[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by hotsnoj
Chew on this you evilutionist. (misspelling mine.)

1. ‘I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.’

Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, being interviewed by radio by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR radio transcript No. 0279–1004).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 'But some will object, “If we allowed appealing to God anytime we don't understand something, then science itself would be impossible, for science proceeds on the assumption of natural causality.” This argument is a red herring. It is true that science is not compatible with just any form of theism, particularly a theism that holds to a capricious god who intervenes so often that the contrast between primary and secondary causality is unintelligible. But Christian theism holds that secondary causality is God's usual mode and primary causality is infrequent, comparatively speaking. That is why Christianity, far from hindering the development of science, actually provided the womb for its birth and development.'

Moreland, J. P., 1989. Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation, Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 226.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. "ONE IS FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT MANY SCIENTISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS PAY LIP-SERVICE TO DARWINIAN THEORY ONLY BECAUSE IT SUPPOSEDLY EXCLUDES A CREATOR"

Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer — Anthropology, Sydney University.
Quadrant, October 1982, page 44.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. 'Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is  all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.' The author goes on to say: 'David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, "If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, 'forget it: there isn't enough to go on'."

(Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London, 1981, p. 43)

1. Only fundamentalist christians think that. You'll have to do a lot better. And this quote is probably the reason why is a 'former director', someone so stupid shoudln't be allowed to be director of any scientific institution.

2. especially the last sentence is important. It is true that the moders wave of science came about by people who were trying to prove the beauty of creation (Kepler's introduction of his elliptic solar system still talks about the 'music of the spheres) , problem is that the church opposed those same early scientists when their findings were in contradiction with the Bible. So maybe christianity birthed modern science, but it certainly didn't help it along. On the contrary.

3. Bollocks, scientists agree with Dawinian evolution because it is better than always syaing 'Got did it'. Only fundamentalist religious people would be so arrogant to assume that science is directed against them. This mind-set is called a siege-mentality and is used by these same fundamentalists to be biggoted b*stards.

4. Good try but you failed to notice one thing! The date. Leakey published this in 1981, that's 21 years ago. In that time a lot has changed and a lot more evidence has been found. So this doesn't count as evidence for ceationism, only as an admittance that science is an ongoing process in which ever more data is collected.

In effect you managed to redeem yourself a bit because now at least you seem to be coming with some sources. Good. Now for the critiacal thinking and the scientific mindset of going out for research and experimentation. Maybe we can make a scientist out of you yet.

[Pera]

Argh... Must not flame, flame is the threadkiller...

The first time I noticed this thread I thought "Yes! a religion thread!", and this thread hasn't definitely disappointed me, as usual, the ones who speak for the religion(namely hotsnoj) use the most annoying method of arguing ever. He constantly keeps on trying to find evidence why the evolution theory is wrong, and when someone proves his point wrong, he forgets the subject and goes find other things.

But more importantly, he should not try to find evidence against the evolution, he should find evidence _for_ the creationism! Just think about it, using excatly the same evidence you've posted, I could say that the world was created on the 6:th of May 1326 BC by a furry purple dragon, and still be as right as you are.

[CP5670]

Creatio ex Nihilo

Latin for: creation from nothing (literally) or somethign from nothing. In context of discussion probably the Big Bang.

Ah I see; thanks. This is not really necessary to describe anything in the atheistic view either though, since the beginning can come from the end without any god, creating a transfinite loop.

1. ‘I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.’

Okay, this had to be one of the funniest things I have ever seen. Bible being an "accurate history textbook?" LOL!

I could say that the world was created on the 6:th of May 1326 BC by a furry purple dragon, and still be as right as you are.

It wasn't?!

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by hotsnoj
The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.’

Pah I suppose you literally believe the story of the fall as well.

Originally posted by hotsnoj
"ONE IS FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT MANY SCIENTISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS PAY LIP-SERVICE TO DARWINIAN THEORY ONLY BECAUSE IT SUPPOSEDLY EXCLUDES A CREATOR"

One could say the same about yourself and Creationism. As a matter of fact, the discovery of the big bang is a lot more "creator friendly" than other theory for the beginning of everything. Pull your head out of your arse or get the hell out this thread! Your very pressence brings the average IQ of everyone here down.

[Stryke 9]

Originally posted by hotsnoj
Chew on this you evilutionist. (misspelling mine.)

*whomp*

Not only have you completely perverted the idea of this thread, which was DESIGNED to be a friendly conversation, not a form of verbal boxing, and in fact WAS until you started being a jerk, but you're repeating yourself, you're descending into insults and that's easily the least clever twist on a word I've heard in weeks. This is a conversation, not a competition (mark yourself lucky), and if you want to pick a fight, go elsewhere. Now get the hell out, and don't come back. Twit.

Now- assuming there's a god, would he have a physical form? I've always gathered that he was supposed to be manifested in everything, a sort of conscious Universe itself, and not something separate. I've heard some disagreement before- is there any actual consensus on this or anything?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Mmmh, good question Stryke....

Well, one thing we do know is that the Western religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) seem to have an antropomorphic god.

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by Stryke 9


Now- assuming there's a god, would he have a physical form? I've always gathered that he was supposed to be manifested in everything, a sort of conscious Universe itself, and not something separate. I've heard some disagreement before- is there any actual consensus on this or anything?

Are you talking about the Judeo/Christian god or just any old god? A lot of Theologists and Philosophers focus on this issue. The Judeo/Christian approach is that there's a Holy Trinity, made up of the Father (the big bloke up in the sky) an son (Jesus) and the holy spirit (which came down at Pentecost. Other Religions believe in different gods for different jobs, physically existing gods, ghosts (or whatever you want to call them), a spirit that enriches all living things (or all things), aliens (Not Just Modern ones, read the end of Genesis) or any combination or manifestation of any of the above.

[CP5670]

Now- assuming there's a god, would he have a physical form? I've always gathered that he was supposed to be manifested in everything, a sort of conscious Universe itself, and not something separate. I've heard some disagreement before- is there any actual consensus on this or anything?

That is what the Hindu conception of the god is like. As others have said, the Semite gods may have some sort of physical existence, but I'm not sure.

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Pera
Argh... Must not flame, flame is the threadkiller...

1. The first time I noticed this thread I thought "Yes! a religion thread!", and this thread hasn't definitely disappointed me, as usual, the ones who speak for the religion(namely hotsnoj) use the most annoying method of arguing ever. He constantly keeps on trying to find evidence why the evolution theory is wrong, and when someone proves his point wrong, he forgets the subject and goes find other things.

2. But more importantly, he should not try to find evidence against the evolution, he should find evidence _for_ the creationism! Just think about it, using excatly the same evidence you've posted, I could say that the world was created on the 6:th of May 1326 BC by a furry purple dragon, and still be as right as you are.

1. I keep trying to find more evidence because the dopes that believe Evolution won't execpt most if not all the evidence I put in front of their faces! For instance I started with the sun and moon and then moved to fossiles and dating meathods.

2. I was trying to prove that the Bible is valid, but that proved to be really hard. So I switched to trying to shake the foundations of Evolution instead. I have posted evidence that would take allot of faith to twist and bend to fit in with the evolution model. Trying to prove that it (evolution) is a religion. The only difference is that it claims to have rock solid science backing it up.

[NotDefault]

hotsnoj, lack of evidence does not disprove a claim.

When we say something like "Look at all this evidence that backs up evolution," and you respond "Oh yeah? There're some holes in the fossil record, so you're wrong," you are offering no evidence that evolution is incorrect or that Creationism is correct.  The evidence that was provided for evolution still stands, and all that you are showing is that there is still more to be discovered.

On the other hand, there is quite a bit of substantial evidence against Creationism, such as Carbon dating.  When you offer evidence against these claims, such as Carbon dating, they generally consist of things that have already been explained to you by those who are more knowledgable about Carbon dating.  Lack of knowledge about a subject is hardly evidence against it.

So far you have not offered any supported evidence against evolution or for Creationism.  Appeal to Authority is not evidence for a claim.  If you say that the Bible is an accurate history textbook, providing a quote of someone else saying that, too, is not an effective way to construct an argument.  A better way to do this would be to offer evidence that the Bible is an accurate history textbook and to refute (after researching the subject) evidence that has been provided that the Bible is not an accurate history textbook.

Originally posted by hotsnoj
1. I keep trying to find more evidence because the dopes that believe Evolution won't execpt most if not all the evidence I put in front of their faces! For instance I started with the sun and moon and then moved to fossiles and dating meathods.

You have offered no relevant evidence that has not been countered.  Opinions on how dating methods cannot possibly be correct mean little.

Originally posted by hotsnoj
2. I was trying to prove that the Bible is valid, but that proved to be really hard. So I switched to trying to shake the foundations of Evolution instead. I have posted evidence that would take allot of faith to twist and bend to fit in with the evolution model. Trying to prove that it (evolution) is a religion. The only difference is that it claims to have rock solid science backing it up.

Religion
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

The evolutionary explanation of the origin of life on Earth is merely a theory based on very strong evidence.  It is not a religion.  The difference that evolution is based on rock solid science and Creationism is not is quite a strong argument for evolution.

If you have relevant and valid evidence against evolution, please feel free to post it instead of moaning about how we're ignoring you.  We have provided evidence when you've requested it, so give some back.

[Stryke 9]

Bad, bad NotDefault!

*whomp*

Ignore the issues troll, lest you be grouped with him!


Well, I know there's the whole argument that man was made in God's image, but it seems I also learned from my Catholic school teacher (an infinite number of years ago, when I went to a Benedictine monastery/school) that God is "in everything", et al. I dunno, this isn't one of the things I'm strong on, but can anyone explain this, or am I missing the point?

[NotDefault]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Bad, bad NotDefault!

*whomp*

*goes and hides in a corner*

[Blitz_Lightning]

Whatever made you think that people made their choice blind? Many Christians became Christians after lots of thinking and looking at the evidence. Many a Christian used to be atheist. Before you go around saying there is no evidence, take a look at these sites for just a hint of the evidence: -
Archaeology

Evidence against evolution and for creation

another site for creation and evolution

another site for creation

science

Another for creation

For those atheists take a look at this...

363 other web sites

And before you start flaming me, take a look at the evidence, ok?

[Zeronet]

There's been no flaming in this thread.

[Darkage]

Originally posted by Zeronet
There's been no flaming in this thread.

No **** sherlock:p

The only thing that bugs me abit, is that we already had like 10 threads that go about religion;) anyway's cary on pilot:)

[Bobboau]

OK mr blank man, I just looked at those sites
all I saw was ignorance and misinformation, I'm too tired to go through in detail but the one thing that did stick out was that first sites (can't put it any other way) stupid explaination of mutation,
and everyone knows there are situations were C14 dating can screw up it doesn't mean that every test is always wrong,
what I did see quite a lot of was how we all must not even think about evolution as an answere becase it is evil and degrades the wonderfull spirit of man, and it's all some big plot to destroy cristianity. I can't beleve sites of this level of moronicosity are alowed online

now that this thing has finaly warmed up I might start partisipating

[CP5670]

Whatever made you think that people made their choice blind? Many Christians became Christians after lots of thinking and looking at the evidence.

This is definitely among the top five stupidest statements I have heard in this thread. Although it is to be expected from someone who must hide behind an alternate alias. Many more Christians became so because they were brought up with that nonsense and therefore did not get a chance to examine other ideologies when they were still young; later on it became too late, because other ideas built up upon these and therefore these started serving as an irremovable foundation. People who actually think about this enough end up following their own ideology, not one of these existing ones.

Oh, and most of that "evidence" boils down to saying "this is right because I cannot think of how it might be otherwise, and if I say it is right, it is right."

[HotSnoJ]

Wow the __ guy is really smart. You can't even PM him!

Anyway the sites he pointed do have scientific backing. BTW Just because a site doesn't explain things in terms that the ordinary Joe can't understand doesn't mean that it doesn't use good science to back up it's claims. And did you look past the home page?

A few Questions for you evolutionists.

Were you there when supposedly that animal crawled out of the ocean?

Did you see that spec of stuff exploded?

Were you around for the 'billions' of years it took (from when the earth form and to the present day) for humans to evolve?

I was brought up in a Christian home and I'm really glad I am. I used to believe somewhat in evolution and other stuff that goes with it. Then I got into science, I read anything I could get my hands on. And you know what I found out! I look closely at the evolution model and said, "Hey this doesn't agree with God's word ('cuz I also believed the Bible, just never questioned what I learned in school about evlution)!" Now I was in a bind. What do I believe! I was taught that Creation was the way to go but I was also taught that Evolution was scientific. I dug deeper and deeper. And then I reading (about the same time my mom started homeschooling me) Christian science books. And you know what?! I read the geology section which lead into Evolution and Creation. There is where I found out about evolutions lack of rock solid evidence. That's because no one was there to see it happen, as with creation. So both must be accepted by faith!

[Pera]

Originally posted by hotsnoj
...And you know what I found out! I look closely at the evolution model and said, "Hey this doesn't agree with God's word"...  

*bangs head on the keyboard*

You really like pissing people off, do you? I don't even have to say how stupid the statement I quoted is. For the rest of your post, you're once again forgetting one thing:

No-one made evolution up by saying "hey, I smoked weed yesterday and got this nice idea about how everything evolved!". Instead, people found evidence supporting it. True, it's not 100% solid, but IT'S JUST A THEORY! If someone makes a better theory, with more proof, I believe in it right away. You, however, believe in creationism, even though there is more evidence supporting evolution. Therefore:

Creationism= religion
Evolution= science

And BTW, how can you know what's "god's word"? Did you have a chat with him/her someday?

The Bible? Last time I checked, it was written by an ordinary man, and unless you read the original version(not translated or changed in any way) you can't tell what did it say.
 

http://christiananswers.net/creation/home.html

Oh yes, I read far beyond the front page here. For example, take a look here  (this kind of stuff makes me scared )

And anyway, I really can't consider websites as very credible evidence, I mean, anyone can write absolutely anything in the web, and claim it as truth. Just search google using "revisionist", and you'll get my point.

[Bobboau]

"Were you there when supposedly that animal crawled out of the ocean?

Did you see that spec of stuff exploded?

Were you around for the 'billions' of years it took (from when the earth form and to the present day) for humans to evolve? "

were you there when the magic man in the sky formed the world out of the mud of a river bank?

were you there when man suddenly materialised?

did you see the garden of eden?





I want you creationists to explain to me the proces of evolution, becase you have studied it and understand it so well, and made your disition based on sound knowlege of the subject at hand and not just useing religon as a replacement for thinking