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  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 7:34:08 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

there is far more evidence and proof of evolution than otherwise.
One example, is whales having vestigal hindlimbs



This is true, but the proof of evolution does not necessarily negate the existence of God.

I believe that God created the Universe by initiating the big bang, then let everything proceed by the physical and natural laws of that creation.

The main problem with creationism as I see it, is that creationists deny the geologic age of the planet, the fossil record tracing the accent of man, and then trying to explain the fossils of dinosaurs being no older than their stated age of the planet.

Form my point of view, God allowing the universe to develop at its own pace and in its own order, just makes sense.

Besides, no one has proven any of the theories of what triggered the big bang in the first place. So who is to say there was no external intelligent force acting to start the process.

Of course, as one scientist said, "The whole of creation could just be an elaborate computer program being run in the future to chart the progress of a theory as to what started the Universe in the first place."

In which case God is a computer programer with a warped sense of humor.


I didnt say that it DID disprove the presence of a creator.
It sure as hell puts a dent in the fantasies of the holy books and some of their followers. And its them I have an issue with, when they attempt to denigrate my lack of interest in what I see as inaccurate mythology and promise hell and damnation to me and mine.

Of course, you can deny the big bang, but if we came from a creator... where did the creator come from? the creator came from nothing or is....always there? really?
simplistic bs at best.
We sure as hell dont have the understanding of the finer points right now.
I prefer not to offer up my "soul" to the "organized" religions



_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 141
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 10:25:56 AM   
thishereboi


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

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Believe anything you want just don't tell others to believe it (which you did above).


I notice you have no problem with athiests telling others what they shouldn't believe in. How is that any different?

I'll be happy to discuss this with you once you respond to my earlier response to you in this thread.


So sorry I missed this one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and eaven bettur if you speeled it 'creatiOnists'.

I thought he was spelling cretins, the plural noun meaning someone who believes in creationism.


And people wonder why some athiests are painted as close minded bigots

You're calling me a bigot for saying people who deny all of modern science are cretins? Your trolling is normally pathetic and pointless but if you're now going to start attacking me for pointing out that people who reject the entire modern world are really very very stupid then I think it is time you defend your claim.


Actually you said that "I thought he was spelling cretins, the plural noun meaning someone who believes in creationism." and I can't find anything that says they deny all of modern sciences. Now I am sure you can find other definitions that expand on that, such as the one that GotSteel quoted. but it has been pointed out that there are many different denominations of christians and they do not all believe the same exact things.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism

Definition of CREATIONISM : a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b  based on your posting history, it is easy to conclude that when you say creationist, you mean anyone who believes a god had a hand in creating the world. Since christians do in fact believe that he did, it's not a stretch to conclude you include christians in that statement.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 142
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 10:39:19 AM   
DomKen


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

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
So sorry I missed this one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and eaven bettur if you speeled it 'creatiOnists'.

I thought he was spelling cretins, the plural noun meaning someone who believes in creationism.


And people wonder why some athiests are painted as close minded bigots

You're calling me a bigot for saying people who deny all of modern science are cretins? Your trolling is normally pathetic and pointless but if you're now going to start attacking me for pointing out that people who reject the entire modern world are really very very stupid then I think it is time you defend your claim.


Actually you said that "I thought he was spelling cretins, the plural noun meaning someone who believes in creationism." and I can't find anything that says they deny all of modern sciences. Now I am sure you can find other definitions that expand on that, such as the one that GotSteel quoted. but it has been pointed out that there are many different denominations of christians and they do not all believe the same exact things.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism

Definition of CREATIONISM : a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b  based on your posting history, it is easy to conclude that when you say creationist, you mean anyone who believes a god had a hand in creating the world. Since christians do in fact believe that he did, it's not a stretch to conclude you include christians in that statement.

So how does a 6000 year old universe created in the order described by Genesis defy all of modern science?
Physics- we have many different phenomena that must be older than 6000 years or our most basic theories of physics are wrong. Since all other sciences are built on physics that should suffice but I'll continue.
Geology- There was no global flood 4000 years ago. If there had been we would find a sediemntary layer of that age all over the world with the tell tale characteristics of a flood. We don't.
Human Genetics- we are not all descended from 2 people alive 6k years ago nor are we all descended from 8 couples alive 4k years ago.
Biology- All of the organisms alive share certain basic elements of biochemistry that are quite clearly derived from a common ancestry which rules out individually created organisms 6000 years ago.
and so on and so on.

So where is the bigotry? That's right it's on the side of the troll who doesn't know what she is talking about.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 2/5/2013 10:57:20 AM >

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 143
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 10:56:20 AM   
DomKen


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

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Believe anything you want just don't tell others to believe it (which you did above).


I notice you have no problem with athiests telling others what they shouldn't believe in. How is that any different?

Since I do not tell others what to believe you are simply trolling.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 144
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 11:05:15 AM   
thishereboi


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

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Believe anything you want just don't tell others to believe it (which you did above).


I notice you have no problem with athiests telling others what they shouldn't believe in. How is that any different?

Since I do not tell others what to believe you are simply trolling.


No, you tell them what not to believe and say if they do believe a certain way they are cretins. Then when you are called on your bs, you scream troll. Personally, I'm through here. Have a great day.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 145
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 11:46:09 AM   
DomKen


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

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Believe anything you want just don't tell others to believe it (which you did above).


I notice you have no problem with athiests telling others what they shouldn't believe in. How is that any different?

Since I do not tell others what to believe you are simply trolling.


No, you tell them what not to believe and say if they do believe a certain way they are cretins. Then when you are called on your bs, you scream troll. Personally, I'm through here. Have a great day.

I never wrote anything about whether or not some one can believe anything. I did express my opinion on people who believe an incorrect thing. You seem to believe that no one can have an opinion different from yours. That seems to be the bigoted position.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 146
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 11:53:57 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
Definition of CREATIONISM : a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis . . . [My italics.]

It's a shame that the italicised words now have to be appended to the foregoing in that definition. Before 'creationism', IIRC, there was just the idea that 'God created the universe' and whatever the laws of physics were deemed to be, God was behind them. That wasn't too troublesome to many agnostics, myself included.

But the 'retailers of beliefs' always have to step in. 'Don't make your own beliefs from raw materials - your local Christian church, that great factory and warehouse of religious beliefs, has its own ready-made creed-kit for you!'

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 147
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 12:18:23 PM   
vincentML


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

Uh, did not the Catholic church say that the existence of aliens does not in any way affect the core belief system of Christianity.

@Jlf

I don't recall saying that the existence of aliens detracted from the position of the CC. Have no clue to what you are referring.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 148
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 12:25:11 PM   
vincentML


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
Definition of CREATIONISM : a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis . . . [My italics.]

It's a shame that the italicised words now have to be appended to the foregoing in that definition. Before 'creationism', IIRC, there was just the idea that 'God created the universe' and whatever the laws of physics were deemed to be, God was behind them. That wasn't too troublesome to many agnostics, myself included.

But the 'retailers of beliefs' always have to step in. 'Don't make your own beliefs from raw materials - your local Christian church, that great factory and warehouse of religious beliefs, has its own ready-made creed-kit for you!'

Tiz the Fundy war against Darwin. http://www.discovery.org/a/4299

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 149
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 12:51:15 PM   
jlf1961


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Uh, did not the Catholic church say that the existence of aliens does not in any way affect the core belief system of Christianity.

@Jlf

I don't recall saying that the existence of aliens detracted from the position of the CC. Have no clue to what you are referring.



quote:

Writing in the Vatican newspaper, the astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, said intelligent beings created by God could exist in outer space.

Father Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory near Rome, is a respected scientist who collaborates with universities around the world.
Vatican says aliens could exist


_____________________________

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 vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 150
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 1:45:22 PM   
Kirata


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Before 'creationism', IIRC, there was just the idea that 'God created the universe' and whatever the laws of physics were deemed to be, God was behind them. That wasn't too troublesome to many agnostics, myself included.

The position stated in your first sentence is still the position. To my knowledge, there is no reputable theologian anywhere who subscribes to a literal reading of Genesis. Even Augustine would think a modern Fundamentalist a fool.

K.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 151
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 2:01:06 PM   
searching4mysir


Posts: 2757
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline
FR

The "big bang theory" was brought about by a Catholic priest and was called that to mock him and the Church. Now people try to use it to disprove God.

I look at it a little differently than many. Science tells us HOW something happened but religion gives us the WHY. Genesis in the Old Testament was never meant to be a scientific text book. The point of the creation story was that God spoke and it happened, and in an orderly fashion and that chaos is not from the Creator. As a Christian, I believe that the figure of Eve is also a precursor for Mary, the mother of Jesus.

_____________________________

No longer searching -- found my one and only right here on CM


(in reply to leonine)
Profile   Post #: 152
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 2:15:11 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Before 'creationism', IIRC, there was just the idea that 'God created the universe' and whatever the laws of physics were deemed to be, God was behind them. That wasn't too troublesome to many agnostics, myself included.

The position stated in your first sentence is still the position. To my knowledge, there is no reputable theologian anywhere who subscribes to a literal reading of Genesis. Even Augustine would think a modern Fundamentalist a fool.

K.


K, how do you define "Reputable Theologian"?

To a Fundamentalist, that would mean someone who taked Genesis literally.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 153
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 8:15:57 PM   
GotSteel


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

ORIGINAL: Master2811
Google on carbon 14 equilibrium for example. C14 means the death of evolution. C14 has not reached an equilibrium in the atmosphere so the Earth must be younger than 30,000 years. For further information go to:

http://www.godandscience.org/


So that's the dishonest christian apologetic, have you bothered to look up what the actual science is?

Because you've been very obviously lied to. Sixty seconds learning about actual science instead of christian misinformation would be enough to understand what a crocoduck that argument is. So for people looking to endorse that crap, in the future instead of publicly displaying ignorance please consider taking the time to check whether or not your position is a piece of crap deserving of public ridicule.


(in reply to Master2811)
Profile   Post #: 154
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 8:36:20 PM   
xssve


Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
I've gotten good results with creatine.

_____________________________

Walking nightmare...

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 155
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 9:06:58 PM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


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

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

da posit of God existing is nut in da same league as stories bout unicorns. da existence of a type o God has foundations in ancient philosophy, an' da belief in sorts of divinity is universal ta human society.

da assumption dick dawks makes dat we would expect there ta be evidence is wrong unless we take da ole testament as da only religious position. he's also wrong ta say "absolute disproof" is only da preserve of maths an' logic.

@Wantsoftheflesh

Disbelief is also universal and stems from ancient times but has been consistently persecuted because religion has always been used as a tool of power and control.

It has but nut always. not tryin' ta defend the practices of some societies.

quote:

The assumption that there is evidence is advanced by Believers. And not only in the Old Testament. Have a look at the four gospels and Paul's Letters. Also currently, Christians believe in a personal god who will intercede to protect them and forgive them and heal them if they beseech him with prayer. Believers witness to the efficacy of prayer and to near death encounters with divine persons. People testify they have the Spirit within them. And then there are claims of the appearance of Mother Mary at Fatima or of Jesus likeness on a burnt pancake. So, clearly it is Believers who claim to have evidence. The issue goes to the validity of that evidence, which is not much better than evidence for intergalactic alien kidnappers, loch ness monsters, BigFoot sightings, and crop circles made by extra terrestrials. Credible evidence is lacking. But the recurring claims of evidence demonstrates the weakness of Faith.

yup fair point. there is silly stuff an' da fantastical claims get a lot of publicity but for most people their faith is nut something they expect ta be verified by any evidence, visions pancakes an' whatnot. this is understood by da notion of a leap of faith - da step inta belief wit out proof an' wit out benefit. dat is compatible wit da belief in a personal God cuze no calling card is expected ta be left on da counter. dat is why i say dawkins made an assumption based wat some claim ta see, nut da understandin' of da many.

< Message edited by WantsOfTheFlesh -- 2/5/2013 9:08:32 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 156
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 10:51:04 PM   
jlf1961


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Master2811
Google on carbon 14 equilibrium for example. C14 means the death of evolution. C14 has not reached an equilibrium in the atmosphere so the Earth must be younger than 30,000 years. For further information go to:

http://www.godandscience.org/


You are joking with this nonsense, right? I mean come on, you have to be joking.



_____________________________

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 GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 157
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/5/2013 10:52:30 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Master2811
Google on carbon 14 equilibrium for example. C14 means the death of evolution. C14 has not reached an equilibrium in the atmosphere so the Earth must be younger than 30,000 years. For further information go to:

http://www.godandscience.org/


You are joking with this nonsense, right? I mean come on, you have to be joking.



I don't think he is.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 158
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/6/2013 5:45:45 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve
I've gotten good results with creatine.


LMAO!! Nice one!

You have deciphered the subject line, as written!

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to xssve)
Profile   Post #: 159
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/6/2013 7:24:16 AM   
vincentML


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

@ Wantsoftheflesh
quote:

It has but nut always. not tryin' ta defend the practices of some societies.

Your statement in reply to my observation that disbelief has been persecuted leaves the suggestion that persecution was only an occasional misstep when in fact the history of Islam and Christianity is written in the blood of infidels. Sorry, couldn't let that pass without comment.

quote:

yup fair point. there is silly stuff an' da fantastical claims get a lot of publicity but for most people their faith is nut something they expect ta be verified by any evidence, visions pancakes an' whatnot. this is understood by da notion of a leap of faith - da step inta belief wit out proof an' wit out benefit. dat is compatible wit da belief in a personal God cuze no calling card is expected ta be left on da counter. dat is why i say dawkins made an assumption based wat some claim ta see, nut da understandin' of da many.

This thread is about Creationism. That is what the "many" believe, and what many would like to see taught in public school science classes. Science is evidence based. Creationism relies on the God of the Gaps while Christians give witness to personal revelation or biblical revelation. Creationists and/or IDers have no evidence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is the Creationists who brought their premise to the arena of science and so it falls upon the Creationists to play by the rules of science, and to put up or stfu.




(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 160
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.188