Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Creationism vs Evolution

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: Creationism vs Evolution Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 6/7/2012 11:05:41 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby
. I don't see how anyone with a school education can be practicing religious person.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to boaby)
Post #: 121
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 6/7/2012 11:09:41 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
That counts for believing in God and also advocating evolution (not that it should need any, it is a theory strongly supported by fact) btw.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 122
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 6/7/2012 11:31:45 PM   
boaby

 

Posts: 2808
Joined: 29/12/2006
From: Aberdeenshire
I appreciate that there are people who can work as a scientist and be a practicing religious person.

I just don't get how they can get their mind to work that way.

Ok so today I was at communion and ate a wafer that the priest transubstantiated into the actual flesh of Christ and I washed it down with wine that the priest transubstantiated into the actual blood of Christ. The priest having the power to change wafers and wine into flesh and blood by virtue of a ceremony where he was made a priest by the runf above in the clerical hierarchy, a process repeated up to and including the pope who is elected by the cardinals but made by God to be Christ's representative on earth. Anyway, by so consuming actual human flesh and actual human blood I save my soul in order that I can praise God for eternity... now, this Higgs thingamybob. If we fire these things really fast at each other we can begin to understand the beginnings of the universe. Oops, sorry, we can understand how God made the universe, the process of which is told in Genesis. Why bother with the Higgs malarky if it says in Genesis what God did? Erm? Well, the Bible's not literally true. It is still the word of God. But it's metaphor and stuff, ken? But that wafer/flesh stuff, well that's real.

Me =

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 123
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 6/7/2012 11:35:22 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82
I admire the way in which someone can have faith in something that not only can't be explained, but can actively be proven otherwise. To maintain a faith in something where this is the case (i.e. the origins of the universe) is quite laudable from my perspective (I say this as someone who struggles to hold much faith in anything). I'm not talking about brainwashed zombies here, I'm talking about regular, intelligent people. I admire their ability to stick to their faith in spite of science telling them otherwise.


But isn't that just wilful ignorance?


With the people I'm referring to I don't think it is. They have a genuine belief. I can't appreciate it fully because, like I say, I don't have much faith myself. I actually think the whole thing is pretty extraordinary, and quite hard to understand from the outside.

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan
I am more inclined to have respect for people who accept science such as evolution even though it collides with their dogma. I don't think there's anything wrong with struggling to reconcile faith and science, and accepting some things are irreconcilable. God knows, Darwin was conflicted enough when he realised what he'd stumbled upon.


To be fair, this attitude correlates very closely with the beliefs of my father-in-law (the doctor of science who's also a preacher), who is the person I've had in my mind when taking part in this discussion. He doesn't outright reject evolution, as such, but his beliefs outweigh everything else, ultimately.

I do have a bunch of Christian friends who are a little more hardline when it comes to the whole debate, but we know that we won't ever agree so don't really talk about it.

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 124
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 6/7/2012 11:36:22 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby

I appreciate that there are people who can work as a scientist and be a practicing religious person.

I just don't get how they can get their mind to work that way.


Me neither, but as I've said, I actually kind of admire their ability to be able to do so.

(in reply to boaby)
Post #: 125
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 6/7/2012 11:41:52 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey
quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey
quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

I'm genuinely not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that people who have faith are insane?


Could you explain the difference?


What do you mean? The difference between faith and mental illness?

I believe they are different but I'm asking what the logical difference is between the examples the two of us provided is.


The insane person is effected by a psychological disorder. The person can't help this.
The religious person holds a series of beliefs. The person chooses to do so.




< Message edited by adambatman82 -- 6/7/2012 11:42:17 PM >

(in reply to Lazarus munkey)
Post #: 126
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 12:29:04 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby

I appreciate that there are people who can work as a scientist and be a practicing religious person.

I just don't get how they can get their mind to work that way.

Ok so today I was at communion and ate a wafer that the priest transubstantiated into the actual flesh of Christ and I washed it down with wine that the priest transubstantiated into the actual blood of Christ. The priest having the power to change wafers and wine into flesh and blood by virtue of a ceremony where he was made a priest by the runf above in the clerical hierarchy, a process repeated up to and including the pope who is elected by the cardinals but made by God to be Christ's representative on earth. Anyway, by so consuming actual human flesh and actual human blood I save my soul in order that I can praise God for eternity... now, this Higgs thingamybob. If we fire these things really fast at each other we can begin to understand the beginnings of the universe. Oops, sorry, we can understand how God made the universe, the process of which is told in Genesis. Why bother with the Higgs malarky if it says in Genesis what God did? Erm? Well, the Bible's not literally true. It is still the word of God. But it's metaphor and stuff, ken? But that wafer/flesh stuff, well that's real.

Me =



That's because a literal take on the Bible is only one way on how to interpret it, secondly, transsubtitution tends to be something mostly found in Catholic doctrine, thirdly, the whole structure of the Vatican is also not pertaining to the entirety of Catholic groups, fourthly, that is making a categorical mistake on what the religious nature of creation means and mistaking natural truths with supernatural "truths". Knowing the fourth point is key and is where Miller goes right, a man who did as much to fight Intelligent Design in schools, who recognises it as religious nonsense in the face of demonstrable science, as Dawkins did without the obnoxious levels he is showing recently. Seriously, cut the patronising attitude.

There's also that most Roman Catholics tend to differ on how seriously they take transsubstitution. I've very rarely met practicing young Roman Catholics who take it with total seriousness beyond its ritualistic means. Basically there is a difference between Miller here, and Ric Santorum, and the whole hierarchy in Roman Catholic Church and the doctrine of transsubstitution tends are really low on the things that annoy me about the Roman Catholic Church as an organization.


< Message edited by Deviation -- 7/7/2012 12:48:01 AM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to boaby)
Post #: 127
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 12:33:31 AM   
Lazarus munkey


Posts: 1650
Joined: 20/3/2006
From: out of nowhere

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey
quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey
quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

I'm genuinely not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that people who have faith are insane?


Could you explain the difference?


What do you mean? The difference between faith and mental illness?

I believe they are different but I'm asking what the logical difference is between the examples the two of us provided is.


The insane person is effected by a psychological disorder. The person can't help this.
The religious person holds a series of beliefs. The person chooses to do so.




Exactly. So which is worse, the person that can't help but ignore the evidence or the person that actively chooses to?

To be clear, I don't believe that most people of faith are insane and my point is largely aimed at creationists but I can't help but be suspicious of someone that bloody-mindedly ignores a mountain of evidence and I certainly do not think that this approach is to be admired.


_____________________________

"Because I got the answers"

Last 5 seen
Chronicle 4/5
The Amazing Spider-Man 3/5
Young Adult 4/5
21 Jump Street 4/5
The Apartment 5/5

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 128
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 12:49:49 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

Exactly. So which is worse, the person that can't help but ignore the evidence or the person that actively chooses to?


I'd go with actively chooses to, it's not just dumb, it's dangerous. Frankly I'm baffled this entire debacle exists, it's so stupid that I cannot believe it exists in countries like the US or the UK.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Lazarus munkey)
Post #: 129
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 12:50:50 AM   
Lazarus munkey


Posts: 1650
Joined: 20/3/2006
From: out of nowhere

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

Exactly. So which is worse, the person that can't help but ignore the evidence or the person that actively chooses to?


I'd go with actively chooses to, it's not just dumb, it's dangerous. Frankly I'm baffled this entire debacle exists, it's so stupid that I cannot believe it exists in countries like the US or the UK.

My point precisely.

_____________________________

"Because I got the answers"

Last 5 seen
Chronicle 4/5
The Amazing Spider-Man 3/5
Young Adult 4/5
21 Jump Street 4/5
The Apartment 5/5

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 130
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:01:38 AM   
boaby

 

Posts: 2808
Joined: 29/12/2006
From: Aberdeenshire

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby

I appreciate that there are people who can work as a scientist and be a practicing religious person.

I just don't get how they can get their mind to work that way.

Ok so today I was at communion and ate a wafer that the priest transubstantiated into the actual flesh of Christ and I washed it down with wine that the priest transubstantiated into the actual blood of Christ. The priest having the power to change wafers and wine into flesh and blood by virtue of a ceremony where he was made a priest by the runf above in the clerical hierarchy, a process repeated up to and including the pope who is elected by the cardinals but made by God to be Christ's representative on earth. Anyway, by so consuming actual human flesh and actual human blood I save my soul in order that I can praise God for eternity... now, this Higgs thingamybob. If we fire these things really fast at each other we can begin to understand the beginnings of the universe. Oops, sorry, we can understand how God made the universe, the process of which is told in Genesis. Why bother with the Higgs malarky if it says in Genesis what God did? Erm? Well, the Bible's not literally true. It is still the word of God. But it's metaphor and stuff, ken? But that wafer/flesh stuff, well that's real.

Me =

That's because a literal take on the Bible is only one way on how to interpret it


Quite.

quote:

secondly, transsubtitution tends to be something mostly found in Catholic doctrine


Indeed.

quote:

thirdly, the whole structure of the Vatican is also not pertaining to the entirety of Catholic groups


True enough. Which is amusing.

quote:

fourthly, that is making a categorical mistake on what the religious nature of creation means and mistaking natural truths with supernatural "truths".


I know there to be a material world. No-one knows there is a supernatural world, or any "truths" pertaining to it. Organised religion, meanwhile, uses these imagined supernatural "truths" to try to control the natural lives of people. Through crap like transubstantiation. Hence the example.

quote:

Knowing the fourth point is key and is where Miller goes right, a man who did as much to fight Intelligent Design in schools who recognises it as religious nonsense in the face of demonstrable science, as Dawkins did without the obnoxious levels. Seriously, cut the patronising attitude.


Patronising? Fair enough. I'm comfortable with it.

quote:

There's also that most Roman Catholics tend to differ on how seriously they take transsubstitution. I've very rarely met practicing young Roman Catholics who take it with total seriousness beyond its ritualistic means.


Then what's the point? If they don't believe it, why do it? Why practice?


_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 131
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:02:08 AM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey
Exactly. So which is worse, the person that can't help but ignore the evidence or the person that actively chooses to?


Ah, but this is where we see it differently: I don't think a religious person (necessarily) chooses to ignore anything, but that they choose to believe in something, an off-shoot of which is a disregard for something else. So here, their faith in their religion outweighs their interest in the reality.



< Message edited by adambatman82 -- 7/7/2012 1:03:03 AM >

(in reply to Lazarus munkey)
Post #: 132
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:05:22 AM   
Nexus Wookie


Posts: 2326
Joined: 24/9/2011
From: the Godcity
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey
quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey
quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

I'm genuinely not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that people who have faith are insane?


Could you explain the difference?


What do you mean? The difference between faith and mental illness?

I believe they are different but I'm asking what the logical difference is between the examples the two of us provided is.


The insane person is effected by a psychological disorder. The person can't help this.
The religious person holds a series of beliefs. The person chooses to do so.




Exactly. So which is worse, the person that can't help but ignore the evidence or the person that actively chooses to?

To be clear, I don't believe that most people of faith are insane and my point is largely aimed at creationists but I can't help but be suspicious of someone that bloody-mindedly ignores a mountain of evidence and I certainly do not think that this approach is to be admired.



The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. There's a lot of thing's in the evolutionist 'dogma' that still cannot be explained. And even evolutionist's have admitted this themselves. I've gone over these point's so many times, each time i've been faced with something which shows that there is intelligent design behind every living thing. So there is no way you can call something which has yet to realistically beproven as evidence! The ape to man thoery itself is full of discrepancies.

Life is so complex, even a single cell organism - that it could not have been created by mere chance. This fact has even confounded evolutionists today and many have admitted as much.


< Message edited by Nexus Wookie -- 7/7/2012 1:17:00 AM >


_____________________________

My blog: http://nexuswookie.wordpress.com/

(in reply to Lazarus munkey)
Post #: 133
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:13:08 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

I know there to be a material world. No-one knows there is a supernatural world, or any "truths" pertaining to it. Organised religion, meanwhile, uses these imagined supernatural "truths" to try to control the natural lives of people. Through crap like transubstantiation. Hence the example.


Or try to teach and examine them and maintain a community. There is more to it than simply "OMG CONTROL THE FUCKERS", which without a doubt, occurs. The examining of the supernatural in religion tends to be a complicated one.

Also, rituals are rituals, sometimes they remain and people keep performing them even if they are not exactly believed in the same way they were supposed to be and sometimes they are ignored. That is the nature of rituals.

quote:

Patronising? Fair enough. I'm comfortable with it.


I'm not and you are not winning anyone on your side by keeping that attitude.

quote:

Then what's the point? If they don't believe it, why do it? Why practice?


Because rituals are rituals, it could be used as mere remembrance of the Last Supper and not follows what the Roman Catholic Church states. I've met Roman Catholic priests who give church without a problem to homosexuals without a problem, Rick Santorum and some others members of the clergy wouldn't like that, it's not just one homogenous thought group.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 7/7/2012 1:24:13 AM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to boaby)
Post #: 134
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:21:11 AM   
Lazarus munkey


Posts: 1650
Joined: 20/3/2006
From: out of nowhere

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. There's a lot of thing's in the evolutionist 'dogma' that still cannot be explained. And even evolutionist's have admitted this themselves. I've gone over these point's so many times, each time i've been faced with something which shows that there was intelligent design behind every living thing. So there is no way you can call something which has yet to realistically beproven as evidence! The ape to man thoery itself is full of discrepancies.

Life is so complex, even a single cell organism - that it could not have been created by mere chance. This has even confounded evolutionists today and many have admitted as much.


DNA mapping has all but proven that evolution by natural selection is scientific fact. The idea that there are gaps in our understanding of it lends absolutely no weight to the case for ID and to claim that it does is a logical fallacy. And to claim that any gaps in understanding mean that both theories remain equal is, quite frankly, nonsense.

_____________________________

"Because I got the answers"

Last 5 seen
Chronicle 4/5
The Amazing Spider-Man 3/5
Young Adult 4/5
21 Jump Street 4/5
The Apartment 5/5

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 135
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:28:17 AM   
Nexus Wookie


Posts: 2326
Joined: 24/9/2011
From: the Godcity

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey
Exactly. So which is worse, the person that can't help but ignore the evidence or the person that actively chooses to?


Ah, but this is where we see it differently: I don't think a religious person (necessarily) chooses to ignore anything, but that they choose to believe in something, an off-shoot of which is a disregard for something else. So here, their faith in their religion outweighs their interest in the reality.




To say that a religious person chooses to ignore 'evidence' is bullshit at best. How do you explain the Arab scientists of old who made leaps and bound's in their chosen field's of science,mathematics, medicine and astronomy? That was made possible because of their faith which told them to embrace science, and evidence, not shun it!

_____________________________

My blog: http://nexuswookie.wordpress.com/

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 136
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:28:50 AM   
Lazarus munkey


Posts: 1650
Joined: 20/3/2006
From: out of nowhere

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey
Exactly. So which is worse, the person that can't help but ignore the evidence or the person that actively chooses to?


Ah, but this is where we see it differently: I don't think a religious person (necessarily) chooses to ignore anything, but that they choose to believe in something, an off-shoot of which is a disregard for something else. So here, their faith in their religion outweighs their interest in the reality.



I still don't see how this could be pitched as admirable. I mean, "faith outweighs reality"???

However the conclusion is reached, the evidence remains ignored.

_____________________________

"Because I got the answers"

Last 5 seen
Chronicle 4/5
The Amazing Spider-Man 3/5
Young Adult 4/5
21 Jump Street 4/5
The Apartment 5/5

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 137
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:33:03 AM   
Nexus Wookie


Posts: 2326
Joined: 24/9/2011
From: the Godcity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. There's a lot of thing's in the evolutionist 'dogma' that still cannot be explained. And even evolutionist's have admitted this themselves. I've gone over these point's so many times, each time i've been faced with something which shows that there was intelligent design behind every living thing. So there is no way you can call something which has yet to realistically beproven as evidence! The ape to man thoery itself is full of discrepancies.

Life is so complex, even a single cell organism - that it could not have been created by mere chance. This has even confounded evolutionists today and many have admitted as much.


DNA mapping has all but proven that evolution by natural selection is scientific fact. The idea that there are gaps in our understanding of it lends absolutely no weight to the case for ID and to claim that it does is a logical fallacy. And to claim that any gaps in understanding mean that both theories remain equal is, quite frankly, nonsense.



No it hasn't! If anything DNA mapping has shown how complex life is - even more than the evolutionist's thought it was! It poses more question's, about the complexity of life!

_____________________________

My blog: http://nexuswookie.wordpress.com/

(in reply to Lazarus munkey)
Post #: 138
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:35:27 AM   
Larry of Arabia

 

Posts: 7576
Joined: 28/2/2007
From: Turtle Island

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. There's a lot of thing's in the evolutionist 'dogma' that still cannot be explained. And even evolutionist's have admitted this themselves. I've gone over these point's so many times, each time i've been faced with something which shows that there was intelligent design behind every living thing. So there is no way you can call something which has yet to realistically beproven as evidence! The ape to man thoery itself is full of discrepancies.

Life is so complex, even a single cell organism - that it could not have been created by mere chance. This has even confounded evolutionists today and many have admitted as much.


DNA mapping has all but proven that evolution by natural selection is scientific fact. The idea that there are gaps in our understanding of it lends absolutely no weight to the case for ID and to claim that it does is a logical fallacy. And to claim that any gaps in understanding mean that both theories remain equal is, quite frankly, nonsense.



No it hasn't! If anything DNA mapping has shown how complex life is - even more than the evolutionist's thought it was! It poses more question's, about the complexity of life!


Just a quick question, would you question the "theory" of gravity in the same way as you question the theory of evolution?

_____________________________

"Everything was beautiful and nothing hurt."


(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 139
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:35:38 AM   
Lazarus munkey


Posts: 1650
Joined: 20/3/2006
From: out of nowhere
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey
Exactly. So which is worse, the person that can't help but ignore the evidence or the person that actively chooses to?


Ah, but this is where we see it differently: I don't think a religious person (necessarily) chooses to ignore anything, but that they choose to believe in something, an off-shoot of which is a disregard for something else. So here, their faith in their religion outweighs their interest in the reality.




To say that a religious person chooses to ignore 'evidence' is bullshit at best. How do you explain the Arab scientists of old who made leaps and bound's in their chosen field's of science,mathematics, medicine and astronomy? That was made possible because of their faith which told them to embrace science, and evidence, not shun it!

I'm struggling to take this seriously.

1. As I had stated earlier to Adam, my point is largely concerned with creationists whose beliefs go directly against the overwhelming weight of evidence.
2. The thing about the Arabs, I don't understand your point. Are you asking if Arabs changed their religious beliefs following significant scientific discoveries? If you are, then I have no idea. Or are you seriously trying to suggest that my point is that anyone of faith ignores evidence?
It is not my point and you would have known this had you looked at the evidence in this thread.

< Message edited by Lazarus munkey -- 7/7/2012 5:05:05 AM >


_____________________________

"Because I got the answers"

Last 5 seen
Chronicle 4/5
The Amazing Spider-Man 3/5
Young Adult 4/5
21 Jump Street 4/5
The Apartment 5/5

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 140
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:37:54 AM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1159
Joined: 2/4/2006
The way I see it is "young Earth creationists" are a silly bunch whose ideas are wilfully ignorant to the point of being ridiculous. By way of illustrating this I give you a pair of illustrations from a book titled, "A Creationist's View of Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution."

Exhibit A:



Exhibit B:



That isn't to say that I have seen any evidence which precludes the possibility of a creator, nor anything that precludes science happily co-existing with a non literal interpretation of the Bible. While I don't subscribe to the idea (or religious notions of any kind for that matter) I don't find old Earth creationism particularly intellectually offensive. God might have created the universe and science is merely looking into the way He went about it.

(in reply to Lazarus munkey)
Post #: 141
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:37:58 AM   
Lazarus munkey


Posts: 1650
Joined: 20/3/2006
From: out of nowhere

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. There's a lot of thing's in the evolutionist 'dogma' that still cannot be explained. And even evolutionist's have admitted this themselves. I've gone over these point's so many times, each time i've been faced with something which shows that there was intelligent design behind every living thing. So there is no way you can call something which has yet to realistically beproven as evidence! The ape to man thoery itself is full of discrepancies.

Life is so complex, even a single cell organism - that it could not have been created by mere chance. This has even confounded evolutionists today and many have admitted as much.


DNA mapping has all but proven that evolution by natural selection is scientific fact. The idea that there are gaps in our understanding of it lends absolutely no weight to the case for ID and to claim that it does is a logical fallacy. And to claim that any gaps in understanding mean that both theories remain equal is, quite frankly, nonsense.



No it hasn't! If anything DNA mapping has shown how complex life is - even more than the evolutionist's thought it was! It poses more question's, about the complexity of life!

DNA found in fossils of extinct species matches that found in living species. Hence, it evolved.

_____________________________

"Because I got the answers"

Last 5 seen
Chronicle 4/5
The Amazing Spider-Man 3/5
Young Adult 4/5
21 Jump Street 4/5
The Apartment 5/5

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 142
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 2:33:24 AM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair


_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to Lazarus munkey)
Post #: 143
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 2:41:46 AM   
NinjaShortbread212


Posts: 4542
Joined: 26/4/2011
From: Edinburger, Scottyland
quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron





Stop it!


_____________________________

Art

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 144
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 3:00:44 AM   
boaby

 

Posts: 2808
Joined: 29/12/2006
From: Aberdeenshire

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

I know there to be a material world. No-one knows there is a supernatural world, or any "truths" pertaining to it. Organised religion, meanwhile, uses these imagined supernatural "truths" to try to control the natural lives of people. Through crap like transubstantiation. Hence the example.


Or try to teach and examine them and maintain a community. There is more to it than simply "OMG CONTROL THE FUCKERS", which without a doubt, occurs. The examining of the supernatural in religion tends to be a complicated one.


By "them" I take it you mean the "truths". Which aren't truths. Shared views undoubtedly help in "maintaining a community" and yet Christianity has long since stopped being a community. Instead there are communities which kick the crap out of each other. It is only as a result of the diminished power of Churches that examination of the supernatural has become complicated. How many heretics died for their examinations?

quote:

Also, rituals are rituals, sometimes they remain and people keep performing them even if they are not exactly believed in the same way they were supposed to be and sometimes they are ignored. That is the nature of rituals.


Their continued practice, even if the masses do not believe the theology behind them, still allows the leaders of those "enlightened" priests to claim a credibility and influence that they can only obtain through their status as heads of the fractured and monstrous but not dismembered body.

quote:

quote:

Patronising? Fair enough. I'm comfortable with it.


I'm not and you are not winning anyone on your side by keeping that attitude.


I'm not sure I have a side.

quote:

quote:

Then what's the point? If they don't believe it, why do it? Why practice?


Because rituals are rituals, it could be used as mere remembrance of the Last Supper and not follows what the Roman Catholic Church states. I've met Roman Catholic priests who give church without a problem to homosexuals without a problem, Rick Santorum and some others members of the clergy wouldn't like that, it's not just one homogenous thought group.


It's good some priests haven't that particular problem. They're still priests though. Roman Catholic priests. The pope claims to be head of one homogeneous thought group, indeed as head he claims all thoughts by the group and obeyed by the group emanate from him. And he has power and influence in the secular world because of it. The larger the body of which he is head is perceived to be the more influence he has. If those participating in the rituals and practices of the Catholic church ceased doing so then his power would wane. Slowly. There are, after all, ever more poor people with little hope of education for whom indoctrination awaits.

The less organised religion the better. This will result in less people obtaining secular power on the basis of supernatural tosh.

If some muppets want to think that the earth is less than 10,000 years old let them have no credible institution with which to gain an unnecessary degree of influence on the secular world. If some eejits think condoms are evil let them have no artificially bloated institution with which to facilitate their phucking up of the world.

If I've a point I've forgotten it. Religion and religious ideas, no matter how theological or apart from the natural, do affect the natural world. Compartmentalising the mind in order to keep grip on a personal security blanket affects the world. It's still funny though. Was that a point? I dunno.

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 145
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 3:02:41 AM   
Lazarus munkey


Posts: 1650
Joined: 20/3/2006
From: out of nowhere

quote:

ORIGINAL: NinjaShortbread212

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron





Stop it!


I just had to explain to a work colleague what the picture meant.

_____________________________

"Because I got the answers"

Last 5 seen
Chronicle 4/5
The Amazing Spider-Man 3/5
Young Adult 4/5
21 Jump Street 4/5
The Apartment 5/5

(in reply to NinjaShortbread212)
Post #: 146
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 3:04:44 AM   
NinjaShortbread212


Posts: 4542
Joined: 26/4/2011
From: Edinburger, Scottyland
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: NinjaShortbread212

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron





Stop it!



I just had to explain to a work colleague what the picture meant.



It's a fun gif and doesn't get posted often enough.

_____________________________

Art

(in reply to Lazarus munkey)
Post #: 147
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 4:27:49 AM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

quote:

ORIGINAL: NinjaShortbread212

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: NinjaShortbread212

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron





Stop it!



I just had to explain to a work colleague what the picture meant.



It's a fun gif and doesn't get posted often enough.


I just liked it for the added halo, to be relevant to this thread and all.


_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to NinjaShortbread212)
Post #: 148
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 6:25:18 AM   
Lazarus munkey


Posts: 1650
Joined: 20/3/2006
From: out of nowhere

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron



I hate that he chews with his mouth open. I don't care how white his teeth are.

_____________________________

"Because I got the answers"

Last 5 seen
Chronicle 4/5
The Amazing Spider-Man 3/5
Young Adult 4/5
21 Jump Street 4/5
The Apartment 5/5

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 149
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 8:21:42 AM   
BigKovacs


Posts: 3195
Joined: 6/4/2006
From: Textile Street.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey
quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey
quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

I'm genuinely not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that people who have faith are insane?


Could you explain the difference?


What do you mean? The difference between faith and mental illness?

I believe they are different but I'm asking what the logical difference is between the examples the two of us provided is.


The insane person is effected by a psychological disorder. The person can't help this.
The religious person holds a series of beliefs. The person chooses to do so.




Exactly. So which is worse, the person that can't help but ignore the evidence or the person that actively chooses to?

To be clear, I don't believe that most people of faith are insane and my point is largely aimed at creationists but I can't help but be suspicious of someone that bloody-mindedly ignores a mountain of evidence and I certainly do not think that this approach is to be admired.



The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. There's a lot of thing's in the evolutionist 'dogma' that still cannot be explained. And even evolutionist's have admitted this themselves. I've gone over these point's so many times, each time i've been faced with something which shows that there is intelligent design behind every living thing. So there is no way you can call something which has yet to realistically beproven as evidence! The ape to man thoery itself is full of discrepancies.

Life is so complex, even a single cell organism - that it could not have been created by mere chance. This fact has even confounded evolutionists today and many have admitted as much.



Evolution is 'just' a theory but it's 'just' a theory versus 'nothing', there's not a single shred of evidence suggesting any other method in which we were created. Nothing, not a single thing.

_____________________________

Gamertag: Cambo1979.

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: Creationism vs Evolution Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.172