Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: ZmaN on June 08, 2006, 09:22:16 pm
-
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=O2YP5NEL
Ok so you guys keep asking for my texbook scans so I did them tonight.
Click the link, wait 45 seconds, click out the ad that comes up, and view the files.
Happy now?
-
well that certainly took long enough
lol
-
lol, its a science book that says the bible is right
see, thats the real issue. you take for granted that the bible is right, i require proof. you can't just hand me a book and tell me that god wrote it. i'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way
i'll show it to my girlfriend and we'll have a good laugh
-
lol, its a science book that says the bible is right
see, thats the real issue. you take for granted that the bible is right, i require proof. you can't just hand me a book and tell me that god wrote it. i'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way
i'll show it to my girlfriend and we'll have a good laugh
fine by me....
There is proff in there. make sure you read it thru.
-
basically all that i'm seeing is attempts to debase evolutionary science. unfortunately, pretty much all they do is say that theyre wrong, and say that god is right.
they point out small inconsistencies in fossil records, and then say that when asked about it, evolutionist scientists are baffled. i'm guessing they didnt give the guy time to respond. however, i've seen little to prove that creationism is actually the truth. i usually go with intelligence and reasoning when i pick theories. it takes a lot more intelligence and reasoning to piece together the history of life over millions of years by using small fragments of fossils and imprints than it does to stand back, say all the evidence is worthless, and say that god is responsible for everything.
i'll keep reading i guess (i dont have much better to do right now)
-
see, thats the real issue. you take for granted that the bible is right, i require proof. you can't just hand me a book and tell me that god wrote it. i'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way
But God DIDN'T write the Bible. The Bible consists of the Old testament, written by a whole bunch of random writings compiled together, and the New Testament, written by the twelve Apostles.
So you see, all God did was create everything that happend in the bible... and... umm... my entire argument just exploded.
-
Question: Does it really matter how humans came into existance?
Besides can't creationism and evolution coexist seeing as "a day in heaven is like unto a thousand years" (meaning much, much longer). Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken, the days of creation follow the same general path of evolution.
-
Um, well, I just read the first page...
Holy crap. It's one thing to offer other ideas, it's another thing entirely to state something as fact and the other as foolishness.
-
Question: Does it really matter how humans came into existance?
Besides can't creationism and evolution coexist seeing as "a day in heaven is like unto a thousand years" (meaning much, much longer). Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken, the days of creation follow the same general path of evolution.
No they don't, they're way off.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH801.html
-
Besides can't creationism and evolution coexist seeing as "a day in heaven is like unto a thousand years" (meaning much, much longer).
They cannot co-exist in a science classroom.
-
and if the word of god does make it into a science classroom, i would stop calling it a science classroom
-
Wow. That textbook is just... wow.
Anyway, I don't really think either should be taught as absolute truth. Natural selection is a sound principle, however, speciation by evolution is on much, much shakier ground currently.
-
Anyway, I don't really think either should be taught as absolute truth. Natural selection is a sound principle, however, speciation by evolution is on much, much shakier ground currently.
:wtf:
The ground isn't nearly as shakey as many creationists want you to believe.
-
Let's put it this way. When lions and tigers (or some other organisms) stop being able to produce viable offspring after they already have for many years, it'll be sound proof.
Let's not forget that science is a process of trial and error. Taking something like evolution as complete truth when we don't have complete proof nor likely ever will due to the time such a process would involve would make darwinian evolution no different than a religion IMO.
Who cares anyway?
-
Let's put it this way. When lions and tigers (or some other organisms) stop being able to produce viable offspring after they already have for many years, it'll be sound proof.
A species generally doesn't die out because of that.
-
Alright, so if I said I was convinced Evolution was wrong and is all based on faulty evidence and circular reasoning...why's creationism right instead? If it doesn't prove it any more than evolution, why should I bother changing my beliefs?
-
Who said you should?
Will humans ever know definitively, with proof, how life was created? No.
-
Question: Does it really matter how humans came into existance?
Well... uh... it's the... y'know... driving force behind all human will to understand the universe? I don't know about you, but I for one, and i'd think about 6 or so billion other people on this planet, would like to know definitively about where they came from. To completely ignore our origins is to abandon all scientific and philosophical progress.
Besides can't creationism and evolution coexist seeing as "a day in heaven is like unto a thousand years" (meaning much, much longer). Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken, the days of creation follow the same general path of evolution.
Wrong. Just wrong. No explanation needed, it's just common sense. Any 8-year old can tell you what's wrong with that, so I won't bore you.
Let's not forget that science is a process of trial and error. Taking something like evolution as complete truth when we don't have complete proof nor likely ever will due to the time such a process would involve would make darwinian evolution no different than a religion IMO.
Did... uh... did anyone say evolution is 100% complete truth? Trial an error is one thing, but we're talking about decades upon decades of research and modification to the original theory, backed up by copious amounts of observable and testable material. This ain't some book from a couple thousand years ago we're talking about, we're not simply pulling things out of the air because they sound cool, we've seen this s*** in action. An interesting thing to note is the irony that the theory of evolution actually 'evolves', in that sciene is generally willing to admit it's wrong when presented with contradicting data, something that certainly can't be said for creationists.
Remember, there is more observable evidence [a good word that, 'evidence'] for the Theory of Evolution than there is for the Theory of Gravity. Just food for thought.
Will humans ever know definitively, with proof, how life was created? No.
I disagree completely, and to take that view is - as I said earlier - to abandon all scientific and philosophical progress in favour of sitting on our collective arses until we're extinct. Although, if you're cool with doing that, fine by me. :rolleyes:
Back OT: Regarding that "textbook", Zman, I wouldn't use that tripe to wipe my arse. There is so much circular logic and false conclusions drawn in that book [and i've only read the first three pages] that I am simply aghast that such a publication could have gotten anywhere near the classroom, let alone into a school at all! Hell, the fact alone that the book takes the existance of God as a universal given is a dead giveaway that there is about as much good science within those pages as there is Swedish supermodels within my bedroom. :rolleyes:
-
Can you explain how humans will know how life came into existence since they weren't there at the beginning? Enlighten me, please.
-
Can you explain how humans will know how life came into existence since they weren't there at the beginning? Enlighten me, please.
No, no no, please. You first! I have nothing to prove at all, and you seem to be the one making the more provocative assertions here, so please, go right ahead. If you aren't too sure, feel free to ask your God to clear anything up, i've recently read that he was around at that time, apparently. :)
Heh, reading further into ZmaN's textbook, it's somewhat humerous to see the author get into somewhat of a pissing match against non-creationists, giving a list of all the scientific fields that have been advanced by scientists who happened to be religious [a good portion of them pre-20th century, and pre-Darwin], as if that proves something. :lol:
-
What?
It's suddenly provocative to say "meh" to the whole subject?
-
No, it's somewhat provocative to say 'Genesis and Evolution can merge quite well'.
Still waiting on that explanation...
-
Can you explain how humans will know how life came into existence since they weren't there at the beginning? Enlighten me, please.
Because we have something that were there when life came into existence, taking down records. It's called the Earth. When you know how to read it, it tells you more about life (and by that I mean the biological kind of life, not your own individual life) than any book, even your Bible ever could.
-
Because we have something that were there when life came into existence, taking down records. It's called the Earth. When you know how to read it, it tells you more about life (and by that I mean the biological kind of life, not your own individual life) than any book, even your Bible ever could.
No, no, don't get on the defensive, it serves no purpose, take the arguement to his side, the side that is actually the agressor.
-
It's not a defence, it's a statement of fact. The earth really does have most of what we need to know about the origins of life written into some part of it, either the rocks or the organisms on it.
-
No, it's somewhat provocative to say 'Genesis and Evolution can merge quite well'.
Still waiting on that explanation...
I said why couldn't they?
I have no idea on genesis, but I'm really sick of everyone arguing about something so trivial.
-
Well of course it's trivial. The scientists couldn't care less; there's a consensus about evolution in science. It's the fundamentalists who constantly bring up this issue of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design by trying to legislate their crap into schools. Not our (the scientifically minded people's) fault.
-
Umm actualy scientists ,at least those with ana open mind, never said that the Bible was wrong..i mean the whole cration stuff.
But there are some very important aspects of the whole evolution theory that actualy dont make sence. Dont ask me now to tell them to you cuz well mi brain is shot to pieces...!
-
Translation of Deepblue's and AlphaOne's argument: Eveloution seeks to explain how life came to be, physically, not why life exists.
-
After looking at the textbook (at all of its bull****), I have a question. The style looks similair to a typical high school textbook. So, where do you use it?
-
Umm actualy scientists ,at least those with ana open mind, never said that the Bible was wrong..i mean the whole cration stuff.
But there are some very important aspects of the whole evolution theory that actualy dont make sence. Dont ask me now to tell them to you cuz well mi brain is shot to pieces...!
Proper scientists don't even look at the bible when studying either evolution or abiogenesis; it's of no more value or relevance than the latest Tom Clancy novel.
NB: I shall give a short critique of the great wad o' pish later when I'm done with work. I expect much hilarity.
-
soo the fact that some scienists have actualy confirmed some of the dates and writings and facts as are mentioned in the bible is of ne consequence right??
-
soo the fact that some scienists have actualy confirmed some of the dates and writings and facts as are mentioned in the bible is of ne consequence right??
It would only be of consequence in verifying the validity of biblical events against history.
It's pretty simple. From a rational i.e. scientific perspective, the bible is simply a mythological record (partly altered, granted, by years of translation by various vested interests). Parts of it are historical, parts of it fictional, and parts are a combination of both. For example, the flood myth is probably a reference to the epic of Gilgamesh, which in turn is probably a record of a great but-not-cataclysmic flood or series of floods. so you can verify the bibles' authenticity (or try and see which parts allude to what) against the observable historical record, and other mythologies (for example, the Biblical story of Genesis is very much in tandem with the myths of surrounding cultures IIRC), but you can't use the bible as any sort of guide or textbook.
-
To be honest in my opinion as a fairly unreligious person, in fact an athiest (sp?), I say the Bible has no more historical scientific merit as a cave painting or fossilised T-Rex $h1t, Bloody DAN BROWN and his Da Vinci Ho' have stirred fundies up all over the place.
-
To be honest in my opinion as a fairly unreligious person, in fact an athiest (sp?), I say the Bible has no more historical scientific merit as a cave painting or fossilised T-Rex $h1t, Bloody DAN BROWN and his Da Vinci Ho' have stirred fundies up all over the place.
Actually, cave paintings and Tyrannosaurus Rex coprolites both hold considerable scientific value. A more apt comparison would be saying the Bible holds as much histo-scientific merit as that hotdog tree I planted when I was a kid.
-
Umm as a matter of fact historians and archeologist actualy confirmed that the writings about the jewish built cities in egipt as depicted in the bible ahead of time several hundreds of years in fact actualy did happen. Also There is ample proof that the writings actualy were written not in the same time frame or after but rather as stated above before those things actualy happened. And there are scrolls that actualy offer proof of that. They were discovered in the late 20th centuri i think and carbon dated and confirmed as beeing form a specific time frame.
Look i'm not here to argue about the whole religeus vs science thing i'm just here to say that nighter of them can actualy exclude the other. and that maibe in a way they are both right and wrong in regards to certain aspects.
-
It means nothing Carthatge had cities 800 years before Christ, and Babylonians centuries before them, Indians from a civilisation i cant even remember the name of had sewage /drainage 1600 years before romans and they invented the number 0. -source That speccy bloke from "what the romans did for us" source was from a show of a different title, on BBC2, some time back.
-
Umm I dont I follow you!
-
Umm as a matter of fact historians and archeologist actualy confirmed that the writings about the jewish built cities in egipt as depicted in the bible ahead of time several hundreds of years in fact actualy did happen. Also There is ample proof that the writings actualy were written not in the same time frame or after but rather as stated above before those things actualy happened. And there are scrolls that actualy offer proof of that. They were discovered in the late 20th centuri i think and carbon dated and confirmed as beeing form a specific time frame.
Look i'm not here to argue about the whole religeus vs science thing i'm just here to say that nighter of them can actualy exclude the other. and that maibe in a way they are both right and wrong in regards to certain aspects.
Um.... Can you cite any source for this?
I'm pretty sure what you'd find is that, if they're claiming the bible predicted the future, then they are probably liberally interpreting it to fit their results. It's quite frequent, sadly, that you get purported scientists or studies that are really funded by fundamentalist christian groups solely to 'discover' things that 'prove' the bible; like the claims of finding Noahs Ark that essentially revolved around some satellite photos of rock strata (proven to be such through simple analysis) on Mount Ararat.
-
Apologies Alphaone, I misread the start of your post.
-
Let's put it this way. When lions and tigers (or some other organisms) stop being able to produce viable offspring after they already have for many years, it'll be sound proof.
It will indeed. But we already have other sound proof already. I can link to lots of papers which prove speciation has and does occur. Feel free to take a look at this list of observed occurances (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html).
Who cares anyway?
Those of us who think that science shouldn't be hobbled in an attempt to drag it back to the dark ages.
It's not a defence, it's a statement of fact. The earth really does have most of what we need to know about the origins of life written into some part of it, either the rocks or the organisms on it.
Mefustae's point is that science doesn't need to defend itself. Creationism needs to prove why it is correct. That's how science works. You can't simply say "Theory A is wrong so my theory must be right." You have to prove your theory is correct. If deepblue wants to assert that you can never know he must explain away every single possible way of knowing (including the one you posted as well as more outlandish ones like simply time travelling back and watching it happen).
I said why couldn't they?
They can't because they are incompatible if you take the bible as literal truth. The bible states that wheat came before life in the oceans. That's completely at odds with the evolutionary timeline.
I have no idea on genesis, but I'm really sick of everyone arguing about something so trivial.
Well I hate to say it but the majority of this thread has been people answering your assertions. If you're that sick of people arguing about it maybe you could avoid saying anything in the first place :p
Umm actualy scientists ,at least those with ana open mind, never said that the Bible was wrong..i mean the whole cration stuff.
Wrong. most scientists with an open mind refuse to say that the bible is wrong when it is taken symbolically but absolutely deny that it can be taken literally. Any scientist who claims that it can be taken literally is a disgrace to the term.
But there are some very important aspects of the whole evolution theory that actualy dont make sence. Dont ask me now to tell them to you cuz well mi brain is shot to pieces...!
So you claim it doesn't make sense and then further state that your brain is shot to pieces. Could it be that it does make sense to those of us who haven't got their brains shot to pieces and it's just that you don't understand it? Arguement from personal ignorance is a very weak argument. I don't understand how baseball stats work but that doesn't mean that they don't. Simply that either I've never taken the time to understand them or don't have the right kind of brain to understand them.
soo the fact that some scienists have actualy confirmed some of the dates and writings and facts as are mentioned in the bible is of ne consequence right??
It's not completely inconsequential. To be honest I'd be amazed if the bible failed to get some historical facts right. It's pretty hard to write a book about the world around you and not get certain things right. However that doesn't mean that just because some of the bible is historically accurate that it all is. If you examine the writings of any civilisation you'll find that they all got historical facts correct. Does that mean that Ramayana is correct because Ayodhya actually did exist? Does that mean that muslims are correct cause many of the undertakings of Muhammad can be historically proven? Of course not. It's possible for a religious book to contain many correct historical facts.
It's rather foolish to argue that the bible has no historical validity as it is plainly obvious that it does but as with the religious documents of other faiths the fact that some of the details are correct can't be taken as proof that the entire thing is correct.
-
Umm the poit of mi brain beeing shot to pieces was that I have a splitting head hurt from las night and cant come up witha decent search and link to the whole arguement. Not in regards to mi ingnorance.
Oh and by all means do tell me how the bible writers actualy managed to predict the fall of the city of Ierusalim i thin i was several hundreds of years ahead of the actual event and even managed to get the people (the armyes in this case the roman armies) correct and some of its details.
But forget about that I do agree that the Bible must not be taken literally since it wasnt written in a literral fashion well not most of it. You have to carefully interpret what the Bible is actualy saing in aordance with the way it depicts facts and the way they actualy happened in order to get a real clue as to what they are saing there.
-
Oh and by all means do tell me how the bible writers actualy managed to predict the fall of the city of Ierusalim i thin i was several hundreds of years ahead of the actual event and even managed to get the people (the armyes in this case the roman armies) correct and some of its details.
Once again I have to point out that it is in fact the job of the individual making an provocative comment to explain/back-up said comment. So show us some evidence, and then, only then, will we explain it to you. :rolleyes:
-
Umm the poit of mi brain beeing shot to pieces was that I have a splitting head hurt from las night and cant come up witha decent search and link to the whole arguement. Not in regards to mi ingnorance.
Oh and by all means do tell me how the bible writers actualy managed to predict the fall of the city of Ierusalim i thin i was several hundreds of years ahead of the actual event and even managed to get the people (the armyes in this case the roman armies) correct and some of its details.
I would strongly suggest they didn't.
Cite your source, please. A quote from said bit of the bible would be adequate.
quote author=AlphaOne link=topic=40356.msg822353#msg822353 date=1149852473]
But forget about that I do agree that the Bible must not be taken literally since it wasnt written in a literral fashion well not most of it. You have to carefully interpret what the Bible is actualy saing in aordance with the way it depicts facts and the way they actualy happened in order to get a real clue as to what they are saing there.
[/quote]
In other words, you should ingore the bible and stick to actual facts which can't be twisted to say more or less anything through interpretation.
-
Oh and by all means do tell me how the bible writers actualy managed to predict the fall of the city of Ierusalim i thin i was several hundreds of years ahead of the actual event and even managed to get the people (the armyes in this case the roman armies) correct and some of its details.
Nostradamus supposedly predicted all kinds of ****. Does that make him a source of the word of God too? A prediction is only as good as the specificity it has. To say that Jerusalem would one day be invaded was no great feat. All cities got invaded in those days sooner or later. Had the bible predicted the date, the name of the invading leader and his nationality that would be a bit more impressive but even then you'd still face the possibility that the leader was simply called that deliberately by someone who knew of the prophecy already.
But the bible isn't even that specific. It's predictions have no scientific validity simply because they are so vague.
-
He didnt even know about daylight savings time, so the apocalypse at the turn of the millenium could be a bit late by his prediction. IE </spooky> It could be very son, <spooky>
-
Actualy it predicted that it would be roman before they roman empire even existed.
Al do a search as soon as mi blasted brains shrinks down abour 2 sizes. Any good remedies for semi-hangovers overwork and a sleepless night??
Oh and just so that you dont missunderstand me I just hate the evolution theori. And i happen to believe its just as coerct as you say the bible is and just as scientificly valueble.
As soon as the Evolution theori can explain to me the missing links in humanitis "evolution" and ****less other inconsistencies I will be open to accepting such a thing.
-
Actualy it predicted that it would be roman before they roman empire even existed.
Al do a search as soon as mi blasted brains shrinks down abour 2 sizes. Any good remedies for semi-hangovers overwork and a sleepless night??
Oh and just so that you dont missunderstand me I just hate the evolution theori. And i happen to believe its just as coerct as you say the bible is and just as scientificly valueble.
As soon as the Evolution theori can explain to me the missing links in humanitis "evolution" and ****less other inconsistencies I will be open to accepting such a thing.
State these inconsistencies, and I'll explain it to you then. But bear in mind a fossil record without 'missing links', i.e. a complete fossil record, would truly be an act of god.
-
evolution -can- explain it
we just need to find the evidence that proves the explanation
of cours first we need to evaluate the evidence from a non-biased perspective and not try to distort the evidence to fit any particular theory, but once the proper evicence is found it'll be put into place.
-
QED in other words.
> Quod erat demonstrandum
-
In other words when such evidence is presented in a objective manner so as not to fit any paricular theory i'l talk again about this subjet but untill then i'l stick with the first one..the whole bible full of predictions one. Oh and since nostradamus predictions were actualy proven to be a cleaver hoax that did not stop lost of people to believe in them.
So when you have the bible with proof about diferent events and time periods (meaning they happened as depicted in the Bible) why is it so hard to believe that but easier to believe some nutjobs cleavger hoax?
-
as far as i'm concerned, the Bible is some nutjob's clever hoax
-
A)- Gullibility of modern soxciety/Breakdown of intellectual creativity through poor education, pressure to fir into stereotypical groups bombardment of Media?
B)- American fundies?
-
Oh and by all means do tell me how the bible writers actualy managed to predict the fall of the city of Ierusalim i thin i was several hundreds of years ahead of the actual event and even managed to get the people (the armyes in this case the roman armies) correct and some of its details.
1) There were likely a whole hell of a lot of books written about the fall of Jerusalem; it's not like it wasn't a hot topic of the day. The early church leaders likely picked the books that were closest to the actual outcome to give a bit of support to infallabililty.
2) Cite your source. Again, the fall of Jerusalem is a hot topic in the late years of the Old Testament and the early years of the New Testament. If you mean "his blood be on us and our children", then say so; if you mean some Old Testament prophecy, then say so. We can draw all sorts of different conclusions based on when it was said/written.
-
So when you have the bible with proof about diferent events and time periods (meaning they happened as depicted in the Bible) why is it so hard to believe that but easier to believe some nutjobs cleavger hoax?
What? What proof?! All we have is your incoherant ramblings about the Bible describing future events, with no further information to back that assertion up! Present some f***ing evidence, cite some sources, or present some logical arguements before attacking what anyone "believes".
-
In other words when such evidence is presented in a objective manner so as not to fit any paricular theory i'l talk again about this subjet but untill then i'l stick with the first one..the whole bible full of predictions one. Oh and since nostradamus predictions were actualy proven to be a cleaver hoax that did not stop lost of people to believe in them.
So when you have the bible with proof about diferent events and time periods (meaning they happened as depicted in the Bible) why is it so hard to believe that but easier to believe some nutjobs cleavger hoax?
I don't know what 'nutjobs cleavger hoax' is (Nostradamus), but there's a difference between a mythology referencing history, and a mythology predicting history, and I'd like you to justify your belief of the latter. In actuality, Nostradamus is brought up to show exactly how vague statements can be liberally interpreted to be foreshadowing or predictive, when they are really just simple old vague statements.
You should also clarify what you mean by 'such evidence is presented in a objective manner so as not to fit any paricular theory', because the whole point of the evidence is not only that it overwhelmingly supports and demonstrates evolution, but that the theory itself is built around observing said evidence, and upon expanding or adjusting based on that evidence.
-
Forget it when i'm feeling up to it il post some links or something like that but for now im to tired too sleepy to everithing to go search.
Also just stating mi an onli mi opinion and beliefs. Also some cleaver guy as aldo think put it would have to of live like what several thousand's of years?? Id like to see anyone try that. Oh and the scrools of the dead see i think i'm not sure of though so dont scream at me if i'm wrong were carbon dated and actualy describe whole books of the Bible.
But thats pointless i do realize that some of you are actualy scientists or will become scientists one day so to try and get this though you is pointless.
Also noone ahas actualy managed to explain to me the mising link in the human evolution thing. There is actualy a missing link forgot about the precise reference to it but you guis as so eager and exilarated suporters of the evolution theori must know what i'm talking about.
-
Also noone ahas actualy managed to explain to me the mising link in the human evolution thing.
You mean like say... Aldo_14?
State these inconsistencies, and I'll explain it to you then. But bear in mind a fossil record without 'missing links', i.e. a complete fossil record, would truly be an act of god.
There is actualy a missing link forgot about the precise reference to it but you guis as so eager and exilarated suporters of the evolution theori must know what i'm talking about.
And this is something I never got, which scientific theory is competing with evolution? Saying we are suporters of evolution makes as much sense as saying we are suporters of gravity!
-
ok I would like someone to point out whats on the pages Color0024 and color0025.
How is it possible for ANY animal to transform over a period of thousands of years? If thats teh case, the animal is renedered unusable. it isn't able to get any food, water, it cant walk, it cant do anything but sit there. Thousands of years? haha, try death in 2 days.
If a bat did turn into a rodent like described, and it took thousands of years for those wings to turn into legs, whats in between? Its not in a usable state if its "in-between".
-
You never saw a bat walk on solid ground then ?
-
ok I would like someone to point out whats on the pages Color0024 and color0025.
How is it possible for ANY animal to transform over a period of thousands of years? If thats teh case, the animal is renedered unusable. it isn't able to get any food, water, it cant walk, it cant do anything but sit there. Thousands of years? haha, try death in 2 days.
If a bat did turn into a rodent like described, and it took thousands of years for those wings to turn into legs, whats in between? Its not in a usable state if its "in-between".
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921.html
And a bat evolved from small rodents, not the other way around.
EDIT:
This one is more relevant
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html
-
ok I would like someone to point out whats on the pages Color0024 and color0025.
How is it possible for ANY animal to transform over a period of thousands of years? If thats teh case, the animal is renedered unusable. it isn't able to get any food, water, it cant walk, it cant do anything but sit there. Thousands of years? haha, try death in 2 days.
If a bat did turn into a rodent like described, and it took thousands of years for those wings to turn into legs, whats in between? Its not in a usable state if its "in-between".
Are you taking the piss? Seriously, read any proper scientific description of evolution, because what you've just said indicates a shocking misunderstanding of the process, and you need to understand the basics before it's worthwhile me or anyone else replying. I'm not lying, or joking, to say how shocked I am by that statement.
But, bugger it, I'll try and explain anyways.
Ok, an individual animal does not sit still and 'change'. Evolution is the process of gradual, random changes selected by a discriminatory set of survival and reproduction processes. Changes which make the animal less able to survive, or reproduce, are removed. those beneficial (the converse) become propagated, gradually, across the species. Speciation is a result of the combination of multiple morphological changes.
Let's take a wing. Ok, let's say we have a rodent (NB: this refers to the species, not an individual). This rodent, thanks to selection, develops the ability to climb trees (to escape predation). Over time, selection pressures will favour mutations that give the rodent better climbing abilities, like sharper claws for digging into bark. Now, say that rodent wants to move quickly between trees, without touching the danger zone of the ground. Again, selection - survival - will favour a mutation that, say, creates very small flaps of skins between limbs. You can see this, for example, in gliding squirrels. Selection will continue to favour mutations that aid the gliding ability, i.e. 'push' towards larger 'wings'; flaps of skin and limbs. Eventually, should the right mutation arise for it of course, wings may occur and be selected advantageously. Ergo, you have a 'bat' descendent of our original rodent.
EDIT; note; the term 'want' means 'it is advantageous'. This is not signifying a conscious desire or intentional push towards a physical change; what I mean, is that if these particular changes arise, they will be advantageous & thus selected. Our rodent may get on perfectly fine without elongated limbs or gliding flaps; but if they arise, that new species will be better equipped to survive. Also, for simiplicity I've not mentioned issues like speciation here; the 'rodent' is not a single individual or species, but a representative term for steps in the chain between the original species and the end - flight - species. Also, at any stage another species may branch off. for example, you could have one type of descendant that purely flies ala a bat, and one that only glides but exists because the 2 descendent species occupy different environmental niches.
Now, all these transitional forms have a small change from the descendent form beforehand. In all cases, it's a slight advantage, so it's selected by simple survival (natural selection).
EDIT3; That is, evolution does not 'jump' between radically different body types. It's slow and gradual, and the selection is responsive rather than anticipatory; i.e. out hypothetical rodent will not grow wings then jump up trees, it'll jump up tree and then, should the mutations arise, evolutionarily 'preserve' these advantageous wings. Negative mutations - such is wings on a rodent that lives on the ground (note; such gross mutations are highly unlikely, and evolution accounts for this too), would result in that animal probably dying before it could propagate its genes, or at least its descendents having such a reduced fitness that they are likely to go 'extinct' as a sub-branch of the species, hence why these changes are only seen on animals they would benefit (rather obviously).
Those 2 pages, right there, are laden with inaccuracy and downright falsehoods. If you want another example of small animal - flight transition, examine dinosaur fossils such as archeopteryx.
Oh, and I'd wager the 'quotes' there are being taken incredibly out of context and skewed for effect. It's essentially propaganda material, devoid of validity.
-
Explain the Platypus then people, :D
Ok i'll do it for ya,.....
One friday night, a beaver and duck go into a bar
(transmission static)
#######
############
########
#####--Rohypnol--#######
############
##################
#####
##########
#--Bondage-###
#-Excessive lubrication###
Transmission resumed---------
And thats why it should be made illegal to feed ducks wearing shorts !! :mad:
-
words
Bats are propably a paraphyletic group. They are apparently related to insectivora and more distantly to primates, not rodents.
-
What bugs me about this thread after a very quick read through is how the atheistic side says "cite your source, prove this, etc" or whatever, so the biblical side of the argument does bring up a reasonable point, and the retort is "oh they just chose the story that matched closest so it'd look like the prophecy was really fulfilled." Where's your cited source for that? Did you go back a few thousand years and ask a church leader?
I'm all for debate, but some of this isn't debate, it's two siblings screaming at each other over something they're never going to agree on. :doubt:
-
What bugs me about this thread after a very quick read through is how the atheistic side says "cite your source, prove this, etc" or whatever, so the biblical side of the argument does bring up a reasonable point, and the retort is "oh they just chose the story that matched closest so it'd look like the prophecy was really fulfilled." Where's your cited source for that? Did you go back a few thousand years and ask a church leader?
I'm all for debate, but some of this isn't debate, it's two siblings screaming at each other over something they're never going to agree on. :doubt:
Wait a second, here. If, as is likely, said source is highly open to liberal interpretation, with the benefit of foreknowledge, why the hell should that not be pointed out? The whole point is that, I fully expect, you will find you have text A, and the entire correctness of text A rests upon a reading made with the knowledge of what - in the religious case - you want it to say.
-
What bugs me about this thread after a very quick read through is how the atheistic side says "cite your source, prove this, etc" or whatever, so the biblical side of the argument does bring up a reasonable point
The Bible is not a valid source in the first place. If any Creationists want to cite some real scientific research that supports Intelligent Design then they will get a reasonable response.
If the Creationists keep citing joke sources like the Bible they will continue to get a silly or exasperated response.
-
Ok, page 1. I'm wathcing the ole WC, so not doing this all at once. I think I'll get sick of the pish quite soon in, but I'll try to get as much as poss covered. At least it's big text.....
Big whopper; firstly, god creating the universe is not an undeniable truth. Secondly, the founders of modern science is a term than can be applied, ooh, probably back to the Ancient Greeks depending on what you define as modern science. Evolution is not a theory that even considers the creation of the universe or life; those are different areas of science (physics and abiogenesis).
Evolution is not faith; it is scientific theory. This is a blatant lie; and about the 3rd or 4th major one on just the page. It also uses the basic, fallacious tactic early on as trying to characterise evolution as chance; this is again wrong (mutation is random, selection is deterministic)
Page 2
Another basic lie, in stating that only eyewitnesses at the time are relevant to discussion of origins. This is patently false, as we have plenty of methods for investigating the past.
Further, regarding the principle of uniformity; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/creationist_age_earth.html
Creationists (e.g., 97) frequently claim that “evolutionists”10 use the principle of uniformity to interpret scientific data, but these authors badly misrepresent the modern meaning of uniformitarianism. The principle of uniformity was developed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when geologists finally realized that the rocks and features of the Earth were formed by processes similar to those observable today operating over long periods. This was an important breakthrough in scientific thought because it meant that the Earth’s history could be explained as the result of understandable, natural processes, rather than unknowable, supernatural, catastrophic evens. Creationists, however, typically state or imply that the principle of uniformity, as used by scientists, means that the rates of natural processes are always constant.
Page 3;
See above
Page 4;
Attempts to link the biblical flood to a geological event without any presentation of supporting evidence. A cursory examination of the other evolution thread, will show a welter of evidence against the flood. Again, mischaracterisation of uniformity (see above again), and attempts to belittle all modern science because, in essence, it has begun disproving the Bible (bottom half).
Page 5;
A fairly absurb continuation of the former bit, which basically lists every great scientist in history... who all happened to be around before the widespread acceptance of evolution.
Page 6;
Very first line shows bias and incorrectness. Is not actually a scientific critique but an attempt to cite evolution - scientific theory - as 'immoral'. It is actually a big bit of slander, claiming that anyone looking for non-theological answers is seeking to be, well, evil.
Page 7;
Attempts to claim the Biblical flood would cause fossilisation, but fails to omit that the fossil record explicitly contradicts the flood myth thanks to the order off fossil strata
Mor elater...
-
Evolution is not a Truth, it is a Theory.
Creationism is not a Truth, it is a Theory.
Flying Spaghettimonsterism is not a Truth. It's not even a theory... more like some sick joke thought up by someone with a sense of humor!
Mmm... humor... :p
My personal stance is: Sod it all.
Everyone wants control of your mind these days - The Church, The Government, The **AA, the Spammers, The Entertainment Industry, Microsft, Google, Sony, CNN, Other People.
As someone once said, "I try to keep an open mind, but it's hard because people keep trying to put things into it..."
This is why many of us perceive everyone around us as becoming stupider with each day - We're constantly being told *what* to think, instead of learning ourselves *how* to think...
-
There is a difference between keeping an open mind and keeping it so open your brain falls out. :p
Neither Spagetti Monster nor Creationism nor ID are scientific theories. If you want to keep an open mind that's fine but keeping an open mind means that you don't make any decisions about what is correct and you don't make assertions about what is and what isn't a theory.
-
There is a Vicar in Australia by the name of Reverend Robert Evans. Every night he has free, he wanders out into his back garden with his telescope and goes Supernova hunting.
Does he believe in the Big Bang? Yes. Does he believe in Evolution, to quote him, 'I'd be daft not to.'.
God giving the gift of 'Life' is not the same as God single-handedly designing and building every creature on the planet. 'Life' is something far far bigger and more important than a few species on a little ball of rock orbitting a star in the corner of a very average Galaxy. Somehow, I actually find that belittles the Miracle of it all, not enhances.
-
Just out of curiosity Zman What School/college do you go to? My books never have more than three lines about evolution. When we try to talk about it my teacher says we aren`t aloud to talk about and i`m like WTF. :wtf: Looking back I know a couple of teachers were fired because they talked about these hot issues. I know a poor little girl was expelled because she prayed before she ate lunch. :wtf:
Frankly I don`t know about you guys but, I rather be taught what Zman is being taught then nothing at all.
-
Just out of curiosity Zman What School/college do you go to? My books never have more than three lines about evolution. When we try to talk about it my teacher says we aren`t aloud to talk about and i`m like WTF. :wtf: Looking back I know a couple of teachers were fired because they talked about these hot issues. I know a poor little girl was expelled because she prayed before she ate lunch. :wtf:
Frankly I don`t know about you guys but, I rather be taught what Zman is being taught then nothing at all.
(I am literally shocked that any school would be allowed to do such a thing)
You'd rather be taught deliberate disinformation? Let me put this in context - it's the scientific equivalent of being taught 2+2=5 or pi=3.00.
There is a Vicar in Australia by the name of Reverend Robert Evans. Every night he has free, he wanders out into his back garden with his telescope and goes Supernova hunting.
Does he believe in the Big Bang? Yes. Does he believe in Evolution, to quote him, 'I'd be daft not to.'.
God giving the gift of 'Life' is not the same as God single-handedly designing and building every creature on the planet. 'Life' is something far far bigger and more important than a few species on a little ball of rock orbitting a star in the corner of a very average Galaxy. Somehow, I actually find that belittles the Miracle of it all, not enhances.
And the Vatican endorses evolution, too. (just not abiogenesis).
-
ok. Some more (phew)
Page 8;
Incorrect use of assumption. Fossil (age) grouping is based on established geological strata. It also states an absolute mistruth about the validity of geological dating/organisation; it actually quotes 'reality', which is an assumption chose but not defined for the obvious purpose of rubbishing established scientific theory. Amazingly, it's claiming to know the absolute truth about the dates of fossils; again, no evidence is provided for this premise.
Now, I'll take the 2 quotes on that page. Note that the term evolutionist is used to mischaracterise evolution as a belief. Also not that no reference is given for the quote, and qualifications are omitted. Finally, note the use of '...' to signify that text has been omitted.
Let's view the first quote as it should be (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#quote4.1)
A detailed study of the geological history of the insects, which I have only sketched, yields evidence of certain progressive changes in structure and development which confirm conclusions on insect evolution reached by morphological and embryological investigations. Although this is still a highly controversial subject, we have enough evidence at hand, derived from these three sources, to indicate the main steps in insect evolution. There is, however, no fossil evidence bearing on the question of insect origin; the oldest insects known show no transition to other arthropods. On the other hand, morphological and embryological studies carried out mainly since 1935 have pointed to the probable origin of the insects from some terrestrial arthropod, related to the existing Symphyla. The time of that origin is pure conjecture, but judging from the fossil record we can only conclude that it was at least as far back as the Lower Carboniferous (Mississippian).
Note that it has been selectively culled of meaning for use in the 'textbook'.
Now, let's take R.J Norman - or, as it should be, John R. Norman (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote77). This quote.... is from 1949.
Ok, hopefully now that has illustrated the depths to which these people will stoop to.
Now... I'm getting sick of this. Literally. It sickens me, to see what was one of the worlds most advanced scientific nations, now seemingly pumping out these lies (you'll note I'm emphasising lies; because they are just that), in a manner that actively seeks to regress scientific knowledge under the belief that rational exploration of the universe threatens, not Christianity, but the power of this brand of preacher to control people.
It's a textbook of lies. I can go through another 29 pages of falsehoods, misinformation, mistakes and propaganda.... or I can let you go to http://www.talkorigins.org/, an excellent resource of proper scientific information with references, and learn for yourself. If you want other sources, find textbooks in the library - real textbooks, not ones written for the pay of fundamentalist groups.
Given that you've posted a textbook of simple rubbish and cited it as 'fact', I suggest you do just that.
-
Wow, you're really serious about this stuff ain't you? :p
I personally don't mind both theories being taught - My issue is when either is presented as The Only Truth.
I really hate that.
Espescially when people try to suppress one OR the other as well.
Free speech and Free thinking are the way forward I tells ya!
I do agree with aldo's point in that you should NEVER take one point of view as gospel (haha).
Collecting from multiple independent sources and making up your own mind is usually best.
You can't bloody trust any thing these days! :nervous: ;)
The only problem is that if taught this way, most people would see Evolution as the more likely of the two theories, which the Creationists would not like...
-
I'll fully agree that people can hold any opinion they so desire, my problem is with presenting ID as a science, it is not, it's a belief. Science requires testable situations and rigorous testing of the results, scientific theories are under constant attack from other scientists, it's encouraged. If science were to turn around and say 'This is so, and don't you dare argue', it would cease to be science.
ID, however, has failed scientific tests time and time again, it's main argument appears to be 'ID is right because Evolution is wrong.', without providing any testable means to prove this. I remember one essay on 'Why ID is right' that stated quite blatantly at the top of the page that some Evolutionary theories had been left out because 'The reader wouldn't be able to understand them'. Oddly enough, they were the very theories that disproved what the writer was trying to say. In my books 'Not being able to understand' is not a very good launch point for attacking a scientific theory.
If people want to choose ID, fine, but it's not Science and should be nowhere near a Science class.
-
I personally don't mind both theories being taught - My issue is when either is presented as The Only Truth.
If creationsim was taught ONLY in a religious studies class, that is one thing. But people want it taught in a SCIENCE classroom. It doesn't belong in a science classroom.
Espescially when people try to suppress one OR the other as well.
So you think they should teach that the earth was created in 6 days in a science class? You've got to be kidding me.
Free speech and Free thinking are the way forward I tells ya!
This has nothing to do free speech or free thinking, this whole issue is the american religious right trying to destroy science.
Now... I'm getting sick of this. Literally. It sickens me, to see what was one of the worlds most advanced scientific nations, now seemingly pumping out these lies (you'll note I'm emphasising lies; because they are just that), in a manner that actively seeks to regress scientific knowledge under the belief that rational exploration of the universe threatens, not Christianity, but the power of this brand of preacher to control people.
Now you see why people in the US are so afraid of China; In China they actually teach real science in a science class. What a concept!
-
Wow, you're really serious about this stuff ain't you? :p
I personally don't mind both theories being taught - My issue is when either is presented as The Only Truth.
I really hate that.
Espescially when people try to suppress one OR the other as well.
Free speech and Free thinking are the way forward I tells ya!
I do agree with aldo's point in that you should NEVER take one point of view as gospel (haha).
Collecting from multiple independent sources and making up your own mind is usually best.
You can't bloody trust any thing these days! :nervous: ;)
The only problem is that if taught this way, most people would see Evolution as the more likely of the two theories, which the Creationists would not like...
Um... evolution is the more likely of 2 theories. Actually, the more likely of one theory.....
That's the whole point. ID is not a scientific theory; it's a hypothesis, as was admitted by its proponents in the Dover School trial. It is an untested and untestable concept. Evolution, though, is a theory, and it has been tested and passed those tests multiple times. Moreso, when evolution fails a test, then evolution is revised to account for the results. When creationism (ID with the creator and creation method actually specified) fails tests, the tests are dismissed as wrong.
In any serious scientific context, by any rational context, Evolution is both the only and most proven theory explaining the history of life on earth.
-
I personally don't mind both theories being taught - My issue is when either is presented as The Only Truth.
I really hate that.
Espescially when people try to suppress one OR the other as well.
Free speech and Free thinking are the way forward I tells ya!
So you want free speech do you? The problem is that you can't simply say there are two theories let's teach them both. There aren't just two theories. The religious right would have you believe that they are and that the two are of at least equally validity to a class of children but it's not that simple. Let me give you a 3rd theory. Aliens did it. And a 4th. Bigfoot did it. And a 5th. I did it.
Now none of those explainations would stand up to a scientific examination but then again neither does creationism. So all 3 of those have equal validity with creationism because all of them have huge scientific flaws. So should we teach every single competing theory and let people make up their minds? Of course not. We'd be here till the end of time if we tried that.
Let's instead pick the one that is most likely to be correct. The one that stands up the best to scrutiny. Well what do you know? That's Darwinian evolution.
No one is saying that the others have to be censored or forgotten about. We're saying that it is pointless to teach theories with no scientific validity because there are hundreds of thousands of them and they are all equally as bad or as good as each other.
-
Could kara be the creator? :eek2:
-
@Kara, the problem with your anology is that those explanations are not widely accepted whereas both evolution and creationism are.
-
So? Since when has popular acceptance had anything to do with whether something is correct or not?
Surely it's smart to only teach the correct version so that the incorrect version dies out. There are a lot of people who deny the holocaust happened. Should we teach that in school as a fact and let people make up their own minds? Or should we simply ignore the easily disprovable lies and only teach the most likely version of what happened?
Creationism is similar. It simply isn't scientifically valid.
-
@Kara, the problem with your anology is that those explanations are not widely accepted whereas both evolution and creationism are.
Creationism isn't widely accepted by the scientific community. You know, the one that actually studies what is latter to be taught in science classes!
-
@Kara, the problem with your anology is that those explanations are not widely accepted whereas both evolution and creationism are.
A few hundred years ago or so the popular and accepted explanation for the disappearance of the horizon was that the world was flat.
-
@Kara, the problem with your anology is that those explanations are not widely accepted whereas both evolution and creationism are.
Look up the Miasma theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory). widely accepted at the time. Even fit a few observations. Still utterly wrong.
-
Indeed. The question is not whether creationism or ID are accepted by a lot of people, or whether they should be taught or not. The question is, should the be taught as science. And the answer to that is no, they should not. Not until they actually qualify as scientific theories. Until then, they can be taught in theology classes, which I don't think anyone here would object to.
-
Let me put it like this. When it was first discovered that the Earth was round there were a lot of people who still thought it was flat. Should people of the day have taught both theories and let people make up their own minds? Or once the scientists had proved it should they have only taught the new correct theory?
When quantum physics were first discovered should we have continued teaching about the phlogiston? When Big Bang theory was discovered should we have continued to teach Steady State Theory? When it was proved that Autism wasn't caused by parental neglect should we have continued to teach doctors that it was and let them decide? When bacteria and viruses were proved to cause diseases should we have continued hearing explainations about evil spirits and let the patient decide on whether to take a pill or drill holes in their head?
Popular acceptance was worthless in all those cases. When a scientific theory came along that fit the facts better than the original one in every case the old theory was dropped. Yet in the case of creationism the old theory wasn't dropped. Even though it is full of holes some people want to cling on to it and claim that it is correct.
Fine, let them. But why should the next generation have to listen to this tosh? Because other people refuse to drop it? There were refusniks for all the other cases I mentioned. Hell in the case of quantum phyics the refusnik was no lesser personage than Albert Einstien himself. But he was wrong. The fact that your computer works proves that he was wrong. How damaging would it have been if everyone else had refused to accept the new theory and move on?
-
With regards to the above, I would like to point out and reinforce that despite claims to contrary, ID is neither new nor a theory.
-
It's not a belief either though. I think we proved that one in previous arguments :)
-
Wow, you're really serious about this stuff ain't you? :p
I personally don't mind both theories being taught - My issue is when either is presented as The Only Truth.
If you can't get anything else out of this thread, then get this. Intelligent Design is not a theory. Understand? Let me say that again. ID is absolutely not a scientific theory.
Therefore it has absolutely no reason to be taught in a science classroom.
Edits: Oops. This post has become a bit redundant. Sorry, I didn't notice the fourth page.
-
What about Lamarkianism! The TRUE, ABSOLUTE TRUTH!
How dare the scientific and religious communities deny Lamarkianism from our children!
(Note: If you understand what Lamarkianism is, you can continue to discuss in this thread. If you don't then please kill yourself so you cease spreading your genes and culture.)
-
What about Lamarkianism! The TRUE, ABSOLUTE TRUTH!
How dare the scientific and religious communities deny Lamarkianism from our children!
(Note: If you understand what Lamarkianism is, you can continue to discuss in this thread. If you don't then please kill yourself so you cease spreading your genes and culture.)
If you are going to post such a thing, at least spell it right, Lamarckism. :p
EDIT:
Also the last time someone tried to subvert science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Sound familiar?
-
Well since Creationists have to have faith that the Bible is the infallible inspired Word of God, then they'll probably use it as a source. Sorry. At least it was written down. I guess I could just write down, "I think that aliens created us, and all this other crap is a waste of time" and cite that as a source too, right? Just like saying that people took the written accounts closest to what actually happened and put them in the Bible so it'd look like fulfilled prophecy. I'm saying that these are all the same. If you want to piss about people using the Bible as a source, that's completely fine with me. But to then use your own mind/thoughts as a "source".. that's what was lame. Because if you can use that, then the Creationists using the Bible is hardly different. :blah:
-
Well since Creationists have to have faith that the Bible is the infallible inspired Word of God, then they'll probably use it as a source. Sorry. At least it was written down. I guess I could just write down, "I think that aliens created us, and all this other crap is a waste of time" and cite that as a source too, right? Just like saying that people took the written accounts closest to what actually happened and put them in the Bible so it'd look like fulfilled prophecy. I'm saying that these are all the same. If you want to piss about people using the Bible as a source, that's completely fine with me. But to then use your own mind/thoughts as a "source".. that's what was lame. Because if you can use that, then the Creationists using the Bible is hardly different. :blah:
Technically, though, it's not citing your view as correct but showing the equivalent of reasonable doubt upon cited evidence, and then letting the person decide which is the more likely event. It's not 'this not prophecy because I say so', but 'isn't it more likely and feasible that this was just interpreted as prophecy, given the vagueness'.
-
where'd Zman go?
-
I ate him.
Crunchy and tastes good with ketchup.
-
see, thats what we like to call "selection pressure" against being zman... lol
-
I think it's unfortunate that we all posted 4 pages of rather good debate in response to Zman's "textbook", and he's still going to believe that it's a reliabe source of accurate information.
*sighs, sinks into depression and falls alseep*
-
Give him a break, being sheltered ≠ being complete idiot. You've got to admit, admitting to yourself that everything you were ever taught was a lie is a lot harder than arguing endlessly over fine (and made up) details. Let's not prove that humans have evolved into a race of trolls; give him a break.
-
I never said that Zman was an idiot. I said that I find it unfortunate that while we all discuss these issues, some aren't making the choice to try to understand it.
The same can be said for almost any conflict between two opposing viewpoints. It's not about one side being wrong and the other being right... it's about each side choosing to think logically about the entire argument and all viewpoints pertaining to that argument.
And please don't think that I'm implying that it's wrong for Zman to accept creationism or Inteligent Design. I just wish that he would make an effort to learn more about it.
-
I was talking more towards the people who bring it up all the time, the people who "inspired" him to even post these textbook scans, if we left him alone we wouldn't be hearing about this "proof" for ID, would we? I think everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it's creeping toward baiting, so can we just pretend this never happened?
I hate holy wars.
edit:
Basically, don't scare away another one. :doubt:
We need all the people we can get, and he was contributing.
-
It's ok, he still posts in the Freespace Forums, the General Forums are supposed to be for debates like this, as long as the attacks aren't personal, people shouldn't really post an opinion if they dont want people disagreeing.
Though, I'll agree that steering the conversation towards a touchy subject is another matter.
-
Give him a break, being sheltered ≠ being complete idiot. You've got to admit, admitting to yourself that everything you were ever taught was a lie is a lot harder than arguing endlessly over fine (and made up) details. Let's not prove that humans have evolved into a race of trolls; give him a break.
All I can hope, is that he listens and considers at the least checking up on what he accepts as, well, gospel. But we've had this so many times, and always using the same repeated and shoddy evidence (disproven equally many times), that surely you can't blame the likes of me and Kara for getting frustrated with it?
Hey, maybe he's actually, y'know, looking stuff up from reliable sources now to check it out. :)
-
(delete this, since I can't)
-
After looking at the textbook (at all of its bull****), I have a question. The style looks similair to a typical high school textbook. So, where do you use it?
(http://www.kingofobsolete.ca/empty%20DUAL%20toilet%20paper%20rolls%20oct%201%202005.jpg)