User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:05:16 PM EDT
[#1]
Weeeeeee!!!!!
This should be fun. Let me know how it turns out. [}:D] edited to add: Oh, and if you want my opinion, just read my sig line. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:05:54 PM EDT
[#2]
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!?!?
[:D] the_reject |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:06:07 PM EDT
[#3]
Gee, they must have found all those missing links
between each species while I was at the gun show this weekend. Until now, not one has ever been found. Evolution through natural selection ? Doesn't this really describe the real need for abortions ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:11:52 PM EDT
[#4]
Just a reminder to the combatants:
[b][size=3][i]READ[/i][/size=3] the article [size=3]Before[/size=3] refuting it![/b] [8D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:13:30 PM EDT
[#5]
If man evolved from monkeys, why are there monkeys still in existance? Shouldn't they all have evolved into man thousands of years ago?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:15:17 PM EDT
[#6]
I believe 100% in adaption in species, which is the main part of Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection (those with the best traits pass them on, so more of that species has that trait later, etc, etc...)
But the full Evolution theory is still complete bullshit. Not without a "blueprint" or a guide for the growth are species going to flat out change completely or grow new complex systems they've never possessed before. One species is not going to "adapt" into something completely different. There is also no way a working eye or hearing system would just develop out of mutation with no driving force and ever work. It would require too many steps to get it right. By the very definition of Evolution the non-working systems would be eliminated from the organism before they had a chance to develop far enough that they would work... Creationism is probably a crock of shit too, but the full Evolution theory is as bad if not worse... BTW, all that article seemed to do was replace Creationist nonsense with Evolutionist Nonsense. It bases it answers on yet more theories and ideas about how something might happen, as if they were fact and therefore voids out the Creationist stuff. That doesn't cut it in my eyes... Why don't we just admit we don't know jack shit about it quit pulling stuff out of our collective asses trying to explain it? It's a damn mystery and likely will be quite some time... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:15:19 PM EDT
[#7]
If this article doesn't change your mind, nothing will. But people are gonna argue anyway.
Evolution: It's the primates, stupid...lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:16:10 PM EDT
[#8]
Ooh, I feel a bloodsport coming on...I'm just going to sit back, relaxe, eat popcorn, and enjoy the fireworks on this thread...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:17:03 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: If man evolved from monkeys, why are there monkeys still in existance? Shouldn't they all have evolved into man thousands of years ago? 6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor. The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct. Didn't think so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:21:08 PM EDT
[#10]
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created. This sums it up. The 3rd answer. It should be called just an idea not a theory. Or Science fiction. [devil] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:21:11 PM EDT
[#11]
It's a good article.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:21:39 PM EDT
[#12]
Hahah... All I gotta say is, the more you study the human body, the more rediculous evolution becomes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:25:23 PM EDT
[#13]
[size=6]Don't confuse me with the facts![/size=6]
[size=1]...um, er, ahhh, never mind...[/size=1] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:31:07 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Don't confuse me with the facts! I think as soon as clear facts are established everyone will bite the bullet and believe what ever the facts support... Getting some damn facts is the problem... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:31:38 PM EDT
[#15]
[thump...thump....thump]
Incoming!!!!! The worst argument I had heard disputing evolution was on public access cable. Some guys stated that since sedimentary rock were found in the mountains this supported biblical floods. He also stated that biblical flood caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. This is a prime example of how a little knowledge can be dangerous. First, yes there are sedimentary rocks in mountain ranges but they were originally deposited horizontally. As evident in present day dispositional environments. Plate tectonics cause these rocks to fold and fault. So the rocks originally deposited horizontal now lay at various angles. Secondly, if biblical floods caused the extinction of dinosaurs, people and dinosaur would have been around at the same time. However recorded history has no mention of dinosaur and man co-habitating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:36:22 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: [url=www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2]Scientific American[/url] ..Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God. This reply is not directed to KBaker, but more of an open question for all of you. Answer me this, what harm would it do to have an open discussion about evolution vs creation in the classrooms? As long as the teacher understands that his/her job is to teach the subject, not to convince everyone into agreeing with it. It strikes me as kinda funny that this is such a problem, I mean how often do you hear people complaining about Political Science teachers trying to convince the students to join a certain party? I haven't. But as soon as you talk about [b]teaching[/b] (as opposed to indoctrinating) creation and evolution everyone all of a sudden assumes that your trying to sway the student's minds one way or the other. Is it so hard to say "Okay, this is how some people believe we came to exist on this planet, and this is another way people think it happened"? In all fairness they should cover other religions' approaches to the subject too, such as the Hindu, or at least point out that evolution and creation are not the only two theories on this planet. I personally don't feel that one theory excludes the other, it's just a question of how literal you want to read The Old Testament. And not being a religious person I can tell you this - you're entitled to think and believe whatever you want, 'cause damnit, I'm going to think whatever I want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:41:31 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Secondly, if biblical floods caused the extinction of dinosaurs, people and dinosaur would have been around at the same time. However recorded history has no mention of dinosaur and man co-habitating. Actually there is a fossil containing both human and dinosour footprints. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:42:29 PM EDT
[#18]
Proof? Where did you read that?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:42:36 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: This reply is not directed to KBaker, but more of an open question for all of you. Answer me this, what harm would it do to have an open discussion about evolution vs creation in the classrooms? As long as the teacher understands that his/her job is to teach the subject, not to convince everyone into agreeing with it. It strikes me as kinda funny that this is such a problem, I mean how often do you hear people complaining about Political Science teachers trying to convince the students to join a certain party? I haven't. But as soon as you talk about [b]teaching[/b] (as opposed to indoctrinating) creation and evolution everyone all of a sudden assumes that your trying to sway the student's minds one way or the other. Is it so hard to say "Okay, this is how some people believe we came to exist on this planet, and this is another way people think it happened"? In all fairness they should cover other religions' approaches to the subject too, such as the Hindu, or at least point out that evolution and creation are not the only two theories on this planet. I personally don't feel that one theory excludes the other, it's just a question of how literal you want to read The Old Testament. And not being a religious person I can tell you this - you're entitled to think and believe whatever you want, 'cause damnit, I'm going to think whatever I want. Personally, I think we ought to have Comparative Religion as a standard High School course, with Secular Humanism as one of the "religions" reviewed. Does that answer your question? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:45:06 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: Secondly, if biblical floods caused the extinction of dinosaurs, people and dinosaur would have been around at the same time. However recorded history has no mention of dinosaur and man co-habitating. Actually there is a fossil containing both human and dinosour footprints. Hell yeah, And its right here in Texas. Glen Rose Texas to be exact. I collect fossils and have been there several times to see it. Check it out. Mud does not form into rock twice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:48:42 PM EDT
[#21]
Yeah, the most gigantic, awe inspiring creatures roamed the Earth, side-by-side with Adam, Eve, Cain, Noah, and the whole pre-flood crew....
...and not one mention of them in scripture. Couldn't Noah fit any of them on the Ark? Utter nonsense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:51:10 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Proof? Where did you read that? Here you go.... [url]http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/park/dinosaur/dinosaur.htm[/url] [img]http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/park/dinosaur/person.gif[/img] Like I said, I've been there several times. There they are, the dinosaur foot prints right along side human foot prints. Mud does not form into rock twice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:53:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Watch out, it was this kind of wild talk that got Stormbringer banned from AssWeb.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:56:13 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Answer me this, what harm would it do to have an open discussion about evolution vs creation in the classrooms? As long as the teacher understands that his/her job is to teach the subject, not to convince everyone into agreeing with it. Because then you open up a whole new can of worms. Do you teach Christian Creationism, Buddhist, Muslim, African, Aborigini... Bingo! Only the Christian version is deemed 'the Creation Science' to the exclusion of all others. At that point it is no longer teaching, it is indoctrination. You lose the ability to say you are only 'discussing' other viewpoints. TheRedGoat PS. I am glad I only teach Computer Science, Which came first the Mac or the Mouse? ROFL |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 1:56:50 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Personally, I think we ought to have Comparative Religion as a standard High School course, with Secular Humanism as one of the "religions" reviewed. I second that motion! Actually, I grew up in Sweden where this whole discussion is virtually non-existent. The approach is more like let's compare what people believe in, and you make up your own mind regarding what you think sounds right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 2:00:14 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: PS. I am glad I only teach Computer Science, Which came first the Mac or the Mouse? ROFL Actually it was the printer/xerox! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 2:07:45 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: Answer me this, what harm would it do to have an open discussion about evolution vs creation in the classrooms? As long as the teacher understands that his/her job is to teach the subject, not to convince everyone into agreeing with it. Because then you open up a whole new can of worms. Do you teach Christian Creationism, Buddhist, Muslim, African, Aborigini... I would expect all major religions - Christian (Islam is pretty much the same as Christian when it comes to creation), Buddhist, Hindu, and so on. Only the Christian version is deemed 'the Creation Science' to the exclusion of all others. True, but it doesn't have to be taught that way. At that point it is no longer teaching, it is indoctrination. You lose the ability to say you are only 'discussing' other viewpoints. I agree. But see my previous comment. PS. I am glad I only teach Computer Science, Which came first the Mac or the Mouse? ROFL The mouse came from Apple... [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 2:09:19 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: If man evolved from monkeys, why are there monkeys still in existance? Shouldn't they all have evolved into man thousands of years ago? Darwin never said that we evolved from monkeys. The theory states that Humans may share a common ancestor as primates; not that we totaly evolved from them. A certain species of primate, for example, may have fulfilled a certain ecological niche (or had a gene mutation) that made it more apt to survive than others. Or, one species may have been geographically isolated from the other (i.e divided by a mountain or ocean), allowing that species to evolve and fulfill a seperate niche. To evaluate evolution froma larger perspective, think of evolution as a tree. All organisms have one common ancestor; others gradually branch off of the tree, according to mutations and the fulfillment of different niches. To quote from a packet given to me a few weeks ago from my Biology teacher: "Some people incorrectly think that Darwin proposed that humans evolved from apes. Darwin only suggested that humans, along with other mammals, could have shared a common ancestor. There is no evidence that humans are the direct descendents of organisms living today. Some human-like fossil forms have been discovered. Their exact place in human history has yet to be determined" |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 2:09:59 PM EDT
[#29]
Hmmmmm okay, let me see.....
If your your belief in evolution is "fact" then neither of us need to worry! [beer] However if I'm correct (which I feel I am anyway) about creationisim, then I've got it made [O:)] and you, well, will be neighbors with [devil] for eternity! Seems like a win/win prop for me! [beer] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 2:10:25 PM EDT
[#30]
To take from George Orwell and his character Winston Smith, "I know HOW, the question is WHY"
Unlike how the strict evolutionists like to caricature creationists, most don't believe that God or some being just snapped his fingers and man appeared out of thin air. That article only proved how things might have happened, it ignores the facts that these are incredible statistical abbhorations. There's nothing to say that things couldn't have gotten a little push... Of course, people will say I'm just an ignorant fool who holds onto outdated irrational beliefs, but at least I can prove that Jesus actually existed! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 2:13:29 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: PS. I am glad I only teach Computer Science, Which came first the Mac or the Mouse? ROFL The mouse came from Apple... [;)] No it did not. Read at the top of the page. It came from xerox. Apple bought it from them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 2:13:46 PM EDT
[#32]
The shear complexity of evolution supports the idea the God indeed had a hand in the process. I am always amazed at what lengths non-believers will go to to try to prove their non-belief.
And they say Christians preach! [rolleyes] Sgtar15 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 2:20:22 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Gee, they must have found all those missing links between each species while I was at the gun show this weekend. Until now, not one has ever been found. Evolution through natural selection ? Doesn't this really describe the real need for abortions ? What do you mean? between what species? Man did not evolve from apes, but rather we shared a common ancestor...we went one way(larger brains, and bipedal) and apes went another(stronger and able to maneuver in the canopy as well as on the ground)...although this happened many millions of years ago, both mutations have survived...and there are links that we can trace from the common ancestor to humans and to the modern-day primates, but no links between humans and primates other than the common ancestor. As for the eye thing...there are several species of animals that have eyes that are not fully developed that can show how we arrived at where we are today. Now remember this takes place over hundreds of millions of years but here is the basic premise of it. Light-sensitive brain tissue. The sensitive tissue moves to the front of the brain in order to be able detect light vs. dark more easily. The tissue that was previously flat brain tissue starts to form a concave shape so that the direction of the light can be more clearly defined. A small "bubble" filled with fluid forms at the center of the convex mass of brain tissue. This "bubble" of fluid focuses the light more clearly than without and so a source of the light can start to be defined. The "bubble" of fluid enlarges covering more and more of the convex mass of tissue, because the larger the "bubble" gets the more clearly a shape can be defined. The "bubble" eventually encompasses the whole of the convex brain tissue, creating a spherical shape. Many animals that live in extremely low-light areas are still in the light-sensitive brain tissue phase, and others are on the way with "eyes" that are about half-developed. Watch an evolution documentary on PBS sometime, they should be able to explain it to you better than I can. If you "don't want to hear that bullshit" then go ahead and don't listen to it...but if your beliefs can't survive the truth, are they really worth believing in? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 2:20:52 PM EDT
[#34]
From the article:
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. Oh my! God forbid teachers have to teach! I gather some would rather recite the theory of the day, demanding 100% acceptance, rather than defend what they are teaching. Intellectual debate is so unscholarly, you know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 2:22:19 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Ooh, I feel a bloodsport coming on...I'm just going to sit back, relaxe, eat popcorn, and enjoy the fireworks on this thread... Chris, you gots popcorn?? I gots SlimJims...who's bringin' da sudz? [beer] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 2:33:20 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: Gee, they must have found all those missing links between each species while I was at the gun show this weekend. Until now, not one has ever been found. Evolution through natural selection ? Doesn't this really describe the real need for abortions ? What do you mean? between what species? Man did not evolve from apes, but rather we shared a common ancestor...we went one way(larger brains, and bipedal) and apes went another(stronger and able to maneuver in the canopy as well as on the ground)...although this happened many millions of years ago, both mutations have survived...and there are links that we can trace from the common ancestor to humans and to the modern-day primates, but no links between humans and primates other than the common ancestor. As for the eye thing...there are several species of animals that have eyes that are not fully developed that can show how we arrived at where we are today. Now remember this takes place over hundreds of millions of years but here is the basic premise of it. Light-sensitive brain tissue. The sensitive tissue moves to the front of the brain in order to be able detect light vs. dark more easily. The tissue that was previously flat brain tissue starts to form a concave shape so that the direction of the light can be more clearly defined. A small "bubble" filled with fluid forms at the center of the convex mass of brain tissue. This "bubble" of fluid focuses the light more clearly than without and so a source of the light can start to be defined. The "bubble" of fluid enlarges covering more and more of the convex mass of tissue, because the larger the "bubble" gets the more clearly a shape can be defined. The "bubble" eventually encompasses the whole of the convex brain tissue, creating a spherical shape. Many animals that live in extremely low-light areas are still in the light-sensitive brain tissue phase, and others are on the way with "eyes" that are about half-developed. Watch an evolution documentary on PBS sometime, they should be able to explain it to you better than I can. If you "don't want to hear that bullshit" then go ahead and don't listen to it...but if your beliefs can't survive the truth, are they really worth believing in? Brother, all I watch on TV are documentaries. And they can be about anything even if its against my belief. The whole argument for most people has been about the missing links, not just between man, but all animals. Good credible links, not some freak of nature mutations that are living today. Are why did you go off on the "Light-sensitive brain tissue" issue. Nothing has been said as to that topic. Sounds like someone trying to impress me with Artist psychobabble to distract from the subject while trying to address the subject. Hell I brought up the link with footprints Dino and man. Go find me a link that supports just one missing link between any animal. I could, but its back in your court now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 2:34:26 PM EDT
[#37]
I checked the link for the fossil site in TX but I didn't see anything about human and dinosaur footprints in the same geological formation.
I did see that the footprints where formed, "approximately 113 million years ago along the shorelines of an ancient sea". So the biblical floods occured 113 million years ago? A link to timeline of human evolution is provided below. Modern man had been around well less than 300,000 years. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#moderns |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 2:45:32 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: It should be called just an idea not a theory. Or Science fiction. If evolution is science fiction, creationism is outright fantasy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 2:46:33 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Are why did you go off on the "Light-sensitive brain tissue" issue. Nothing has been said as to that topic. Sounds like someone trying to impress me with Artist psychobabble to distract from the subject while trying to address the subject. Hell I brought up the link with footprints Dino and man. Go find me a link that supports just one missing link between any animal. I could, but its back in your court now. The light-sensitive brain tissue was in response to this. Posted by AR-15Fan There is also no way a working eye or hearing system would just develop out of mutation with no driving force and ever work. As for the "missing link" I am not sure what you are refering to. There are gaps in the links to our common ancestor with primates, but nothing significant. Fossils require exacting circumstances to be produced, if you are expecting every generation of mankind up to now to have a fossil record, you are always going to have a "missing link". |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 2:57:56 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Hahah... All I gotta say is, the more you study the human body, the more rediculous evolution becomes. Actually no, the more you study the human body the more ridiculous the idea that it was created as is becomes. Because if it WAS created, it was very very poorly designed: 1)Our backs are poorly designed for walking upright, which is why we have so many back problems 2)The male reproductive system is inefficiently set up, which is why we are prone to prostate cancer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 3:02:18 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: Actually there is a fossil containing both human and dinosour footprints. Actually no, the Paluxy "prints" have long ago been proven to NOT be human footprints. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 3:02:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: 3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created. This sums it up. The 3rd answer. It should be called just an idea not a theory. Or Science fiction. [devil] Yeah, and a single 2000 year old book is FAR more convincing evidence. A single 2000 year old book full of supernatural hokus pokus and mythological nonsense. Written by human beings, who oddly enough, also believed in a whole bunch of other whack-o crap that also has no basis in the real world. One book fellas...that's all it is. And do you have any idea how many other books were written around the same time, full of similar supernatural oddities, that for some reason are now viewed as "absurd"? What about all the other "gods" people believed in? Same time period, similar outrageous claims, just different followers. But [i]those other people[/i] were all wrong. And you have the nuts to say "evolution isn't testable"? Yeah, and the idea that a "god" exists is? Holy crap....and yes, the pun was fully intended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 3:06:19 PM EDT
[#43]
I stumbled upon the quite an important point when debating this with my mother. I was attempting to get her to see that perhaps Natural Selection had validity, and we went round and round. I got exasperated and told her, "You just don't like the idea of evolving from monkeys!"
She got quiet. Real quiet. That is it, isn't it? Staunch creationists are emotionally uncomfortable with the idea of evolving from monkeys. Nevermind the fact that that isn't what the theory really says. Nevermind the fact that there was a heck of a lot of other evolution taking place as well. As I type this, I brainstorm. There is also the scriptural concept of man being above the animals. If evolution is occurred/occurs, this causes serious problems with the scriptural mandate, doesn't it? If there is no clear line between man and animals, how can man be above animals? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 3:08:51 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Of course, people will say I'm just an ignorant fool who holds onto outdated irrational beliefs, but at least I can prove that Jesus actually existed! Nobody disputes that Jesus existed. That's a part of widely held historical record. It's just those minor points that are so tricky to buy in to. Like rising from the dead. Like the miriad of supernatural deeds Jesus was "reported" as having done. Like being created by "immaculate conception"....and the grand father of all nonsense, that he is the son of a supernatural being commonly called "god". |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 3:10:27 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Hmmmmm okay, let me see..... If your your belief in evolution is "fact" then neither of us need to worry! [beer] However if I'm correct (which I feel I am anyway) about creationisim, then I've got it made [O:)] and you, well, will be neighbors with [devil] for eternity! Seems like a win/win prop for me! [beer] You've made so many logical errors that it's hard to know where to start. 1)Evolution DOES NOT EQUAL atheism. 2)MOST Christians in the world accept the fact that life evolved. 3)Even if creationism were true, and the Bible were literally true and a believer who followed the Bible in other ways thought that the Adam and Eve story was an allegory, they wouldn't be going to hell according to Christian doctrine. 4)Even if the world was created, it was not necessarily by the Christian god and your belief in Him would not help you if that was the case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 3:12:17 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: I did see that the footprints where formed, "approximately 113 million years ago along the shorelines of an ancient sea". So the biblical floods occured 113 million years ago? A link to timeline of human evolution is provided below. Modern man had been around well less than 300,000 years. [url]www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#moderns[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 3:12:32 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Yeah, and a single 2000 year old book is FAR more convincing evidence. A single 2000 year old book full of supernatural hokus pokus and mythological nonsense. Written by human beings, who oddly enough, also believed in a whole bunch of other whack-o crap that also has no basis in the real world. One book fellas...that's all it is. And do you have any idea how many other books were written around the same time, full of similar supernatural oddities, that for some reason are now viewed as "absurd"? What about all the other "gods" people believed in? Same time period, similar outrageous claims, just different followers. But [i]those other people[/i] were all wrong. And you have the nuts to say "evolution isn't testable"? Yeah, and the idea that a "god" exists is? Holy crap....and yes, the pun was fully intended. Better a 2000 year old book than a theory that has been around for how long ? 200 years ? And actually the old Testiment and the stories are 5000 to 6000 years old. You facts are off. You think of just the Bible as it pertains to the new testiment. And if you study any Archeology, more facts about the Bible have been proven than ANY evolution theories. Even Astro physicist are admiting the complex grand design and admiting there must be a God. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 3:14:11 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: It should be called just an idea not a theory. Or Science fiction. If evolution is science fiction, creationism is outright fantasy. Truer words have never been spoken. I'm still stunned how people can put blind faith in book that was altered, changed, and edited countless times over the past 2000+ years; yet REFUSE to so much as consider the mountains of scientific evidence that back up the theory of evolution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 3:17:46 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Hmmmmm okay, let me see..... If your your belief in evolution is "fact" then neither of us need to worry! [beer] However if I'm correct (which I feel I am anyway) about creationisim, then I've got it made [O:)] and you, well, will be neighbors with [devil] for eternity! Seems like a win/win prop for me! [beer] Nonsense. Believing in evolutionary theory has nothing to do with believing or disbelieving in God. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 3:17:48 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: I stumbled upon the quite an important point when debating this with my mother. I was attempting to get her to see that perhaps Natural Selection had validity, and we went round and round. I got exasperated and told her, "You just don't like the idea of evolving from monkeys!" She got quiet. Real quiet. That is it, isn't it? Staunch creationists are emotionally uncomfortable with the idea of evolving from monkeys. Nevermind the fact that that isn't what the theory really says. Nevermind the fact that there was a heck of a lot of other evolution taking place as well. As I type this, I brainstorm. There is also the scriptural concept of man being above the animals. If evolution is occurred/occurs, this causes serious problems with the scriptural mandate, doesn't it? If there is no clear line between man and animals, how can man be above animals? I absolutely agree. And the conflict that would arise from acceptence of the man/animal connection would invariably ripple out in to a wide assortment of other areas that are equally subject to a rational and logical explanation, which would directly conflict with the word of "god" and call the whole fairy tale in to question. Part of the creationist defense is rooted in the fact that a concession on that subject would have a snowball effect on other subjects of "faith". They can't afford to let that happen. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
