Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 5/1/2001 6:28:58 PM EDT
Check out this site. http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/index.jsp If you're not a believer then at least be open minded about the possibility of a Divine Creator. Just to let you know this guy doesn't copywrite any of his material, he tells you to make copies. When was the last time you heard that one?
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 7:24:32 PM EDT
And of course you could always go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html if you're interested in scientific fact vs psuedoscientific hand-waving.
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 7:33:52 PM EDT
Good Link, VC. I'm quite familiar with "Dr. Dino". I have his video tape series and one of his books. His teachings are full of scientific facts to back up Creationism.
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 7:36:00 PM EDT
The last thread I saw like this degenerated into a juvenile tantrum because someone made it their temporary life quest to put down other posters. Why don't we just lock it after 20 posts and be done with it? At this time of day, I have better things to do than watch an hourglass while somebody wastes server time trying to look infallible. [red][size=4]P.R.K.
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 7:47:45 PM EDT
[url]http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/index.jsp[/url]
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 8:02:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/1/2001 8:04:19 PM EDT by Tex]
Originally Posted By RikWriter: And of course you could always go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html if you're interested in scientific fact vs psuedoscientific hand-waving.
View Quote
Good link RikWriter, I even bookmarked it. I a did a search on "Angular Momentum" but couldn't find anything. Surely they must know what it is. Did you go to Dr Dino's site? .
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 8:05:13 PM EDT
Did I got to your what? The link was supplied by vc, not you... I did go to vc's link, but I had seen all that before and seen it all debunked frequently and convincingly.
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 8:31:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 8:32:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/1/2001 8:31:53 PM EDT by Charmedlyfe]
Rik: If someone wants to discuss religion, let them. It's their right not only of free speech, but of association. PAX.... Duffypoo, stop being a prick.
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 8:35:37 PM EDT
Once you learn the proper usage of the english language I might be open to a discussion concerning relgion. Until then; your = possesion you're = you are
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 8:39:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Charmedlyfe: Rik: If someone wants to discuss religion, let them. It's their right not only of free speech, but of association.
View Quote
Umm, that's the point. Creationism isn't about people sitting around discussing religion, it's about fundamentalists trying to convince people, including our school boards, to ignore reality and teach fairy tales as science. If Christians get together on threads here and have a prayer session, I am not going to bother them or anything...I won't have a thing to say about it because it doesn't affect me. If they want to come forward, however, on a public forum, and maintain that literal Biblical Creationism is scientifically accurate, I WILL exercise MY right of free speech and tell them they are wrong.
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 9:20:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 9:32:52 PM EDT
I'd honestly like to know where your moral "convictions" come from. Are they any stronger than someones belief that meat is murder? Yeah religiosos like to act like their fairy tale is truth but atheists also act as if there really are moral absolutes.
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 9:54:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By teppe: I'd honestly like to know where your moral "convictions" come from. Are they any stronger than someones belief that meat is murder? Yeah religiosos like to act like their fairy tale is truth but atheists also act as if there really are moral absolutes.
View Quote
There are no moral absolutes (in my opinion anyway) because to be absolute they would have to be part of the laws of the universe. However, there are moral and ethical systems of behavior that have proven to be successful. When people treat each other, in general, as they themselves wish to be treated, it is easier for them to get along with each other and conduct business peacably. When people value their children over themselves, and the children of their group (however big that may be, from the neighborhood to the country to the world) over their own lives, they are pursuing a course that makes sense from an evolutionary point of view if you consider that our foremost instinctive drive is to reproduce and make sure our children live till they are old enough to reproduce. Now, knowing WHY most people most of the time act morally may make one jaded about the whole thing, but it still makes good sense to act morally and ethically to others. And frankly, one who knows why people do what they do is no more likely to act unethically or immorally than one who believes that morals are handed down by God. For every atheist that acted immorally there is a believer who did the same thing and either ignored their beliefs or somehow fooled themself into thinking they were acting on God's behalf. People act as they act and some act badly if they think they can get away with it, and religious beliefs don't seem to make that much difference to the equation.
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 10:34:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By inferno715: Once you learn the proper usage of the english language I might be open to a discussion concerning relgion. Until then; your = possesion you're = you are
View Quote
I think you mean "English language" It's a proper noun. :) Tracer Technology [url]http://www.tracertechnology.com[/url] Law Enforcement & Military Products
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 10:59:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/1/2001 11:01:08 PM EDT by DizzyRooster]
God , Guns , and Politics ..... ain't this a great place !!! [BD] ( wuz gonna edit that there ain't werd causein' it ain't proper Englush fer y'all but it werks good down south where I'm frum ) [:D]
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 1:13:11 AM EDT
Well, actually, M11...some of us don't think "english" deserves to be capitalized...we still have a case of the ass about Cromwell.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 5:44:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/2/2001 6:13:08 AM EDT by Duffy]
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 6:39:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By teppe: I'd honestly like to know where your moral "convictions" come from. Are they any stronger than someones belief that meat is murder? Yeah religiosos like to act like their fairy tale is truth but atheists also act as if there really are moral absolutes.
View Quote
There are no moral absolutes (in my opinion anyway) because to be absolute they would have to be part of the laws of the universe. However, there are moral and ethical systems of behavior that have proven to be successful. When people treat each other, in general, as they themselves wish to be treated, it is easier for them to get along with each other and conduct business peacably. When people value their children over themselves, and the children of their group (however big that may be, from the neighborhood to the country to the world) over their own lives, they are pursuing a course that makes sense from an evolutionary point of view if you consider that our foremost instinctive drive is to reproduce and make sure our children live till they are old enough to reproduce. Now, knowing WHY most people most of the time act morally may make one jaded about the whole thing, but it still makes good sense to act morally and ethically to others. And frankly, one who knows why people do what they do is no more likely to act unethically or immorally than one who believes that morals are handed down by God. For every atheist that acted immorally there is a believer who did the same thing and either ignored their beliefs or somehow fooled themself into thinking they were acting on God's behalf. People act as they act and some act badly if they think they can get away with it, and religious beliefs don't seem to make that much difference to the equation.
View Quote
If there are no absolutes would'nt that law in itself be a absolute?
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 6:54:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Duffypoo: Also, the implication is if I didn't believe in some kind of religeon I'd have no source for morals, is that right? If you believe in God, it doesn't make you a decent person, and the bible, having been written by men, not god, can be a reference but not the absolute guide to life. If you say I'm without morals simply because I'm not religeous, you've just proved my point that religeous folks are intolerant of other beliefs and differences, things that are not the same as what they believe, why, they must be bad.
View Quote
religion is a cheap substitute for what God rally wants for you, and with you. Which is a relationship. Everbody has "morals." The only question is "are they the RIGHT morals?" I choose to follow, but often violate, God's morals. I do so becasue I KNOW that He created me, and that His methods and rules work. I choose teh Bible as the source of defining God's morals because it has stood the test of time. It has NEVER failed. I would NEVER want to force either my morals, or God's morals, down your throat, MOSTLY because God DOES NOT want me to. Trying to adapt a set of rules BEFORE a person develops that personal relationship with God leads to legalism, frustration for that person, and a host of other bad things. You've got to decide what you want to do with God and Jesus Christ, first, before worrying about any set of rules. If you want my help doing that, I'd be glad to. If you don't want my help, I'll be a little sad, knowing what joy God's rules have brought to my life. But I WILL NOT drag you to the water and force you to drink.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 7:11:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/2/2001 7:13:28 AM EDT by M4]
[url]http://atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/library/FAQs/blfaq_evolution_main.htm[/url] Here's the other side of the picture. Any believers ever take a good hard look at what the "enemy" believes in? Here's a good place to start. Many of us nonbelievers have read much of the bible already, now it's your turn to read our beliefs, if you care to.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 7:18:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: And of course you could always go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html if you're interested in scientific fact vs [i]psuedoscientific hand-waving.[/i]
View Quote
(emphasis added) Come on. You're just sparring for an argument, aren't you? Do you feel it's your mission to "enlighten" the uneducated believers out here? As so many liberals are fond of saying "if you don't want to read/listen to it, turn it off/skip by it." Religion and Science both have faith components in them. It's just which one you choose to believe. For example: Carbon dating refers to the calculation of age by the decay of radioactive C-14 in a given sample. But like any deltaT, you must have a T=0 starting point. Can you tell me when, in any given sample, does an artifact start to decay? Get off your atheistic soapbox and leave them alone.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 7:28:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sigman: If there are no absolutes would'nt that law in itself be a absolute?
View Quote
I never said there were no absolutes, I said there were no MORAL absolutes.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 7:31:13 AM EDT
"Divine Creator" ROTFL, hehe, lol.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 7:32:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MIerinMD: Come on. You're just sparring for an argument, aren't you?
View Quote
Well, this IS a discussion board, isn't it? What do people come here for if not to discuss things?
Do you feel it's your mission to "enlighten" the uneducated believers out here? As so many liberals are fond of saying "if you don't want to read/listen to it, turn it off/skip by it."
View Quote
As I am fond of saying, "practice what you preach." If you don't like to read my posts, don't. I believe you are engaging in that old passtime: hypocricy.
Religion and Science both have faith components in them. It's just which one you choose to believe.
View Quote
Science only asks for faith that the world is knowable. Nothing else. You may think otherwise...you're wrong.
Get off your atheistic soapbox and leave them alone.
View Quote
Get off your hypocritical soapbox and leave me alone.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 7:46:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MIerinMD: (adressing RikWriter) Come on. You're just sparring for an argument, aren't you? Do you feel it's your mission to "enlighten" the uneducated believers out here?
View Quote
IMO, the answer to those questions is "yes." I have many a lively debate on this board with people I disagree with. Lively, yet civil. But I cannot debate with RikWriter. It always degenerated into a shouting match. As i have seen this happen between RW and other posters, and as I AM capable of disagreeing civilly with other board members, I have to assume that RW is just here to sling feces. A discussion with RW will generate no light, only heat. So save yourself the painful lesson I had to learn. When you see an RW post, just smile and nod, but don't get sucked in. He is a legend in his own mind, and was only actually wrong ONCE in his lifetime. Once when he THOUGHT he was wrong.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 7:55:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: Well, this IS a discussion board, isn't it? What do people come here for if not to discuss things?
View Quote
Your initial quote was clearly meant to be argumentative. I am all for the discussion of sensitive topics, as long as they are done in a rational, logical manner. Your initial post was nothing more than the equivalent of throwing a mud-pie into the conversation.
As I am fond of saying, "practice what you preach." If you don't like to read my posts, don't. I believe you are engaging in that old passtime: hypocricy.
View Quote
"hypocricy" = "hypocrisy". I guess there is a lot of that going around.
Science only asks for faith that the world is knowable. Nothing else. You may think otherwise...you're wrong.
View Quote
Um...didn't "Science" also think that the atom was the smallest undivisable particle, or that hormones were the factors that carried familial traits (as opposed to DNA which we now believe)? What is "know-able" in Science often changes over time, therefore it really isn't "know-able" just "estimate-able" As far as me being "wrong," I guess that's just part of your "absolutism" theorem. The reason I asked about Carbon-14 dating (which, by the way, you have yet to answer me on) is that I assume you don't know the answer to it, yet you believe it as fact. That is your "faith"
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 8:08:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By MIerinMD: (adressing RikWriter) Come on. You're just sparring for an argument, aren't you? Do you feel it's your mission to "enlighten" the uneducated believers out here?
View Quote
IMO, the answer to those questions is "yes." I have many a lively debate on this board with people I disagree with. Lively, yet civil. But I cannot debate with RikWriter. It always degenerated into a shouting match. As i have seen this happen between RW and other posters, and as I AM capable of disagreeing civilly with other board members, I have to assume that RW is just here to sling feces. A discussion with RW will generate no light, only heat. So save yourself the painful lesson I had to learn. When you see an RW post, just smile and nod, but don't get sucked in. He is a legend in his own mind, and was only actually wrong ONCE in his lifetime. Once when he THOUGHT he was wrong.
View Quote
Heh heh. I appreciate the tip Garandman. The guy is truly unbelievable. I remember in college when I was taking Abnormal Psych, I had a classmate who was much like him. This guy presented himself as the vast pool of "Truth" and that anybody who disagreed with him was clearly wrong and deserved utter contempt. Rational discussion was useless. You were just wrong. That's it. It was quite spectacular to watch. The funny thing about it was that a friend of mine who was also in the class wrote his final term paper based on this guy and got an A- on it. I can't remember the title of it but he asserted that megalomania is usually the result of a hightened sense of insecurity as a child which then carries over to adult hood. The megalomania is the mind trying to 'overcompensate' for its insecurity. Anyway, this guy doesn't bug me. When I find that the arguement has played out, I'll drop it.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 8:15:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MIerinMD: I remember in college when I was taking Abnormal Psych, I had a classmate who was much like him. It was quite spectacular to watch. The funny thing about it was that a friend of mine who was also in the class wrote his final term paper based on this guy and got an A- on it. I can't remember the title of it but he asserted that megalomania is usually the result of a hightened sense of insecurity as a child which then carries over to adult hood. The megalomania is the mind trying to 'overcompensate' for its insecurity. Anyway, this guy doesn't bug me. When I find that the arguement has played out, I'll drop it.
View Quote
If I had to guess, RW is a fairly educated twenty something that thinks he's got the world figured out. If I'm wrong on the age, its only because he acts and argues like someone who may have a certain level of knowledge, but lacks the experience, the ability, and the decency to sensibly apply it to life. Anywho, you are a much more patient person than I, to endure the smell of his horse cart full of _ _ _ _.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 8:18:32 AM EDT
Rick gave some best and most honest answers that I've heard. I've only heard of one atheist who was willing to admit to what you did. Michael Schermer of the skeptic's society and Dershowitz gave dishonest answers. Still you use the words successfull, badly, and immoral. By what standard do you use those words? Some nut believes that killing me for fun is moral and successful since it's survival of the fittest. Somehow I don't believe Duffypoo when he says that he won't impose his morals on anyone. Saying there are no moral absolutes is different than saying there are No absolutes.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 8:26:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: I have many a lively debate on this board with people I disagree with. Lively, yet civil. But I cannot debate with RikWriter. It always degenerated into a shouting match. As i have seen this happen between RW and other posters, and as I AM capable of disagreeing civilly with other board members, I have to assume that RW is just here to sling feces. A discussion with RW will generate no light, only heat. So save yourself the painful lesson I had to learn. When you see an RW post, just smile and nod, but don't get sucked in. He is a legend in his own mind, and was only actually wrong ONCE in his lifetime. Once when he THOUGHT he was wrong.
View Quote
So GM, when I post factual arguments and you fail to respond to any of them, I am somehow harrassing and insulting you? YOU were the one who proclaimed on a public message board that you think dinosaur fossils are beached whales from the Flood. I didn't force you to say that. What, in your opinion, should I do in response to something so patently ridiculous? Say "oh ok, you might be right?" I don't think so. If someone says something that is just plain wrong, I am not going to go on here and say "You could be right" because GM, you CAN'T be right. You're simply wrong, just as if you came on here and said black was white. As for me never being wrong...not so. I am wrong a lot. I simply try not to take strong positions on things of which I am not completely sure. That means if I come on here and take a strong position, I am pretty damn sure I am right...I have evidence or experience to back it up. I don't argue abortion much, for instance, because I simply don't know what the right is on that issue. You won't see me giving people relationship advice because God knows I am very lucky to have the great marriage I have and I sure couldn't tell you how it happened. But I DO know that Biblically literal Creationism is scientifically impossible. I have researched the subject quite a bit...I changed my OWN mind on the subject. I used to BE a creationist fundamentalist just like you (except that I never went so far as to deny dinosaurs existed!) until I actually read some real science on the subject. If the fact I am certain about this subject offends you, well...it's just too bad. I know no one likes to be told they are wrong, but sometimes it's healthy. You can project your anger at being wrong onto me all you like, but you'll never really get over it till you admit you've made a mistake.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 8:30:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MIerinMD: Your initial quote was clearly meant to be argumentative.
View Quote
One man's argument is another man's discussion.
I am all for the discussion of sensitive topics, as long as they are done in a rational, logical manner. Your initial post was nothing more than the equivalent of throwing a mud-pie into the conversation.
View Quote
That's your opinion. I disagree.
Um...didn't "Science" also think that the atom was the smallest undivisable particle, or that hormones were the factors that carried familial traits (as opposed to DNA which we now believe)?
View Quote
So? Those were initial theories. When new information came along, science revised its theories accordingly. Religion, on the other hand, does NOT revise its beliefs when facts contradict them. That's the main difference between science and religion.
What is "know-able" in Science often changes over time, therefore it really isn't "know-able" just "estimate-able"
View Quote
No, you are misusing the word. When science says the world is knowable, they don't mean they know everything about it, they mean it is POSSIBLE to know things about it. You've just distorted the concept without making any point whatsoever.
As far as me being "wrong," I guess that's just part of your "absolutism" theorem.
View Quote
No, it's just part of you being mistaken.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 8:30:29 AM EDT
RikWriter - As a final post to you, I am gonna provide you a visual aid - [i]"As I am an ass, and incapable of civil debate, whenever I see one of garandman's posts, I will pass by it, and NOT respond, as he is NOT interested in my clearly inflammatory comments which I intend SOLELY for the purpose of being a jerk." [/i] Now, print the above italicized paragraph out, and staple it to your forehead for future reference. garandman out.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 8:34:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MIerinMD: Heh heh. I appreciate the tip Garandman. The guy is truly unbelievable.
View Quote
Thanks for the compliment, but really anyone who bothered to learn the science knows exactly the same things I know. Most probably wouldn't bother to argue the point with the willfully ignorant, but I have a four year old child so I am used to talking to someone who has no concept of the real world.
I remember in college when I was taking Abnormal Psych, I had a classmate who was much like him. This guy presented himself as the vast pool of "Truth" and that anybody who disagreed with him was clearly wrong and deserved utter contempt. Rational discussion was useless. You were just wrong. That's it.
View Quote
Well, if the other people were asserting that dinosaur fossils were nothing but beached whales and he was saying they were just wrong, he was correct. Ya know, dude, some things are just wrong. If someone tells you the speed of light in a vacuum is 200,000 miles per second, they are just wrong. No debate is needed, they're wrong. Just like GarandMan is just wrong about dinosaur fossils being beached whales.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 8:40:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: If I had to guess, RW is a fairly educated twenty something that thinks he's got the world figured out. If I'm wrong on the age, its only because he acts and argues like someone who may have a certain level of knowledge, but lacks the experience, the ability, and the decency to sensibly apply it to life.
View Quote
Wow, you're wrong again. You must be getting uesd to it by now. Of course, it's not quite as spectacular a mistake as the one about beached whales, but still fairly telling. I argue like someone who has studied the subject and has some semblance of knowledge. You argue like someone who has never done any in-depth research into this subject and is blinded by a narrow world-view that links certain scientific impossibilities with your ego and self-worth. I have been there, but somehow I was able to de-link my self-worth from the fact that I had been wrong on those issues. If anyone here is acting younger than their age, I would say it's you. You attach the same ego-worth to your religious beliefs that college radicals attach to their political ones.
Anywho, you are a much more patient person than I, to endure the smell of his horse cart full of _ _ _ _.
View Quote
But of course you would never engage in name-calling or innuendo, right?
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 8:44:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By teppe: Rick gave some best and most honest answers that I've heard. I've only heard of one atheist who was willing to admit to what you did. Michael Schermer of the skeptic's society and Dershowitz gave dishonest answers. Still you use the words successfull, badly, and immoral. By what standard do you use those words? Some nut believes that killing me for fun is moral and successful since it's survival of the fittest. Somehow I don't believe Duffypoo when he says that he won't impose his morals on anyone. Saying there are no moral absolutes is different than saying there are No absolutes.
View Quote
It doesn't really matter why people behave ethically. The fact is, most people do and some do not, no matter what their religious beliefs. Saying that more people would behave badly if they didn't believe in God is, I believe, disingenuous. I know many nonbelievers and they all still behave ethically for their own reasons. I know many more believers and most behave ethically and tell themselves it's because God told them to. Some behave unethically and feel guilty about it, but do it anyway. There have always been far more believers than unbelievers in this world, but somehow a few of the believers manage to do bad things anyway. I doubt things would change if there were fewer believers.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 8:50:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: RikWriter - As a final post to you
View Quote
Liar. You've lied about this many times now. Isn't that a sin? I suppose I am being "argumentative" by calling you a liar, but what else do you call someone who has said (I believe) four times now that he wasn't going to respond to me anymore and three times has gone back on it? Just like I told you that you were wrong when you blathered about dinosaur fossils being bones from beached whales, now I am telling you you're a liar because you've lied three times on this thread alone. Maybe you'd better do a bit of praying and ask for forgiveness for sinning three times in just a couple days. Tsk.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 9:00:10 AM EDT
I don't care why they are "good" or "bad". I just wasn't sure what you meant when you use the words ethically and bad. I don't think that those words are intelligable unless we share the same standard for bad or ethical. A bad person to me may be a good person to you.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 9:08:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: One man's argument is another man's discussion.
View Quote
That would have to be one bizarre man. I guess if someone shouts to another "You Suck" then in your estimation that person could just want to engage in lively discourse? Please, don't try to rationalize a clearly combative statement with such a trite comment. You only end up embarrassing yourself.
That's your opinion. I disagree.
View Quote
Fair enough. I think you'd be in the extreme minority though
So? Those were initial theories. When new information came along, science revised its theories accordingly. Religion, on the other hand, does NOT revise its beliefs when facts contradict them. That's the main difference between science and religion.
View Quote
Not true. They were presented as FACT. And I'm sure that there were those during that time who proclaimed it as "Truth" too. Just as you are doing.
No, you are misusing the word. When science says the world is knowable, they don't mean they know everything about it, they mean it is POSSIBLE to know things about it. You've just distorted the concept without making any point whatsoever.
View Quote
No, you misunderstood the point. I'll boil it down for you. The concept of "Know-able" changes. First it was the Atom, then the Electron, then the Quark, then the Muon, Lepton, Up, Down, Charm, etc. etc.... For something to be "knowable" there must be a definite point in which we agree that whatever we're studying is fully understood. Good luck finding that singularity.
No, it's just part of you being mistaken.
View Quote
No, that is just your opinion.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 9:28:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/2/2001 9:31:30 AM EDT by MIerinMD]
Thanks for the compliment, but really anyone who bothered to learn the science knows exactly the same things I know. Most probably wouldn't bother to argue the point with the willfully ignorant, but I have a four year old child so I am used to talking to someone who has no concept of the real world.
View Quote
It was meant as neither a compliment nor an insult. I guess you'll make it what you will. As far as what you mean by "the science" I have to admit I have no idea what you're talking about. Science as a whole, or the science of evolution? Or were you talking about someone else? Were you talking about the "beached whale" thing? That conversation is between you and Garandman.
Well, if the other people were asserting that dinosaur fossils were nothing but beached whales and he was saying they were just wrong, he was correct. Ya know, dude, some things are just wrong.
View Quote
see above.
If someone tells you the speed of light in a vacuum is 200,000 miles per second, they are just wrong. No debate is needed, they're wrong.
View Quote
Actually, you're wrong. Scientists have calculated that light can travel faster than 186,000 miles per second. Please see the following link for more info: [url]http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/dailynews/light000720.html [/url] So much for being wrong, huh? Listen, at the risk of having this discussion locked and pissing off the administrators, this will have to be my final post on this thread. I look forward with great anticipation to the inevitable scientific manifesto you will post in response. (edited to fix link}
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 9:52:11 AM EDT
There is no point to debates about religion or lack of religion. Those of you that believe in God/Buddha/Zues/Tooth Fairy/whatever are not going to change your minds. Just like us non-believers will never be converted to substitute science with a hairy old man that is all knowing and all powerful but can't keep a budget for shit and always needs our cash. Rikwriter, don't pay any attention to these bible thumpers, they just don't agree with you and never will, just like it would be impossible for you to convince my 4 year old that Santa does not exist. After all, my 4 year old has proof Santa does exist (presents at christmas from "Santa", pictures of Santa, stories & books about Santa, he has even seen Santa in the malls so he must exist. I think my kids would easily buy the no god thing but don't even think about debunking Santa Claus. LOL
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 10:05:42 AM EDT
Rikwriter, imagine what would happen if you found a long lost pacific island where the natives believe in a Fire God (scientic explanation: volcano) and you try to tell them that there is no god and it (volcano) is merely a force of nature. They would not believe you and most likely would sacrifice you to their god (throw you in the volcano). It's the same mentality here with these bible thumpers. They use gods/god to explain things they can not understand (creation of the universe, mankind, etc.). Science is very often wrong as well but at least science evolves as we further our technology and we learn that we were wrong and make corrections as we learn more. Bible thumpers on the other hand can never be wrong, therefore it is illogical to try to prove them wrong and a waste of time. I may go out of my may to poke a little fun at them but I'll never try to convert them or waste too much time debating with them.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 10:14:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By M11:
Originally Posted By inferno715: Once you learn the proper usage of the english language I might be open to a discussion concerning relgion. Until then; your = possesion you're = you are
View Quote
I think you mean "English language" It's a proper noun. :)
View Quote
Unless he is referring to the spin placed on a cue ball. That is just plain english. Our language is screwy. But at least its not as bad as all those foreign languages.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 10:19:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MIerinMD: That would have to be one bizarre man. I guess if someone shouts to another "You Suck" then in your estimation that person could just want to engage in lively discourse? Please, don't try to rationalize a clearly combative statement with such a trite comment. You only end up embarrassing yourself.
View Quote
There is a qualitative difference between saying "You suck" and saying "You're wrong." The first is a subjective value judgement, the second can be objectively true, as it was in this case. The fact some consider it argumentative means nothing to me. It was correct. That means everything.
Fair enough. I think you'd be in the extreme minority though
View Quote
Again, I disagree.
Not true. They were presented as FACT. And I'm sure that there were those during that time who proclaimed it as "Truth" too. Just as you are doing.
View Quote
No, they were represented as theories. Science has nothing to do with "truth" that is the realm of philosophers and theology students. What was said was that the theories at the time fit the facts as they knew them. When the facts changed, the theories changed. You can dispute this all you want, but history shows you're incorrect.
No, you misunderstood the point.
View Quote
No, I MADE the point...you misunderstood it.
I'll boil it down for you. The concept of "Know-able" changes. First it was the Atom, then the Electron, then the Quark, then the Muon, Lepton, Up, Down, Charm, etc. etc.... For something to be "knowable" there must be a definite point in which we agree that whatever we're studying is fully understood. Good luck finding that singularity.
View Quote
No, you're incorrect. The concept of knowable has not changed. The scope of what we think we CAN know has changed, but you're basically picking at nits in a vain attempt to argue a point you don't even seem to understand. The point was and is that science only asks faith in one thing: that the universe is knowable, that it runs by coherent rules that can be discovered and reapplied. You've never addressed this and are simply running away from it.
No, that is just your opinion.
View Quote
No, it is fact. That is how science works, or how it works when it works correctly...humans being humans, they can and have screwed up at times. You are making a misstatement about what science is, and that is not a matter of opinion.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 10:21:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bobby Vincent: There is no point to debates about religion or lack of religion. Those of you that believe in God/Buddha/Zues/Tooth Fairy/whatever are not going to change your minds. Just like us non-believers will never be converted to substitute science with a hairy old man that is all knowing and all powerful but can't keep a budget for shit and always needs our cash. Rikwriter, don't pay any attention to these bible thumpers, they just don't agree with you and never will, just like it would be impossible for you to convince my 4 year old that Santa does not exist. After all, my 4 year old has proof Santa does exist (presents at christmas from "Santa", pictures of Santa, stories & books about Santa, he has even seen Santa in the malls so he must exist. I think my kids would easily buy the no god thing but don't even think about debunking Santa Claus. LOL
View Quote
Wait a minute... There is no Santa???? Crap, my whole world just came crashing down.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 10:29:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MIerinMD: It was meant as neither a compliment nor an insult. I guess you'll make it what you will.
View Quote
I don't care how you meant it, to be honest.
As far as what you mean by "the science" I have to admit I have no idea what you're talking about.
View Quote
Yes, we've already established that.
Science as a whole, or the science of evolution? Or were you talking about someone else? Were you talking about the "beached whale" thing? That conversation is between you and Garandman.
View Quote
Yet you interjected yourself into the conversation, so it would behoove you to keep abreast of it.
Actually, you're wrong. Scientists have calculated that light can travel faster than 186,000 miles per second. Please see the following link for more info:
View Quote
Don't need to. You didn't read carefully enough...I said "the speed of light IN A VACUUM." I am well aware that travelling through different substances can affect the speed of light...that's why I said in a vacuum. The speed of light in a vacuum is 186,000 miles per second, no ifs ands or buts.
So much for being wrong, huh?
View Quote
Well, so much for me being wrong about it. You continue to be wrong about it.
Listen, at the risk of having this discussion locked and pissing off the administrators, this will have to be my final post on this thread.
View Quote
Where have I heard THAT before???
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 10:35:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bobby Vincent: Rikwriter, imagine what would happen if you found a long lost pacific island where the natives believe in a Fire God (scientic explanation: volcano) and you try to tell them that there is no god and it (volcano) is merely a force of nature. They would not believe you and most likely would sacrifice you to their god (throw you in the volcano). /quote] I know you're right Bobby, but this being the internet at least they can't sacrifice me to their God. :D I also know I won't get GarandMan to change his mind most likely, but it's sort of like a traffic accident...I just can't bring myself to look away.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 10:38:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: Thanks for the compliment, but really anyone who bothered to learn the science knows exactly the same things I know.
View Quote
Megalomania defined. By the way, have you yet addressed the HYPOCRICY of accusing others of misspelling when you yourself misspell?
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 10:44:17 AM EDT
No matter what anyone personally believes, it is all nothing but a religion. None of it can be proved in a court of law beyond a resonable doubt. Christianty-cannot prove there is a God Science-cannot prove the "missing link" theory. Believe in what works for you, gives you peace of mind, and steers your life in the direction you believe it needs to go. Keep the faith!
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 11:16:10 AM EDT
If you believe in God, it doesn't make you a decent person
View Quote
Very true. Even satan believes in God. Eddie
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 12:59:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cible:
Originally Posted By RikWriter: Thanks for the compliment, but really anyone who bothered to learn the science knows exactly the same things I know.
View Quote
Megalomania defined.
View Quote
I am unsurprised you don't know the proper definition of megalomania either. Hint, that aint it chuckles.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top