Creationists PWNED

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by St Leo
Not really. For that to work, the advocati diaboli would have to evolve too. They aren't doing that.

Give it time. The church now acknowledges that the Earth is round, and that it rotates around the sun

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Actually, I consider the crusade against evolutionism to be completely misguided, even from a religious point of view: God might have created the universe and then let it to its own devices. The only religious reason why evolution should be opposed, is because evolutions bears the idea that the humans were bot here at the creation of the universe, and that they weren't directly created by God, unlike what the Bible says. That's nothing that couldn't be shrugged off by saying "it is symbolic talk, just like that passage mentioning the earth as the center of the universe".

Quite true. If only Creationists would listen to the wisdom of Aquinas, who admonished Christians not to challenge science with their religious beliefs, but rather to incorporate science into those beliefs. And just making up a term like ID and claiming it's scientific--which it isn't--doesn't cut it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Give it time. The church now acknowledges that the Earth is round, and that it rotates around the sun

I believe St. Leo's point was that Creationists haven't evolved in their arguments against evolution, but are just using the same ol' tired schtick they have been using for decades just gussied up with fancy new terminology. So scientists aren't working to fend off new, better logic--they're just dealing with the same old garbage.

[Odin]

Diplomat starting his BS again.

It makes no diference what medium Darwinian evolution takes, the 1s and 0s of computer code and the 4 bases of DNA work on the same principle, digital information storage, and so can evolve in the same way with the proper input of mutations and natural selection.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Give it time. The church now acknowledges that the Earth is round, and that it rotates around the sun

If "the Church", as I might expect from a Frenchman, means the RCC, they already do accept evolution. That, of course, does no more mean there aren't any creationist nutjobs out there any more than that their acceptance of a spherical earth means that the Flat Earth Society isn't around.

You'll be hard pressed to find any Christian writer of note who thought the earth is flat, BTW. Kosmas Indikopleustes is about what there is to find.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Give it time. The church now acknowledges that the Earth is round, and that it rotates around the sun

It's not the Catholics that I am worried about.

[trev]

just like that passage mentioning the earth as the center of the universe

Although it has been proved that the earth rotates around the sun, it has not been proved that it is not the centre of the universe, in fact as the edge of the universe is not visible, this proof is not possible

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by trev

Although it has been proved that the earth rotates around the sun, it has not been proved that it is not the centre of the universe, in fact as the edge of the universe is not visible, this proof is not possible

If the earth is always in centre, it would mean the edges of universe are wobbling due to the earth's rotation around the sun. The whole universe would rotate around the sun, an axis that is slightly assymetric. Sounds far-fetched to me. Some physics guru could probably show a calculation to dismiss your theory.

[Last Conformist]

There's no reason to believe the universe has edges in the first place. Indeed, there's some considerable ones to believe it does not. So asking yourself where the centre of the universe is is not a very meaningful activity.

It's equally pointless to ask whether the earth is stationary. There is no such thing as "absolute" stationarity, only movement (or lack of same) relative to other objects.

That we say that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the opposite or the actually true statement that they both revolve around their common mass center is simply because it's the easiest way to describe what goes on with tolerable accuracy. What works, in most situations, pwns what's true.

[beingofone]

I have learned a valuable lesson by visiting and debating in this forum.

The lesson is - you cannot disagree with the accepted thought of being a crustacean that emerged out of the primordial swamp. You will be expelled from the good ole boy network instantly if you fail to repent of your ways. In fact, you should only want to talk with true heart felt believers. Anyone who disagrees is just not ready for the truth. They should take time to listen, ask questions and ponder the meaning.

It is perfectly fine to insult, cajol, and denegrate all such lower life forms who disagree. Obviously they have not considered the deep and vast thoughts of the true nature of existence. After all they are doomed to suffer a meaningless existence. Wandering about without the searing fire of powerful intellect that is not open to only your special truth.

Your religion is the most exclusive fundamentalist religion I have ever studied or experienced. You just stop talking to those who are not ready for your gospel.

In fact you are not open to any new ideas except what promotes your already preconceived concept of existence. You have shown me that this is not open debate - it is mere recruiting for your religion.

When a person has a cogent, well thought out line of reasoning that disagrees with yours - only a fool would ignore this person. I can only learn from a discusion that disagrees with my viewpoint.
Unless you have a religious belief system that is being threatened.


The taughtology that only a scientific hypothesis can have any merit or truth is just another religion. Any other suggestion that may be true would be like a cat scratching a scrotum.

Science at its apex is still just a guess - yet with enough faith it can become so real.
YES - I see the light.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Quite true. If only Creationists would listen to the wisdom of Aquinas, who admonished Christians not to challenge science with their religious beliefs, but rather to incorporate science into those beliefs. And just making up a term like ID and claiming it's scientific--which it isn't--doesn't cut it.

That´s it.
The problem isn´t with people believing in god,
but with people believing that everything written within the bible is literally true (and that science must be erroneous if it disagrees with the bible).

Of course that leaves them open for counterquestions.

Last week I asked a member of a german forum (german-american girl who believes in the literal truth of the bible and therefore also in a global flood) some questions about Noahs flood.

Here are some of those she couldn´t answer (or wasn´t able to answer them conclusively):

The hardest seems to be the Question about Fish:

-Marine Species of fish require a certain level of salinity to survive (i.e. they can´t survive in water with low levels of NaCl, which you find for example in rivers).
So, as you should expect that all the water within the oceans gets thinned out by the flood (and the salinity drops by a large amount) you should expect all the marine species of fish to die.

She admitted that she couldn´t answer the question. A suggestion was that Noah took also fish with him, but this would contradict the bible (which doesn´t mention that Noah took with him any marine animals). It would also mean that a large amount of his arc would have been filled with water (as Noah would have also taken all species of whales and octopi with him which could be very large) and it would mean that Noah would have to be able to reproduce a large range of marine environments (as certain species of deep sea fish could only survive with high water pressure and low temperatures).

Some other questions she couldn´t really answer were:
-What happened to the Dinosaurs?

Her answer that many of them were found frozen suggests that she thinks they were killed by the flood, but this would contradict the story of Noah where is written that Noah was ordered to take a pair of all land animals with him.

The answers to the other questions she gave also most of the time contradicted natural sciences (like geology, physics or biology) so that the only conclusions can be, that you can only believe in the literal truth of the bible, if you abandon most of the modern natural sciences.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by beingofone
I have learned a valuable lesson by visiting and debating in this forum.

The lesson is - you cannot disagree with the accepted thought of being a crustacean that emerged out of the primordial swamp. You will be expelled from the good ole boy network instantly if you fail to repent of your ways.

This is a common misconception from our creationists (actually, this is a common misconception from all those who hold a minotrity opinion here)

You're not expelled from the forums.As long as you remain civil, you can voice your opinion as much as you wish. The moderators here make a point of banning people exclusively for bad behaviour, and not for political opinions.
There are some opinion-exclusive forums out there on the net. Where you'll be barred from posting if you disagree with the forum's stated opinion. Apolyton isn't like that: you are free to voice your opinion, and you are free to be exposed to the criticisms of others.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by beingofone
I have learned a valuable lesson by visiting and debating in this forum.

Me too.

The lesson is - you cannot disagree with the accepted thought of being a crustacean that emerged out of the primordial swamp. You will be expelled from the good ole boy network instantly if you fail to repent of your ways.

No, the lesson is this: you cannot disagree with the accepted thought that humans and crustaceans shared a common ancestor some millions of years prior to now, and some millions of years after the primordial ocean, unless you use the slightest amount of intelligence which the blind forces of natural selection gave you, and understand evolutionary theory in its entirety before you attempt to pick holes in it with no scientifically rigorous counter-hypothesis.

It is perfectly fine to insult, cajol, and denegrate all such lower life forms who disagree.

That of course is true in whichever region of the internets you choose to inhabit, and whichever position you choose to take on anything.

[Last Conformist]

It is perfectly fine to insult, cajol, and denegrate all such lower life forms who disagree.

Don't feel special; I insult people I agree with too.

Your religion is the most exclusive fundamentalist religion I have ever studied or experienced. You just stop talking to those who are not ready for your gospel.

So, we simultaneously insult people and just refuse to speak to them? Well, internal consistency was never a strong point for creationists.

When a person has a cogent, well thought out line of reasoning that disagrees with yours - only a fool would ignore this person.

The total amount of responses to creationists posted on this forum alone must run into the hundreds of pages. Where I from, writing lengthy rebuttals doesn't count as ignoring.

The taughtology that only a scientific hypothesis can have any merit or truth is just another religion.

Strawman. No-one believes that.

[Chemical Ollie]

beingofone, feel free to propose an alternative theory and back it up with observations.