Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[frog.]

[video]eU9a6kV2O74[/video]

sounds like this guy is bias

[Deagle]

Can we call it a draw?

 Actually I would say ninja's and pirates win, because ninja's are cool and flip out and kill shit, while pirates say "yarrrrrrrr" and "ahoy matey!!!".

:bigglasse

[Fragin]

[video]

Noob alert!! That video was made by someone who's barely left the womb, has just seen a star for the first time and started to wonder...

The idea of 'agnostic' is a very 'grey' area. A person who goes to church every sunday and believes in God can be an 'agnostic' ie) he/she thinks that the existence of a deity is un-knowable and therefore regards their religion as faith. So pretty much everyone can be an 'agnostic' except people who think that they know one way or the other.

I would argue that a die-hard christian evangelist who 'knows' that god exists has lost their 'faith'.


There are essentially two forms of agnosticism:
- the first where a person says that it is not possible to know whether god does or does not exist.
- or a person says that god might exist but there is (currently) no evidence.


Why did you post that Tiwa? I'm starting to think you're just posting stuff up without actually reading it.

People have been debating this subject for a very long time. Occasionally, like once every 50 years or so, a genius comes up with something new that advances our knowledge. So a fresh faced young lad who makes a video is a crack up. *rolls eyes*

[Prowess]

That's like showing people a bunch of photographs and saying "these photographs show little evidence that our ancestors ever moved." There are plenty of fossils which show evolution. Just because scientists can't create a flipbook of fossils showing a fish evolving into a man doesn't mean it didn't happen. There are more than enough examples hinting one way or the other, fish with legs, monkey with gills etc, that would imply that one type of creature evolved into another.

i saw an articual in national geografic a couple of months ago.it talk about a missing link
fossil that had been found and showed great storys of how they lived and what they would
have looked like.after all of the talk of this being conclusive everdence they admited
that the hole skellital reconstruction was based on 2% of a full skelliton.a fragment of jaw bone,a toe and some pieces of hand bone.dont tell me these are fossils that point to
evolution.there could be many explenations for these bones.they could be a extinct
type of ape or a human with a bone disease.

[Prowess]

ok so what evidence is this? and dont say the bible i can write a book full of nonsense too.

nonsence what nonsence.the bible has been shown to be historicaly acurate on everything
to do with cultures, races,traditions, kings an leaders and heath issues.for the last 500
years at least people have been challenging the bible with that time periods knowledge.
thier claims at the time seemed to be good and seemed to discreadit the bible but
every single time there has been evirdence found which backs the bible and destroys
its critics arguments. this is also happening with evolution at the moment.more evidence
is stacking aganst it then with it.

[Prowess]

No, it is Science vs Religion. , quantum mechanics, geology, biology, virology, etc. In fact evolution should not really be included at all because it's not testable and isn't really a very good theory. But then thats why it gets picked on isn't it, too easy to discredit.

But, what about discrediting these:

Cosmology: Light from 10 billion year old stars observed
Cosmology: Big Bang predicted to have occured
Astronomy: Background cosmic radiation compliements Big Bang theory
Astronomy: Extra solar planets discovered
Geology: Sedement deposits take hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate
Geology: frogs are found in amber which is 25 million years old
Virology/Biology: Viral DNA has been imbedded in human genome since humans existed
Quantum mechanics: when dealing with waves of probability even the unlikely occurance of a complex particle can become likely - simply for the fact that it can exist in an environment.


Of course, religious perogotive dictates that God can do anything, and that there needs to be no explanation. And really, none of the above discredits "God" in any way - it just discredits specific religious interpretations of god.

All I can say is that at least scientists maintain a level of common sense, and try and explain what is seen - rather than blindly accepting what our ancient and primitive ancestors believed. Maybe one day, scientists will discover a proper religion.



good,so far i like your sciece.but like you said none of this disproves god exists.so  what interpretations are you talking about.as with any group there are a lot of posers in christianity who will say what ever they feel like.they arn't all supported by what god says.

[Tiwaking!]

That's is the biggest load of crap i've ever read.

sounds like this guy is bias

Noob alert!! That video was made by someone who's barely left the womb, has just seen a star for the first time and started to wonder...

*notes down that Spacemonkey, frog and Fragin just earned themselves alot of points and rep*

Edit: Sorry fragin. Got to spread more rep around before I can give you any

[Black Heart]

No, it is Science vs Religion. , quantum mechanics, geology, biology, virology, etc. In fact evolution should not really be included at all because it's not testable and isn't really a very good theory. But then thats why it gets picked on isn't it, too easy to discredit.

But, what about discrediting these:

Cosmology: Light from 10 billion year old stars observed
Cosmology: Big Bang predicted to have occured
Astronomy: Background cosmic radiation compliements Big Bang theory
Astronomy: Extra solar planets discovered
Geology: Sedement deposits take hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate
Geology: frogs are found in amber which is 25 million years old
Virology/Biology: Viral DNA has been imbedded in human genome since humans existed
Quantum mechanics: when dealing with waves of probability even the unlikely occurance of a complex particle can become likely - simply for the fact that it can exist in an environment.


Of course, religious perogotive dictates that God can do anything, and that there needs to be no explanation. And really, none of the above discredits "God" in any way - it just discredits specific religious interpretations of god.

All I can say is that at least scientists maintain a level of common sense, and try and explain what is seen - rather than blindly accepting what our ancient and primitive ancestors believed. Maybe one day, scientists will discover a proper religion.

good,so far i like your sciece.but like you said none of this disproves god exists.so  what interpretations are you talking about.as with any group there are a lot of posers in christianity who will say what ever they feel like.they arn't all supported by what god says.

I guess thats where the 2 are split. learn to quote already. I'm pretty sure hes refering to the age of the earth. creation(4000-1000 years) vs science (4 billion years)

[Fragin]

I think the idea of religion being responsible for all the wars is a bit of a red herring. Humans are quite capable of killing each other without religion. War is more to do with power and control of resources imo.

[KiLL3r]

more evidence
is stacking aganst it then with it.

such as? yous till havnt answered the goddam question

goddam :chuckle:

[frog.]

I think the idea of religion being responsible for all the wars is a bit of a red herring. Humans are quite capable of killing each other without religion. War is more to do with power and control of resources imo.

yes we are quite capable of knocking each other around without religion. but what better way to take control.... via a Mask of religion, its very powerful and just.

[Fragin]

yes we are quite capable of knocking each other around without religion. but what better way to take control.... via a Mask of religion, its very powerful and just.

yeah but if we didn't have religion we'd still be fighting is what i'm saying.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

It's human nature to fight, just like it's in the nature of other animals to fight.

The only reason humans die more when fighting is because the weapons we use are more distructive.

[Black Heart]

yeah but if we didn't have religion we'd still be fighting is what i'm saying.

religion historically was powerful. Now not so much (here anyway) and has been a tool to band men together, as an army, for a cause.
 
religion often is that cause. but oil or land (and probably one day fresh water) will also be causes.

I don't see many people being inspired to put there life on the line for oil though. Also without religion wouldn't our lives be worth so much more to us? if living is all we think we have, would we still risk our lives at war ?

[dirtyape]

I think the idea of religion being responsible for all the wars is a bit of a red herring. Humans are quite capable of killing each other without religion. War is more to do with power and control of resources imo.

religion is often used as a civilised justification for war, defending ones beliefs quite often ends in bloodshed. As demonstrated in this thread.

[true]

religion is often used as a civilised justification for war, defending ones beliefs quite often ends in bloodshed. As demonstrated in this thread.

LOL

[Scoob]

God Squad lady: Praise Jesus! You won't be saved without Jesus! You have to start believing in Jesus to be saved! Jesus will always be there for you!
Suit #1: Would it be so awful if we pushed her out when the doors open?
Suit #2: No. Jesus will save her.

--4 train

Overheard by: Gregorio

lol - http://www.overheardinnewyork.com

[Prowess]

I guess thats where the 2 are split. learn to quote already. I'm pretty sure hes refering to the age of the earth. creation(4000-1000 years) vs science (4 billion years)

ok to start with creationists believe the world is 6000 years old.and no dating method
is reliable enough to convince me different. when you are talking about half life dating
the scientist is presuming they know how much was there in the first place.they are also presuming that nothing has interfered with those substances.we know natural disasters
mess with them,we also know there was a global disaster not to long ago.so
there are lots of reasons to question how old the world is.

[D_Unit]

Ah shit, wrong thread:(

[Prowess]

yeah dont know what happened with the quote sorry about that.

[Prowess]

such as? yous till havnt answered the goddam question

goddam :chuckle:

‘It doesn’t matter if one population breaks into several subgroups, even to the extent of not reproducing with each other anymore. In fact, you would expect that to happen after the Flood, so coyotes, wolves, dingoes, and so on might have had a common ancestor, but the key is that there’s no new information—that natural processes don’t create any new DNA information. I’ve observed 40 generations of selection of fruit flies. I’ve seen lots of defective flies because of mutations, but I’ve never seen new, additional genetic information appear which would give hope to evolutionists. The belief in amoeba-to-man evolution needs a huge amount of new genetic information.’

Dr James Allan, M.Sc.Agric. (Stellenbosch), Ph.D. (Edinburgh), retired as senior lecturer in the Department of Genetics, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, in 1992. He has researched the genetics of fruit flies, snails, chickens, dairy cattle, and fish, and taught students quantitative and population genetics, particularly in its application to the breeding of animals. He spoke recently with Dr Don Batten and Dr Carl Wieland.


want some more?

[Prowess]

such as? yous till havnt answered the goddam question

goddam :chuckle:

As a physical anthropologist at a top university, Dr Huber has handled some of the most feted human remains known to science. He is not impressed.
‘There are a lot of mistaken views in science. I have held in my own hands originals of some of the most famous of the fossils, like the celebrated Steinheim skull1 and other Mousterian2 fossils. A lot of those bones that have received great emphasis are from, I hate to say it, dubious surroundings. Many of them are in a terribly contorted position or shape and are really ruined and put together in arbitrary ways. Many of them are interpreted erroneously by people who have great authority.
‘The orthodox naturalist would say these things are “zillions”? of years old. Now the Steinheim skull, for example, is clearly not a typical modern human. What is it? I really don’t know for certain. Perhaps a variant of modern human, like one of the different groups of dogs we have today, a type that has since died out? There are many things that I don’t understand, but am I supposed to build a whole philosophy, a whole worldview, on something that I don’t yet fully understand, like this Steinheim skull?
‘The whole edifice of evolutionary theory rests on a collection of inferences by scientists, by fallible people, from good observations of phenomena perhaps, but at best circumstantial evidence and often erroneous inferences from the data.’
And Dr Huber’s advice for witnessing to an evolutionist?
‘There is a kind of rule in the philosophy of science that scientists will defend an established paradigm until something better comes along to replace it. If somebody had presented biological evidence in favour of Creation to me while I was professing evolutionary biology, I probably would have done everything I could to oppose that view.


A committed teacher of evolutionary anthropology at a major secular university (Wisconsin State) until 1975, Dr Neil Huber, of Washington State, USA, is now a whole-hearted creationist. A committed Christian by 1981, by 1990 he had come to accept the literal Genesis viewpoint



still want more if you stop just looking up evolution sites you will see the other evidence.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

ok to start with creationists believe the world is 6000 years old.and no dating method
is reliable enough to convince me different.

What about light from other stars, people keep bringing that up, but you have yet to respond.

[Arnifix]

ok to start with creationists believe the world is 6000 years old.and no dating method
is reliable enough to convince me different. when you are talking about half life dating
the scientist is presuming they know how much was there in the first place.they are also presuming that nothing has interfered with those substances.we know natural disasters
mess with them,we also know there was a global disaster not to long ago.so
there are lots of reasons to question how old the world is.

Not all creationists believe the world is 6000 years old.

No scientist would presume to know anything. They would test, retest and draw some conclusive results before using those results as a basis for their work, which is exactly what was done. Are you trying to tell me that the halflife of these atoms has miraculously changed? Oh wait, you're all about the miracles.

How does a natural disaster mess with any of the elements used in radiometric dating? Care to link us to some information on this?

[Arnifix]

I’ve observed 40 generations of selection of fruit flies. I’ve seen lots of defective flies because of mutations, but I’ve never seen new, additional genetic information appear which would give hope to evolutionists. The belief in amoeba-to-man evolution needs a huge amount of new genetic information.

That is hilarious. He watched 40 iterations, saw mutations and then decides that evolution isn't possible...