Creationists take heed

[Sava]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Well, if it bothers you, then it is your problem - not theirs. Their beliefs only 'fly in the face' of your truth, just as your beliefs may 'fly in the face' of theirs.

If you could call a disdain for truthicide a problem, well then I agree. I've got a problem. Sure I have many silly beliefs. People poke fun at them sometimes. But I don't prostelesize my outlandish beliefs, nor do I try to force the public education system to teach them.

It is waaay different. Someone who believes he can drive better while drunk is putting other people at risk (if he acts on his beliefs). Creationists are not.

Again, I have another problem. I think the slaughter of the truth and the perpetuation of myth as fact IS a bad thing.

Of course you can - I do! But people should be allowed to believe in what they want without being held to ridicule by people like you.

Sorry. The first amendment says people can hold whatever beliefs they want and express them freely. And they can. But it also protects my belief that they are stupid. And believing in something mythical or outlandish doesn't make them stupid, it's ignoring fact and imperical evidence that makes them stupid.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


What a bigoted statement! No it doesn't, because the Bible is so complex that there is no one literal translation. Most people who use the Bible to support their bigoted views make the grave error of ripping a few phrases out of their context.

The best known tele-evangelists don't necessarily have the support of the majority of evangelists. Yesterday a major evangelical council issued a sharp condemnation of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and even Franklin Graham for their anti-Islamic statements.

(Exodus 34:12 to 34:26, King James version):

"Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods."

Tell me how I interpret that a different way that doesn't make it amount to horrendous religious bigotry?

I don't see how you can interpret God's commands to the Israelites to slaughter thousands in the name of their moral bigotry ("They are different, kill them")

Look, I'm not saying all religious people would believe this by any means, but if one is (as I stipulated) a fundamentalist who believes the Bible is the Word of God and inerrant, then I don't see how one cannot be a religious and moral bigot, as it explicitly commands people to be such. If you're not, then you're not following the Bible to the letter (which suits me just fine).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Well I am happy to learn that the second law of thermodynamics does not exist anymore. I learn something new here everyday. It is amazing that atheists will go to such extremes to deny deterioriation. I guess we are all just getting younger and younger!

Oh please. Yes, I'm sure these scientists must be atheists, even though the article says no such thing. They just must ve evil-lutionists out to perpetuate the anti-creation conspiracy! I'm sure that, rather than just reporting what they onserved through science, they really just set out to disprove the second law in order to stick it in the eye of creationists!

You sound more ridiculous all the time.

[Kuciwalker]

The Universe isn't "expanding into something". When they say the Universe is expanding, it can mean two things - in an infinite universe, that the distance between any two points has increased, and in a curved (spherical, torus, etc.) universe, that the circumference has increased. You are trying to picture yourself looking down on the Universe, which is again impossible because there is nothing outside the Universe. Picture it from inside the Universe, especially from inside a curved Universe, and it makes sense.

As to my definition of the Universe, can you come up with a better, complete one? Mine clearly and exclusively defines the Universe, while any other makes the Universe an irrelevant term.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Sava
And believing in something mythical or outlandish doesn't make them stupid, it's ignoring fact and imperical evidence that makes them stupid.

So how much impirical evidence for the universe being 14 billion years old have you, personally, seen?

I suspect none - does that make you stupid for believing it?

[Sava]

I don't believe that. In fact I think the universe, or cosmos, the nature of our existence, to be infinitely old. Evidence suggests that the matter in our corner of the universe is around 25-40 billion years (IIRC). But I don't believe in it. I won't force others to believe in it. I just form a general theory on such information. It forms the basis of my understanding of the universe. And it is a very dynamic theory. I'll simply suggest that others take a look at the evidence and make their own conclusion. And, in the future, new evidence might come to light that proves otherwise. I will learn, and adjust my theories accordingly. Being deadset in a belief is dangerous. Science isn't exact either. If this "law" can be broken, I must equally question other laws. Personally, I think Einstein is wrong in his claim that the speed of light is an impassible barrier. Some of my physics friends call me stupid sometimes, but hey, that goes with the territory.

I don't like to use the word "belief" per se. It implies a certainty. And the only thing I can say for certain is that "I exist". Everything else is a theory based upon my sensory experience and impirical evidence.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Oh please. Yes, I'm sure these scientists must be atheists, even though the article says no such thing. They just must ve evil-lutionists out to perpetuate the anti-creation conspiracy! I'm sure that, rather than just reporting what they onserved through science, they really just set out to disprove the second law in order to stick it in the eye of creationists!

You sound more ridiculous all the time.

Why don't you ask urban Ranger what he is? Clue: He is an atheist and he is the one who posted the article. And I won't laugh in your face for making a mistake.

[Sava]

There's a large group of Christian scientists that think evolution is a valid explanation.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lincoln


Why don't you ask urban Ranger what he is? Clue: He is an atheist and he is the one who posted the article. And I won't laugh in your face for making a mistake.

You are a creationist let me guess? The ways you go to deny what is presented.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln


Why don't you ask urban Ranger what he is? Clue: He is an atheist and he is the one who posted the article. And I won't laugh in your face for making a mistake.

Your post said:

Well I am happy to learn that the second law of thermodynamics does not exist anymore. I learn something new here everyday. It is amazing that atheists will go to such extremes to deny deterioriation.

Considering that it was the work of the scientists mentioned in the article that indicated that the second law is not always true, saying it was UR's work is rather silly, isn't it? He was only posting an article. Did you even read it? Probably not...

[Lincoln]

Yes, I read the article and I suppose I could have worded my post better to make it clear I was referring to the constant anti-Chrisitan rants of Urban Ranger. Is that a reason to laugh in someone's face?

[Giancarlo]

Lincoln, I think UR has a very big point to make and let him make it. If you want to make an issue about his personal beliefs than do it somewhere else. This is the place to discuss the facts.

[Sava]

This is the place to discuss the facts.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


(Exodus 34:12 to 34:26, King James version):

"Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods."

Tell me how I interpret that a different way that doesn't make it amount to horrendous religious bigotry?

I don't see how you can interpret God's commands to the Israelites to slaughter thousands in the name of their moral bigotry ("They are different, kill them")

Look, I'm not saying all religious people would believe this by any means, but if one is (as I stipulated) a fundamentalist who believes the Bible is the Word of God and inerrant, then I don't see how one cannot be a religious and moral bigot, as it explicitly commands people to be such. If you're not, then you're not following the Bible to the letter (which suits me just fine).

I guess you have never read where Jesus said to forgive the woman rather than stone her to death. And you apparently do not understand that Jesus said to turn the other cheek when offended. And I suppose that you do not undesrtand that the New Testament teaches that "mercy rejoices over judgment" or that we are under "the law of grace" now because of the death and resurection of Jesus. No, Chrisitans are not bigots if they believe what Jesus said.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Fez
Lincoln, I think UR has a very big point to make and let him make it. If you want to make an issue about his personal beliefs than do it somewhere else. This is the place to discuss the facts.

Since when have facts had anything to do with a discussion at Apolyton?