User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 41 of 42 FirstFirst ... 31373839404142 LastLast
Results 321 to 328 of 329

Thread: Lets discuss beliefs

  1. #321

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Zone 9
    Posts
    455
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Lets just say you have to approach history and science from some viewpoint, or else you have to teach them all equally. Public schools teach the evolutionary theory, and test questions always assume the theory to be fact.

    Peter
    the cellist

  2. #322

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    intelligent design is just the politically correct term for creationism.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Science:The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.(dictionary.com)
    in science you can't ignore evidence. You can dismiss it... but not ignore it. creationism/ID are ignoring more than a few things. ID TOTALLY ignores ALL the evidence for evolution and so it's not scientific. creationism doesn't ignore all of it, but it ignores a LOT of it.
    young earth creationists totally ignore all the ways of dating the earth and the only reason they don't believe in those is because of the bible- religion, not science. separation of church and state says you shouldn't teach religion, therefore you don't teach young creationism.
    flat earth- I don't think anyone here believes that ("thank god" lol) so I won't even say anything.
    fossils- creationism totally ignores the fact that they are arranged in such a way, the fact that there are trasitional fossils, the fact that it has been calculated that 99. something % of all species that ever lived the earth are extinct (and even assuming that they are incredibly wrong and that it's only 80%)... there is no way all of them could survive in this earth at the same time. megalodons and sun fish just don't coexist together very well (just a random example. I don't know if they lived on the same places, etc) AND ignoring the fact that there are fossils in antarctica and many climates are seen in the same places.
    they also ignore the fact that they are arranged exactly how they should be and where they should be, etc. not scientific.
    geographical distribution- what's your explanation?
    vestigial structures- never mind that there is fossil and other evidence pointing to them once being useful/bigger/etc. that's just pure chance I bet. and never mind that some of those vestigial structures like wisdom teeth are actually bad for you. and never mind that beetle wings can't be useful if they're locked inside (of that beetle with wings that are fused together), and never mind that dandelion flowers are totally useless because they're sterile, etc.
    homologous structures- they completely ignore them
    analogous structures- ignored too
    the calculations and experiments showing that life could evolve (EP's link) and computer programs that evolve from simple things to complex things- ignored- well... actually they have wrong calculations... like the population growth and stuff.
    embryos- you totally ignore the evidence. dolphin back leg buds, human tails, etc.

    also... creationism uses VERY unscientific explanations. for example the great flood. first of all, a flood like that is physically impossible, the ark is too, everything about it is... and never mind that, there is zero evidence for it.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]We definately can't say that evo is the only science considering that before evo, most all(most not ALL) science was based on the Word of God and the such.
    considering most all (most not ALL) those theories were wrong and that they were NOT scientific, well... what's your point? lol
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ] Public schools teach the evolutionary theory, and test questions always assume the theory to be fact.
    what's wrong with that? gravity is taught as fact. atoms are taught as fact. continental drift is taught as fact. the fact that the sun is the center of the solar system is taught as fact. maybe we should teach their alternatives too. in a world where public schools teach the earth is flat, creationism, that the sun goes around the earth, that continents don't drift, etc. ... think about it.

    ok enough rambling about evolution.
    I kept wanting to ask but I kept forgetting:
    you say that feelings like anger, rage, love, etc. couldn't have evolved. We showed you that it makes perfect sense that they evolved. First of all we aren't the only animals with those feelings, and secondly they are needed for our life style which helps us survive so in humans, they're essential to survival.
    ok, so now I ask....if they didn't evolve, why did god create suffering? and hate? rage? pain? sadness? etc?
    he's god... he doesn't have to bend down to anything. You can't say to make us survive in the world because he created the world and the rules of nature so he could make anything and anyone survive no matter what they have/are/feel. So he CHOSE to create those things. he purposefully created those things.
    why?
    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish-Euripides
    wikipedia rocks! (except for species info)(CPers-add your vast knowledge of CPs to wikipedia&#33
    A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it
    Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything

  3. #323
    God must have an interesting sense of humor Wesley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Lafayette, IN
    Posts
    1,559
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]in science you can't ignore evidence. You can dismiss it... but not ignore it. creationism/ID are ignoring more than a few things. ID TOTALLY ignores ALL the evidence for evolution and so it's not scientific. creationism doesn't ignore all of it, but it ignores a LOT of it.
    young earth creationists totally ignore all the ways of dating the earth and the only reason they don't believe in those is because of the bible- religion, not science. separation of church and state says you shouldn't teach religion, therefore you don't teach young creationism.
    Wohhhhh buddyro! Ignore the natural process of laying layers of earth down slowly millions of year at a time. You are ignoring the fact that when Mt St Helens popped her top THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of layers of silt, ash and molten rock were laid down in a matter of HOURS. So yes, we must both be ignoring data laid plainly before us. But we also believe that some layers of of the geological column were laid down by natural processes, so techniacally you are ignoring more than we are.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]fossils- creationism totally ignores the fact that they are arranged in such a way, the fact that there are trasitional fossils, the fact that it has been calculated that 99. something % of all species that ever lived the earth are extinct (and even assuming that they are incredibly wrong and that it's only 80%)... there is no way all of them could survive in this earth at the same time. megalodons and sun fish just don't coexist together very well (just a random example. I don't know if they lived on the same places, etc) AND ignoring the fact that there are fossils in antarctica and many climates are seen in the same places.
    they also ignore the fact that they are arranged exactly how they should be and where they should be, etc. not scientific.
    I have NEVER in all my short fifteen yrs seen a transitional fossil. You show me one that is definately an intermediate... not more bird than reptile(Archaeopteryx), and I'll be more inclined to believe that.
    So what if mealodons and sunfish didn't coexist? Never heard of a great white and a bluefish coexisting. That would be the typical prey and predator scenario.
    Plants and animals frozen together in Antartica, why is that evidence against creationism?

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]geographical distribution- what's your explanation?
    I'll tell ya when I figure out exactly what you mean? Sorry, but I need a lot of stuff explained to me....

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]vestigial structures- never mind that there is fossil and other evidence pointing to them once being useful/bigger/etc. that's just pure chance I bet. and never mind that some of those vestigial structures like wisdom teeth are actually bad for you. and never mind that beetle wings can't be useful if they're locked inside (of that beetle with wings that are fused together), and never mind that dandelion flowers are totally useless because they're sterile, etc.
    I'm sorry but like I said I need stuff explained to me... what is all that stuff for?

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]homologous structures- they completely ignore them
    Why would we ignore that? Ever heard of homologous chromosomes? That's pretty hard to ignore. (Found that in my science book)

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]analogous structures- ignored too
    I'm assuming that's talking about a single thing before it becomes homologous?

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]the calculations and experiments showing that life could evolve (EP's link) and computer programs that evolve from simple things to complex things- ignored- well... actually they have wrong calculations... like the population growth and stuff.
    Computers? They don't show you anything other than possiblities, unless you feed them facts, and even then, they don't always give you facts. You stick a desription of someone in a crime computer and it'll give you all possible subjects with that description.

    Experiments? You show me where they test one species and when the experiment is done you have a new species with completely different genes.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]also... creationism uses VERY unscientific explanations. for example the great flood. first of all, a flood like that is physically impossible, the ark is too, everything about it is... and never mind that, there is zero evidence for it.
    The evidence we use is not the same evidence. The flood does explain a lot though. There is evidence but it is evidence you have seen but rejected. So there is no point going into that.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]considering most all (most not ALL) those theories were wrong and that they were NOT scientific, well... what's your point? lol
    I guess the scientific method is out the window then?

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]what's wrong with that? gravity is taught as fact. atoms are taught as fact. continental drift is taught as fact. the fact that the sun is the center of the solar system is taught as fact. maybe we should teach their alternatives too. in a world where public schools teach the earth is flat, creationism, that the sun goes around the earth, that continents don't drift, etc. ... think about it.
    After thinking about it, I figured well at least they know that other stuff exists out there and that evolution is not the only answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]why did god create suffering? and hate? rage? pain? sadness? etc?
    Some of those are physical and others are emotional. The physical is something He didn't create. OMGosh you'll never believe but this is how it happened according to Christians. He created Angels and the highest of them all rebelled because he became prideful. He banded with other angels and attempted to overthrow God... that of course didn't work. God thus cursed the angel to earth and allowed him to do what he wished until the day that he was forever condemned. God thus proceeded to create the earth and all that is/was within it. He also gave man the choice of wether to live forever in fellowship with God, or live forever without God. Man chose the latter. Thus man was eternally condemned... until God's perfect Son came to us so to take our spots in eternal death. When Jesus died on that cross so many sins we placed upon Him that God could not bear the sight because He is perfect and there is no blemish that can stand before him. God's spirit raised Jesus from the grave and thus forever conqured a total spiritual death. The physical suffering is that of the fallen angel (Satan who was once Lucifer the most beutiful angel of all). The others are emotions, they of course come from our sinful nature. Whereas the other emotions would of course be from God's loving saving nature whether you believe in Him or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]why?
    Answered that already, He wanted to fellowship with us.

    Agh... I said I wasn't gonna post about Evo/Crea anymore!!!!!!!! AW!!!!!!!!! You always hit me in the soft spot!!!! [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/new/smile_n_32.gif[/img] [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/new/smile_m_32.gif[/img]
    ~Wes~

    My plants are going green to save the environment

    My Growlist

  4. #324
    endparenthesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,262
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If only there were some previous thread where we could go to learn about evolution...

  5. #325

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Wohhhhh buddyro! Ignore the natural process of laying layers of earth down slowly millions of year at a time. You are ignoring the fact that when Mt St Helens popped her top THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of layers of silt, ash and molten rock were laid down in a matter of HOURS. So yes, we must both be ignoring data laid plainly before us. But we also believe that some layers of of the geological column were laid down by natural processes, so techniacally you are ignoring more than we are.
    wait wait wait... what does that have to do with anything? nobody said that wasn't possible, like nobody said floods don't exist. I don't see the relevance of that...
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]I have NEVER in all my short fifteen yrs seen a transitional fossil. You show me one that is definately an intermediate...
    If experts disagree if to class certain fossils as humans or other apes, how much more transitional do you want?
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]So what if mealodons and sunfish didn't coexist? Never heard of a great white and a bluefish coexisting. That would be the typical prey and predator scenario.
    Plants and animals frozen together in Antartica, why is that evidence against creationism?
    like I said, that was just a hypothetical (holy crap that's spelled right!) scenario. first of all it isn't just megalodon and sunfish. there would be hundreds of other predatory species, and many pray don't reproduce that fast and have no defense against megalodons, saber tooth cats, marsupial lions, etc. also most species couldn't compete with past species. for example I think marsupial lion, t-rexes, etc. have been found in north america. there's no way predators of today could survive alonside those kinds of predators. nor could giant herbivores like guineapigs the size of buffalo could compete with today's hervivores there. there just isn't enough room for so many species to exist. Remember there has to be a certain number of individuals in order for a species to survive, and those numbers could not possibly exist if all the extinct species of organism existed together.
    fossils of tropical plants in antarctica, swamp fossils in deserts, etc. go against creationism because there is no way the continents moved fast enough (in the young earth view)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]I'm sorry but like I said I need stuff explained to me... what is all that stuff for?
    oy... didn't you read the evolution thread?
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Why would we ignore that? Ever heard of homologous chromosomes? That's pretty hard to ignore. (Found that in my science book)
    of course I have. homologous chromosomes and homologous structures are two totally different things.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]I'm assuming that's talking about a single thing before it becomes homologous?
    sigh... I'm becoming more and more convinced that they should teach more evolution in schools.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Computers? They don't show you anything other than possiblities, unless you feed them facts, and even then, they don't always give you facts
    I was referring to the thing where they allow random "mutations" and "natural selection" in programs. they start out with a stupid and simple program and it evolves into a complex program, showing how fast evolution can take place and that it works.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Experiments? You show me where they test one species and when the experiment is done you have a new species with completely different genes.
    ok, here- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]The flood does explain a lot though. There is evidence but it is evidence you have seen but rejected. So there is no point going into that.
    the flood explains nothing. it doesn't explain fossils, it doesn't explain geographical distribution, it doesn't explain ... well... anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]I guess the scientific method is out the window then?
    that was the whole point! there WAS NO scientific method used back then.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Some of those are physical and others are emotional. The physical is something He didn't create.
    according to you, there was nothing before god created anything. god being perfect he didn't have rage, etc. (nor need for something... why do perfect beings need something? why did he create us? he doesn't need our friendship and he knew, him being omniscient, that billions of people would disobay him so why make us and get sadness if he was perfect therefore he was happy?)
    so there wasn't rage, etc... so he did create it. he created emotional and physical things. even if somehow you don't believe he created emotional things (they just kind of popped up out of nowhere... god was helpless and couldn't stop the evil from infecting his creation), he created physical things.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Agh... I said I wasn't gonna post about Evo/Crea anymore!!!!!!!! AW!!!!!!!!! You always hit me in the soft spot!!!!
    LOL. apparently I know where to hit people because everyone always says they won't post anymore and they come back and post :P

    I know I didn't explain geographical distribution and structures, etc... do you really want another evo thread? we discussed them in there... and I *tried to* explain what they all were.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]If only there were some previous thread where we could go to learn about evolution...
    lol exactly!
    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish-Euripides
    wikipedia rocks! (except for species info)(CPers-add your vast knowledge of CPs to wikipedia&#33
    A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it
    Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything

  6. #326

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Evanston, IL
    Posts
    836
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Teaching "intelligent design" in schools, and presenting it equally with evolution is yet another way the Christian Right is trying to back-door their religion into public schools. April
    \"People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible,\" Jamie Raskin, to Senator Nancy Jacobs.

  7. #327
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Wohhhhh buddyro! Ignore the natural process of laying layers of earth down slowly millions of year at a time. You are ignoring the fact that when Mt St Helens popped her top THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of layers of silt, ash and molten rock were laid down in a matter of HOURS. So yes, we must both be ignoring data laid plainly before us. But we also believe that some layers of of the geological column were laid down by natural processes, so techniacally you are ignoring more than we are.
    It was one event and it laid down one consistant layer of ash witch really want consistent at all but was blown into dunes or blown bare of some areas. Never the less, it was one layer for each volcaic product, most wich dint travle to far- one big layer, no alternattions exept when two volcanic products are found.. Might i remind you that volcanic activity is charictaristic of subduction zones and hotspots, and not in other areas. We can dfinaty tell weather a material is volcanic in oregin by the texture, crystal size, as well as their chemical and pysical properties. I have peices from a old hardened ancent ashfall and i can with certainty tell you that this material in question is rather rare. As for the lava, the high silica and moisture content of the st. hellens eruption means little was deposited in the ground when it blew its top, but was dispersed into the air. the landslide and the mudflow are a different story.
    that makes no logic

  8. #328

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    2,154
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have not read everything since I went on my trip but FYI remember we are not allowed to discuss evolution

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •