we, creationists
-
Maggot_22 — 18 years ago(October 03, 2007 07:51 AM)
we think EXACTLY the same thing about you except that we quote the bible while you quote other humans.
Quoting the Bible is quoting other humans! It was written by humans, it was EDITED by humans and it has nothing directly to do with God except that when it was first written by humans, a long time after the things actually happened, they decided to say that it was the "word of God".
Ignorance is bliss, but when your ignorance beep with my life it's a problem -
cwente2 — 18 years ago(October 03, 2007 03:26 PM)
A terribly cynical view. It behooves us to remember that many who quote the Bible do so with the conviction that it is the "revealed" word of God. That is to say, God told the "humans" what to write. I doubt there are many who believe that God actually took pen in hand, so to speak. BTW, the Bible is often quoted for reasons other than inerrancy. No matter what your beliefs, there's a lot of wisdom there. No? . . .
-
Maggot_22 — 18 years ago(October 05, 2007 08:22 AM)
exactly NO!!! It's not a cynical view, it's a realistic view. The Bible now is very different from the first written copy. It has been edited, translated and basically made a shell of what it originally was. Using it for any other reason than to see one point of view in the millions of views of life, is quite simply foolish.
I always enjoy the fact that scientists and religious people can rationally discuss and challenge some issues of science but if they attempt to do the same with religion, there will be none of that.
Little brother needs to give his retarded Big brother a beating -
LionHearted99 — 18 years ago(October 17, 2007 04:54 PM)
"The self-called atheists don't have one god like us they have two: Time and Chance."
That tells me you have no idea what atheism is and even less about what evolution is. Atheism is a lack of beliefno belief in a God of any kind. There is nothing to rail against because there is no God and hence, nothing to rail againstexcept the insidious and tiring rants of the believers.
"Like us, they have no idea how Time and Chance created the first living organism"
Actually, scientists do have plausible ideas as to how life began on this planet. There is evidence to suggest that life arose from self replicating, pre-cell ingredientsthe primordial soup, if you will. At very least scientists have some realistic ideas as to how life began here. All you believers have is wishful thinking, mythologies and that great work of fiction called the Bible.
As far as convenience goesreligion (up to now) has enjoyed the immunity from having to prove it's stance. Seems we ask for evidence for all other realms of life, law, economics, etcbut religionlargely because they say sois somehow exempt from having to account for itself. Well I don't for one minute buy that nonsense. -
Nokitah — 18 years ago(January 27, 2008 02:12 AM)
you said: "you quoted me but you didn't READ me. I said "retards" didn't I? That includes ignorant, illogic, unscientific and so much more."
now i beg to differ! i know a lot of intelligent, scientific and logic retards! to me being a retard doesn't mean you're ignorant, it means you're too stupid to admit you might be wrong about something. i mean, there are a lot of retard evolutionists!
anyway, my best friend is a creationist. she's not retarded nor stupid. she's just ignorant. i'm ignorant! and ignorance means to not know the truth and, instead, believe whatever anyone feeds you. nobody can say with an 100% certainty HOW THE beep THE EARTH WAS "BORN"! i'm neither a creationist (for the love of god - and hey i don't deny his existence! but, again, i can't say he does exist!) or an evolutionist. one thing is for sure (for me at least), evolution makes a lot more sense than creation! even if it's not the truth!
what i absolutely hate about creationists and evolutionists (and everyone with such a deep belief in something that they allow themselves to be blinded, denying the truth) is their fanatism! i hate fundamentalism!
why can't religious people and non-religious people GET ALONG??? respect your fellow man, isn't that one of the most important principles of the biblie?
and about the insults, you're definitely no one to talk.
Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes! -
MovieKnut — 14 years ago(March 03, 2012 10:21 AM)
we quote the bible while you quote other humans
When you quote the bible you quote other humans. The bible is a product of it's time. Written by men, fashioned by beliefs and prejudices of the era.
You can't palm off a second-rater on me. You gotta remember I was in the pink! -
charliechan007 — 18 years ago(September 14, 2007 11:55 AM)
"(this formula and alike were used in the same obsessive manner in the former communist block countries - where i come from - to explain the utter superiority of communism over capitalism)" ??
Well, it is also the same formula that allows us to read DNA, to go to the moon, and to know that the earth revolves around the sun. It may be that people have said unkind things to you, and that is not good, but it also does not strengthen your argument for "creationism;" it's a seperate issue. -
Gorship — 18 years ago(September 23, 2007 12:17 PM)
Well, it is also the same formula that allows us to read DNA, to go to the moon, and to know that the earth revolves around the sun.
I fail to see how evolution helps us read DNA and go to the Moon and know that the earth revolves around the sun.
there is science in creation and there is science in evolution, its about your starting assumption, if you are a creationist you believe in the beginning god, if you are a evolutionist you believe in the beginning..dirt..or nothing exploded (the big bang, which doesn't prove anything a big bang would make a big mess not a complete universe)
just to show that your belief system doesn't effect how you do science (yes evolution is a belief system, The MRI machine was founded by a creationist.
now I read that people say that creationist's have no proof this is a very false statement and very misleading, we ALL have the same evidence no matter what you think or believe, the question is what is your starting assumption. we look at the earth, lets talk about the rock layers, the humanist or evolutionist view says, "wow look at what time did!", and creationists say "well if time did that, why do we have all these trees going through the layers.. or why isn't there any showing of erosion between the layers..they look all smacked together, I believe that a Flood is a much better explanation"
To any creationist reading this, don't get frustrated when someone doesn't hear your position and instead just gets mad at you, remember jesus said.
John 15:18
"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first."
Also if when you are showing your position you feel nervous that perhaps you are not going to be heard and start to doubt yourself. Remember..
Numbers 14:11
" The LORD said to Moses, "How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the miraculous signs I have performed among them? 12 I will strike them down with a plague and destroy them, but I will make you into a nation greater and stronger than they." "
It matters that you are trying!
As for the evolutionists reading this, we creationists are sorry that you feel like we are "shoving it down your throats", but if you saw the most beautiful thing, something that totally touched you, ACTUALLY healed you (yes I have seen healings and even heard him speak to me.) You would want to share it, you would want to save the world from the judgment to come, I challenge you to just open your hearts and search within yourself, if you really believe you do not have a soul, and when you die thats it, you don't even see black its just over, and your just worm food, so you better get drunk and high all you can because its gonna end soon. Evolution is a theory its not fact, it stands up in theory but because we cant prove it, we have no way to reproduce it, it is not a fact, we cannot watch a fish turn into a crocodile, we see small fish and big fish but thats no evolution in the sense of molecules to man.
I will end with I hope and Pray that you will one day see his glory.
In kindness and love
for his Truth and Name
Gorship -
charliechan007 — 18 years ago(October 01, 2007 02:00 PM)
The formula is the scientific method, which is "not" in operation in "creationism."
and why do you assume people who beleive the science of evolution are "not" Christians? Most Christians understand the science behind it to be true. You're creating a false dichotomy. -
Rangely8723 — 18 years ago(October 01, 2007 07:18 PM)
there is science in creation
No. Creation is totally based on the speculation that a creator exists. But a scientific theory cannot be based on beliefs and speculation. You first need to prove that a creator definitely does exist, then you can call creation/creationism
perhaps
a scientific theory which can be considered
nearly
equally to evolution. (Perhaps and nearly, because it probably still wouldn't go along with some other scientific aspects, and further, evolution is more than a theory only)
and there is science in evolution
Well, evolution IS science. It was originally a scientific theory developed by observation of the nature and it's based on other scientific findings, and it does respect ALL scientific facts and natural laws. In the meantime it advanced to a scientific model after most aspects of the evolution theory could be proven as facts.
if you are a evolutionist you believe []
Serious scientists do not just believe in things. This is what you do.
a big bang would make a big mess not a complete universe
Well, a big bang which respects the natural laws exactly would make a complete universe. However, the universe consists out of ~100 billions of galaxies, each with suns, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, pulsars, a lot of dust, energy, etc. etc., so it's also a big mess indeed, isn't it?
now I read that people say that creationist's have no proof this is a very false statement and very misleading, we ALL have the same evidence no matter what you think or believe[]
Then show us evidence that a creator
definitely exists
. Then (and only then) you maybe have a scientific
theory
, but which doesn't automatically mean that the creator actually has created this world according to you. Even in this case evolution still would be a considerable (and actually an even more probable) alternative, since a creator could have initiated evolution for the development of lifeforms instead of creating them all personally (what only a stupid creator would do, I guess)
Citoyens! Vouliez-vous une rvolution sans rvolution? -
LionHearted99 — 18 years ago(September 15, 2007 12:50 AM)
One reason scientifically minded people don't take creationism seriously is because it has not a leg to stand on. Creationists like you have no evidence for your beliefsit's all someone's opinion based on wishful thinking. When pushed to the limitwhen all of your arguments have failedyou creationists retreat into "I believe because I believe." Small wonder you are not taken seriously by modern and sophisticated minds. And yesthis attitude does smack of ignorance and narrow mindedness.
I believe in evolution not because it's intellectually fashionable, or because I love to poke fun at delusional creationism. I believe in evolution because that's where the facts and evidence have led me. It makes total sense to me and there is overwhelming evidence to support it. All you need do is provide evidence for creationism and godand this whole argument will go away. But since you cannot provide evidence for your beliefs, because there is none.this arguing will persist. -
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 23, 2007 06:51 AM)
"It makes total sense to me and there is overwhelming evidence to support it."
Well, it makes a good deal of sense to me, too. But, let's not forget that not too many years ago it made "total sense" (using overwhelming but carefully selected "evidence") to put black people in chains, institutionalize people who doubted the Marxist agenda, and scoff at E=Mc2 and the quantum theory. -
-
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 25, 2007 01:52 AM)
cnalbrecht,
You miss my point entirely. My fault, perhaps. Read my post again. I was referring to your certitudes about "evidence" and your use of the word "overwhelming". I'm merely saying that what passes as "evidence" one day can be shown to be flawed another. Or, the "interpretation" of evidence which one day seems "overwhelmingly" persuasive can become not so persuasive another. A fundamentally "scientific" caution.
Looking at my reference to Einstein: The imperatives of Euclid and Newton were gospel for centuries, until the little man with the frazzled hair wrote three articles in "The Annals of Physics" in 1905. In short, you're TOO SURE of things as they appear to you now just like those you consider religious zealots. In your own way, you're a "flat-Earther". . . It would suit you better to open your mind, and show some respect for those who don't see the orthodoxy as clearly as you do.
You'll excuse me, but I don't care to re-hash what passed as "scientific evidence", or the self-serving interpretations of same, in western Europe and elsewhere in the days and years preceeding their natural outcomes slavery & its cousins. -
Rangely8723 — 18 years ago(September 25, 2007 03:34 PM)
You miss my point entirely. My fault, perhaps. Read my post again. I was referring to your certitudes about "evidence" and your use of the word "overwhelming". I'm merely saying that what passes as "evidence" one day can be shown to be flawed another. Or, the "interpretation" of evidence which one day seems "overwhelmingly" persuasive can become not so persuasive another. A fundamentally "scientific" caution.
Nonsense. There is an absolutely clear definition for scientific evidence, and even more for mathematical evidence. A scientific evidence doesn't allow any interpretations, otherwise it wouldn't be a scientific evidence.
Looking at my reference to Einstein: The imperatives of Euclid and Newton were gospel for centuries, until the little man with the frazzled hair wrote three articles in "The Annals of Physics" in 1905. In short, you're TOO SURE of things as they appear to you now just like those you consider religious zealots. In your own way, you're a "flat-Earther". . . It would suit you better to open your mind, and show some respect for those who don't see the orthodoxy as clearly as you do.
You try to imply a conflict between Einstein and Newton / classical physics which actually doesn't exist:- Newton's and Euclid's findings aren't wrong and still are valid and important for physics/mathematics. Einstein merely went further, beyond Newton's understanding of the nature, but his findings don't replace classical physics in any way.
- Einstein based his theories on existing knowledge and mathematical logic. It's not like he invented something completely out of his fantasy. It was a result of research and mathematical calculations. Without the existing knowledge of Newton and Euclid, Einstein wouldn't have been able to make his findings.
Citoyens! Vouliez-vous une rvolution sans rvolution?
-
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 25, 2007 05:51 PM)
"Nonsense. There is an absolutely clear definition for scientific evidence, and even more for mathematical evidence."
Oh? How can there be "more" for mathematical evidence, if, as you say, "there is an absolutely clear definition for scientific evidence"? How can there be "more" than "absolutely clear"? It might help me if you would provide THE definition of which you speak.
"A scientific evidence doesn't allow for any interpretations, otherwise it wouldn't be a scientific evidence."
My goodness! So, when Dr. A looks at a tumor (evidence of a problem) and pronounces it malignant . . . I should just go home and weep? Or, when Egyptologist "B", having read a row of hieroglyphics, tells me that the Pharoah Hatshepsut was a benevolent monarch, I should go home and burn Egyptologist C's books suggesting the reverse? I find a cache of stone arrowheads beside an old stream bed. "Evidence" of a war-like people, or just avid hunters? Or, should we just . . . stop talking? If you're right, we may just as well fire half the professors in our universities world-wide. If they aren't fighting over interpretation of fact, then what are they fighting over? (See commentaries on the dead sea scrolls)
"You try to imply a conflict between Einstein and Newton/classical physics which actually doesn't exist."
I didn't intend to "imply" any kind of conflict. Your last two paragraphs are correct (or nearly so). My intent was simply to show the poster that a) ALL the "evidence" isn't in (and probably never will be); b) SOME propositions CAN'T be proved, "a)" notwithstanding, (Eg., relativity and evolution); and c) though they didn't confute Newton, Einstein's theories certainly shed a new light on time-honored suppositions about the world they both lived in, and the universe. Or, are you telling me that "interpretations" of the "evidence" Newton saw weren't at all effected when Einstein's new light (his "stream of particles") was shown upon it? . . . That Newton's gravity and its importance to our world and its origins wasn't seen as different than Einstein's? Or, that Galileo didn't "interpret" differently from the Pope the heavenly "evidence" they both saw on some dark 17th century night?
"But his findings don't replace classical physics in any way."
Yeah . . . maybe. They don't help us build a rocket any better, but they sure as hell help us to know just how fast and how far it can go . . . if it's built perfectly. And, causing us to think a little differently about why we're building it in the first place.
You guys are beginning to sound more like Brady than like Drummond. Rigid dogma visits everybody's camp, at one time or another. -
Rangely8723 — 18 years ago(September 26, 2007 05:42 AM)
Oh? How can there be "more" for mathematical evidence, if, as you say, "there is an absolutely clear definition for scientific evidence"? How can there be "more" than "absolutely clear"? It might help me if you would provide THE definition of which you speak.
Sorry, I didn't describe it correctly what I actually wanted to say.
Both are defined clearly, but scientific evidence necessarily includes a mathematical evidence of the equation(s) which describe(s) my theory (or my interpretation of the observation I've made) which I want to prove. As long as the equation doesn't fit the mathematical rules, I cannot present it as a (part of the) scientific evidence.
Now, if you don't know the definition for mathematical evidence, throw your bible away, at least for a moment, and pick up a maths book for the junior grade and learn about mathematical evidence. Otherwise, this hairsplitting discussion will be endless since you will never understand what a scientific evindence is and why it is defined that clearly.
Perhaps you will call me arrogant for telling you that. But I promise that I will not discuss the bible with you before I've read it, or otherwise you can tell me the same about it like what I'm telling you about maths.
My goodness! So, when Dr. A looks at a tumor (evidence of a problem) and pronounces it malignant . . . I should just go home and weep? Or, when Egyptologist "B", having read a row of hieroglyphics, tells me that the Pharoah Hatshepsut was a benevolent monarch, I should go home and burn Egyptologist C's books suggesting the reverse? I find a cache of stone arrowheads beside an old stream bed. "Evidence" of a war-like people, or just avid hunters? Or, should we just . . . stop talking? If you're right, we may just as well fire half the professors in our universities world-wide. If they aren't fighting over interpretation of fact, then what are they fighting over? (See commentaries on the dead sea scrolls)
Well, if I understand you correctly, you want to tell that two doctors may interpret an illness in a different way, one says it is a tumor, the other one says no it's not. Or two Egyptologists have different interpretations of what they have found at a historical site in Egypt.
Yes I agree, what they have discovered allows an interpretation. But do the doctors have mathematical or scientific evidence for their conclusion? No, it's only based on observation. Newton also first did only observe the phenomenon of gravity, and his observation allowed various interpretations. But then he found the correct one, the only one which explained all what he saw in a logic way and for which he could finally find scientific evidence which didn't allow any further interpretation.
Regarding the Egyptologists: They also interpret an observation in a different way. To find out the correct interpretation is much more difficult in this case, because they don't observe a natural phenomenon. History and social sciences have do deal with human-caused things and humans aren't necessarily logic. They don't act according clear defined rules, that's the reason why such sciences are usually reduced to observation and interpretation, and you cannot compare it to natural sciences
I didn't intend to "imply" any kind of conflict. Your last two paragraphs are correct (or nearly so). My intent was simply to show the poster that a) ALL the "evidence" isn't in (and probably never will be); b) SOME propositions CAN'T be proved, "a)" notwithstanding, (Eg., relativity and evolution); and c) though they didn't confute Newton, Einstein's theories certainly shed a new light on time-honored suppositions about the world they both lived in, and the universe. Or, are you telling me that "interpretations" of the "evidence" Newton saw weren't at all effected when Einstein's new light (his "stream of particles") was shown upon it? . . . That Newton's gravity and its importance to our world and its origins wasn't seen as different than Einstein's? Or, that Galileo didn't "interpret" differently from the Pope the heavenly "evidence" they both saw on some dark 17th century night?
But there isn't any "Newton gravity" or "Einstein gravity" - there is just gravity. Newton has found the equation(s) which describe(s) gravity. He learned THAT it works like that and how it can be calculated. The natural laws he has discovered haven't changed since Einstein, and Newton's findings still describe gravity correctly. Why? Because he had mathematical and scientific evidence for it. As I said, this allows no interpretation. Newton's equations about gravity haven't changed and I promise they will not change; you can find them in every book about physics and they are correct. But Newton merely knew THAT there is gravity and he could describe the main effects, but he couldn't explain WHY there is gravity, and how it effects other phenomenons like light, time, etc., and that was the point where Einstein stepped in.
Whatever you wanted to show to the other poster, -
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 26, 2007 09:25 AM)
Well, you've certainly said a mouthfull! And, I've got to admit it's going to take me a while to sort through it all. So, for now, I'll just respond to one paragraph, which, I think, I can interpret correctly:
"Perhaps you will call me arrogant for telling you that."
You're right I do, though I don't think you've really told me anything I didn't already know. I am, nevertheless, still waiting for YOUR definition.
"But I promise you that I will not discuss the bible with you before I've read it, or otherwise you can tell me the same about it like what I'm telling you about maths."
Huh? Who asked you to "discuss the Bible"? I don't believe I even mentioned the Bible in any of my posts. . . I would, however, recommend it to you. There's a lot more in it, not related to intelligent design, which you might find useful on other occasions (at the end of your life, perhaps). And, ahhh . . . taking you at your word and given the eventuality, I hope I could tell you MORE about IT, though I admit I am no expert, than you have, so far, told me about "maths".
Maybe I'll get back to you re the balance of your post.
BTW, you seem to spend a lot of time talking about various "interpretations" in your post, given you reject the idea of scientific interpretation entirely. Excuse me, but, there, you sound a little schizophrenic to me. "Perhaps you will call me arrogant for telling you that." . . .
And all this time, I thought that's what science IS the illumination of fact and the interpretation of same. -
Rangely8723 — 18 years ago(September 26, 2007 12:18 PM)
You're right I do, though I don't think you've really told me anything I didn't already know. I am, nevertheless, still waiting for YOUR definition.
My definition is not different from what you can find in scientific literature and it's not my job to teach you maths and physics. Your previous messages haven't convinced me that you are able to discuss this seriously, so it wouldn't make any sense to make further explanations, because whatever I would say, you would try to make a travesty out of it.
Regarding the original message - You guys wonder why scientists don't take creation-cretins serious? You don't have a single evidence for all the nonsense you call "creationism", the only thing you can present as "evidence" are the tales from the fat ol' volume. But then you dare to say that there is no evidence for all scientific findings which doesn't fit your views of this universe which only allows things you
believe
in. And when the tons of evidence from which you say that they don't exist are slapped around your ears, you say that they are not valid, and your only explanation therefor is that you don't
believe
that something like a clear scientific evidence does exist (well, this is the point in the discussion where we are now). As if you - people who
believe
in unproven and unprovable myths and fantasies from ancient storytellers, and who always only
believe
in things instead of proving them - are in the position to comment on scientific evidences. Or look at the silly creationism - "scientists" who walk around at prehistoric sites to search fossils of dinosaurs and homo sapiens together in the same layer - they never have found anything and they never will - but the same idiots dare to say that the thousands of fossils which prove evolution are no valid evidence. Now, who do you guys think who you are, that you dare to expect that serious scientists EVER will accept your "theory" as worth to be discussed equal to evolution?
I don't want comment the rest of your message because it's the same nonsense as usual. Don't worry about responding to my previous message, I'm not any longer interested in what you have to say and I will not reply to your further comments. We will never agree on this topic and we would both waste our time if we continue this discussion.
Citoyens! Vouliez-vous une rvolution sans rvolution?