# Creationist DESTROYS evolution in 3 minutes!



## wat (Sep 3, 2014)

Checkmate Atheists!


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 4, 2014)

Hilarious, another moron that doesn't understand the definition of the word theory. Many theories contain FACTS. Music theory - guess that's all just false idiocy spread by some some scientific music nutbag huh? Evolution is a fact, nothing more to argue.

noun, plural theories.
1.
a coherent group of *tested* general propositions, *commonly regarded as correct*, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

LOL, we're supposed to take the word of some scrappy looking d-bag in his car probably on the way to Taco Bell over educated scientists?  Btw, I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic pretty much, but have a tendency to feel/believe that there was an intelligence behind the universe and everything. But these creationist nuts denying evolution are plain uneducated. Besides, why couldn't evolution exit under a universe that was created by a God? What if a God created a basic matrix of life and let it take it's own course?


Rev.


----------



## ToS (Sep 4, 2014)

Seriously?


This guy has no idea how evolution actually works, yet claims to destroy it with arguments that are based on misconceptions and wrong facts = classic DunningKruger effect


----------



## Dominoes282 (Sep 4, 2014)

OP I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. This guy is an idiot.


----------



## Shimme (Sep 4, 2014)

> Checkmate Atheists!



Reminds me of this -


----------



## thevisi0nary (Sep 4, 2014)

Guy is a good speaker and is passionate, he is also unfortunately uneducated and biased.


----------



## KristapsCoCoo (Sep 4, 2014)

Dominoes282 said:


> OP I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. This guy is an idiot.



2nd this! 

I don't mean to offend anyone, but I just don't understand how anyone with half-decent reasoning could believe in religious nonsense...


----------



## vilk (Sep 4, 2014)

Ok, this is not PC&E. I think that religion and faith in god is bullcrap and all, but the dude is so obviously stupid and uneducated that posting the video serves nothing but to mock him. There's no christian that could step in and defend him because it would automatically make that person look stupid for giving this moron any credence whatsoever.


----------



## ShawnFjellstad (Sep 4, 2014)

Gravity is also a "theory".


----------



## The Q (Sep 4, 2014)

Cue The Amazing Atheist:


Gravity Disproved In 2 Minutes: Gravity Disproved In 2 Minutes - YouTube


----------



## Necris (Sep 4, 2014)

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution


----------



## splinter8451 (Sep 4, 2014)

Funny thing, a few of my friends have shared this on Facebook in a non joking manner  

"AMEN, GOD IS GOOD" was one post. Caps to emphasize how much he DESTROYED atheism I guess? 

Let's just say I have a few less FB friends now.


----------



## StevenC (Sep 4, 2014)

An interesting point he made was how inconceivable it is for everything on earth to have happened so perfectly without a creator. This of course neglects what we know about the rest of the universe, where so far we haven't found any other planets that could support life like ours and why haven't found life outside of our own planet.

EDIT: I should also have said about how big the universe is and how rare life is, and we only think we're special because we forget how big the rest of the universe is.


----------



## wat (Sep 4, 2014)

^^^Not to mention, the earth is hardly perfect for life in the first place. It's merely suitable for it and life has been adapting for billions of years. 



Rev2010 said:


> e.
> 
> LOL, we're supposed to take the word of some scrappy looking d-bag in his car probably on the way to Taco Bell over educated scientists?  Btw, I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic pretty much, but have a tendency to feel/believe that there was an intelligence behind the universe and everything. But these creationist nuts denying evolution are plain uneducated. Besides, why couldn't evolution exit under a universe that was created by a God? What if a God created a basic matrix of life and let it take it's own course?



It isn't even ABOUT being an atheist or not. It's creationists who MAKE it about that because many of them refuse to reconcile their interpretation of their scripture with modern scientific knowledge. and they feel like they have to attack conventional scientific knowledge. 

They should just keep to their selves and practice their faith instead of going out of their way to ATTACK science and insult not just biologists, but literally everyone who has ever devoted their life to scientific method.



splinter8451 said:


> Funny thing, a few of my friends have shared this on Facebook in a non joking manner
> 
> "AMEN, GOD IS GOOD" was one post. Caps to emphasize how much he DESTROYED atheism I guess?
> 
> Let's just say I have a few less FB friends now.



Thats actually how I came across this video and normally I wouldn't bother, but in this case I went down the list of every factually incorrect thing he said, explained why it's wrong and provided links to the correct information.

Thing is, the belief is so ingrained into their mind that they really just aren't that concerned with facts and evidence. Most of them believe if it goes against scripture, it's deceptive, and they'll believe that to their grave.


----------



## splinter8451 (Sep 4, 2014)

StevenC said:


> An interesting point he made was how inconceivable it is for everything on earth to have happened so perfectly without a creator. This of course neglects what we know about the rest of the universe, where so far we haven't found any other planets that could support life like ours and why haven't found life outside of our own planet.



It didn't happen perfectly. Humans didn't just pop up one day like "YO WE HERE NOW". I really don't like the argument of everything being just "perfect". Perfection shouldn't take billions of years to only stay imperfect. 

I am pretty sure Kepler telescope has found over 1 thousand exoplanets which MAY be capable of supporting life. 

Direct me to a telescope that shows me scientific evidence of a creator


Also, I am not trying to make this thread into a debate. Guys pls


----------



## sevenstringj (Sep 4, 2014)

Dominoes282 said:


> OP I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. This guy is an idiot.



OP is obviously being sarcastic. But I do wonder whether the guy in the video is just trolling.

Then again, religion is essentially a gigantic and phenomenally successful troll.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 4, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> But I do wonder whether the guy in the video is just trolling.



I've been wondering the same thing about fundamentalists of all walks for decades...


----------



## StevenC (Sep 4, 2014)

splinter8451 said:


> It didn't happen perfectly. Humans didn't just pop up one day like "YO WE HERE NOW". I really don't like the argument of everything being just "perfect". Perfection shouldn't take billions of years to only stay imperfect.
> 
> I am pretty sure Kepler telescope has found over 1 thousand exoplanets which MAY be capable of supporting life.



Oh yeah! They have found some possible planets, but I was exaggerating slightly.

And to clarify, when I said perfect I meant that as his argument. The whole "image and likeness" malarky and whatnot. (Though, in the reality of this case, I don't think there's much difference between a suitable planet and a perfect planet. Earth is a suitable planet for life, but it's the perfect planet for that life to evolve to where we are now.)


----------



## s_k_mullins (Sep 4, 2014)

Seen this video posted about 10 times on FB, and I'm always shocked at how many people reply with supportive comments. 

Then again, I live in MS so I can't be that ....ing surprised. 


Also, guy in the video reminds me of Kevin James. Only even less amusing.


----------



## ferret (Sep 4, 2014)

I just unfollowed two people on my FB feed for sharing this in a non-sarcastic way.


----------



## 3074326 (Sep 4, 2014)

Ignorance is a terrifying thing.


----------



## SpaceDock (Sep 4, 2014)

Yikes! These guys are getting crazier every day.


----------



## Leuchty (Sep 4, 2014)

Isn't wiping your own arse evidence of evolution? Im sure it wasnt always the way to clean it...


----------



## oracles (Sep 4, 2014)




----------



## Grindspine (Sep 4, 2014)

At least the video did provoke a thought. That is reconciling the second law of thermodynamics with evolutionary theory. 

Crystals form. Crystals, to us, look like "order" or a defined pattern as opposed to chaos. However, crystals form because of the molecular interaction to minimize charges to a neutral overall system. The same can be said for organic salts. Organic salts are a pretty vital ingredient to organic life.

Someone simply saying that entropy = chaos or disorder is wildly simplifying what entropy is. Entropy can be explained more accurately as changes in the energy of a system toward thermodynamic equilibrium.

The above statement explains why crystals (which look like order to us) form without violating the second law of thermodynamics.

For further reading, this is a decent explanation of thermodynamics in relation to evolutionary theory. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability

I am tempted to post in the youtube comments, but I realize how many notifications I will get from stupid replies. I simply do not want to bother with that this week.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 5, 2014)

Why does this guy think there's only one god out there? I know he never gets into how unlikely it is that there are gods, although he's pretty quick to talk about how unlike life on Earth is. Still, the Bible has so many tantalizing bits about other deities. "He will eat of the fruit and become like us." "You shall not have other gods before me." And so on. 

Considering that other gods managed to pull off the virgin birth thing before Jesus was a twinkle in Big Daddy's eye, I'm going to say that there are definitely other gods, both known and unknown. Humans are designed to be animists, even if they profess to be Christian. That's why you see good Christian folk talking with their cars when they start acting up. 

Since Christians believe that the Jews got it wrong, just because Jesus didn't actually fulfill the Jewish Scripture's prophecies (and no, I don't believe that folks from another faith who don't speak Hebrew can tell the Jews they don't understand their own Scripture), those same Christians have to make a case that they didn't get things wrong like the Jews. In other words, it could be that Islam has it right, and the Christians are clinging to their hopes on a minor prophet while those in the right have moved on. 

As soon as this guy would whip out, I believe there is only one god, he admits he doesn't have any proof that other religions have it wrong except his own belief. That's one of the reasons I really like to get highly excitable religious folks from different belief systems arguing with each other. It frees up the rest of us from having to deal with it. (It's even more awesome when you get young Earth and old Earth creationists fighting about each other's misinterpretations of Scripture. Each assumes that their own translation and interpretation of a thing is the same as the thing itself, something which translators and interpreters know is a false assumption.)

Amusing for the lulz. I truly hope that folks who go this route go to doctors which have the same disbelief in science as they do.


----------



## acrcmb (Sep 5, 2014)

He obviously doesn't get how many errors get made when genetic code is copied and it's nowhere near the same thing as a bunch of rusty cars being thrown together to make a lambo it's far from perfect it's more like someone trying to build a copy of a car but screwing up the roof and making a convertible, the only reason he sees the universe as so good is because as a result of evolution we have became more suited to our enviroment and even still it's not even near ideal. Someone should also tell him the real meaning of universe which basically just means something along the lines of all rotated as one.


----------



## Edika (Sep 5, 2014)

I'll agree to his original statement of what Mr Atheist said, he is an idiot.


----------



## Neilzord (Sep 5, 2014)

I don't care what Fred Durst thinks.


----------



## Nats (Sep 5, 2014)

Creationists are such cop out people. "it's god's way or no way!!" *plugs ears and covers eyes*


----------



## ghostred7 (Sep 5, 2014)

tried watching the video....my early morning stomach couldn't handle that much bs and started to gurgle


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 5, 2014)

Is this the same "Prove God doesn't exist" dude?


----------



## Mik3D23 (Sep 5, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> Is this the same "Prove God doesn't exist" dude?



This? Christian pastor offers atheists $100,000 to prove God doesn&#8217;t exist, atheist proves pastor is dumb

Coincidentally this just came across my news feed as I saw this thread.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 5, 2014)

Yup... That's him.

That thing he said with the breakdown of the word "universe" was kinda cool. It sounded good, but I don't necessarily agree with it. You can tell he's a pastor of some sort.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Sep 5, 2014)

Yeah I can't make it through an entire one of his videos. The ignorance makes me 

Otherwise, Seth Andrews' response is a good watch.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 5, 2014)

EDIT: How did I double post this?


----------



## Dog Boy (Sep 5, 2014)

Guy needs to chill.


----------



## Zhysick (Sep 5, 2014)

For me, a human being born in Spain, is just imposible to understand how creationists can exist in this world.

I'm not talking about faith or atheism... just about the creationist "¿theory?" of humanity is just unbelievable. Imposible to rationalize. Absurd. Stupid.

You don't need evidences to prove something don't exist... you need evidences to prove something DO exist.

I don't want to say too much about this because is a really "delicate" and "hard" topic to talk about and as english is not my main language I could start misundestanding or expressing my ideas in a wrong way that could end bad so...

Anyway, I still prefer to believe (in case I HAVE to believe in some deity) in Odhin, Thor and the rest of the people of Asgard who came from so far away just to have fun in our planet... you know... giving people a belt of supreme strength so they start killing each other and all that things... really funny...


----------



## soliloquy (Sep 5, 2014)

i'm getting really irritated with the god vs science/religion vs atheists bs that has been forced down our throats more often than not. 

i'm of the ethos that whatever you believe in should be for you to share. what others believe in is for you to respect. why then are 'atheists' acting like a cult that mimics religious nut jobs. ''you believe in god? it must mean you are stupid'' vs ''you believe in science, it must mean you think you are superior to the world and dont believe in magic or miracles''. 

why cant people just live and let live? or better yet stop arguing and actually sit down and think that other people have a mind, therefore they have the right to believe whatever ill/logical thought that might come to them. 

do i believe in god? sure. do i believe in science? absolutely. i guess i'm an anathema as thats impossible to exist with both at the same time. 

people irritate me.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 5, 2014)

soliloquy said:


> why then are 'atheists' acting like a cult that mimics religious nut jobs.



Simple, everyone wants to be part of some designated "club". Annoying as f*u*ck no? People most commonly feel a need to associate themselves with some collective of other like-minded people. Reminds me of sports. "My team won!!". Your team? You put on a jersey and stuffed your face with cheese doodles while watching the game. Ooooh... so it's your team since it's your States team?? OOoohh... even though 85% of the players are from other countries/states!??? 


Rev.


----------



## Dominoes282 (Sep 5, 2014)

Even though religious guys are still crazier than atheists, there's a simple answer to why atheists and religious guys acts similar. It's because religious guys and atheists both think they have the answer and both feel compelled to tell people they need to hear the truth. Atheists think people are wasting their life preparing for an afterlife and religious guys think atheists are wasting their afterlife living a shit life. What I haven't seen yet though are atheists actually calling for the death of religious guys. When that happens everyone will be on a level playing field.


----------



## vilk (Sep 5, 2014)

soliloquy said:


> why cant people just live and let live? or better yet stop arguing and actually sit down and think that other people have a mind, therefore they have the right to believe whatever ill/logical thought that might come to them.


Well, yeah, except, religions are founded on laws that expressly say that followers should not have certain rights and that they should take others' rights away.


----------



## Leuchty (Sep 5, 2014)

I don think anyone is calling this guy an idiot for believing in a god but instead for getting the FACTS and INFO of evolution wrong.


----------



## Necris (Sep 5, 2014)

Dominoes282 said:


> Atheists think people are wasting their life preparing for an afterlife and religious guys think atheists are wasting their afterlife living a shit life.




I don't care if someone wastes their life preparing for an afterlife if they believe one exists. I think it's silly, but lots of things are silly and harmless.

I do however care if those same people, while "preparing for the afterlife" spend what they believe to be their "pre-afterlife" existence actively working to lessen the rights of others, killing those who don't believe as they do, destroying the planet, etc. based on their religious beliefs and justifying their actions as being gods will based on their mythology.

If someone believes that pointing out that those people are assholes makes myself or someone else who strives to point out these harmful things intolerant I don't really know what to tell them.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 5, 2014)

I just want to say that speaking quickly with conviction and a smooth cadence doesn't mean you're saying anything worth while.

I am perfectly ok with true and honest believers who adopted their beliefs on their own accord, I just don't see how leaving no room for change is healthy or reasonable. I don't suppose Science or the religions of the world have much if it all figured out - the difference is, Science acknowledges that rather openly.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 5, 2014)

soliloquy said:


> i'm getting really irritated with the god vs science/religion vs atheists bs that has been forced down our throats more often than not.
> 
> i'm of the ethos that whatever you believe in should be for you to share. what others believe in is for you to respect. why then are 'atheists' acting like a cult that mimics religious nut jobs. ''you believe in god? it must mean you are stupid'' vs ''you believe in science, it must mean you think you are superior to the world and dont believe in magic or miracles''.
> 
> ...


 
Live and let live would be a great ideal. Unfortunately, the religious zealots in this country try to get laws passed in their favor, which affect everyone whether they believe in a god or not.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 5, 2014)

Necris said:


> I don't care if someone wastes their life preparing for an afterlife if they believe one exists. I think it's silly, but lots of things are silly and harmless.
> 
> I do however care if those same people, while "preparing for the afterlife" spend what they believe to be their "pre-afterlife" existence actively working to lessen the rights of others, killing those who don't believe as they do, destroying the planet, etc. based on their religious beliefs and justifying their actions as being gods will based on their mythology.
> 
> If someone believes that pointing out that those people are assholes makes myself or someone else who strives to point out these harmful things intolerant I don't really know what to tell them.


 
Quoted for truth.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 6, 2014)

Zhysick said:


> I could start misundestanding or expressing my ideas in a wrong way that could end bad so...



I have a dear friend who is a fundamentalist Christian, and anytime she is faced with something in the real world, she says that she just doesn't understand the hard stuff. What has become apparent over the years is that she does understand the facts, but she doesn't understand how this thing and Scripture are both true, so she just accepts that both being true is a mystery beyond her understanding. 

I wouldn't worry about misunderstandings. You express yourself well. 



Grindspine said:


> Live and let live would be a great ideal. Unfortunately, the religious zealots in this country try to get laws passed in their favor, which affect everyone whether they believe in a god or not.



To be more accurate, laws passed in their favor which affect everyone, whether they believe in the same particular god or not. 

----

That's it. I've been holding back, but no longer!

I, a simple human being who ultimately derives his bodily energy from the fearsome and terrible power of the Sun, will now challenge the power of Yahweh himself!

I have long labored in secrecy, and have finally erected a powerful mental shield around the very Earth! The Christian god's infinite power can no longer pass through this shield in one specific way: The Christian god can no longer answer prayers to supernaturally regrow the limbs of amputees! 

In the case of my passing, I have prepared for such an eventuality by using my intellect and my force of will to construct an active energy Hieronymus Engine of fearsome scope, powered by two potatoes and one D-cell battery, to keep the Godshield in effect until long after the heat death of the universe! Once the D-cell and the potatoes start the Harmonic Energizer circuit, the reaction will be self-sustaining and will create more energy that what was put in. With my last heartbeat, the Hieronymus Engine will detect my intention and will switch on, forever after keeping amputees from being able to rely upon the supernatural healing powers of the Christian god. 

I also have set in motion a chain of events which shall make amputees reliant upon the false god of Science to actually have any hope at all! By taking away God's ability to restore amputees to their former fully limbed state, I am actively forcing those amputees to accept that their puny god cannot break the shield constructed by one mortal human being! They *must* turn to Science for any hope of limb regeneration, let alone any actual working prosthetics.

I am the Explorer, the Oneironaut, the Great and Terrible! Look upon my works and despair!

(now to make a nice cuppa chai, kick back, and watch a movie....)


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 6, 2014)

Necris said:


> I do however care if those same people, while "preparing for the afterlife" spend what they believe to be their "pre-afterlife" existence actively working to lessen the rights of others, killing those who don't believe as they do, destroying the planet, etc. based on their religious beliefs





Necris said:


> If someone believes that pointing out that those people are assholes makes myself or someone else who strives to point out these harmful things intolerant I don't really know what to tell them.



Do *ALL* people with religious beliefs act that way?? And is it fair to go telling the religious people that don't participate in such harmful actions that they're wrong, stupid, (or as you say) "assholes"?? 

I actually saw a commercial on cable a few months back. A real freakin' commercial for some atheist group. I couldn't believe my eyes.... how they made themselves look just as stupid trying to foist their views on some other poor saps just trying to watch TV. Just some food for thought, and no... I'm not religious, I'm more scientific than anything though I do keep my mind open.


Rev.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Sep 6, 2014)

This guy hurts my head. I couldn't even make it through half of that. 

I believe in a higher power. It's organized religion that I have a problem with. I also believe in science. I will never understand the "stick your head up your own ass" mentality these creationist fvcktards like this guy take towards science. As someone said, he probably is a preacher somewhere. Scary thought.


----------



## acrcmb (Sep 6, 2014)

It scares me to think every weekend this guy talks to a big group who actually believe him and his logic,I have no issue with religion aslong as its a personal thing I like that it gives people comfort and helps them through situations they wouldn't be able to cope with if they believe they were alone but as soon as they start trying to dictate how everyone else should live their life it annoys me surely you can't take views on marraige and other things based on a old book think of all the things we've discovered since then it seems absurd to ignore that and base your life on old scripture especially with the way they pick and choose what suits them,science adapts and moves forward as society does and admits when its wrong I can't belive in religion till they do the same.

Also i'm not religious and i hate when religious people imply they're above me and I'm a bad person because of this, if anything it makes me better than them, I treat people well and am a good person because I have morals not because I'm afraid of being punished when I die, I honestly don't believe in heaven and hell and I still don't go around doing evil things, it's super hard to take someones goodness as genuine when they believe if they don't do it they'll be punished eternally, even my religious grandfather knew about this he always said watch out for the man with the bible in his hand because each week he would see people who would go around ripping people off and sinning showing up at church acting like perfect christians to "cleanse" themselves before running off and doing it all over again. Hopefully one day we as human beings will all come to terms with the random beauty of life and religion will be laughed at like the greeks thinking things like lightning was caused by a man in the sky angry at them.


----------



## soliloquy (Sep 6, 2014)

vilk said:


> Well, yeah, except, religions are founded on laws that expressly say that followers should not have certain rights and that they should take others' rights away.



okay, sure, some, if not then most religions that i've researched have mentioned it that 'people who believe' get *something * and those who dont dont get that same *something *. 

yet those same religions also say that you as an individual aren't obligated to be the shadow of 'god' on earth and do as you will. if someone is being stupid, let them. if someone is being smart, let them. if you choose, bring your thoughts to them but dont use force (coercion/bullying/lynching/violence/abuse etc) of any sort to convey your thoughts. 

it isn't necessarily religion that takes things from other people, but people that use 'religion' as a cover to do their stupid shit. if i'm not mistaken, i believe in one of Shakespearian plays, one of the characters killed someone and then went about saying it wasn't his fault as 'god' intended him to do so and it was written in his 'fate' that he would do so, thus he had no choice. 

people have the choice to be ass holes or kind. likewise, people have the choice to be religious or not (not implying one is an ass hole if they dont believe in religion, or vice versa). 

as someone who identifies himself as a 'sufi' muslim (someone who is spiritual, not religious) with a bit of agnostic touches here and there, i find a lot of things that are based on law in islamic countries that have very little, if at all, to do with the religion but with culture/history/people. 

point i'm trying to make is that religion doesn't make people evil. nor the lack of religion. i've seen atheists act as bigots just as much as religious nutjobs.

i personally believe in science because it makes sense to me. i also believe in religion because things i've seen growing up science can not explain, try as it might.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 6, 2014)

Theodore Skragus, you don't understand how various theories of physics have explained gravity, and have been able to make predictions based on those theories, and how those theories have gained confirmation.

You talk about gravity "emanating from" something. Your phrasing demonstrates your lack of basic knowledge regarding the matter... making it clear that your claim that "no scientist" is probably just you parroting someone else... who also doesn't understand physics. 

You also mention that we should "learn the purpose of our existence." You're assuming facts not in evidence. Once you prove that there is such a purpose, then I guess folks will get on with figuring it out. Let me know what proof of your assumption exists.

Your post (to me at least) contains all kinds of camouflage, but I believe you are merely tossing in the "scientism" to mask your beliefs. You are throwing out the kind of rhetoric I have heard from more than one American fundamentalist Christian I spend time with.


----------



## Force (Sep 6, 2014)

I refuse to follow religion because it is man made. I am ,however, open to God(or whatever) having created life. I guess the one thing we need to know is if there is life like us somewhere else in the universe (as opposed to unaverse like the guy in the vid pronounces it). No other life means the creationists are right.

Also, I've always found it odd that to this day, the missing link is still missing. I reckon it's because it doesn't exist. Humans are a completely separate animal.

Evolution happens, there is evidence of that. The question is how it all started.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 6, 2014)

Force said:


> Also, I've always found it odd that to this day, the missing link is still missing. I reckon it's because it doesn't exist.



It's best to not claim that known physical, observable evidence doesn't exist. Nothing undermines an argument more thoroughly than proof to the contrary.

I suggest you read up on human evolution fossils so you can catch up on the current state of affairs. 

Mind you, "missing link" is not a scientific term, being a popular term used by the general public, as well as by some religionists. There are numerous transitional fossils which show species between two groups, like 

*Important: Archeopteryx being a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, having features of both. Archeopteryx might not be the actual species which went on to become all birds, but it shows that there is a connection between the two groups. *

Several other transitional fossils of species between dinosaurs and birds have been found as well. None of them are necessarily the actual ancestor of current birds, but the movement of evolution in that direction is obvious to most, except those who need to protect beliefs which are not served by such observable evidence.

Similarly, any given transitional forms which show the developments which led from the primate group to modern humans might not be direct ancestors, but they show how features of modern humans and older lines are found together, and how they changed over time. Being able to walk upright combined with a more apelike skull, larger brain mass combined with more ape-like characteristics, don't mean that any given fossil is Great-Granddad, but it shows how things were transforming over time. 

I'm glad I could share with you some of the current evidence and knowledge, so you don't undermine your case by stating something factually incorrect.


----------



## Necris (Sep 6, 2014)

You could have 50 transitional fossils, but the idea of a "missing link" allows someone to ignore all of those transitional fossils and declare them not to be valid evidence.

This person can then claim, incorrectly of course, that there is no real proof of evolution unless someone discovers the "missing link" between 25 and 26 because in their eyes the difference between the two is too great. When/if that link is found they can move on to another "missing link", such as the "missing link" between transitional fossil 10 and 11 or whatever. They could even say, "okay you have Fossils 25, 25 1/2 and 26, sure, but what about the missing link between 25 and 25 1/2, or 25 1/2 and 26?".

It's the God of the Gaps again.

Same thing with the "there are things Science can't explain, try as it might" idea. Why is it logically sound to fill gaps in scientific knowledge with magical explanations, exactly?


----------



## Explorer (Sep 6, 2014)

My Hieronymus Engine helps keep all gods from healing amputees. Religious faith doesn't have to explain how the Engine works. It just has to accept that, in this one case, Science has defeated their puny god.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 6, 2014)

Theodore Skragus said:


> Certainly most people question the reason for their existence.
> 
> I do however believe in one supreme entity plus natural selection and evolution as well, I thought I made that clear in my post. Sorry for your misunderstanding.



I don't know... I think most people just can't handle that the answer may be there is no reason for their existence?

Maybe one of you Spiritual guys can help me because even besides crazy scripture I've never understood the concept of "one supreme entity" it's always raised too many questions and paradoxes for me like if there's only one of him and he created ALL how did he understand and create complex emotions like that feeling humans get when you have a first kiss or when you lose a loved one? How could a singular being even understand those emotions? I've received answers like "god is love" or "he knows and can do all" but then I thought if he can do anything, can he create an impossible task that even he can't accomplish? Like say create a safe that even he can't break in to? Other things like, Why didn't he just create peers for himself instead of billions of lesser beings to toy with in destructive universe before they get to go to his magical death kingdom and if he can see everything past,present,future implying what's going to happen has already been set in stone how do we have free will and natural selection couldn't really be called natural selection if that were the case...

I wasn't raised religious or atheist so when I first encountered religion these were the questions that made me think it was a load of shit


----------



## facepalm66 (Sep 7, 2014)

Call me a selfish basterd, but I actually like them believing idiots I mean nobody but a person himself decides how he is. So if he believes in this stupidity and even feels like sharing it, I belive I can minipulate him to 'death', well, because I can. Just like that.

Anyway this old chap sums it all 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 7, 2014)

Theodore Skragus said:


> I'm new here


 
Hi, Lance, welcome back!



> but I'd seen this video on Facebook so I thought I might say a thing or two about it. First of all, I think all the narratives regarding creation are utterly incomplete. The same could be said regarding science. Its the equivalent of a single grain of sand on a beach. Many fields of science are nothing more than cul-de-sacs of unproven theories


 
Technically, science only disproves things. All could be called "unproven" or merely "evidential."



> For example, lets start with mass, energy, time, space and gravity. So somebody previously mentioned gravity. Well, if you take the time to investigate you'll understand there isn't a single scientist who actually can tell you where gravity emanates from or what it actually is.


 
Gravity is the attraction between all matter.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 7, 2014)

Force said:


> I refuse to follow religion because it is man made. I am ,however, open to God(or whatever) having created life. I guess the one thing we need to know is if there is life like us somewhere else in the universe (as opposed to unaverse like the guy in the vid pronounces it). No other life means the creationists are right.
> 
> Also, I've always found it odd that to this day, the missing link is still missing. I reckon it's because it doesn't exist. Humans are a completely separate animal.
> 
> Evolution happens, there is evidence of that. The question is how it all started.


 
Evolution - Futurama Style - Video

^ Totally worth watching Professor Farnsworth debating evolution vs. creaturism.


----------



## acrcmb (Sep 7, 2014)

Necris said:


> You could have 50 transitional fossils, but the idea of a "missing link" allows someone to ignore all of those transitional fossils and declare them not to be valid evidence.
> 
> This person can then claim, incorrectly of course, that there is no real proof of evolution unless someone discovers the "missing link" between 25 and 26 because in their eyes the difference between the two is too great. When/if that link is found they can move on to another "missing link", such as the "missing link" between transitional fossil 10 and 11 or whatever. They could even say, "okay you have Fossils 25, 25 1/2 and 26, sure, but what about the missing link between 25 and 25 1/2, or 25 1/2 and 26?".
> 
> ...


This is just like that episode of Futurama where the professor is trying to proof evolution and keeps producing evidence of the different stages of our species and the religious guy just keeps asking for more intermediate stages until the professort finally runs out and says then evolution is fake because he can't show every stage lol.


----------



## maliciousteve (Sep 7, 2014)

Shimme said:


> Reminds me of this -





effing hilarious!


----------



## Nats (Sep 7, 2014)

Pastors and used car salesman share the exact same traits. Him being a pastor is proof there is no god. People following him week in and week out prove there's no evolution.


----------



## Anchang-Style (Sep 7, 2014)

I think one of the things those people have to understand, next to what a theory is, is what science actually is. I don't mean science as in Physics, maths, biology. I mean in the scientific method that is also used in the studies (i think in english you seperate between studies and sciences). Aside from laboratory and recreatable conditions for your "experiment" (or chain of argument) you give sources that you base your work on and so forth (proper quotation of other work since you probably won't make a whole new theory from scratch), all the good stuff. ABOVE ALL: SCIENCE IS PEER REVIEWED. That means no Theory, especially one that has major implications like evolution stays unreviewed or unchallenged. Several theories in all kinds of fields, throughout the history of science, were dismissed as wrong after they were challenged by other experts. Everyone can challenge since there is no master and no scholar inside the scientific community as long as he can back his claims up with evidence.
People like this always sound like Atheists invented this to piss off the bible freaks. NO People came up with better theories than the creation story, that's what happened. People had evidence that the world is older than genesis claims.
Just my 2 cents with people like that who don't seem to understand how all this science thing works. I live / lived with a couple of people writing their Phd in physics and their work is peer reviewed like hell. Thousands of people will read important papers on such topics and write their reviews and corrections. Theories like that won't be long standing if they are totally wrong.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 7, 2014)

Nats said:


> Pastors and used car salesman share the exact same traits. Him being a pastor is proof there is no god. People following him week in and week out prove there's no evolution.


 
Further evidence AGAINST intelligent design, but for evolution of creatures filling ecological niches. Meet the pearlfish.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 7, 2014)

Ah, I understand Theodore's viewpoint now. 

He's saying that because science doesn't have an answer now regarding a physical phenomenon, it's impossible for science to ever get an answer to a question about a physical phenomenon. It will never happen.

I've heard that before.

I've heard it said about "irreducible complexity," for which several examples have been given... and then someone was able to show how those example could explained.

And then the fundamentalists had to dig out the goal posts and move them.

I've also heard that argument made about evolution. You can have lots of little miniature mutations, but those will never add up to a large mutation. I think the human eye has been used as an example of that... and then examples were shown which demonstrated how useful all the transitional forms of the eye were useful to the creatures which had them. It's even been pointed out that humans have worse eyes than octopi, so if human design is from a god, it's a god who either deliberately incorporated a flaw or who just couldn't do better.

And then the fundamentalists had to dig out the goal posts and move them.

And, of course, even if little changes in species can happen, there's no way such little changes can ever equal one big speciation event. It's like counting to a million. You can count by thousands and get there, but you can't count 10s, or ones, or fractions. it's been pointed out that such reasoning is absurd, but some folks just cling to it because they don't have a clue.

And then the fundamentalists who realize that they sound asinine saying that stuff had to dig out the goal posts and move them.

All irrelevant at this point. I kicked on the Hieronymus Engine just so I could concentrate on other things (not that it takes a lot of concentration to lock out their puny god), and the Engine is purring like a kitten. It apparently got rid of Theodore as well, popping his identity like a soap bubble. Bonus!


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 8, 2014)

Where do I purchase such an engine? Do you manufacture these yourself?


----------



## Necris (Sep 8, 2014)

Explorer said:


> It's even been pointed out that humans have worse eyes than octopi, so if human design is from a god, it's a god who either deliberately incorporated a flaw or who just couldn't do better.


Personally I've always felt cheated because I don't have eyes at least as advanced as a mantis shrimp. Instead I'm just terribly nearsighted and have normal human eyes.

God: "You want trinocular vision in each eye and the ability to perceive polarized light, ultraviolet light and multispectral images? You can't handle trinocular vision in each eye and the ability to percieve polarized light, ultraviolet light and multispectral images!"


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 8, 2014)

That being the case, the God many Christians describe to me is an asshole...

You, a perfect being (or so I am told), intentionally made me imperfect, but I still have to strive to be just like you to make it into your exclusive cloud club? Explain to me why I wanna hang out with you again...?

Just sounds arrogant...


----------



## Nats (Sep 8, 2014)

Necris said:


> Personally I've always felt cheated because I don't have eyes at least as advanced as a mantis shrimp. Instead I'm just terribly nearsighted and have normal human eyes.
> 
> God: "You want trinocular vision in each eye and the ability to perceive polarized light, ultraviolet light and multispectral images? You can't handle trinocular vision in each eye and the ability to percieve polarized light, ultraviolet light and multispectral images!"



What if god really is a Mantis shrimp which is why they're so awesome and humans are so shitty?


----------



## TheWarAgainstTime (Sep 8, 2014)

As someone who was raised Christian and is currently attending a private baptist university, I can honestly say that this guy is pretty much everything that ruins the "Christian image" for the rest of us all combined into one scruffy figure and wrapped up in a seatbelt  the ignorance is so real. 

You wouldn't believe how many of my Facebook friends from my school have shared this video with the same all-caps AMEN, BROTHER sort of comments 



Rev2010 said:


> Besides, why couldn't evolution exit under a universe that was created by a God? What if a God created a basic matrix of life and let it take it's own course?



This is pretty much exactly what I believe, so yay  I'd also look up the Genesis Paradox since it pretty much follows this same concept. In short, the Genesis Paradox states that yes, God created everything in 7 days, but it doesn't say anywhere that they were 7 _24 hour_ days, so each of those days could have really been billions of years as we would see them, during which the world/universe would have kept shaping themselves just as they still are today.


----------



## vilk (Sep 8, 2014)

soliloquy said:


> people have the choice to be ass holes or kind. likewise, people have the choice to be religious or not (not implying one is an ass hole if they dont believe in religion, or vice versa).
> 
> 
> point i'm trying to make is that religion doesn't make people evil. nor the lack of religion. i've seen atheists act as bigots just as much as religious nutjobs..



I hear this all the time but I don't get how anyone could think it's relevant to the fact that religions, at least the major ones in practice, are founded on moralities that are not compatible with peaceful living in modern day society. They're all effectively prejudiced/biased/'racist' on the basis of belief. There is not a single religion that says "Sure, believe what you want. And encourage other people to follow their own paths of belief". Unless you start becoming 'sufi's or whateverelse really just translates to "I do not subscribe to this religion"--Why are you bothering with defending it then?

Yeah, there's good people and bad people of faith and not. That doesn't change the fact that these religions at their base still contain rules that delegate other people's beliefs as bad and not as good as yours (aka other people as bad and not as good as you). Which is bullshit. Sure, plenty of atheists think that too (especially about religious people). But there's no rule that says they should. That's the difference. 





TheWarAgainstTime said:


> As someone who was raised Christian and is currently attending a private baptist university
> ...
> This is pretty much exactly what I believe



So I'm confused on whether you're actually claiming to be a Christian, because if you believe that God created life and then left it, how can you believe in Jesus?

I'm pretty sure most deism would automatically disqualify you from any modern variety of christianity or islam


----------



## TheWarAgainstTime (Sep 8, 2014)

vilk said:


> So I'm confused on whether you're actually claiming to be a Christian, because if you believe that God created life and then left it, how can you believe in Jesus?



I guess the part of Rev's post I quoted that I agree most with was the "matrix of life" thing. I'm not saying that I believe God _left_ life after creating it, just that I believe it was in his plan to _allow_ life/earth/the universe evolve from the way he made it initially. Like a Rube Goldberg machine, God put life (the marble in this case) into motion and set it all up to have various steps and turns (evolution) rather than just rolling that marble of life across a flat surface for eternity. Probably not the best analogy, but it's all I can think of right now  

Just like weather cycles and continental drift are a part of God's plan, I believe that evolution is in his plan as well.


----------



## Necris (Sep 8, 2014)

Nats said:


> What if god really is a Mantis shrimp which is why they're so awesome and humans are so shitty?



The path to salvation and eternal life can only be viewed through the eyes of the mantis shrimp!


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 8, 2014)

TheWarAgainstTime said:


> In short, the Genesis Paradox states that yes, God created everything in 7 days, but it doesn't say anywhere that they were 7 _24 hour_ days, so each of those days could have really been billions of years as we would see them, during which the world/universe would have kept shaping themselves just as they still are today.



I've heard this concept soooooo many times and I've never understood why people push this notion other than to say "LOOK! Genesis isn't a completely stupid story." IMO They used seven days probably because they stole the concept like everything they used for their books. As far as I know the Babylonians used a seven day week to follow the moon, it seems like Jews just stole that and made it about god instead of the moon.

"Babylonians celebrated a holy day every seven days, starting from the new moon, then the first visible crescent of the Moon, but adjusted the number of days of the final "week" in each month so that months would continue to commence on the new moon."

It's ridiculous to think they used the term days and didn't mean 24 hour time periods...NOW if they had used some other measurement of time other then what they knew (24 hour days) or stated something spectacular like "the amount of time it took god to create the universe is unknown because time is relative to wherever you are in the universe or how fast you're moving" that would of been incredible. The other idiotic thing about this concept is god supposedly spends billions of years letting the universe evolve while knowing humans will grow more and more intelligent as time goes on but decides to bestow all this biblical "knowledge" on some of the dumbest, most violent, illiterate, superstitious generations of people ever?




TheWarAgainstTime said:


> I guess the part of Rev's post I quoted that I agree most with was the "matrix of life" thing. I'm not saying that I believe God _left_ life after creating it, just that I believe it was in his plan to _allow_ life/earth/the universe evolve from the way he made it initially. Like a Rube Goldberg machine, God put life (the marble in this case) into motion and set it all up to have various steps and turns (evolution) rather than just rolling that marble of life across a flat surface for eternity. Probably not the best analogy, but it's all I can think of right now
> 
> Just like weather cycles and continental drift are a part of God's plan, I believe that evolution is in his plan as well.



This concept bewilders me also? Why would an infinitely powerful god who presumably could of created the universe yesterday and just created us with fake past memory's create a universe that seems so likely to not be created by a god? Why would he want to control weather cycles and continental drift on every planet in the universe for all time? That seems so mundane, what would make more sense is if god was omniscient but yearned for unknowing and made the universe a vast soup of randomness so to finally have a form of entertainment and unknowing because knowing all sounds like it would get boring after billions of years.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 9, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> That being the case, the God many Christians describe to me is an asshole...


 
Thus a perfect home for a pearlfish?

(see prior post including video of pearlfish)

I just had to throw down another mention of the pearlfish.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 9, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> Where do I purchase such an engine? Do you manufacture these yourself?



I made the Engine myself. There's only one of that particular design (amputees), and it's not very big, because I figured out that the deity in question is not very powerful. 

I've built several others. One acts to prevent that particular god from being able to directly use supernatural power against abortion doctors (necessitating the whackos to act directly rather than rely on prayer), and one to stop that god from preventing various heavy metal concerts and events. No matter how fervently the believers pray, their god is powerless to overcome the self-sustaining reaction at the core of the Engines.

Being as each one is tiny, and need only e buried in dirt in order to then transfer the reaction to the entire Earth, I never have to worry about that stuff again. The Earth transmits said reaction through the ether to other heavenly bodies, in a propagation wave which prevents proof of supernatural events. Even now, 

One Hieronymus Engine I built a while ago, of which I'm particularly fond, has skewed the chances to the positive that there is life elsewhere in the solar system. I thought it would be humorous to create life elsewhere, and it took very little time and energy. I was surprised when it triggered possible evidence of fossilized life on Mars in that meteorite. I guess I don't know my own strength.


----------



## soliloquy (Sep 9, 2014)

vilk said:


> Yeah, there's good people and bad people of faith and not. That doesn't change the fact that these religions at their base still contain rules that delegate other people's beliefs as bad and not as good as yours (aka other people as bad and not as good as you). Which is bullshit. Sure, plenty of atheists think that too (especially about religious people). But there's no rule that says they should. That's the difference.





for whats its worth, Islam finds Christianity and Judaism as 'brother/sister' religions. they have a lot of commonalities between then, they believe in the same god, same stories, etc. you interpret the similarities differently you get sects. you interpret them more and you get a religion.


----------



## vilk (Sep 9, 2014)

... what _is_ that worth?? I don't even get where you're going with it.


----------



## jl-austin (Sep 9, 2014)

I have to be careful here.

You know what I find humorous. Both sides claim they have facts, both sides rely on written material (yes, even the people that don't believe in God, will eventually point to some well known scientist to promote their view). The very same people that claim the Bible is nothing more than stories written by men, will also use things written by scientist to promote their agenda.

You know what it really all comes down to? Does a person want to believe. Because I have yet to come across a person that tells me "I want to believe in the Bible, but I just am not able to", or a person who believes in the Bible to say the same, "I don't want to believe in God, but the Bible proves it". 

The other thing is that, those that are most against God, typically have had some sort of bad experience in their lives from a bad preacher, or a bad Church. Again, in all my experience I have yet to come across anyone who is very much opposed to God, who has not have some sort of bad experience. 

Also, it is every where, good vs evil. It is in our movies, in our music, the games we play. It is undeniable that there is good and evil, it just comes down to what a person is willing to believe.

As for me, I believe that there is one All Mighty God.


----------



## asher (Sep 9, 2014)




----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Sep 9, 2014)

jl-austin said:


> I have to be careful here.
> 
> You know what I find humorous. Both sides claim they have facts, both sides rely on written material (yes, even the people that don't believe in God, will eventually point to some well known scientist to promote their view). The very same people that claim the Bible is nothing more than stories written by *men*, will also use things written by *scientist* to promote their agenda.


There's a bid difference between the two bolded words.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 10, 2014)

jl-austin said:


> I have to be careful here.
> 
> You know what I find humorous. Both sides claim they have facts, both sides rely on written material (yes, even the people that don't believe in God, will eventually point to some well known scientist to promote their view). The very same people that claim the Bible is nothing more than stories written by men, will also use things written by scientist to promote their agenda.



You don't hafta be careful you just hafta understand what "facts" are. A fact is verifiable whereas religious claims are not. People don't just point to some singular well know scientist they look to the scientific community as a whole to verify or falsify facts and present their evidence. But either way you're wrong, I don't need to point to science to disprove most religions, they have logical fallacies that only an uneducated person of the Bronze Age could make that prove the hand of any god wasn't involved.



jl-austin said:


> You know what it really all comes down to? Does a person want to believe. Because I have yet to come across a person that tells me "I want to believe in the Bible, but I just am not able to"



Really? you've never heard this? Have you never had a friend drop their religion? If had PLENTY of friends who said EXACTLY those words?



jl-austin said:


> The other thing is that, those that are most against God, typically have had some sort of bad experience in their lives from a bad preacher, or a bad Church. Again, in all my experience I have yet to come across anyone who is very much opposed to God, who has not have some sort of bad experience.



Let me help you with this...my name is Trevor, now you know me, I'm very much opposed to godS...I wasn't raised religious and my father never called us atheist. I was merely taught rationalism, how the laws of physics worked and general morals regarding how to treat people (which I later realized didn't align with religious text). My father wasn't worried about me understanding or debating religion so it wasn't part of our conversations till I was about 12. Before that age Religion to me was equivalent to Santa clause (everyone participated but no one really believed) once I realized that people really did believe these stories (after MANY people tried to convert me) I actually took the time to read the bible (then the Torah,BOM,Quran) and came to the conclusion that it was ALL pure nonsense based on it not lining up to observable facts and general reasoning. I've never had a bad experience regarding religion, I've been to church, I've talked to priest and I've had no negative experiences pushing me away from religion, I just simply realized they were ancient fictional stories that people only believed depending on their geographic location.



jl-austin said:


> Also, it is every where, good vs evil. It is in our movies, in our music, the games we play. It is undeniable that there is good and evil, it just comes down to what a person is willing to believe.
> 
> As for me, I believe that there is one All Mighty God.



Good and evil...one of the main reasons I couldn't get with religion, they're human constructs. Is a lion evil if it kills something for sustenance? No, it has to eat and to eat it kills. People who commit evil acts don't commit those acts because they're inherently evil (which is what religion, movies, games ect. Would have you think) they do it based on life experiences. 

Do you think if god could turn back the clock to the day you were born but put you in the same circumstances as someone who grew up to be a terrorist you would grow up to be any different?

Also which one almighty god do you believe because I get confused on whose the mightiest?

 Time for a god on god jello wrestling tournament!


----------



## flint757 (Sep 10, 2014)

Yeah, I've never had any bad experiences with religion, preachers or churches either and I'm an atheist as well. I was raised as a Methodist and a Baptist (different parts of my family are a part of different sects, some are Catholic as well). I have read the bible and been to Sunday school. All I can say is the load of it sounded like nonsense before I even hit junior high. They loved to graze right over the bad stuff and things they couldn't explain that well too. Just stuck with the basics.

When I was a kid I was told you wouldn't get gifts if you didn't actually believe in Santa so I both pretended and tried my hardest to actually believe because I wanted Christmas presents. That same logic can be applied to my early days as mostly a non-believer. I was told if you didn't believe in the Christian God you'd burn in hell, so of course, despite me having a rather hard time actually believing, I tried anyhow because the idea of hell didn't seem all that appealing when I was a child. So I slowly went from believing rather arbitrarily to trying to believe to believing, but thinking religious organizations were just corrupt to simply not believing at all. Not everyone even knows considering I live in the south where you might as well be a leper if you aren't a Christian to a lot of folk. Then I got older and recognized even more discrepancies, how religion is in-congruent with reality, how most religious texts contradict each other and some even within the same book, etc. I can keep going and going. Bad experiences didn't tear me away from the church, the BS of it all did. I remember being in Sunday School thinking how dumb the story of Noah sounded and I was only ~6 years old. 

My family was, and is, pretty normal too. They aren't fanatics or religious nuts by any stretch. Well my grandfather was kind of a nut, but I hardly ever saw him after I turned 5 so it isn't as relevant in regards to my transition towards atheism. My immediate family is fairly normal in a religious sense (dysfunctional for sure, but normal ). That behavior/logic is just normal to most Christians all across the country. 

A lot of the time a human reason for disliking something is usually an after-thought because they've already decided X is bad because the bible said so. Then they just create reasons to convince everyone else, whether they are speaking the truth or not. 

As an example, I see floating through my Facebook news feed every couple of months the picture of Muslims praying in a street next to Tim Tebow taking a knee asking why is this okay and the other is not. No one said either wasn't okay and both are allowed to do as they please yet Christians seem to enjoy feeling like they are the ones being persecuted despite being, on paper, the largest majority in terms of religion. They enjoy it so much that they practically invent problems, or rather reinterpret something so that it means something it doesn't. 

As another example, people on my Facebook often say we need to bring prayer back into school. They completely disregard agnostics, atheists, muslims, morman, or whatever else and want official prayer back in school for likely a very particular sect of Christianity. They don't care about everyone else nor do they even bother recognizing that everyone is free to pray in school whenever they please as the law is currently. The only thing they aren't allowed to do is lead a prayer or force people to pray. 

Another example I hear regularly is you can't bring the bible to school. That's a load of bullshit as I actually did for many years in primary/secondary school. No one told me I couldn't nor was it taken from me by any staff members and I went to a public school. Christians literally create reasons to be considered martyrs. It's insane.

The only thing I really miss from the whole experience is the sense of belonging and being a part of a community, but that's about it. The religious aspect is just bonkers. As I get older the evidence just keeps piling against the bible, not for it. I can say that in some ways I do envy believers for their ability to remove anxiety from their life by pushing it on to a non-existent person, but that comes with too much baggage for me to actually want that for myself (couldn't even if I wanted to anyhow). Even if I wanted to believe I couldn't because as far as I'm concerned he isn't real. Now the day something comes up proving me wrong on that point I'll reconsider things, but that day will likely never come.


----------



## lelandbowman3 (Sep 10, 2014)

this guy watched that "God Isn't Dead" movie and was like "YEAH CHRISTIANS WIN"


----------



## soliloquy (Sep 10, 2014)

vilk said:


> ... what _is_ that worth?? I don't even get where you're going with it.



you were getting at that all religions, if not, then most religions look down upon others and see themselves as superior to others. 

i was saying that that isn't necessarily the case with the trinity religions as they are a newer/edited version of the previous.


----------



## wat (Sep 10, 2014)

I actually went to a Christian school up until 6th grade where they taught false science. They actually taught us that evolution was false and that genetic mutations can never be beneficial(i actually remember that being on tests) and that the earth was less than 10,000 years old(also ON TESTS). We were told that if we didn't believe this we would be damned to a fiery inferno for all of eternity after we died.

Some would say that it makes me irrationally biased but I say that it just means I have an especially clear view on it and especially meaningful experiences from which to form that view.

I'm making an assumption that could be wrong here, but I'm gonna assume that guy was probably taught this since he was a small child. If so, it is my view that he is actually a *VICTIM* of _child abuse_ and will/does abuse his own children and will also contribute to the perpetuation of this cycle with the other children at his church by stunting their mental growth and critical thinking ability with magical thinking and fear of fire and brimstone.


----------



## wat (Sep 10, 2014)

jl-austin said:


> I have to be careful here.
> 
> You know what I find humorous. Both sides claim they have facts, both sides rely on written material (yes, even the people that don't believe in God, will eventually point to some well known scientist to promote their view). The very same people that claim the Bible is nothing more than stories written by men, will also use things written by scientist to promote their agenda.
> 
> ...



It's nothing to do with being against or for God. It's about being against religious indoctrination and the spread of scientific misinformation and illiteracy in the name of that doctrine.

And there is a HUGE difference between works of fiction from the bronze age that take bits & pieces from the religions that came before it(deal with it), and science that is based on _observation_, _math_, _evidence_ and_ facts_. To say otherwise is an insult to everyone who ever devoted their life to science.

Also, "good" and "evil" are mental constructs that humankind evolved to stand for "beneficial to the species" and "non beneficial to the species". Yes they exist but they exist in our own minds as mental constructs and the rest of the universe keeps on going regardless of what happens on this tiny blue dot.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 10, 2014)

wat said:


> I'm making an assumption that could be wrong here, but I'm gonna assume that guy was probably taught this since he was a small child. If so, it is my view that he is actually a *VICTIM* of _child abuse_ and will/does abuse his own children as well as participates in perpetuating that cycle with the other children at his church by stunting their mental growth and critical thinking ability with magical thinking and fear of fire and brimstone.



I like that you place the blame on the people and their actions rather than merely "ermagehrd religion!" like many people do. When we understand that people raise their children to do X because they were raised to do X by parents who were in turn raised to do X, then we can take action to address the issue(s) rather than merely blaming something nebulous like religion.


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 10, 2014)

Just want to say that I am a Christian. I believe that Jesus was the son of God, and he died as a sacrifice to take the punishment of sin that I would have taken. Having said that... I have no problem with science, in fact I believe it to be nessecary for our knowledge and understanding. I also do not want people of other religions, or of no religion to die. I simply want to share the love that has been shared with me. You don't have to agree with me, or believe the way I believe, I only ask that you respect that it is what I believe as I will respect your point of view as well. We each have that right. None of us should be disrespected, called names, or treated inferior because of our beliefs. I do not believe that I'm better than anyone, or that anyone or thier views are beneath me. Just wanted to say all that  Thanx guys!


----------



## asher (Sep 10, 2014)

Would that more were like you, sir.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 10, 2014)

soliloquy said:


> you were getting at that all religions, if not, then most religions look down upon others and see themselves as superior to others.
> 
> i was saying that that isn't necessarily the case with the trinity religions as they are a newer/edited version of the previous.



so are you trying to say that because Jews,Christians and Muslims have the same god they don't fight and look down on one another?




tedtan said:


> I like that you place the blame on the people and their actions rather than merely "ermagehrd religion!" like many people do. When we understand that people raise their children to do X because they were raised to do X by parents who were in turn raised to do X, then we can take action to address the issue(s) rather than merely blaming something nebulous like religion.



I think most if not all atheist understand this concept? I don't see where anyone just said "ermagehrd religion!" But the fact is religious people do this to their kids worse than anyone else so I'd say it's part of the problem. 

Like an example would be my idiot neighbor who believes the galaxies that Hubble has taken pictures of are fake he takes his kids to church every Sunday even though he knows nothing about his religion and his kids are only 4,5 and 7 he fills their head with bullshit like the other day his kids see a light in the sky from the east (the direction of our FVCKING airport) and he immediately says "ohh maybe it's a UFO! go get the camera" WE LIVE IN LAS VEGAS for ....s sake! I can go outside right now and probably count 5-10 planes in the air. 

my son doesn't go to church, but I won't prevent him from going on his own if he ever wants to... I don't talk to him about religion because he's only 5 and couldn't care less about that shit anyway, I don't let him believe stupid shit like ghost or monsters, I merely try to use rational explanations for everything he asks me and for some reason that same day, on his own he goes "isn't that probably a plane?" I was never so proud.

But what about my life experiences could of made me different than my neighbor? Why does he jump to irrational conclusions? Why is he hateful towards people who don't even affect his life?(homosexuals) Why am I extremely accepting of my son like not giving a shit that he liked my little pony but when he tries to show his friends they're like "ohh that's a girl show!?" But then they watched it and like it too! But then their dad had to come have a "talk" with me about "boundaries"  I didn't know what to say other than "it's just a show dude? It's not like it's gonna make them want to suck a dick?" 

You're always trying to just take religion out of the equation because it's some nebulous, inanimate, banal....thing it's not possibly part of the problem. It's like trying to figure out why some one is always an asshole stumbling around, pissing their pants and throwing up while taking the fact that they drink all day out of the equation because plenty of other people drink and don't act like that, plus alcohol is just an object it may cause people to be drunk but not everyone is like that? People like my neighbor are just drunk on faith (dibs on that for a fake Christian band name to make millions )


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 10, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> Just want to say that I am a Christian. I believe that Jesus was the son of God, and he died as a sacrifice to take the punishment of sin that I would have taken. Having said that... I have no problem with science, in fact I believe it to be nessecary for our knowledge and understanding.



What's your opinion on evolution?


----------



## Chocopuppet (Sep 10, 2014)

I always knew that evolution would be disproved by some bumpkin wearing a backwards hat talking into his cellphone in a pickup truck.


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 10, 2014)

The Shit Wolf said:


> What's your opinion on evolution?



Of course as a Christian, I believe that God created man  I don't want to be on here arguing though. Just my beliefs... if you don't believe that, it's kewl.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 10, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> Of course as a Christian, I believe that God created man  I don't want to be on here arguing though. Just my beliefs... if you don't believe that, it's kewl.



Ok that's fine if you don't want to argue. I just wanted to point out that you then do have problems with science if you can't accept evolution. If that parts not necessary what parts do you regard as necessary? 

You can't just say "I have no problems with science, I believe it to be necessary" when you admit you think god created man through Adam and Eve not only do you have problems with evolution, you have problems with geology, biology, anthropology and a plethora of other fields.

Actions speak louder than words


----------



## soliloquy (Sep 10, 2014)

The Shit Wolf said:


> so are you trying to say that because Jews,Christians and Muslims have the same god they don't fight and look down on one another?



its not the religion that teaches them to hate/fear/fight/bully each other. for example, islam calls Jews and Christians as 'people of the book' that would be welcomed to the same 'heaven' that muslims would go to, provided they dont do x/y/z. likewise, islam has a strict diet that consists their food to be halal. however, kosher food is perfectly acceptable, which is a Jewish diet. likewise, when it comes to marriages, muslims can marry Christians and Jews; there are certain technicalities with them, but thats besides the point. 

people look down on people. they have a false entitlement that they feel their religion gives them. its the same entitlement they get based on their skin color, or the part of the world they grew up on, or part of the kingdom they colonized or were colonized by etc. religion doesn't teach people to hate. people teach people to hate and be ignorant of each other.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 10, 2014)

jl-austin said:


> even the people that don't believe in God, will eventually point to some well known scientist to promote their view...



It's been said already, but science actually has some rules (replicability among the) to prevent any appeals to authority like that. It's about the results, not about the person making them. 



jl-austin said:


> As for me, I believe that there is one All Mighty God.



Can a "god" whose power to restore the limbs of amputees is stymied by a Engine (initially powered by two potatoes and a D-cell battery) really be referred to as "All Mighty?"


----------



## flint757 (Sep 10, 2014)

soliloquy said:


> its not the religion that teaches them to hate/fear/fight/bully each other. for example, islam calls Jews and Christians as 'people of the book' that would be welcomed to the same 'heaven' that muslims would go to, provided they dont do x/y/z. likewise, islam has a strict diet that consists their food to be halal. however, kosher food is perfectly acceptable, which is a Jewish diet. likewise, when it comes to marriages, muslims can marry Christians and Jews; there are certain technicalities with them, but thats besides the point.
> 
> people look down on people. they have a false entitlement that they feel their religion gives them. its the same entitlement they get based on their skin color, or the part of the world they grew up on, or part of the kingdom they colonized or were colonized by etc. religion doesn't teach people to hate. people teach people to hate and be ignorant of each other.



There are plenty of instances in the bible where people are slaughtered in the name of religion. Off the top of my head Moses killed everyone who began worshiping a golden calf when they thought he wasn't returning from the mountain top. He killed them all for their 'crime' of idol worship and hedonism. That doesn't sound like peace and happiness to me. That sounds like genocide against another religion. Or when God supposedly murdered the first born boys of every Egyptian family for essentially no crime (the ones who died at least). That includes babies and children. How is that not hateful exactly? All of this presumes that these were factual occurrences, which it likely wasn't, but that is what is written and that is what Christians are told by their holy book.


----------



## soliloquy (Sep 10, 2014)

/\ @flint757: i'm not going to go any further than this post in this thread. if you(anyone) want to continue this conversation, do it via PM

as i mentioned previously, people have done atrocious things 'in the name of god'. they have also done great things 'in the name of god'. for example, provided his stories were/are true, prophet muhammed was despised by a lot of jewish people who used to live in that area. they tortured him, injured him severely on several occasions. his followers were always up in arms trying to harm jews in retaliation, and prophet muhammed always replied by saying 'turn the other cheek and let them be'. likewise, jesus, provided he was real, had several instances where he told people to 'turn the other way and dont retaliate.' jesus was a prophet that most practising christians try to emulate; muhammed, likewise most practising muslims try to emulate (muslims believe in jesus too). 


why then is genocide and atrocious acts taking precedence over kind and noble things? why then are the kindness and generosity ignored by people trying to lynch people who choose to believe in religion A, B, or C? 

i mean, take Buddhism as an example. it mostly teaches its believers to control their minds and get full control over themselves. let go of their ego and their worldly possession. yet, 'bhuddist' people are killing non bhuddist people in myanmar, and its a slaughter house there. likewise, 'muslims' in afghanistan are doing horrendous things 'in the name of allah' to women/nonmuslims/americans/journalists, however, the religion teaches them to never harm anyone, and those who harm others are not followers of the religion they themselves claim to follow. likewise, the holocaust; many people who were part taking in the events would have identity themselves as 'Christians' yet ethnic cleansing/genocide/eradication of a people is not a very 'christian' thing to do, but a 'people' thing to do. 

both the bible and the torah have been edited/written heavily by people over centuries. each writer brings in his (mostly his i believe) own perspective that changes the text/meaning. which again displays the change that PEOPLE make to the religion and not the other way around. is religion man-made? probably. does corruption lie in its foundation, or the people that follow it? in my opinion its the latter. 

with that, i'm concluding this in the public forum as my replies are getting off topic from the point of the original post.if anyone wants to continue this, do it via private messages. thank you


----------



## jl-austin (Sep 10, 2014)

I am not a Christian that buries his head in the sand. I love astronomy. I love looking at the stars. Even the Bible says that the universe shows how mighty God is. It is not something we are supposed to bury our heads in the sand and ignore.

I have a simple idea of how all the pictures we see about the creation of the universe (namely from the humble) and the explanation that is given in the Bible. There is something that people forget, or just choose to ignore. Time is NOT linear. Meaning time has not always remained constant throughout the life of the universe. 

Imagine driving from New York to Dallas. Say you started out at 100 miles per hour, and steadily slowed down. Someone in Dallas would have thought it would have taken you 1 million years to travel from New York (because they don't know the rate of change). Just like us, we have been able to prove time is not linear, however, we do not know the rate of change from the beginning to now. It is my belief that as the universe expands, time slows down, and will eventually stop. 

It's a crazy idea, I know, I am sure you all will make fun of it. It is okay.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 10, 2014)

The Shit Wolf said:


> ... you have problems with geology, biology, anthropology and a plethora of other fields.


 
Hey, those were my outside concentration, minor, and bachelor's degree fields (along with my psychology degree and histology certification...)!

I just wanted to throw out that I do reference scientific articles and papers, but also philosophers, authors, lecturers, and movies quite often. I also use personal experience as a reference point within that frame of knowledge.

With that, I would like to issue a challenge for anyone to read Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology. Then hike through a rocky/mountainous area and observe the places where the Earth's strata has been disturbed.

Read Thomas Malthus's Essay on the Principle of Population. Hike through some woods and watch the animals in their ecological niches.

Read Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, then go to a pet store and observe different breeds of ornamental fish, different breeds of dogs, different breeds of cats.

It certainly wouldn't hurt for many to read Marvin Harris's Cultural Materialism, then research different livelihoods and societies around the world for that matter.

I still have many books to read and much to learn about the world. For those of you who look to the bible for all answers (note: I have read the entire King James and Good News versions of the bible), consider your own observations of how the world works in comparison to these aforementioned authors.

If anyone actually wants further reading recommendations, I can offer many other articles and books. Lyell, Malthus, Darwin, and Harris are pretty essential starting points IMHO.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 10, 2014)

jl-austin said:


> I am not a Christian that buries his head in the sand. I love astronomy. I love looking at the stars. Even the Bible says that the universe shows how mighty God is. It is not something we are supposed to bury our heads in the sand and ignore.



Simply looking at stars is not astronomy. The bible also has many ridiculous claims about the universe that defy logic or have simply been proved wrong. I can't just bury my head in the sand about those discrepancies.



jl-austin said:


> I have a simple idea of how all the pictures we see about the creation of the universe (namely from the humble) and the explanation that is given in the Bible. There is something that people forget, or just choose to ignore. Time is NOT linear. Meaning time has not always remained constant throughout the life of the universe.



I'm not sure if you understand what linear means? Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I've always been under the impression that linear refers to time flowing in one direction having a beginning and foreseeable end as opposed to a cyclical universe that ends,restarts,ends and so on.

It sounds like you're referring to inflation? Which yeah we don't understand a lot of what really happened but that doesn't therefor mean that time since inflation ended hasn't been at a constant rate. If you have any actual evidence of these claims I'd be happy to read them.




jl-austin said:


> Imagine driving from New York to Dallas. Say you started out at 100 miles per hour, and steadily slowed down. Someone in Dallas would have thought it would have taken you 1 million years to travel from New York (because they don't know the rate of change). Just like us, we have been able to prove time is not linear, however, we do not know the rate of change from the beginning to now. It is my belief that as the universe expands, time slows down, and will eventually stop.
> 
> It's a crazy idea, I know, I am sure you all will make fun of it. It is okay.



So what do you think of the evidence that the universe is expanding, not slowing down but actually speeding up?

Yeah I'll admit it's all a little bit crazy and I'd be surprised if you had anything to back any of it up...but I'm not making fun of you, sure go ahead and believe that but if you enter a discussion about that subject you can't expect people to not point out why they think it's fundamentally wrong and you can't call that "making fun of it"


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus (Sep 11, 2014)

The thing I love about this is I honestly used to be an evolutionist. Really, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, natural selection, evolution, the selfish gene... I studied it all to no end. I felt like I had it all figured out and I was determined to join the lost world in following those silly ideas, but God so loved me He came down and flipped my beliefs around and saved me from my own blindness. I am a Christian today and I can say I completely understand how people can think science is the answer, well I know from personal experience its not. I was not a Christian before I started studying science, I didn't want to be and I was hostile toward it, much like many are today, simply put though... I was wrong.


----------



## asher (Sep 11, 2014)

_citation needed_

I'm pretty sure "evolutionist" is not a thing.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 11, 2014)

@DP - Assuming that the revelation you received had something to do with the observable evidence, what parts of the interlocking evidence for evolution were suddenly proven false for you?

One's beliefs should conform to empirical evidence.

Right?

Empirical evidence shouldn't be forced to conform to one's beliefs.

So what empirical evidence was suddenly shown to be wrong or widely misinterpreted?

If it's just a matter of, "Well, I know it has to be wrong because Scripture holds the truth!"... well, I hate to break it to you, but subjective opinion and subjective belief doesn't make the real world (and the evidence it contains) go away.


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 11, 2014)

look, I'm not a scholor, or a genius, or even a scientist. I just know that I believe the bible. It's about faith. If you take something on faith you beilieve it without nessecarily having to have hard evidence because you trust it. You guys may not understand that, and that's ok, but it's just how it is for me.You may say I'm ignorant, you may say I'm choosing to ignore things, but I don't choose to ignore them. I just choose to believe that God is powerful enough. I believe that nothing is impossible to God. Again, I know some of you don't believe the way I do.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 11, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> look, I'm not a scholor, or a genius, or even a scientist. I just know that I believe the bible. It's about faith. If you take something on faith you beilieve it without nessecarily having to have hard evidence because you trust it. You guys may not understand that, and that's ok, but it's just how it is for me.You may say I'm ignorant, you may say I'm choosing to ignore things, but I don't choose to ignore them. I just choose to believe that God is powerful enough. I believe that nothing is impossible to God. Again, I know some of you don't believe the way I do.



You don't have to be a genius, a scholar or a scientist to understand what's fundamentally wrong with religions...all the information is at your finger tips, take alittle bit of time out of your life to educate yourself and LOOK this wonderful person Grindspine was helpful enough to give many references of place to start so when you say you like science you can actually mean it!



Grindspine said:


> Hey, those were my outside concentration, minor, and bachelor's degree fields (along with my psychology degree and histology certification...)!
> 
> I just wanted to throw out that I do reference scientific articles and papers, but also philosophers, authors, lecturers, and movies quite often. I also use personal experience as a reference point within that frame of knowledge.
> 
> ...



It's not like he's asking you to read a bunch of atheist based books? to me that's redundant. 

Give some of these books a chance, look up the history of your religion, ask yourself "would I still believe this if it wasn't instilled in me as a child or if I was born in another part of the world?"

Have you read the entire bible? Have you read any other holy books?


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 11, 2014)

The Shit Wolf said:


> Give some of these books a chance, look up the history of your religion, ask yourself "would I still believe this if it wasn't instilled in me as a child or if I was born in another part of the world?"
> 
> Have you read the entire bible? Have you read any other holy books?



I have read the entire bible, and I read books that help me learn about the bible. As for the books that have been suggested, I definitely will check them out. I want to know all I can, about my faith, but also more than just my own religion or beliefs. I don't object to seeing other points of view. But I didn't come to my decision to follow Jesus because of where I live, or what I was brought up to believe. Most of my family didn't know God until after I did. (not saying I am the reason, just stating how it happened  ) 

I hate to skip back, but I just saw something in one of your previous comments I didn't notice before. I do believe science is nessecary, because I believe God created the principles and physics all science is based on. That doesn't mean I have to subscribe to _*all*_ of the theories that are put out by scientists. Just sayin


----------



## Explorer (Sep 11, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> I believe that nothing is impossible to God.



At this point, I've built a machine (the Hieronymus Engine) which makes it impossible for any god to regrow an amputee's limbs through supernatural power. 

It might sound amazing, but it's true. You will not be able to find any news stories of God healing an actual documented amputee. It's not a theory, it's a fact, that God can't do it at this point. 

To say, well, he could, but he just doesn't want to! goes against the promise of Scripture to the faithful, rendering Scripture as untrue. That's how you know he just can't fulfill Scripture's promises about prayer at this point.


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 11, 2014)

I'm not God, so I don't know why he hasn't grown back limbs, but I would say this... Why would you need faith if you have already seen with your own eyes? How then is it faith at all?


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 11, 2014)

Here's the thing. Creationists and Evolutionists (for lack of better terms) alike have the same evidences, and the same facts. It always comes down to interpretation. Where are you starting from? What is your world view? That's why the same facts lead to different outcomes for different people. 

There was this guy who was walking around absolutely convinced he was dead. The doctor told him "Well you can't be dead, you're walking and talking". The guy says "well sometimes the body has muscle spasms after death, and that's probably how I'm walking and talking". The doctor tells him "what about this, I have a medical chart showing that you're most definitely alive". The guy says "well...charts can be forged, and falsified". So finally after thinking a bit, the doctor says "well do you think dead men bleed?". The guy says "hmm.. well the heart stops, circulation stops, so no, I guess they don't". So the doc sticks him in the hand with a needle, and sure enough he starts to bleed a little. Having seen this, the guy says "well what'dya know...


I guess dead men do bleed". lol

The point is that no matter what evidence was shown to him he turned it around in his mind to fit what his world view - that he was dead - told him. That's what I mean. We will both interpret the facts to what our world view is, according to where we started.

This was all from a speech by Dr. Jason Lisle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRy6AjeyLc

I'm sure you brobably won't agree with all of the things he says, but he makes some good points


----------



## wat (Sep 11, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> Here's the thing. Creationists and Evolutionists (for lack of better terms) alike have the same evidences, and the same facts. It always comes down to interpretation. Where are you starting from? What is your world view? That's why the same facts lead to different outcomes for different people.
> 
> There was this guy who was walking around absolutely convinced he was dead. The doctor told him "Well you can't be dead, you're walking and talking". The guy says "well sometimes the body has muscle spasms after death, and that's probably how I'm walking and talking". The doctor tells him "what about this, I have a medical chart showing that you're most definitely alive". The guy says "well...charts can be forged, and falsified". So finally after thinking a bit, the doctor says "well do you think dead men bleed?". The guy says "hmm.. well the heart stops, circulation stops, so no, I guess they don't". So the doc sticks him in the hand with a needle, and sure enough he starts to bleed a little. Having seen this, the guy says "well what'dya know...
> 
> ...



It's nothing to to with worldview, it's to do with facts and evidence. You either are knowledgeable enough about science and unbiased enough to see that the evidence clearly leads to evolution, or you're not.

Your example perfectly fits many who reject evolution but for those who accept it- not blindly, but based on even a layman's understanding of the science...not so much.




se7en_immortal said:


> look, I'm not a scholor, or a genius, or even a scientist. I just know that I believe the bible. It's about faith. If you take something on faith you beilieve it without nessecarily having to have hard evidence because you trust it. You guys may not understand that, and that's ok, but it's just how it is for me.You may say I'm ignorant, you may say I'm choosing to ignore things, but I don't choose to ignore them. I just choose to believe that God is powerful enough. I believe that nothing is impossible to God. Again, I know some of you don't believe the way I do.



Have faith all you want- I'd like to think that's not actually the issue here.

If you don't believe in evolution, what's your _line of reasoning_ and what is stopping you from simply believing that evolution is god's way of doing things like many other christians do?

Do you really honestly believe that if something doesn't fit with scripture than it must automatically not be true(be honest)? Can you defend that position logically without falling back into a cycle of "bible says it's true, therefore it must be true because the bible says that the bible is true, therefore anything that doesn't fit in with the bible's account must be UNTRUE" 

Can you really honestly say that you have a reason not to accept evolution besides that you simple don't want to?

Would/do you teach your kids that evolution is a lie?


----------



## tedtan (Sep 11, 2014)

The Shit Wolf said:


> I think most if not all atheist understand this concept? I don't see where anyone just said "ermagehrd religion!" But the fact is religious people do this to their kids worse than anyone else so I'd say it's part of the problem.



Perhaps, but one would be hard pressed to believe that based on the responses in numerous threads here on SSO on this topic over the past several months. Perhaps its just the presentation, but that understanding certainly does not seem to be the case across the board.




The Shit Wolf said:


> Like an example would be my idiot neighbor who believes the galaxies that Hubble has taken pictures of are fake he takes his kids to church every Sunday even though he knows nothing about his religion and his kids are only 4,5 and 7 he fills their head with bullshit like the other day his kids see a light in the sky from the east (the direction of our FVCKING airport) and he immediately says "ohh maybe it's a UFO! go get the camera" WE LIVE IN LAS VEGAS for ....s sake! I can go outside right now and probably count 5-10 planes in the air.



Have you considered the possibility that your neighbor is simply an uber-moron (I believe that's the technical term )? Otherwise, what do religion and UFOs have to do with one another outside the scope of a doomsday cult? (Does your neighbor perhaps belong to a doomsday cult; if so, that might explain things)?




The Shit Wolf said:


> But what about my life experiences could of made me different than my neighbor? Why does he jump to irrational conclusions? Why is he hateful towards people who don't even affect his life?(homosexuals) Why am I extremely accepting of my son like not giving a shit that he liked my little pony but when he tries to show his friends they're like "ohh that's a girl show!?" But then they watched it and like it too! But then their dad had to come have a "talk" with me about "boundaries"  I didn't know what to say other than "it's just a show dude? It's not like it's gonna make them want to suck a dick?"



I'm not a psychologist, and I certainly couldn't analyze you or your son's friends' father over the internet even if I were. But I can say that personality and upbringing play a huge role in how we behave as adults. Like it or not, you'll end up much more like your parents than you may want to unless you make a conscious effort not to do so. And how many of us are aware of this fact, let alone actually act on it (especially the gullible and seemingly uneducated like your neighbor)?




The Shit Wolf said:


> You're always trying to just take religion out of the equation because it's some nebulous, inanimate, banal....thing it's not possibly part of the problem. It's like trying to figure out why some one is always an asshole stumbling around, pissing their pants and throwing up while taking the fact that they drink all day out of the equation because plenty of other people drink and don't act like that, plus alcohol is just an object it may cause people to be drunk but not everyone is like that?



Stumbling around and pissing his pants, I see you've met Ozzy Osborne!  

Seriously, though, this isn't an accurate analogy because the alcohol directly cause some of those actions whereas religion isn't magically controlling people. What I'm saying is that if someone speeds through a school zone and runs over a young child, we don't blame the car, we blame the driver. Of course the car enabled the driver to speed through the school zone, but it's obviously the driver's fault. Likewise, when someone overdoses on heroin, we don't blame heroin, we blame the junky for choosing to shoot up. Of course he couldn't overdose on heroine if it didn't exist, and of course heroine is addicting, but the junky chose to shoot up and deserves the blame.

Religion is no different. It doesn't magically take control of people and make them do things they don't want to do. Sure it may influence their decisions and actions, but they are still THEIR decisions and actions, not "religion's", so the people deserve the blame, not religion itself. And this is a good thing because we can't really do anything about religion, but we can do something about people's actions. Think about it:

I've posted before that we can't disprove the various religions of the world and predictably get the "but it's their job to prove their religion is right" argument. But that misses the point entirely. If we were discussing a new religion, sure, make them prove it's right. But in the case of the existing religions, they have thousands of years' worth of cultural momentum behind them pushing them continually forward, so if you want to do something about them, you do need to disprove them. And even then, it will take several generations before they start dying off because they are so ingrained in our culture(s).

But this does not hold true for people's actions. We can do things to address undesirable actions. We can't eliminate them completely, but we can certainly influence people to behave in certain desirable ways. If a religious group is trying to pass laws that provide an advantage to their group in schools or other government entities, we can enforce the separation of church and state laws already on the books. If anti abortionists try to have abortion rights repealed, we can pass (and enforce) legislation ensuring that medical procedures are legalized and performed purely based on medical reasons, not religious reasons. If extreme religious terrorists try to commit terrorist acts against the US (and keep in mind that these people are not acting due to religion so much as having been kidnapped and brainwashed by people with an agenda against the US), we can take action against them to prevent them from following through on their intents. Etc., etc.

But if we just rail against religion, what can we actually accomplish?


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 11, 2014)

wat said:


> It's nothing to to with worldview, it's to do with facts and evidence. You either are knowledgeable enough about science and unbiased enough to see that the evidence clearly leads to evolution, or you're not.




This sounds very condescending to me. Basically, you're saying "either you believe in evolution, or you're stupid". Maybe that's not how you meant it, or maybe it is, but that's how it sounded to me. Certainly you don't think that every scientist agrees that evolution is the only real answer. I've heard of plenty that believe in creation.

The evolution train's a-comin' - creation.com

Read this information, and tell me that this science _*CLEARLY*_ leads to evolution. I don't think so. 



wat said:


> Your example perfectly fits many who reject evolution but for those who accept it- not blindly, but based on even a layman's understanding of the science...not so much.



My example fits both sides, sir. Seems to me you are rejecting the evidence before you as well simply because you don't want to believe the bible.



wat said:


> what is stopping you from simply believing that evolution is god's way of doing things like many other Christians do?



actually, I have said to my wife many times that even if they are right, and I am wrong about evolution, do they seriously think that God had nothing to do with it? I mean if it's true (hypothetically) DNA cannot add information that it doesn't already have in order to mutate a single celled organism into a human being. That information had to come from somewhere.



wat said:


> Can you really honestly say that you have a reason not to accept evolution besides that you simple don't want to?
> 
> Would/do you teach your kids that evolution is a lie?



I have given you my reasons above, and yes, I have always taught my children that it's alright to learn the information they (secular world) teach you, but know that God created man, man sinned, and God bridged that gap by sending His Son Jesus to die for our sins, so that no we can go to God washed clean from sin by that very sacrifice. 

I apologize for the length of this reply.


----------



## asher (Sep 11, 2014)

I think your fundamental problem is taking the Bible as evidence, when held to the same rigorous standards as all other scientific evidence it falls apart.


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 11, 2014)

disprove the bible.


----------



## asher (Sep 11, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> disprove the bible.



Carbon dating.


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 11, 2014)

explain please


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 11, 2014)

Carbon Dating Flaws - Doesn


----------



## flint757 (Sep 11, 2014)

Nothing better than a pastor to prove a scientist, who has spent his life studying a subject, wrong! Checkmate Atheists!

"Slap it around" "Knock it loose" Them some scientific word doohickey's. 

That's indicative of one of two things: he recognizes his audience is illiterate or he doesn't know what the .... he is talking about. Oh the old "I don't understand, therefore science is wrong". It isn't scientist who are using incorrect data, it is him. Not that any of this matters. You are definitely too far into it for you to believe anyone other than a holy man it seems. Do you even understand what a radioactive isotope is or what that means? An isotope of carbon is not created from nitrogen. My chemistry is rusty, but I'm pretty much 100% certain that isotopes of an element come from the same element. Nitrogen can not magically turn into an isotope of carbon. Guy doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. If he were right, allowing your bible, to you, to be more right, then everything observable today would be very different and a shit ton of things simply wouldn't work the way they are supposed to or maybe even at all (because all of chemistry would have to be fundamentally wrong for him to be right). Your A/C, car, stove, the air you breathe, the difference between completely safe and dangerous chemicals, etc. would not be the case if the people you deem correct indeed were correct.

Here's some wiki links to help you read up on why the guy is wrong. Check out the reference (sources) links at the bottom if you want more detailed information or maybe a source with more 'veracity'. 

Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isotope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atomic mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atomic mass unit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[EDIT]

This dude doesn't seem to understand how radioactive decay works either nor the math behind it.  If these are the kind of people you go to for scientific information then there is no hope...

Also, nitrogen can have an atomic mass anywhere between 10 and 25. If you use this pastors logic Nitrogen-12 is carbon. The stupid is overwhelming.


----------



## wat (Sep 11, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> This sounds very condescending to me. Basically, you're saying "either you believe in evolution, or you're stupid". Maybe that's not how you meant it, or maybe it is, but that's how it sounded to me. Certainly you don't think that every scientist agrees that evolution is the only real answer. I've heard of plenty that believe in creation.
> 
> The evolution train's a-comin' - creation.com
> 
> ...




Why should anyone be obligated to disprove the bible? How about prove the bible?

You say the bible is evidence that evolution is false based on what? Based on the bible?

Where is the evidence of a world wide flood, for starters?

And the links you provided have the same problems that Answers In Genesis does - that they are operating on different versions of scientific theories than the rest of the world. They selectively ignore data in order to support a foregone conclusion.

The link about carbon dating is based on arguments that have been debunked for years and years just like the argument the guy in the original video gave about thermodynamics.

You still haven't provided a good reason to discount what most of the world's greatest minds all seem to agree on.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 11, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> disprove the bible.



I think that's as likely as you disproving that "Charlotte's Web."

In other words, I'm not sure what you're asking me to disprove.

If you're asking for someone to prove that the Bible has errors in it, then I'm game.

Can we both agree that, according to the Bible in Matthew (2:1-23), Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod the Great, who killed all those infants, and was visited by the three wise men? That shouldn't be much of a stretch, right?


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 11, 2014)

ok, well, it's obvious we're not going to agree on this guys. lol. btw... That site with the title about the evolution train, that site is done by Christian scientists, not pastors. 

listen...I'm not trying to *make* you believe anything. that's totally up to you. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't want you guys to misunderstand me... I don't dislike anyone here, and I'm not mad that you don't agree.lol. Still a great forum 

I've been doing this all day. Ima go take a break from the computer for a while  L8r guys!


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 11, 2014)

oh, sorry explorer, didn't see your question. yes, I agree on that


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 11, 2014)

ok guys, I really do have to go now. Enjoyed talking with ya. Gotta go cook dinner...lol. yeah, I like cooking


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 11, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> Here's the thing. Creationists and Evolutionists (for lack of better terms) alike have the same evidences, and the same facts. It always comes down to interpretation. Where are you starting from? What is your world view? That's why the same facts lead to different outcomes for different people. )



Yeah yeah, wonderful the interpretation argument....cause if Its a known fact that I cut your arm off we can both sit there and try to interpret whether I really cut your arm off or not. Everything is not just up for interpretation and it's always seemed ridiculous to me that theist act like holy text being up for interpretation is a good thing 

Creationist and scientist (to make up for your lack of a better word) don't have the same evidences....scientist have evidence they present to the public while creationist/theist would of never looked for the ....ing evidences if it weren't for scientist because they think they already have the answer to everything.



se7en_immortal said:


> There was this guy who was walking around absolutely convinced he was dead. The doctor told him "Well you can't be dead, you're walking and talking". The guy says "well sometimes the body has muscle spasms after death, and that's probably how I'm walking and talking". The doctor tells him "what about this, I have a medical chart showing that you're most definitely alive". The guy says "well...charts can be forged, and falsified". So finally after thinking a bit, the doctor says "well do you think dead men bleed?". The guy says "hmm.. well the heart stops, circulation stops, so no, I guess they don't". So the doc sticks him in the hand with a needle, and sure enough he starts to bleed a little. Having seen this, the guy says "well what'dya know...
> 
> 
> I guess dead men do bleed". lol
> ...




Ok it sounds like you just compared your religion to a man who if this story were true, we (including you) would all consider completely insane? So I don't get why you'd want to be compared to that but by all means compare your self to a mentally insane person. I don't know if you realize this but that kind of thinking is ignorant, to go against the grain/facts just to go against the grain is egotism at its lowest.



se7en_immortal said:


> Disprove the bible



Really?! Now I know you are completely full of shit about reading about the bible and it's history...NO ONE who does extensive reading into the history of the bible or the bible itself disagrees that some stories are either allegory, myths or pure errors in logic.




se7en_immortal said:


> ok, well, it's obvious we're not going to agree on this guys. lol. btw... That site with the title about the evolution train, that site is done by Christian scientists, not pastors.



I think you mean it's obvious you're not going to acknowledge the facts that most of us have tried to present you politely. Or try to dismiss them using knowledge you actually have rather than links to websites.

And oh my god! Really that site is made by Christian scientist, not pastors well I think I can speak for everyone when I say that settles it creationism has a couple websites with a couple guys who went to liberty university....wow I mean it must be correct now because if you remember all of us said "if any scientist posits any theory it MUST be correct" 

Oh except we didn't  we ALL stated that theirs no ONE scientist we look to, ANY scientist including scientist who believe in religion can put forward their theory's but then the process of peer review takes over and other scientist must be able to prove these claims true or false and it just so happens that scientist who don't have religious biases unanimously come to the conclusion that their is no evidence for creationism/intelligent design it's proves nothing, it predicts nothing, it is literally nothing but religious hogwash.


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 11, 2014)

Dude... seriously... no need to be a jerk about it... I was trying to be civil, and even friendly... then you post that??!! Seriously??!! how old are you ?? gees... nevermind... no need to answer. I'm done here... wow.


----------



## pink freud (Sep 11, 2014)

People of faith and people of science shouldn't debate like this. Not only are both sides incapable of convincing the other, both sides practically speak in a different language and have different thought processes. An applicable metaphor for both sides: If you are in a discussion with a Holocaust denier, or a moon-landing conspiracy advocate, at what point do you determine that any debate is fruitless? Answer: When any answer you give that you deem reasonable is denied for reasons you deem unreasonable.

I also dismiss the concept of "Insert Religion Here" Scientists addressing matters of faith. Science demands that one approach a subject with the mindset that one cannot have a determination without having evidence. Faith is the presupposition of the result, and is antithetical to the scientific method. Science is NOT about believing something and looking for evidence to support your claims, it is about remaining open to possibilities while narrowing down probabilities. Sure, it is _possible_ that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, and some deity messed about just to make it look like that's what happened, but every new discovery makes the _probability_ of that being the case smaller, and if one is a _logical_ person one does not concede the argument in favor of evolution not being true because of the inherently illogical nature of omnipotent omniscient beings who hypothetically exist.

Faith and science are incompatible, and no amount of appeals to Plato's Cave will make a difference.


----------



## wat (Sep 11, 2014)

The main objective of the scientists at Answers In Genesis is to gather evidence that supports their view and package it in a way that even further supports their view. While the objective of rest of the world's scientists is to follow the evidence _wherever it leads_. 

Of course all scientists can be subject to bias but scientists at Answers in Genesis(and similar) can't _NOT_ be biased because their goal is to gather evidence for a foregone conclusion to begin with, which in and of itself is completely against what science is all about.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 11, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> ok, well, it's obvious we're not going to agree on this guys. lol. btw... That site with the title about the evolution train, that site is done by Christian scientists, not pastors.





The Shit Wolf said:


> And oh my god! Really that site is made by Christian scientist, not pastors well I think I can speak for everyone when I say that settles it creationism has a couple websites with a couple guys who went to liberty university....wow I mean it must be correct now because if you remember all of us said "if any scientist posits any theory it MUST be correct"



Okay then, whatever floats your boat: pastor, reverend, preacher, pope. It doesn't really matter the word used because if they aren't using science then they are not scientists (and they are preaching and they are religious). There are Christian scientists, as in scientists who happen to be Christians, but there is no such thing as Christian science. It's just religion and blind faith. 

'Christian Science' starts with an answer and manipulates the data, history, whatever to make the foregone conclusion true. That's called confirmation bias by the way. They are operating under completely different theories and data than the rest of the world to make things add up even if it means making 2+2=5 (like my example with Nitrogen and Carbon I mentioned above). They are not scientists by any stretch of the imagination. More than that you'll typically see a 'Christian Scientist' manage to cover topics going from chemistry-to-biology-to-astronomy all in an effort to confirm what the bible already tells them. They don't actually bother learning the subject matter that goes into it all because: they don't really want to and it'd take a lifetime to fully comprehend and master all of those subjects; yet all 'Christian Scientists' have the 'answers' and to religious folk they are considered undeniably right (confirmation bias, you already agree with them without seeing any evidence one way or the other; that's really unhealthy and you likely don't do that in any other facet of your life) 

Their only source of anything is the bible, a book with little logical consistency even within its own pages. All of these theories they've 'debunked' have mountains of data, have been peer reviewed and are studied globally. This leave no room for any bias whatsoever in the research. Can you say the same for Christian Science?


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 11, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Perhaps, but one would be hard pressed to believe that based on the responses in numerous threads here on SSO on this topic over the past several months. Perhaps its just the presentation, but that understanding certainly does not seem to be the case across the board.



Yeah I'm sure some atheist just don't wanna waste their time arguing the subject anymore and make off the cuff snide remarks but that's because it's annoying dealing with people who scream "I'm not ignoring reality, I'm just ignoring facts" as if the two things are separate...




tedtan said:


> Have you considered the possibility that your neighbor is simply an uber-moron (I believe that's the technical term )? Otherwise, what do religion and UFOs have to do with one another outside the scope of a doomsday cult? (Does your neighbor perhaps belong to a doomsday cult; if so, that might explain things)?



Yeah he's absolutely a moron my point is he's not the first moron I've ran in to who just jumps to conclusions about everything because they were raised on religion. He's not in a doomsday cult he just believes anything anyone tells him, unless it goes against something he already believes. he believes all that ancient aliens shit, he believes they've found Noah's ark, he believes the Hubble pictures are fake, he's a creationist...he's a moron.

What do you not get about religious parents teach their kids how to think irrationally about the world BY teaching them irrational religious beliefs, that kid grows up not being rational about any real information that refutes his beliefs that awesome things like heaven and miracles are real (because the real world isn't good enough?) and then he goes on to teach this irrationality to his kids and so on...until luckily one generation gains unlimited access to information and starts to educate themselves which is why you've seen and will continue to see a rise in atheism.




tedtan said:


> Seriously, though, this isn't an accurate analogy because the alcohol directly cause some of those actions whereas religion isn't magically controlling people.
> What I'm saying is that if someone speeds through a school zone and runs over a young child, we don't blame the car, we blame the driver.



You're wrong, do you really think religion doesn't influence what people think or do? If that were the case their would no longer be religion facts would of been sufficient enough long ago to eradicate it...it's a con, it's not magic, even though that's pretty much all it talks about. it cons people into thinking if you don't follow this set of rules you'll go to hell. What's causing so much animosity towards the lgbt community if not for religious crap being taught to people? And your analogy would be correct unless the car came with instructions that had a story about a sky dictator who had already killed the whole fvcking world so you know he can .... you up and but if you follow his rules you get to go to a magic kingdom and instructions also say to only speed through school zones because only homosexuals are in school zones and EVERYBODY else this guy knew followed the same rules so since group mentality is a thing he does it...yeah we blame the guy but the instructions should maybe not be used anymore eh?



tedtan said:


> Religion is no different. It doesn't magically take control of people and make them do things they don't want to do. Sure it may influence their decisions and actions, but they are still THEIR decisions and actions, not "religion's", so the people deserve the blame, not religion itself. And this is a good thing because we can't really do anything about religion, but we can do something about people's actions.



What would you have us do to change people irrational actions to hate people or want the whole world to follow their one religion? What would you have us do to make people think before the jump to irrational conclusions?




tedtan said:


> Think about it:
> 
> I've posted before that we can't disprove the various religions of the world and predictably get the "but it's their job to prove their religion is right" argument. But that misses the point entirely. If we were discussing a new religion, sure, make them prove it's right. But in the case of the existing religions, they have thousands of years' worth of cultural momentum behind them pushing them continually forward, so if you want to do something about them, you do need to disprove them. And even then, it will take several generations before they start dying off because they are so ingrained in our culture(s).



There is plenty of evidence disproving many claims in many holy text but you and I both know no one can prove a negative like god...and it won't take many more generations for them to start dying off it's already happening?




se7en_immortal said:


> Dude... seriously... no need to be a jerk about it... I was trying to be civil, and even friendly... then you post that??!! Seriously??!! how old are you ?? gees... nevermind... no need to answer. I'm done here... wow.



Okay being friendly doesn't mean you get to blatantly dismiss listening to reasonable answers to your questions then post links to incredibly biased websites without someone critiquing it. Calm down, overreacting doesn't make your point more valid.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 11, 2014)

Religion is at the core of the problem because it shapes the way people think. It's the inanimate equivalent to a cult leader, Hitler, ISIS, etc. It makes promises to do certain things for you if you do something in return for it (follow rules, convert people, etc. and you got to heaven; don't and you go to hell). 

In every situation the people are the problem obviously. That doesn't make the tools completely irrelevant though. That reminds me about the couple who wrote that book on how to punish your kids (starve, mutilate and beat them). The creator of the book is to blame, the parents who thought, "huh, this is a good idea" are to blame, and the book itself is also to blame. It isn't irrelevant nor is it separate. It is a part of the puzzle. 

The book and those who preach about/for the book convert people into a way of thinking that when taken to the extreme is beyond unhealthy for themselves and society. It may not be the only problem or even the main problem, but it isn't irrelevant either. Will someone find another way to accomplish the same thing? Maybe, but we won't know in my lifetime because religion already exists and isn't going anywhere for quite some time. To say it isn't to blame is pure speculation much like assuming the terrorist organization doesn't think Islam wants them to murder, that it's just an excuse or that the Crusades have nothing to do with religion, but power. That is speculation and not provable (can't be confirmed or falsified). Fear tends to be quite the motivator as well. Now this group has a book that tells them what causes what they fear and they react based on that information. What does that give us? The Salem Witch Trials. Would the colonials have thought witches if a book didn't lay claim that they existed? Not likely.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 11, 2014)

@se7ven immortal - 

Josephus, a Roman-Jewish historian in the first century AD, is an independent historical source for the history of regions in the New Testament. Because of sources like Josephus, we know that upon Herod the Great's death, the romans divided Herod's kingdom between three of his sons, Archilaus, Herod Antipas and Philip.

Again, I don't think I'm going beyond the observable evidence in assuming that to be fact. 

Can we agree that the history of Josephus is accurate in the regard of the succession of Herod's kingdom?


----------



## jl-austin (Sep 11, 2014)

It's cool. I am not here thinking I am going to convert anyone. Maybe I will give comfort for those who believe like I do (which is the main reason I posted). 

People need to understand that as a Christian we are compelled to stand up for what we believe. Do we know everything? No. Do we claim to know everything? No. All I am saying is, I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that he loves us. I believe he created us, and died for us.

If you don't agree with me, if I am completely wrong, what is that to you all? What harm have I done?


----------



## pink freud (Sep 11, 2014)

jl-austin said:


> If you don't agree with me, if I am completely wrong, what is that to you all? What harm have I done?



If your believes stop at simply being your beliefs, you do no harm. If you try to enforce your religious views into the teaching of children such that they aren't taught actual scientific facts you lessen our society. If you refuse to give your kids medicine and instead think that praying will cure them you are doing harm. If you are a pharmacist and you refuse to give a woman birth control you are doing harm.

Live and let be religious types are fine people. But too many wish to spread their beliefs, and quite frankly they should stop. I don't care what religion a person belongs to, if people want spiritual guidance they will seek it out. If they end up under your religion so be it. If they don't, that should be fine too.


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus (Sep 11, 2014)

jl-austin said:


> I am not a Christian that buries his head in the sand. I love astronomy. I love looking at the stars. Even the Bible says that the universe shows how mighty God is. It is not something we are supposed to bury our heads in the sand and ignore.
> 
> I have a simple idea of how all the pictures we see about the creation of the universe (namely from the humble) and the explanation that is given in the Bible. There is something that people forget, or just choose to ignore. Time is NOT linear. Meaning time has not always remained constant throughout the life of the universe.
> 
> ...



Here's another way to look at it too though, if you like things that kinda pick your brain... God is not limited by time, He does not have to wait til tomorrow to know what's gonna happen. In Genesis it says He created Adam and Eve, the man and woman. Not two infant, new born babies, but a man and woman, already able to stand and walk, already with some age on them. Therefore I do believe God could've created the universe already with some age on it too. It could have already been several billion (or even billions) of years old the moment He spoke it into existence.


----------



## ElRay (Sep 11, 2014)

KristapsCoCoo said:


> ... I just don't understand how anyone with half-decent reasoning could believe in religious nonsense...



They don't have half descent reasoning. Or they do, but they're so brainwashed and/or emotionally dependent on the mythology to apply reasoning to counteract the indoctrination.


----------



## ElRay (Sep 11, 2014)

vilk said:


> ... There's no christian that could step in and defend him because it would automatically make that person look stupid for giving this moron any credence whatsoever.



Don't have much experience with christians, especially non-urban Midwestern, do you? Chicago's a bit of an oasis in the rest of Illinois/Indiana/Kansas/Minnesota/etc. Every year we've seen 1-2 families pull their kids out of school because reality (aka science & history) contradict with the mythology they want to indoctrinate their kids with.


----------



## ElRay (Sep 11, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> Here's the thing. Creationists and Evolutionists (for lack of better terms) alike have the same evidences, and the same facts. It always comes down to interpretation. Where are you starting from? What is your world view? That's why the same facts lead to different outcomes for different people. ...



In a word: WRONG!

I'm sorry, but this is one of the most solipsistic, ignorant pieces of tripe ever posted on this site. 

Evolution is a fact. It has been observed. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has a TREMENDOUS body of evidence supporting it and ZERO data contradicting it. End of story.

Older, competing theories of Evolution (Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics -- aka Lamarckian Evolution, Cuvier's Catastrophism, Hutton's Uniformitarianism, etc.) didn't hold-up under the body of evidence that lead to the current theory to explain the fact of Evolution.

Creationism has NONE of that. There is ZERO evidence supporting Creationism, plenty of evidence refuting it, and it's not even a viable scientific theory. ID is the same (ZERO evidence supporting it, plenty of evidence refuting it) and also sufferer from an internal contradiction: The initial creators must have arose on their own (contradicting the initial premise) or ID collapses into a form of Creationism.

There are two types of people in this world, those that UNDERSTAND Evolution, and those that BELIEVE something unsupported by reality.

Edit: Building on the "Creationists are just as correct" nonsense:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/misquotes.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html

When you start to understand reality better, hit this page: Index to Creationist Claims it basically goes through all of the Creationists nonsensical claims and points out how and why they're wrong and cites the necessary references. You'll never see anything equivalent in any Creationist propaganda/indoctrination material.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 11, 2014)

DistinguishedPapyrus said:


> Here's another way to look at it too though, if you like things that kinda pick your brain... God is not limited by time, He does not have to wait til tomorrow to know what's gonna happen. In Genesis it says He created Adam and Eve, the man and woman. Not two infant, new born babies, but a man and woman, already able to stand and walk, already with some age on them. Therefore I do believe God could've created the universe already with some age on it too. It could have already been several billion (or even billions) of years old the moment He spoke it into existence.



For what possible, conceivable reason would he do that? Other than to trick people into thinking the universe is older then it is? This type of reasoning is what got me mad at se7en_immortal you guys are trying to take things that we know are facts like the age of the universe and wrap your faith around it like it makes complete sense that the guy who created time created the universe to appear to already have age?

Please you guys do some real reading on the subjects of cosmology and astronomy you'd be surprised how awesome facts are.


----------



## ElRay (Sep 11, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> look, I'm not a scholor, or a genius, or even a scientist.


Typical christian nonsense. You admit you're ignorant, but you arrogantly argue against reality because it conflicts with your mythology.


se7en_immortal said:


> ... I just know that I believe the bible. It's about faith. If you take something on faith you beilieve it without nessecarily having to have hard evidence because you trust it. ...


That's the nice thing about science. It's true whether you believe it or not.


se7en_immortal said:


> ... You may say I'm ignorant, you may say I'm choosing to ignore things, but I don't choose to ignore them. ...


That's the very definition of ignorance. It's also a prime example of arrogance.


se7en_immortal said:


> ... Again, I know some of you don't believe the way I do.


Again, you don't get it. You BELIEVE your indoctrinated mythology over reality due to your arrogance that won't let you question your willful ignorance. Everybody else UNDERSTANDS reality. Huge difference.

And before you pull out the "you're just as indoctrinated" solipsistry, look-up the word "indoctrination" -- It means to brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, condition, program, etc. people to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, i.e. without thinking. The only folks doing any indoctrination are the BELIEVERS in mythology. You have to be trained to believe uncritically, to BELIEVE any mythology, because it all falls apart under any rational inquiry.


----------



## ElRay (Sep 11, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> Carbon Dating Flaws - Doesn



More non-science by the ignorant and/or know better but are actively lying to mislead the willfully ignorant.

Try this site: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy this is actual science, not mythological nonsense. Start here: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

You're admittedly ignorant, please educate yourself.


----------



## ElRay (Sep 12, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> disprove the bible.



Trivial.

1) It's so loaded with contradictions, it's not worth believing any part of it: BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

2) It's been translated, re-translated, written & re-written from oral histories and contains ZERO eyewitness accounts, it's worthless as a historical document.

I'll give you an easy one to try to deconflict. If the story of Jesus' birth is accurate, then why:
are there conflicts regarding which king was living at the time?
is there no record anywhere that record anything rezembling a supernova around the time frame Jesus was supposedly born?
is there no record of a census being conducted by the Roman Empire around the time Jesus was supposedly born?
are there claims that citizens had to travel back to their hometown when there is no evidence for that, and sufficinet counter evidence against the claim?
were they traveling at the end of December, when all recorded censuses were performed around harvest time in the Fall?


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 12, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> Carbon Dating Flaws - Doesn



I like how none of these guys have come back to support their claims against what elray posted...

I also find it amusing that they're all acting like these websites are extremely sciences based but when you go to the "about us" the first thing you read is 

"Our mission is to uphold the authority of the Word of God, strengthen the faith of believers, and win the lost to Christ.

Yeah sounds like they really give a shit about real science


----------



## Necris (Sep 12, 2014)

I'd like to also add that TalkOrigins, which ElRay linked, and I've linked previously have quite a few pages addressing and rebutting the claims from creationists of "flaws with carbon dating". They actually provide sources for their evidence against the creationist claims be they books, papers, articles, studies or whatever too.

CD011: Carbon dating.
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating
A talk.origins Age of the Earth Debate

Theres a handful selected at random, use their search function and type in "carbon" or "carbon dating" and I guarantee you'll find more.

People like Kent Hovind and other apologists are the definition of a catch 22 for actual science. Taking the time to rebut their claims gives these people a sense of validation, even a feeling that "Yes, what I believe must be true because why would these scientists argue so vigorously against me if it werent?!", ignoring them allows them to spread their nonsense unimpeded and those who are aware of said nonsense may be led to believe that science isn't addressing their ideas because Science doesn't have an answer for them when that isn't at all the case.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 12, 2014)

I've pm'd half these guys to continue this conversation since a couple of them got butthurt and even asked people to pm them and wouldn't ya know it they haven't gotten back to me... They've buried their heads in the sand like they all said they don't do? 

I'm sure they're just off reading all those links elray and necris posted, or looking at stars and thinking "yeah! I'm doin astronomy!" Or maybe their just reading up on so called Christian "scientist" telling them how factually correct genesis is...


----------



## Explorer (Sep 12, 2014)

You know, I always get a little sad when someone follows along with the careful logic chain of the irreconcilable Nativity accounts... and then says, "I have to do research! I'll get back to you!" 

They either show up again and argue something which has nothing to do with the irreconcilable difference, or they never respond at all.

And I'm fairly certain that they manage to do some kind of Jedi mind trick and wipe the whole Biblical contradiction from their mind, so that it never occurs to them that they had to ignore it in the first place....


----------



## tedtan (Sep 13, 2014)

The Shit Wolf said:


> Yeah I'm sure some atheist just don't wanna waste their time arguing the subject anymore and make off the cuff snide remarks but that's because it's annoying dealing with people who scream "I'm not ignoring reality, I'm just ignoring facts" as if the two things are separate...



Possibly, but it still makes them look as irrational as those they argue against.




The Shit Wolf said:


> Yeah he's absolutely a moron my point is he's not the first moron I've ran in to who just jumps to conclusions about everything because they were raised on religion. He's not in a doomsday cult he just believes anything anyone tells him, unless it goes against something he already believes. he believes all that ancient aliens shit, he believes they've found Noah's ark, he believes the Hubble pictures are fake, he's a creationist...he's a moron.



Morons don't jump to conclusions because they were raised on religion, they jump to conclusion because they're morons. The very term implies that they don't think things through rationally.

Religion does not cause "moronism". If anything, religion would be more likely to appeal to those who are already morons because they don't tend to question things (note that I am in no way suggesting that all religious people are morons. I've worked with many religious people who are brilliant; they just choose to ignore the discrepancies between their religion and their real world experiences).




The Shit Wolf said:


> What do you not get about religious parents teach their kids how to think irrationally about the world BY teaching them irrational religious beliefs, that kid grows up not being rational about any real information that refutes his beliefs that awesome things like heaven and miracles are real (because the real world isn't good enough?) and then he goes on to teach this irrationality to his kids and so on...until luckily one generation gains unlimited access to information and starts to educate themselves which is why you've seen and will continue to see a rise in atheism.



Actually that first part sounds like what I said above. The difference is that I place the emphasis on the *parents teaching their children* rather than blaming religion.

As for the second part, how is teaching children religion any different than teaching them about Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny or the Nutcracker in terms of having them believe in fanciful things? Do you claim that Santa and the Easter Bunny remove children's ability to think critically, too? Or is it more likely that the children of religious parents are not taught to think critically to begin with, especially in regards to their religion? And if the later, this is a failure on the part of the patents, not religion itself. (Note that parents teaching their children religion and failing to teach them to think critically can both be addressed through school (though we need to make an concerted effort to bring the level of education offered in our public schools up across the board)).

What would we be able to do to address the situation if religion were ultimately to blame?




The Shit Wolf said:


> You're wrong, do you really think religion doesn't influence what people think or do? If that were the case their would no longer be religion facts would of been sufficient enough long ago to eradicate it...it's a con, it's not magic, even though that's pretty much all it talks about. it cons people into thinking if you don't follow this set of rules you'll go to hell. What's causing so much animosity towards the lgbt community if not for religious crap being taught to people?



I clearly stated that while religion can influence people, the action (and the results arising therefrom) lie with the person taking action. And these are things we can take action to address and influence whereas religion itself is not. What are you suggesting we do about religion?




The Shit Wolf said:


> And your analogy would be correct unless the car came with instructions that had a story about a sky dictator who had already killed the whole fvcking world so you know he can .... you up and but if you follow his rules you get to go to a magic kingdom and instructions also say to only speed through school zones because only homosexuals are in school zones and EVERYBODY else this guy knew followed the same rules so since group mentality is a thing he does it...yeah we blame the guy but the instructions should maybe not be used anymore eh?


 
 




The Shit Wolf said:


> What would you have us do to change people irrational actions to hate people or want the whole world to follow their one religion? What would you have us do to make people think before the jump to irrational conclusions?



I don't follow you. Short of medicating people against their will or kidnapping and brainwashing people (both of which are highly illegal), we can't control their thoughts or emotions. All we can address are their actions/behaviors, which is what I've been saying all along.




The Shit Wolf said:


> There is plenty of evidence disproving many claims in many holy text but you and I both know no one can prove a negative like god...and it won't take many more generations for them to start dying off it's already happening?



There have always been atheists, and there always will be. But you're ignoring, or at least trying to minimize, the massive cultural and social influence religion has on people. Religion will stick around a lot longer than you think due to the cultural and social importance it holds for many people. You'd have to replace those aspects with something and atheism is not that something in this sense (e.g., the social aspects of attending services, being part of a group, etc.).


----------



## tedtan (Sep 13, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Religion is at the core of the problem because it shapes the way people think. It's the inanimate equivalent to a cult leader, Hitler, ISIS, etc. It makes promises to do certain things for you if you do something in return for it (follow rules, convert people, etc. and you got to heaven; don't and you go to hell).



Religion influences people, sure, but this is a poor analogy. The difference is that religion is not currently being violently forced upon people in first world countries the way Hitler and the Nazi party forced Nazism on post WWI Germany (and later most of Europe, and even on into North Africa and so on). Nor are modern religious groups in first world countries killing off people who are atheist or not fundamentalist enough for their taste the way ISIS is in Iraq. People are free to choose religion or not based on their own personal beliefs. 

What needs to be addressed is preventing religious people from enacting laws that give them advantage over, or cause hardship for, people of other religions or atheists. And these are human actions that can be addressed, so there is no reason we shouldn't address them.




flint757 said:


> In every situation the people are the problem obviously. That doesn't make the tools completely irrelevant though. That reminds me about the couple who wrote that book on how to punish your kids (starve, mutilate and beat them). The creator of the book is to blame, the parents who thought, "huh, this is a good idea" are to blame, and the book itself is also to blame. It isn't irrelevant nor is it separate. It is a part of the puzzle.
> 
> The book and those who preach about/for the book convert people into a way of thinking that when taken to the extreme is beyond unhealthy for themselves and society. It may not be the only problem or even the main problem, but it isn't irrelevant either. Will someone find another way to accomplish the same thing? Maybe, but we won't know in my lifetime because religion already exists and isn't going anywhere for quite some time. To say it isn't to blame is pure speculation much like assuming the terrorist organization doesn't think Islam wants them to murder, that it's just an excuse or that the Crusades have nothing to do with religion, but power. That is speculation and not provable (can't be confirmed or falsified). Fear tends to be quite the motivator as well. Now this group has a book that tells them what causes what they fear and they react based on that information. What does that give us? The Salem Witch Trials. Would the colonials have thought witches if a book didn't lay claim that they existed? Not likely.



The difference between the book you reference and religion is that the book can be banned relatively easily (and may already be banned), which would prevent the majority of people from coming into contact with it. Religion, on the other hand, isn't going anywhere any time soon; you allow as much yourself in the second paragraph of the quote above. So we can't do much of anything about religion itself in the short term, but we can address people's actions to ensure equality for all. So what I've been trying to say is that we should focus our attention and efforts somewhere where they will have the desired effect rather than endlessly debating religion because the latter will almost certainly not convert anyone, and meanwhile opportunities to create a better existence are being missed.


----------



## The Q (Sep 13, 2014)

Belief is not necessarily wrong. As a scientist (I am a software architect by trade and have some specialisation in information theory) I have to deal with it quite a lot actually.
"If I change this, will I solve the bottleneck? I believe so!"

But that's where the similarities with religious Belief end. If I tell my CEO that I believe can solve said bottleneck, he's going to ask me to prove it by doing it. I cannot fathom religious people that not only don't care to validate their beliefs, they think they can actually strengthen them by devolving them to unfalsifiable arguments.

Which is OK by me up to a point. I mean, if you want to believe in your stupid imaginary friend it's your right as it's mine to call him/her/it stupid. You'd have to not only prove his/her/its (hhi so forth) existence but you should be able to actually define hhi (the basic idea behind ignosticism). And since such a belief system is so woefully unsound, I'd ask politely from all the various religious and spiritual people of the world to not enforce it on others.

I don't want to go into how priests of all kinds had demagogic skills that *far* surpass those of modern politicians, but I would at least expect theism to be treated with scepticism and in cases where theocracy is established, as cases of mass hysteria and mental illness.
It's flabbergasting that the belief that an invisible man (or woman or whatever) on the sky who nobody can see and the only "accounts" in existence are records that were thousands years old* plus people that claim to "know the truth" just because they say so. And yet if you refuse to believe something that carries no proof, you are stamped right away as the scum of the earth.

No. Theists, you have the burden of proof. Prove your claims or at least stop ridiculing yourselves.


(* apart from the fact that those records prove nothing, we are ready to accept them as facts, in an age where even an one month old fact would be forgotten were it not for all the modern ways we have to record and organise information. I'm sure those "records" from an age of illiterate shepherds were pristine and accurate with no superstition involved.</sarcam>).

'Follow those who are seeking the truth, 
but run away from those who have found it"


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 15, 2014)

The Shit Wolf said:


> I like how none of these guys have come back to support their claims against what elray posted...
> 
> I also find it amusing that they're all acting like these websites are extremely sciences based but when you go to the "about us" the first thing you read is
> 
> ...



I have been coming back. I've been seeing the crap you guys are writing. I don't know what you think you're accomplishing, but apparently, you guys have no idea what faith is. I just refuse to argue with arrogant, rude condescending, disrespectful people who think just because science is real, that must mean the bible isn't. And yes, those sites do say up front that they are Christians. That doesn't change the *SCIENCE* they are presenting. just because you don't agree with it, I guess that makes it a bunch of bull though. You guys are freakin geniuses, and every single person on the planet that believes the bible is just stupid, brainwashed morons then, huh? well, I guess we'll find out when we find out then. I think you all are just trying to pick a fight. I come on here, being friendly, and just talking, and all you want to do is talk about how stupid I must be. Here's the thing though, if the big bang is real, if evolution is real, if every miracle, or even the plagues can all be explained away with science, that still doesn't mean that God didn't put that science in place in order to have His plan unfold the way He wanted it to. That only proves to me that He's big enough to control the very principles that you're trying to say proves Him to be nonexistent. Yeah, I'm fed up with all of you guys, so you don't have to worry about me posting anything Christian on this thread again and trying to "brainwash" people. You guys are full of it. and to any Christians on here I apologize. I know this isn't what Jesus would want, but I'm just done with these guys. Oh, and by the way, how you were being a jerk? how about cussing me out, and telling me how smart you think you are and how stupid you think I am. that's a start. learn to act like civil freakin human beings


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 15, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> I have been coming back. I've been seeing the crap you guys are writing. I don't know what you think you're accomplishing, but apparently, you guys have no idea what faith is. I just refuse to argue with arrogant, rude condescending, disrespectful people who think just because science is real, that must mean the bible isn't. And yes, those sites do say up front that they are Christians. That doesn't change the *SCIENCE* they are presenting. just because you don't agree with it, I guess that makes it a bunch of bull though. You guys are freakin geniuses, and every single person on the planet that believes the bible is just stupid, brainwashed morons then, huh? well, I guess we'll find out when we find out then. I think you all are just trying to pick a fight. I come on here, being friendly, and just talking, and all you want to do is talk about how stupid I must be. Here's the thing though, if the big bang is real, if evolution is real, if every miracle, or even the plagues can all be explained away with science, that still doesn't mean that God didn't put that science in place in order to have His plan unfold the way He wanted it to. That only proves to me that He's big enough to control the very principles that you're trying to say proves Him to be nonexistent. Yeah, I'm fed up with all of you guys, so you don't have to worry about me posting anything Christian on this thread again and trying to "brainwash" people. You guys are full of it. and to any Christians on here I apologize. I know this isn't what Jesus would want, but I'm just done with these guys. Oh, and by the way, how you were being a jerk? how about cussing me out, and telling me how smart you think you are and how stupid you think I am. that's a start. learn to act like civil freakin human beings



News flash. You don't get to agree or disagree with actual science. If the data gathered is empirically proven and passes peer review, then that's it, it is true (in so far as anything we as humans can say is true). The only way that changes is if new data is found that invalidates prior testing.

As far as the bible not being true, well...we can certainly prove lots of things described in the bible are not true (at least not in a literal interpretation). The Genesis story and the great flood are probably the easiest examples, but there are dozens of "historical" accounts that have inaccurate time lines, events and distortions of of historical figure. What we know about the bible and it's inconsistencies measures up against a work written by multiple authors, separated by periods of time, geography and culture. It's a shambling mess to decipher (hence the "scholarly" pursuit of theology to try and make sense of the damn thing).

As far as faith, I have faith in my fellow man; I can't prove that most people are, at their core, good. I believe it to be so all the same.

Regardless of all the atheist vs theist claptrap, there is no scientific theory that offers a compelling alternative to Evolution. As a proper scientific theory, Evolution has more evidence backing the conclusions derived than there is for the law of gravity (in the Newtonian sense). Whatever idea anyone has, however compelling, it is not a scientific theory until there is evidence to support it in abundance and it has mustered peer review by a bulk of the scientific community.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 15, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> Here's the thing though, if the big bang is real, if evolution is real, if every miracle, or even the plagues can all be explained away with science, that still doesn't mean that God didn't put that science in place in order to have His plan unfold the way He wanted it to.


 
I would just like to bring up the concept of Occam's Razor.



> Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. Ockham was the village in the English county of Surrey where he was born.
> The principle states that "*Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.*" Sometimes it is quoted in one of its original Latin forms to give it an air of authenticity:
> "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"
> "Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora"
> ...


 
What is Occam's Razor?


----------



## vansinn (Sep 15, 2014)

3074326 said:


> Ignorance is a terrifying thing.




Experience is needed. It is what allows recognizing a mistake when about to repeat it..

Anyways, who cares what the dude in the OP vid says or not.
Everybody knows we were gene-engineered, and who cares about that too now that we're supposed to enter the dawn of post-humanism.
Sheez kebab. I need a woman - I feel like breeding my own evolution..


----------



## flint757 (Sep 15, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> That doesn't change the *SCIENCE* they are presenting.



You mean the stuff he literally made up to support his point? He didn't just misinterpret/misrepresent carbon dating, but the very fundamentals of chemistry as well. Making stuff up to make your point more valid doesn't actually make your point more valid (not yours, but his). You obviously have a very minimal amount of education in regards to chemistry if you think he actually made a valid point and think he was actually discussing science (this isn't a sci-fi flick, this is the real world; science isn't just fancy words, it's calculations and factual, repeatable observations). That's not a slam either, but an observation.


----------



## The Q (Sep 15, 2014)

se7en_immortal, I'll reply to your comments with no intention of being arrogant:


se7en_immortal said:


> I don't know what you think you're accomplishing, but apparently, you guys have no idea what faith is.


I think most people, theists and atheists have a good idea about what faith is. No matter how you boil it down to, it can be agreed that faith is the belief in a concept, where, in the religious context has the extra trait of being unprovable.



se7en_immortal said:


> I just refuse to argue with arrogant, rude condescending, disrespectful people who think just because science is real, that must mean the bible isn't.


Disagreeing about the validity of the bible and requesting proof, especially when it concerns a book that contradicts itself doesn't make one arrogant. I'd say the arrogance goes to the person who, while they have the burden of proof (because this is how claims work) they refuse to provide any kind of proof and attack their challengers about asking questions, disregarding their faith, attacking their principles and so on.
Now if someone acts like a dick-head he is condemnable, but that fact is unrelated to their religious beliefs.



se7en_immortal said:


> And yes, those sites do say up front that they are Christians. That doesn't change the *SCIENCE* they are presenting. just because you don't agree with it, I guess that makes it a bunch of bull though.


Scientific evaluation follows a specific methodology in an attempt to be as clear and as unanimous as possible. True, the fact that a scientist is christian does not affect their claims necessarily, however if in one of their papers the term god appears and not only isn't explained fully but is unfalsifiable as well, said scientist has the burden of proof.
This is why unfalsifiable entities cannot belong in a scientific paper - if it can't be disproved, then every scientific claim would use such entities to "prove" anything.



se7en_immortal said:


> You guys are freakin geniuses, and every single person on the planet that believes the bible is just stupid, brainwashed morons then, huh?


I'm certainly not a genius and I do not consider everyone who believes in the bible to be a moron. There are explanations about the prevalence of religion and they mostly have to do with the need to rely on a parental figure when one grows up and the disillusionment about the omnipotence of their real parent settles in.



se7en_immortal said:


> Here's the thing though, if the big bang is real, if evolution is real, if every miracle, or even the plagues can all be explained away with science, that still doesn't mean that God didn't put that science in place in order to have His plan unfold the way He wanted it to.


You cannot prove a negative as you understand. This is the single most important point about why such arguments become fallacious. If I replace "God" in your statement above with "the great Lounge Lizard from Venus" the statement will have the same validity, that is, none.



se7en_immortal said:


> That only proves to me that He's big enough to control the very principles that you're trying to say proves Him to be nonexistent.


How does this prove it? Again, you are inserting an entity in an equation that cannot be defined or falsified, yet has attributes attached to it without a single proof. In other words, you cannot go from "you cannot prove god didn't do it" to "proof that god did it" without even a mere attempt of proving something in between.
If you don't understand why, change the term god in your sentence to Djod or whatever other similarly undefined entity you can think of and see if the argument become less or more valid (hint: it doesn't change, it's still invalid).



se7en_immortal said:


> Yeah, I'm fed up with all of you guys, so you don't have to worry about me posting anything Christian on this thread again and trying to "brainwash" people. You guys are full of it. and to any Christians on here I apologize. I know this isn't what Jesus would want, but I'm just done with these guys. Oh, and by the way, how you were being a jerk? how about cussing me out, and telling me how smart you think you are and how stupid you think I am. that's a start. learn to act like civil freakin human beings


I won't comment on that mostly because I didn't follow the discussion from the beginning, but honestly, if a theist's arguments devolve into the ones Ken Ham used on his debate with Bill Nye, your words become loaded and the burden of proof becomes a real burden.
Here's a pointer though. If you want to believe in something, by all means. But accept the fact that other people will probably not accept it without proof and regard you as the source of truth, much more so if you try to force it on them even by debating it. It's no wonder there are hundreds of different religions and all of them claim to know the truth, yet none of them have any proof or validation whatsoever.

_- By the way, screw Pat Condell, the right wing atheist POS._


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 15, 2014)

First off... I would just like to apologize about my outburst last night (my previous post). I let my emotions get the better of me, and I apologize. 

you guys say you're right because of evidences given by you, and a majority of scientists. yes, I will give you the fact that it's a majority. and while the example I presented where apparently the chemistry doesn't add up (you're right, I don't know chemistry) may not be the best one, there are still real, accredited scientists out there who believe the bible. yes they are coming to the debate with the presupposition that God exists, and the bible is true, but the opposing side brings their own presuppositions as well. one of them being that God has nothing to do with the equation. While facts may seem irrefutable to one, they can be perceived differently by another. The world was once thought to be flat. That was at that time considered fact. of course we know this was proven otherwise. evolution has many flaws, and I know... you all are going to say "really? like what?". I don't remember all the things I've read, and seen in debates about it, but if you're honest, you'll say that yes, there may be at least some tiny flaws. You say I must provide a factual alternative to the theory, and I say I have faith in what the word of God tells me. both sides have proponents, and though i may not be the best to debate this matter with you guys, there are plenty and hopefully you will come in contact with such a person. If you don't want to agree with me, that's fine... say I'm stupid... say I'm ignorant... say the whole thing is fairy tales. That's up to you, and you have that right. I've realized it's not in my hands anymore. I will probably never meet any of you, so my believing will have no effect on any of your lives (apparently, from what this conversation shows), but as for me, I will serve The Lord Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit. Thanx for the conversation. I'll be staying out of this thread so as not to be tempted to reply again.


----------



## wat (Sep 15, 2014)

So in other words you still literally have no actual logical points to offer as to why you think evolution is wrong. You think evolution is wrong because you don't want to think it's right.


Faith = believing something is true because you want it to be true. Lol, somebody PLEASE try to say that faith is anything but that. 

Science = accumulated knowledge of the universe based on empirical observation. 


Science > faith, ALWAYS. 

If it wasn't for science, people would still have FAITH that sacrificing sheep would cause god to grant a good rainy season.


----------



## The Q (Sep 15, 2014)

Hi again se7en_immortal.




se7en_immortal said:


> First off... I would just like to apologize about my outburst last night (my previous post). I let my emotions get the better of me, and I apologize.


It's OK, don't worry about it.




se7en_immortal said:


> you guys say you're right because of evidences given by you, and a majority of scientists. yes, I will give you the fact that it's a majority. and while the example I presented where apparently the chemistry doesn't add up (you're right, I don't know chemistry) may not be the best one, there are still real, accredited scientists out there who believe the bible. yes they are coming to the debate with the presupposition that God exists, and the bible is true, but the opposing side brings their own presuppositions as well. one of them being that God has nothing to do with the equation.



Again the problem is that you have an equation to which you add unnecessary entities. As I've attempted to explain before, one's beliefs don't necessarily stop him from being a good scientist, as long as he doesn't start adding unfalsifialbe entities with arbitrary properties in the equation.

The reason unfalsifiability is not accepted in science is because it allows any theory to claim validity without actually having it. This is not the scientific way. 
If anybody can claim anything and needs not prove it then you have no science. For this reason, there's no denial of a god necessarily from the side of science, it's just that in order to add it as an entity to an equation it needs to be well defined, otherwise it's extraneous and can taint the results.





se7en_immortal said:


> While facts may seem irrefutable to one, they can be perceived differently by another. The world was once thought to be flat. That was at that time considered fact.



It was considered fact up until new evidence was found that refuted the previously established claims as has been done with pretty much everything around us, be it the age of earth, the laws of sub-atomic physics and so on. *This will never change and it should not*, because this is what the scientific method is all about (with a tolerance level about personal prejudice in humans anyway). The problem with religion is that not only it won't accept any deviation from the official dogma (as to making research and improvements over existing "theories" possible), but it won't bother offering any explanation of any kind (that's why I said dogma).
Plus the world is far too complex to be explained with the simplistic terms our illiterate (relative to today) ancestors used.




se7en_immortal said:


> of course we know this was proven otherwise. evolution has many flaws, and I know... you all are going to say "really? like what?". I don't remember all the things I've read, and seen in debates about it, but if you're honest, you'll say that yes, there may be at least some tiny flaws.


Evolution may have flaws and these are currently researched. True, it may end up finding out that we were completely wrong about it or it may end up confirming the basis of the theory we have so far (it looks like the 2nd).

Problem is, you seek to replace said flaws not by evaluating the theory itself or at least providing an alternative of equal measure (aka "has only tiny flaws"), but with something that explains nothing, instead relies on unfalsifiablity.
I hope you realise why, while it's your absolute right to believe that god made everything, as a scientific theory it holds no real merit. Proving god's existence, definition and will would probably elevate the theory into scientifically acceptable, but this would require proving things that pretty much cannot be proven (unfalsifiability), so...




se7en_immortal said:


> You say I must provide a factual alternative to the theory, and I say I have faith in what the word of God tells me. both sides have proponents, and though i may not be the best to debate this matter with you guys, there are plenty and hopefully you will come in contact with such a person. If you don't want to agree with me, that's fine... say I'm stupid... say I'm ignorant... say the whole thing is fairy tales. That's up to you, and you have that right. I've realized it's not in my hands anymore.


Calling you names would *certainly* not improve the standing of a theory, so yeah, I wouldn't go there.
Again, just because both sides have many proponents this doesn't strengthen or weaken a theory's validity (the "argumentum ad populum" fallacy) - acceptance of a theory should follow its merits of the points it makes and the proof it provides.

It's funny though because it actually *is* on your hands to change my mind. If you or any of the evolution deniers could provide sufficient arguments or an alternative that could hold its water as good as evolution, you'd at least have my attention and if it is so well built, my acceptance. Problem is that so far the theistic arguments are along the line of "YOU CANNOT PROVE THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN" which amounts to the defence of a 5 year old.

I am not accusing you of acting like a 5 year old by the way, I'm trying to explain why this argument is nonsense, because I could similarly say that Abe Lincoln was actually a vampire hunter and here's a movie based on a TRUE STORY that proves it. What, can you prove it didn't happen?
(see? it doesn't work, everybody can claim anything this way)




se7en_immortal said:


> I will probably never meet any of you, so my believing will have no effect on any of your lives (apparently, from what this conversation shows), but as for me, I will serve The Lord Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit.


I personally don't mind if you choose to serve what you believe is real, as long as it doesn't cause harm to others. Apart from that, if you can't seem to have an effect on some peoples' lives it's probably because
a) Your arguments are lacking
b) You deal with a bunch of fanatics.

I know that choosing (b) is the easy way to go, but before you go there consider the fact that the only reason theists don't manage to convince people asking for proof isn't their denial of arbitrary entities (their insertion is actually dogmatism) is the refusal to consider said entities in the first place without proper proof.




se7en_immortal said:


> Thanx for the conversation. I'll be staying out of this thread so as not to be tempted to reply again.


Don't do that - I like discussions and I like keeping them civil. Unless you believe you don't have anything more to add, this discussion can be beneficial. But I'd suggest you do your self-criticism before deciding what you really know and how legitimate is taking belief for granted. I'd advice to start questioning things, if not for any other reason, because solid ideas can hold their own while flawed ones will always crumble or require "special treatment".


----------



## ElRay (Sep 15, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> Carbon Dating Flaws - Doesn



Since you don't want to do the work, here are the answers for you:
CD011: Carbon dating.
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating


----------



## ElRay (Sep 15, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> ... I just refuse to argue with arrogant, rude condescending, disrespectful people who think just because science is real, that must mean the bible isn't. ...


Cop-out. It's easily proven that the bible is internal conflicted, historically and scientifically inaccurate. Please prove otherwise.


se7en_immortal said:


> ... And yes, those sites do say up front that they are Christians. That doesn't change the *SCIENCE* they are presenting. ...


They aren't presenting science. They are quote mining, taking things out of context, ignoring the parts that disagree with their BELEIFS and just plain making things up. Just like anybody who uses the bible to prove anything. Did you even bother to visit TalkOrigins? Specifically: An Index to Creationist Claims The list very clearly explains how the nonsense spewed by the creationist crowd is WRONG.


se7en_immortal said:


> ... just because you don't agree with it, I guess that makes it a bunch of bull though. ...


No, it's a bunch of bull because it's unsupported by centuries of science and mounds upon mounds upon mounds of counter-evidence.


se7en_immortal said:


> ... how stupid you think I am. that's a start. learn to act like civil freakin human beings


You did that to yourself. You admit you don't know the material, then you proceed to tell everybody else they're wrong. Typical arrogance due to ignorance. Then, when you're provided links to educate yourself, you skip-out, hide, ignore it, etc. You've clearly indicated you're choosing to remain willfully ignorant.

Ray


----------



## ElRay (Sep 15, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> ... Regardless of all the atheist vs theist claptrap, there is no scientific theory that offers a compelling alternative to Evolution. As a proper scientific theory, Evolution has more evidence backing the conclusions derived than there is for the law of gravity (in the Newtonian sense). Whatever idea anyone has, however compelling, it is not a scientific theory until there is evidence to support it in abundance and it has mustered peer review by a bulk of the scientific community.



Not only that, but there is ZERO evidence for Creationism or ID. So, even if Evolution was refuted tomorrow, there's still no proof for Creationism or ID and plenty of counter-evidence. We'd have to come up with something new that fits reality.


----------



## ElRay (Sep 15, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> ... you guys say you're right because of evidences given by you, and a majority of scientists. yes, I will give you the fact that it's a majority. and while the example I presented where apparently the chemistry doesn't add up (you're right, I don't know chemistry) may not be the best one, there are still real, accredited scientists out there who believe the bible....


True, but none of them understand the science behind the fact of Evolution and The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection. You may know the greatest trial lawyer in the world, do you want him performing brain surgery on you? You can quote-mine all you want, it doesn't change the fact you do not know what you are talking about and are wrong.


se7en_immortal said:


> ... yes they are coming to the debate with the presupposition that God exists, and the bible is true, but the opposing side brings their own presuppositions as well. one of them being that God has nothing to do with the equation.


Wrong. The Creationists are coming with the presupposition that Gawdidit and adhere to that BELEIF despite the centuries and mounds of evidence to the contrary. Everybody else is going where the evidence supports. If we found evidence that contradicts the current theory, then the theory will be modified to match the evidence. Mythology doesn't do that.


se7en_immortal said:


> ... While facts may seem irrefutable to one, they can be perceived differently by another. ...


 pure sophistry.


se7en_immortal said:


> ... evolution has many flaws ...


No it doesn't. Period. You obviously refuse to educate yourself. Start here: An Index to Creationist Claims Prove a single one of these refutations of Creations claims incorrect. You can't.


se7en_immortal said:


> ... say I'm stupid... say I'm ignorant ...


Yes, because you've demonstrated it over and over and over and over and over again. Have you bothered trying to learn anything, or do you keep going back to the creationist sites fore more mis-education and outright lies? Have you bothered to provide one bit of evidence that disproves all the explanations of how the misinformation you've been brainwashed with is wrong?


se7en_immortal said:


> ... say the whole thing is fairy tales ...


Provide one spec of evidence that creationism as correct.Provide one spec of evidence that creationism is any more accurate than any other bit of creation mythology.


se7en_immortal said:


> ... I'll be staying out of this thread so as not to be tempted to reply again.


Typical. You can't refute the evidence, so you resort to insults & sophistry and refuse to even attempt to learn anything that might contradict your beloved mythology. You've once again proven that you are willfully ignorant in addition to being un/miseducated.


----------



## ElRay (Sep 15, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Religion influences people, sure, but this is a poor analogy. The difference is that religion is not currently being violently forced upon people in first world countries the way Hitler and the Nazi party forced Nazism on post WWI Germany (and later most of Europe, and even on into North Africa and so on). Nor are modern religious groups in first world countries killing off people who are atheist or not fundamentalist enough for their taste the way ISIS is in Iraq. People are free to choose religion or not based on their own personal beliefs. ...



True, but it doesn't change the fact that theists are
Trying to get their creation mythology taught as scientific fact. And succeeding.
Trying to get their revisionist history taught as fact. And succeeding.
Trying to create laws based on their mythology. And succeeding.
Trying to ensconce their mythology as the one true mythology supported by the government. And succeeding.
Trying to get people to believe that their loss of special privilege is persecution. And succeeding.
Wether or not something is worse someplace else is no excuse to tolerating something wrong here. Just because a wrong "is tradition" doesn't mean its immune from being corrected.

Ray


----------



## The Q (Sep 15, 2014)

ElRay said:


> True, but it doesn't change the fact that theists are
> 
> Trying to get their creation mythology taught as scientific fact. And succeeding.
> Trying to get their revisionist history taught as fact. And succeeding.
> ...



Good points. I notice the same things here in Europe (Greece) which admittedly has fewer christian crazies, but boy is it bad or what when your POS of a prime minister declares that "we'll pull through (the fiscal crisis) with the help of god"?

Yeah, the theist mantra is appealing (to the masses). But I'm all for education and proper discourse with targeted refutation of their arguments instead of ridicule; no point in making them more defensive than they already are now, is there?


----------



## Necris (Sep 15, 2014)

Come on now, who's to say that Mbombo didn't vomit the sun, moon, and stars, 9 animals (Which would go on to form every species on the planet but one) and many men? Who's to say his sons didn't create all plants, grasses and flowers on the earth, white ants and the kite (the bird, not the toy). Who is to say that Mbombo didn't chase a white heron into the sky where it became lightning and then taught mankind how to make fire with trees before retreating to the heavens and leaving Yoko Lima, one of the men he vomited out, to serve as god upon earth in his absence.

Clearly creation was all part of Mbombos plan, why can't you just accept that I believe this and accept it as an alternative scientific theory?

Sounds more than a bit silly when it's not the mythology you subscribe to, doesn't it?


----------



## The Q (Sep 15, 2014)

O great prophet. Please tell me more about Mbombo, he sounds absolutely convincing and plausible.


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 15, 2014)

ok... I couldn't resist coming back.lol



ElRay said:


> You did that to yourself. You admit you don't know the material, then you proceed to tell everybody else they're wrong. Typical arrogance due to ignorance.



you've got me wrong... I never told anyone they were wrong. I only said "this is what I believe" (essentially). I am in no way arrogant, I apologize if I came off that way. 

*To The Q:* That's the way to argue a point. Very respectful. I like you 
*To Elray:* You are rude, and are determined to continue to be rude.


----------



## ElRay (Sep 15, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> ... my believing will have no effect on any of your lives (apparently, from what this conversation shows) ...



True. Your BELIEFS will not because they are in conflict with reality. Again, the nice things about science is that it's true even if you don't BELIEVE in it.

You want people to change their minds and agree with you? It's very straight forward. Just provide evidence that proves your point. 

On the specific topic of (Formation of the Early Universe+Formation of Stars, Planets & Galaxies+Formation of The Elements+Abiogenesis+Evolution) vs. Christian Creation Mythology, you won't be able to do so because the mountains of evidence for reality and against Christian Creation Mythology is far, far too high.


----------



## Necris (Sep 15, 2014)

Your belief will have no effect on the lives of others in the following case:
You make no actions based on your faith. You keep your beliefs to yourself and only to yourself, you do not spread them to your descendants nor those you come in contact with, family or not. 

Your belief will have an effect others in any other case; an effect need not be negative to be considered an effect.

Have you ever done something for someone (or even for yourself) because you felt it was the christian thing to do ("What Would Jesus Do?" and all of that)? Could that direct action or the consequences of it not effect someone else in some way?

Have you ever opposed something because you felt it went against your faith?

Even just putting money in the collection plate at church effects more people than solely you. Where is it going, what is it being used for? How is that effecting people? Even if it's just being used to keep the building heated that's still effecting more people than just you.

The idea that faith won't have any effect on others is silly.


----------



## ElRay (Sep 15, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> *To Elray:* You are rude, and are determined to continue to be rude.



I'm not rude. I'm blunt. Especially to arrogant, admittedly ignorant, hypocritical, juveniles like yourself that wear their ignorance like a badge and refuse to even attempt to learn something because it conflicts with their mythological indoctrination. You may not see yourself as hypocritical, but you expect to be able to spew your mythological nonsense with an immunity to comment, critique and correction, just because it's "modern mythology", otherwise known as "religion".

If you had even attempted to learn something, I would have been infinitely patient, but because you refused to even attempt to do so, and hid behind your twin shields of "It's my mythology, you can't tell me I'm wrong." and irrational sophistry/deconstructionism, you've earned a public trouncing. I've never seen gentle nudging of the profoundly arrogantly ignorant, like yourself, to make any difference. Hopefully the "therapeutic meanness" will get you to turn your brain on, and keep others from falling into the intellectual morass you're in.

Kudos to those that can sugar-coat the reality that you are profoundly un/miseducated and arrogantly choose to remain ignorant. I don't have the patience for sugar-coating anymore and I refuse to tolerate the obnoxiously, willfully ignorant like yourself that BELIEVE their mythological nonsense is above reproach, just because it's called religion -- Especially given how often people that believe mythology over reality use the government to force their mythology on others and scream persecution every time they can't get their way. Eventually willfully, arrogantly ignorant people like you will be the minority, but as the old aphorism goes, "You can't bake a cake without breaking some eggs."

People deserve respect until they've proven themselves worthy of scorn. Ideas don't deserve respect until they've been proven to be worthy of respect. You've earned all the derision you've received and creationism is one of those ideas that is not worthy of any respect.


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 15, 2014)

you seem to throw this word around a lot. maybe you don't know what it means 0.o

ar·ro·gant
&#712;ar&#601;g&#601;nt/
_adjective_
adjective: *arrogant*
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.


just thought you might need to see that. nothing I've done or said implies that this in any way describes me. if anything, I would apply that to you, sir (Elray). Being polite and civil is not "sugar coating", it's simply being considerate. If I were arrogant, I would be telling everyone that even though I don't know a lot of the stuff you guys do, I'm still the only one on here that's right. I have done no such thing. Please stop being so hateful, and I would be glad to pay attention to what you have to say.


----------



## se7en_immortal (Sep 15, 2014)

Necris said:


> Your belief will have no effect on the lives of others in the following case:
> You make no actions based on your faith. You keep your beliefs to yourself and only to yourself, you do not spread them to your descendants nor those you come in contact with, family or not.
> 
> Your belief will have an effect others in any other case; an effect need not be negative to be considered an effect.
> ...



I didn't say that my faith wouldn't have an effect on others, I simply said that it would have no effect on you guys since I would probably not have the opportunity to meet any of you.


----------



## sevenstringj (Sep 15, 2014)

The Q said:


> Belief is not necessarily wrong. As a scientist (I am a software architect by trade and have some specialisation in information theory) I have to deal with it quite a lot actually.
> "If I change this, will I solve the bottleneck? I believe so!"
> 
> But that's where the similarities with religious Belief end. If I tell my CEO that I believe can solve said bottleneck, he's going to ask me to prove it by doing it. I cannot fathom religious people that not only don't care to validate their beliefs, they think they can actually strengthen them by devolving them to unfalsifiable arguments.
> ...


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 15, 2014)

Necris said:


> Come on now, who's to say that Mbombo didn't vomit the sun, moon, and stars, 9 animals (Which would go on to form every species on the planet but one) and many men? Who's to say his sons didn't create all plants, grasses and flowers on the earth, white ants and the kite (the bird, not the toy).


 
What does Mbombo have against toy kites? I like my toy kites to have images of The Great Sewer Dragon of Djod! Followers of Mbombo not condoning toy kites is an affront! 



/sarcastic reply.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 15, 2014)

Necris said:


> Have you ever done something for someone (or even for yourself) because you felt it was the christian thing to do ("What Would Jesus Do?" and all of that)? Could that direct action or the consequences of it not effect someone else in some way?


 
I really really try to ask myself, "What would Pinkie Pie do?" in tough situations.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 15, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> you seem to throw this word around a lot. maybe you don't know what it means 0.o
> 
> ar·ro·gant
> &#712;ar&#601;g&#601;nt/
> ...


 
Actually, Seven, your response is very arrogant. You have ignored the majority of references in this thread and posted only that you're steadfast in your faith. Putting your faith in a place where it is unquestionable to others is quite arrogant. 



se7en_immortal said:


> I didn't say that my faith wouldn't have an effect on others, I simply said that it would have no effect on you guys since I would probably not have the opportunity to meet any of you.


 
Unfortunately, as Necris exemplified, your actions in life, your pronouncements of faith, and even the fact that you self-identify as someone who believes that evolution is flawed does have an effect on others in the world, us included. Otherwise, we would not be arguing against your points.

If you recall, there was a period of history in Europe called the Dark Ages. That was a time where education was sparse and the church held strong political power across Europe. 

It is very unfortunate, but the type of thinking that leads to faith over education is on display in the majority of your replies as it is in the video that began this thread.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 16, 2014)

vansinn said:


> Everybody knows we were gene-engineered....



And poorly engineered as well. 

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by His Noodley Appendages) was clearly drunk when he designed humans, with their numerous biological flaws. He didn't even give us the ability to synthesize certain vitamins, a gift he cast upon dogs!

Then again, all the wonkiness is definitely a better explanation for a drunk creator than a perfect creator. 



se7en_immortal said:


> While facts may seem irrefutable to one, they can be perceived differently by another. The world was once thought to be flat. That was at that time considered fact. of course we know this was proven otherwise.



You're confusing two different points. 

People believed that the world was flat based on their observations. "The world is flat" would actually be a scientific theory based on observation. 

A scientific theory, after being proven by more and more evidence, becomes *scientific* fact, in that it is relied upon. However, it is open to being disproven and replaced by a better theory, or to being refined. 

In the case of the world being flat, as observations were added, and as measurement improved, the "theory" of the flat earth was replaced by a an actual factual observation, that the earth is a spheroid body. At this point, no one thinks of the spheroid earth as being a theory at all, except for certain fundamentalist Christians who feel that the Bible supports a "flat earth," and so any observation is the work of Satan, as is all of modern astronomy. 

(And yes, I even looked up supporting proof/documentation about that the last time someone questioned it, so if anyone denies their existence, don't look like an idiot. Do your research before denying it and looking stupid.)

It seems like you hold some hope that all the evidence which is used as support for evolutionary theory will suddenly be disproven, leaving evolution without any support. 

Here's the thing though: Evolution is an explanation for all that evidence. 

That's a far cray from saying, I have an explanation... so let's find a ay to support it! That's a a55-bakcwards way of doing it, and not credible in any way.

Instead, *you have to come up with a competing theory which explains all the evidence which already exists in a better way then evolutionary theory already does. *

*In science, first evidence, then come up with explanation.

In pseudoscicence, first the assertion, then a hunt for evidence to support it. Often, any evidence which already exists but which doesn't support the pre-evidence theory is tossed to the side. 

Everyone with half a brain, and without biases blinding them, notices that dishonest discarding of evidence, however.*


----------



## tedtan (Sep 16, 2014)

Anonymous said:


> New religions require proof, but if it's olde, then it's immune from requiring proof?


 
No. I don't mean that science should accept religion without proof. What I am saying is that billions (note the b) of people already believe in various religions right now, today, without proof and that in order to get them to change their existing beliefs requires disproving religion *to them* (the believers), and even then, many will still not change because belief is a very powerful thing - it's just how the human brain works.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 16, 2014)

ElRay said:


> True, but it doesn't change the fact that theists are
> 
> Trying to get their creation mythology taught as scientific fact. And succeeding.
> Trying to get their revisionist history taught as fact. And succeeding.
> ...



I see you've taken a page out of Explorer's book by selectively quoting me out of context to make it appear I'm saying something other than what I actually said (I'm not sure he's ever done exactly that, but putting words in my mouth has been his modus operandi lately ).

Let me put that quote in context/perspective for you:



tedtan said:


> Religion influences people, sure, but this is a poor analogy. The difference is that religion is not currently being violently forced upon people in first world countries the way Hitler and the Nazi party forced Nazism on post WWI Germany (and later most of Europe, and even on into North Africa and so on). Nor are modern religious groups in first world countries killing off people who are atheist or not fundamentalist enough for their taste the way ISIS is in Iraq. People are free to choose religion or not based on their own personal beliefs.
> 
> *What needs to be addressed is preventing religious people from enacting laws that give them advantage over, or cause hardship for, people of other religions or atheists. And these are human actions that can be addressed, so there is no reason we shouldn't address them.
> *
> ...



What part of that even begins to suggest that we tolerate something wrong here?

Furthermore, if the goal is accomplish equality for people of all religions (or lack thereof), wouldn't it be a better use of scarce resources to form a political action committee dedicated to that cause, lobby congress for the same, or even run for office yourself? We already have separation of church and state laws, we just need to ensure they are enforced appropriately. And if the goal is to convert people, wouldn't it be a better idea to choose somewhere with a large number and percentage of religious people so that the numbers are in your favor rather than a 7-string guitar forum where 99% of the members are already on your side of the issue? And then there is the manner in which you approach the debate, attempting to "brute force" people into converting to your side when in reality that only causes them to dig in their heels and fight even harder.

Don't get me wrong, this is a discussion forum, so feel free to discuss. I'm just pointing out that if attaining actual results is the goal, there are other options available that will yield much greater results.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 20, 2014)

Wow so I thought this thread died by page 6 so I stopped paying attention but since se7ven decided to leave, come back, leave then come back again I figured I'd reply



se7en_immortal said:


> those sites do say up front that they are Christians. That doesn't change the *SCIENCE* they are presenting. just because you don't agree with it, I guess that makes it a bunch of bull though.



Other people have already mentioned this but you can't just throw out theories and call it science, which is what these guys are doing. It's not just I/us that don't agree with it it's the whole scientific community. If ANYTHING these guys did was actually using the scientific method and they had verifiable results they would have at least SOME non theistic based scientist agreeing with them...but they don't. You can believe that maybe all scientist are atheist who hate religion so they have a bias that prevents them from ever admitting creationist could be right about anything. But that's ignorant

Answer me this...why are there plenty of theist who agree with evolution, the old earth theory and most major theory's in science but no major scientist (who ARE NOT religious) that agree the young earth theory has evidence and could be right.

What I'm saying is even if a scientist is atheist, if there was ANY evidence for the earth being young why would NOT ONE of them believe it? Because to a scientist even if they had proof the earth was younger then we thought it still would not directly prove your god? THERE IS NO REASON TO DENY A YOUNG EARTH THEORY IF THE EVIDENCE WAS THERE. It would not prove ANY god it would just change our understanding of planetary development and if creationist were smart they would use that argument.

Unless you really think it's just some huge world wide conspiracy to undermine religions.




se7en_immortal said:


> You guys are freakin geniuses, and every single person on the planet that believes the bible is just stupid, brainwashed morons then, huh? well, I guess we'll find out when we find out then.


No we're not geniuses and no everyone who believes is not stupid and brainwashed...they're indoctrinated and following books (that most of you have never read) written by legitimately arrogant, idiotic, superstitious, Bronze Age morons. 

And yeah great use the old "we'll find out when were dead" saying cause if I'm right you'll have wasted your ONE life worrying about a fictional characters opinion of you but if you're right you'll go to a magical kingdom ran by only men where anything you wish for is yours all the while getting to watch me and every other non believer burn in hell for all eternity, how pleasant.




se7en_immortal said:


> I think you all are just trying to pick a fight. I come on here, being friendly, and just talking, and all you want to do is talk about how stupid I must be. Here's the thing though, if the big bang is real, if evolution is real, if every miracle, or even the plagues can all be explained away with science, that still doesn't mean that God didn't put that science in place in order to have His plan unfold the way He wanted it to. That only proves to me that He's big enough to control the very principles that you're trying to say proves Him to be nonexistent.


Nobody came here to pick a fight with you considering the first people posting in this thread were atheist it would seem you came here to defend your religion and when you did that people gave their rebuttal, you continued to completely ignore what everyone was posting, refusing to acknowledge any points made by anyone else and people responded by being condescending to you...it's what people do to you when you go into a conversation only listening to yourself.



se7en_immortal said:


> Oh, and by the way, how you were being a jerk? how about cussing me out, and telling me how smart you think you are and how stupid you think I am. that's a start. learn to act like civil freakin human beings



REALLY!? Dude... Do not try to make me look like some aggressive bully who "cussed you out" I went back and read what I wrote 2-3 times I used TWO curse words first off. One was to say "your full of shit" and the other was the f word used to exaggerate a point so just because you can't think of a good rebuttal against anything explorer, elray, mordacain or I have to say doesn't mean we're bullies

And I like how you're fine with how the Q talks to you while he lays out all these really good counter points but all you have to say back to him is that he's respectful? Why enter a discussion if your not actually going to acknowledge someone's counter points?


----------



## Necris (Sep 20, 2014)

The Shit Wolf said:


> Other people have already mentioned this but *you can't just throw out theories and call it science*



_*Hypotheses/Conjecture*_, not theories. 

Making that mistake in a debate with a theist is shooting yourself in the foot. 

You: "You can't just throw out theories and call it science..."
Theist: "Evolution is a 'theory', why are you arbitrarily picking and choosing which theories can be science and which can't?"
And so begins an argument over definitions because you made that stupid and all too common mistake in a discussion about Science and good luck trying to dig yourself out of that hole.

The idea of a young earth is a hypothesis, not a theory. There is zero evidence backing it so it will _never _become a theory.

Also, if he (Se7en_immortal) wants to play the part of the manners police ignore him, *a factual argument does not become less factual just because it was presented aggressively or impolitely.*
The reality is that he has zero interest in what you're saying since what you're saying conflicts with what he wants to believe reality to be. He isn't knowledgeable enough in the subject to refute what you're saying but more importantly he doesn't care since he's arrogant enough to think he has the answer already (that answer is "Jesus" by the way) so instead he's going to ignore your argument entirely and instead choose to focus on _how_ you tell him what you tell him and attack that, it's pointless to bother with him from that point on.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 20, 2014)

Lol yeah I thought about that when I wrote it but every time I've used hypothesis I get into arguments about the definition/differences between theory and hypotheses anyway but you're correct in the terminology I just didn't want to get in a pissing match with any theist trying to turn the conversation into a purely "creationism is a theory" argument.

but good call


----------



## Dooky (Sep 24, 2014)

The Shit Wolf said:


> And yeah great use the old "we'll find out when were dead" saying cause if I'm right you'll have wasted your ONE life worrying about a fictional characters opinion of you but if you're right you'll go to a magical kingdom ran by only men where anything you wish for is yours all the while getting to watch me and every other non believer burn in hell for all eternity, how pleasant.


Haha, this made me lol 
Because, in my family my grandmother and grandfather are very religious and they are extremely kind-hearted, generious, loving people. But the majority of the rest of the family are in no way religious and most identify as very much Athiest. 
So, I have a hard time understanding how my grandparents are going to be enjoying all the blissful happiness' of heaven when the rest of the family are burning for all eternity in hell


----------



## Explorer (Sep 24, 2014)

If I recall correctly, all the stuff about punishment in the afterlife was an invention on the part of the New Testament authors. There was nothing in the Old Testament about Hell's punishments. 

Which is kind of funny, if you're into this kind of thing, because so many Christians talk about how the angry Gad of Leviticus was done away with in the New Testament... but that's when God really decided that if you weren't on board with the stonings of the Old Testament, then you'd be punished for all eternity.


----------



## ElRay (Sep 24, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> ... If I were arrogant, I would be telling everyone that even though I don't know a lot of the stuff you guys do, I'm still the only one on here that's right. ...



You have. You have been given mounds of evidence that you are miseducated, yet you insists that your mythology is correct and refuse to learn about reality. That is the epitome of arrogance from ignorance. You choose to remain willfully ignorant.

As I've said before, people deserve respect until they've earned disdain and ideas deserve no respect unless they've earned it. Because of your arrogance due to continued willful ignorance have earned disdain, and creationism is so phenomenally intellectually bankrupt that it ranks down there with the flat earthers, contrails, faked moon landing, 9/11 was an inside job, birthers, anti-vaxers, etc. and anybody who continues to support it has earned all the intellectual derision they receive.

Please, check your arrogance and learn about reality. Start here with the simple critique of creationist lies: The Talk.Origins Archive: Arguments against Creationism and Intelligent Design FAQs then go here: An Index to Creationist Claims for the a more detailed list of creationist nonsense and what reality truly is.


----------



## vilk (Sep 26, 2014)

Dude how can you even compare creationism with 9/11 was an inside job? The latter has infinitely more foundation.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Sep 26, 2014)

vilk said:


> Dude how can you even compare creationism with *9/11* was an inside job? The latter has infinitely more *foundation.*


Was that pun intentional?


----------



## ferret (Oct 1, 2014)

Reality TV star Jessa Duggar blames the Holocaust on the theory of evolution

Don't worry, reality tv stars to the rescue.


----------



## will_shred (Oct 1, 2014)

se7en_immortal said:


> I have been coming back. I've been seeing the crap you guys are writing. I don't know what you think you're accomplishing, but apparently, you guys have no idea what faith is. I just refuse to argue with arrogant, rude condescending, disrespectful people who think just because science is real, that must mean the bible isn't. And yes, those sites do say up front that they are Christians. That doesn't change the *SCIENCE* they are presenting. just because you don't agree with it, I guess that makes it a bunch of bull though. You guys are freakin geniuses, and every single person on the planet that believes the bible is just stupid, brainwashed morons then, huh? well, I guess we'll find out when we find out then. I think you all are just trying to pick a fight. I come on here, being friendly, and just talking, and all you want to do is talk about how stupid I must be. Here's the thing though, if the big bang is real, if evolution is real, if every miracle, or even the plagues can all be explained away with science, that still doesn't mean that God didn't put that science in place in order to have His plan unfold the way He wanted it to. That only proves to me that He's big enough to control the very principles that you're trying to say proves Him to be nonexistent. Yeah, I'm fed up with all of you guys, so you don't have to worry about me posting anything Christian on this thread again and trying to "brainwash" people. You guys are full of it. and to any Christians on here I apologize. I know this isn't what Jesus would want, but I'm just done with these guys. Oh, and by the way, how you were being a jerk? how about cussing me out, and telling me how smart you think you are and how stupid you think I am. that's a start. learn to act like civil freakin human beings



I can't speak for all of us, but I think most of us don't really care what your faith of choice is, and many people of faith do acknowledge that science is correct and just figure that god made science (which... Though i'm an atheist, if I were a person of faith that would be my next most logical conclusion). Issac Newton believed that understanding how the world worked brought him closer to god, as if nature was a puzzle designed for us to unravel. 

The problem is when people of faith reject real science, which is largely due to our failure to educate our population. Though, scientific literacy rates are pretty low in several industrialized nations as well. 

Scientific Literacy: How Do Americans Stack Up? -- ScienceDaily


----------



## Explorer (Oct 4, 2014)

will_shred said:


> The problem is when people of faith reject real science....



The real issue is when people of faith reject observable, physical evidence. 

That's how you get young earth religionists who reject dating methods, and fossils, and such... unless one interpretation of one tiny piece supports their religious views.

In that case, it's all in!


----------

