profile

Post #: 231

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 1:03:35 AM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

~ FR ~

A usually reliable inside source is reporting that Kate Upton wants to blow the first guy who quotes post #223.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/12/2013 1:30:37 AM >

(in reply to GotSteel)

Profile

Post #: 232

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 1:21:20 AM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

I've always believed that evolution was absolutely a fact. I also believe that it's God's way of protecting creatures from the hazards of living.

So, I've always been an Intelligent Evolutionist?

Peace and comfort,

Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to Kirata)

Profile

Post #: 233

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 3:00:28 AM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

You are Immanuel Velikovsky

And you are a Moonhead.

K.

The lunatic pseudohistorian in question was famous for psedoscientific bullshit about the great flood that was mentioned in the Bible/drowned Atlantis/drowned Lemuria/other being caused by a cosmic catastrophe so risible that they couldn't have got it onto an episode of the X Files. Sort of the Von Daniken of the 1950s.

Maybe you could try googling Worlds In Collision rather than snarking.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Kirata)

Profile

Post #: 234

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 3:01:38 AM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I've always believed that evolution was absolutely a fact. I also believe that it's God's way of protecting creatures from the hazards of living.

So, I've always been an Intelligent Evolutionist?

Peace and comfort,

Michael

One thing that's rarely pointed out about the shift from Creationism to Intelligent Design is that the anti-evolutionists' theory has... evolved.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 235

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 4:19:38 AM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I've always believed that evolution was absolutely a fact. I also believe that it's God's way of protecting creatures from the hazards of living.

So, I've always been an Intelligent Evolutionist?

Peace and comfort,

Michael

Some estimate that more than 90% of all species have gone extinct. If that is god's way of protecting against the hazards of life he is sorry-ass inept at his job.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 236

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 4:29:07 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I've always believed that evolution was absolutely a fact. I also believe that it's God's way of protecting creatures from the hazards of living.

So, I've always been an Intelligent Evolutionist?

Peace and comfort,

Michael

Some estimate that more than 90% of all species have gone extinct. If that is god's way of protecting against the hazards of life he is sorry-ass inept at his job.

his first mistake was allowing mankind on the planet....

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to vincentML)

Profile

Post #: 237

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 4:33:31 AM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

This is a thread about creationists who have a very literal belief in the factuality of these fictional stories, a position which he acknowledges is really stupid.

Actually, this is a thread about creationists who don't believe in evolution. You'll find the clue to this obscure fact hidden in the OP. I realize, of course, that you'd rather it be about something else, and I'll admit that recent threads haven't provided you with much opportunity to enjoy your favorite pastime of raking the Bible for not being "factual". But life's like that sometimes, and two stupidities aren't better than one.

The literal reading of the Bible is the wellspring of Creationism. Fundamentalist christians who promote Creationism as an alternative to Evolution have taken exception to any attempt to portray Genesis as myth. Raking the Bible for not being factual is a legitimate counterpoint. To claim otherwise is an obfuscation of the debate. A not very clever attempt to turn the debate onto the motives of the debaters of one side. Attacking the opponent is a certain sign your position in the debate is shallow at best. But then, that's what you do, Kirata.

(in reply to Kirata)

Profile

Post #: 238

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 7:11:50 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

This is a thread about creationists who have a very literal belief in the factuality of these fictional stories, a position which he acknowledges is really stupid.

Actually, this is a thread about creationists who don't believe in evolution. You'll find the clue to this obscure fact hidden in the OP. I realize, of course, that you'd rather it be about something else, and I'll admit that recent threads haven't provided you with much opportunity to enjoy your favorite pastime of raking the Bible for not being "factual". But life's like that sometimes, and two stupidities aren't better than one.

The literal reading of the Bible is the wellspring of Creationism. Fundamentalist christians who promote Creationism as an alternative to Evolution have taken exception to any attempt to portray Genesis as myth. Raking the Bible for not being factual is a legitimate counterpoint. To claim otherwise is an obfuscation of the debate. A not very clever attempt to turn the debate onto the motives of the debaters of one side. Attacking the opponent is a certain sign your position in the debate is shallow at best. But then, that's what you do, Kirata.

For example one of the most prominent creationist groups, the ones with the "museum in Kentucky, is Answers in Genesis. Their statement of faith makes clear thy take the entire bible literally.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

(in reply to vincentML)

Profile

Post #: 239

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/12/2013 7:48:46 AM

thishereboi

Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

This is a thread about creationists who have a very literal belief in the factuality of these fictional stories, a position which he acknowledges is really stupid.

Actually, this is a thread about creationists who don't believe in evolution. You'll find the clue to this obscure fact hidden in the OP. I realize, of course, that you'd rather it be about something else, and I'll admit that recent threads haven't provided you with much opportunity to enjoy your favorite pastime of raking the Bible for not being "factual". But life's like that sometimes, and two stupidities aren't better than one.

K.