Please let them.At the end of our last episode, the creationists have seemingly decided to sulk and go away, rather than actually answer the rebuttals layed out to them.
-Arrian
In our last installment.
Thread 001
The premise essentially was that the 'Theory of Evolution' doesn't have any validity, and that god in fact created everything.
Some points at discussion are (among others are)
Definition of 'Intelligence' in material form.
Probability of DNA
Quantum Theory (what it is, what it proves)
A literal Flood/Ark? Arguments against
The 'Watchmaker Argument'
MacroEvolution
MicroEvolution
Fossle evidence
Fossil evidence
Gaps in the fossil evidence
There is much more too... a high value scientific thread if ever I saw one.
At the end of our last episode, the creationists have seemingly decided to sulk and go away, rather than actually answer the rebuttals layed out to them.
Last edited by MrBaggins; April 23, 2002 at 12:54.
Please let them.At the end of our last episode, the creationists have seemingly decided to sulk and go away, rather than actually answer the rebuttals layed out to them.
-Arrian
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Fine with me... Just wanted to point out that the Creationists left empty handed.. or should that be headed?
I have not left MrBaggins, just not had the time to make a thougthfull new post, thats all. I wonder when this will end.
When the last of the creationist become extinct, I expect
Actually it DOES say it. It says ALL the crawled on the Earth died "and it even says that was the intent of Jehovah. It says the highest mountain was covered which clearly requires everything lower to be covered as well.
The word "earth" in your paraphrase is defined in the Hebrew as ground or land.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...=0127&version=
When Noah looked out from his raft during the flood, he would have seen the entire land covered in water, and everything that was there before, the homes, the people, the animals, the farms, would all be gone. So when the tale is told, it is being told truthfully. This is not the same as scientific truth. Let us avoid the semantic difficulty of ascribing modern meanings to words, such as "earth" being that beautiful blue ball we see in Apollo pictures.
There is very good scientific evidence that they have found a stone age civilization 100 meters beneath the surface of the Black Sea, which was flood in the time of Noah. Tantalizing that this story has been told and retold for thousands of years.
Zach... I really don't give a damn about a literal vs interpretive view of the Bible. Honestly, I could care less.
My point about the GLOBAL flood, was that some Creationists point to Noah as the reason for all the fossils in a young earth.
Form what I have seen most of us who believe life was created do not think that all fossils were formed during the Flood. Fossils have been forming for millions and millions of years. I do not hold the earth is 10,000 years old etheir.
There are huge factions of literalists that do. Just because they haven't posted here (yet) doesn't mean they don't exist.
FWIW Lincoln said he did believe in a Global Flood 'as per the Bible' back a while.
Ah, but it's a great story.Originally posted by MrBaggins
Zach... I really don't give a damn about a literal vs interpretive view of the Bible. Honestly, I could care less.
My point about the GLOBAL flood, was that some Creationists point to Noah as the reason for all the fossils in a young earth.
But back to the main point. Noah and the flood have nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, or the proof thereof.
PS. I'm an often posting for the benefit of Biblical "literalists" who need to understand the folly of arguing about any particular theory of the material world, especially when they are wrong, very wrong.
A literal view of it, is of course... wrong
I agree.
I also take viewpoint against the literal interpretation of Genesis (or even a semi-literal one)
In many parts of the Bible it uses a lot of symbols, and parrables. Many people have taken these litterally when they were not to be taken litterally.
Like the bit about god existing
I would like to say that I can see how one can believe in evolution. Would this be a correct statement or not, that most of you who believe the theory of evolution as fact that those who think that life was created by God that it is like believing that there are unicorns and other things along this line?
God works in mysterious ways. But the science is very strong on the subject of biological evolution over billions of years.Originally posted by Jack_www
I would like to say that I can see how one can believe in evolution. Would this be a correct statement or not, that most of you who believe the theory of evolution as fact that those who think that life was created by God that it is like believing that there are unicorns and other things along this line?
It depends on how you mean "life was created by God."Originally posted by Jack_www
Would this be a correct statement or not, that most of you who believe the theory of evolution as fact that those who think that life was created by God that it is like believing that there are unicorns and other things along this line?
If somebody accepts evolution but believes that God got the ball rolling by making chemical bonds act just so in order that the first amino acids would form, then I would disagree with the person, but our disagreement would be restricted to metaphysics--we wouldn't have a "substantive" disagreement, and I wouldn't conclude that the person was a raving loon based solely on this one belief of theirs. They wouldn't be rejecting science by any means, IMO, by accepting evolution but believing that the invisible undetectable hand of God was the cause of the Big Bang. (They would still have to explain who created God, of course, but again I would consider this a metaphysical question and not a scientific question).
However, if somebody rejects evolution and says that God put us here on earth in our present form, then my disagreement with the person would be substantive and I would conclude that either a. they were a raving loon who would be prone to believing in unicorns, b. they are so godawful stubborn that arguing with them will simply cause them to stick their head in the ground, c. they are ignorant and thus they will be able to see the error of their ways when they realize that there is no scientific evidence in favor of their view of creationism, or d. some combination of the first three choices.
Anther thing I have notice, is that many of you who are argueing for evolution try to put me and others with maintstream creationist. Most of them believe in the young earth, that Flood created all fossils, that earth was created in 6, 24 hour days. You also point out the things they have done, lieing and twisting of facts. Well not everyone who thinks life was created is like this. They do not enage in dillebriate lieing or twisting of the facts. I certainly do not. Most of the things I have read and use for information do not come form such people, but I can only speak for myself. I could probelly say the same for those who support evolution, that there are some amoung you who do the same thing, but I will not use those few examples and say that everyone who thinks the theory of evolution is true is like this. Say I meet a scientist who supports evolution. And lets just assume that allmost everything he tells me he made up and is lies. I find this out latter, will I assume all those who support evolution are like this? NO! This is called sterotyping. I cannot possibly make such a statement when it is based on only one example. Just like it would be wrong to say that all asian people are bad drivers.
I think you'll find that no-one arguing has tried to imply that you hold a different view point.
You're the one twisting and writhing over this viewpoint.
You're so easy to rile up. Could this mean that you're suppressing?
No, it is just an impression I get form some of you.Originally posted by MrBaggins
I think you'll find that no-one arguing has tried to imply that you hold a different view point.
You're the one twisting and writhing over this viewpoint.
You're so easy to rile up. Could this mean that you're suppressing?
So the following would be an untrue statement then?
Originally posted by Jack_www
Anther thing I have notice, is that many of you who are argueing for evolution try to put me and others with maintstream creationist.
Since when? You're just upset because rejecting macro-evolution puts you under the second class of creationists I described instead of the first class. True, your rejection of science may not be so severe as a young-earth creationist's rejection of science, but you're rejecting science in favor of faith nevertheless. Your difference in errors is only in a matter of degree.Originally posted by Jack_www
Anther thing I have notice, is that many of you who are argueing for evolution try to put me and others with maintstream creationist.
I would say God created life and evolution was the way he did do it.I would like to say that I can see how one can believe in evolution. Would this be a correct statement or not, that most of you who believe the theory of evolution as fact that those who think that life was created by God that it is like believing that there are unicorns and other things along this line?
Why doing it the easy way if it is possible to do it complicated?
So Jack_www, are you an Old Earth creationist, since you can't be a theistic evolutionist and you denied to be a YEC (Young Earth Creationist)?
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
That would be fine if there are only a few creationists who do this sort of things. Unfortunately, most them do engage in various degrees of duplicity one way or another, it's just some are worse than others.Originally posted by Jack_www
You also point out the things they have done, lieing and twisting of facts. Well not everyone who thinks life was created is like this. They do not enage in dillebriate lieing or twisting of the facts. I certainly do not. Most of the things I have read and use for information do not come form such people, but I can only speak for myself. I could probelly say the same for those who support evolution, that there are some amoung you who do the same thing, but I will not use those few examples and say that everyone who thinks the theory of evolution is true is like this. Say I meet a scientist who supports evolution. And lets just assume that allmost everything he tells me he made up and is lies. I find this out latter, will I assume all those who support evolution are like this? NO! This is called sterotyping. I cannot possibly make such a statement when it is based on only one example. Just like it would be wrong to say that all asian people are bad drivers.
I have yet to see a creationist who doesn't twist facts and so forth. I personally hold that it is impossible to accept all the scientific facts we have in anthropology, paleotology, geology, genetics, biology, etc. and still remain a creationist.
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Wasn't much of a paraphrase. Earth as a planet is not a Biblical concept. All the land is. The highest mountain is. The intent to destroy all of mankind is.Originally posted by Zachriel
The word "earth" in your paraphrase is defined in the Hebrew as ground or land.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...=0127&version=
The Hebrew is 'erets and I do check these things. It could mean ground allright but it can also mean world. It clearly says EVERYTHING that has the breath of life or breaths will die. You can't hide from the intent to kill all. The Bible doesn't claim an accidental flood but an intentional one.
However the story clearly has Noah conversing with Jehovah. You are rewriting which is exactly what you falsly accused the fundamentalists of.When Noah looked out from his raft during the flood, he would have seen the entire land covered in water, and everything that was there before, the homes, the people, the animals, the farms, would all be gone.
No its told wrong. You just rewrote it. Its REAL clear. Jehovah speaks to Noah. He tells Noah he is going to kill everything. Your version is no more biblical than Gilgamesh. You might as well worship Enkidu.So when the tale is told, it is being told truthfully.
I didn't. I looked at the Hebrew. You are ignoring the parts you don't like. Such as the Bible clearly showing Jehovah as intentionally killing all life on Earth because Jehovah thought it was corrupted. How it became that way if Jehovah was such a hotshot creator is another question.This is not the same as scientific truth. Let us avoid the semantic difficulty of ascribing modern meanings to words, such as "earth" being that beautiful blue ball we see in Apollo pictures.
Yes there is. I have been posting the link for fundamentalists to the site for a year and a half at least.There is very good scientific evidence that they have found a stone age civilization 100 meters beneath the surface of the Black Sea, which was flood in the time of Noah. Tantalizing that this story has been told and retold for thousands of years.
From my favorites.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/bl.../ax/frame.html
It may or may not be related to the Gilgamesh Epic. Seems likely to me that it is.
However saying the Bible plagarized and modified the older Gilgamesh Epic isn't exactly showing any reason to base a religion on the Bible. If the story is just a legend with no more reality then Gilgamesh why treat the Bible as holy instead of what it really is? A very old collection of stories, myths, legends, and history from a Jewish point of view with nothing anymore special to say about any god than any other collection of fairy stories and legends. Your version of the Bible is no more meaningful than the Illiad. Nice story, evil gods, based on a real incendent that didn't really have any gods involved.
So your a Agnostic that can't admit to yourself then is that it? Or are you just spitwadding to give some help for the other side in this arguement because you want to even up the odds a bit.
Just Jehovah, well lots of other gods are also sufficiently defined to be tested and be found wanting. Some other gods are possible. The god of the Flood is not since there was no flood. I don't see any real reason to believe in any other god either but it is possible that there was a creator. Its also possible life on Earth was created by a Giant Invisible Orbiting Aardvark. The key is it can't be tested just like any other vague definition of god.Originally posted by Jack_www
I would like to say that I can see how one can believe in evolution. Would this be a correct statement or not, that most of you who believe the theory of evolution as fact that those who think that life was created by God that it is like believing that there are unicorns and other things along this line?
So you are a theistic evolutionist.Originally posted by Adalbertus
I would say God created life and evolution was the way he did do it.
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
How about a Giant Invisible Orbiting Banana, would that work too?Originally posted by Ethelred
*snip* Giant Invisible Orbiting Aardvark.*snip*
Oh if Lincoln shows up I have a rebuttal for the PDF he posted. Its a long (big suprise that must be) so I don't see much reason to fill up Apolyton's server if Lincoln isn't around to see it.
I am not editing the thing either. I just don't feel like going over it to repair all my usual bad spelling and grammer.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks