That’s a really good site. I particularly enjoy this young lady. Lita Sanders - creation.com
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Some fodder[/quote]
Nonsense. And a collection of logical fallacies. Or ignorance, for example, as to question 7:
^
I wonder if that’s how that few months old burrito I had in the fridge moved to the other side of the plate with a slime trail…
In regards to:
I don’t really feel like devoting any real time to this since I recognize it’s the equivalent of pissing down a well but here are some simplified explanations to these questions. If they seem like I’m leaving stuff out in some cases-well yeah, not going to spend hours writing a 10 page paper that will really be of no true use. Anyways before I begin, I would just like to say that I do not belief faith and science to be incompatible unless either is taken as unquestionable truth. Belief in evolution does not equate to atheism and belief in religion does not equate to a lack of belief in science.
I will submit that I personally believe that evolution and the marvels of science we see are part of God’s plan. Of course, this requires that I do not take the Bible as a document to be interpreted literally and I do not. Now here are my (meager/undergraduate) attempts to succinctly respond to the 15 points in the article.
-
Scientists have already synthesized (repeatedly) the basic building blocks of biological life using nothing but the molecules found in the original atmosphere. From there, the aggregation of these blocks over billions of years in areas sequestered (eventually) by lipid membranes resulted in a wide collection of molecules in one place. Eventually the chemical reactions occurring spontaneously between these blocks became something of a primitive metabolism with repeatable reactions that conferred benefit to the sequestered environment.
-
If you actually look at the molecular structure of the basic nucleotides, they are massively similar AND massively similar to ATP (nearly universal biological energy carrier). DNA came a long way as well-it was hardly the first “draft” of code.
-
Duplication of entire parts of genomes occur quite often in cells, resulting in an expansion of the set of genetic information. For instance, hemoglobin (oxygen carrier in red blood cells) and myoglobin (oxygen carrier in muscle) come from the same ancestor gene. Scrambling the genetic pathway leads to subtle (or not so subtle) changes in the resulting product. For instance, sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs, and other conditions are caused by just a one nucleotide change. It is clear to see how “scrambling” the code can produce a novel pathway. Beyond that however, a pathway could undergo progressive minor adjustments to reach its end state.
-
See answer 3. Mutations cause these traits.
-
Okay, this article likes to talk about ATP synthase. ATP synthase didn’t just magically appear the way it is now. It was a stepwise process. I’m sure it started as just a pore ions could go through, developed the ability to change form as ions went through-harnessing the energy provided by allowing the ion go down its electrochemical gradient, this changing in form could transmit the energy through the molecule to an outer area where outside molecules could take advantage of this energy for their own reactions. From here a mutation could make ADP and P the best candidates for this transfer (simple shape changes filtering molecule charge/size perhaps). This would take place over billions of years-nobody said it was sudden. Over time this became more efficient until you have the beautiful mechanism we see today.
-
This one is just saying look at things and instead of attributing them to natural selection attribute them to brilliant design-nothing to refute here, the end result is indicative of success in both scenarios. It is worth noting that while things like the kidney are incredible in their form and function, our knees and shoulders are unnecessarily complex pieces of shit.
-
Happens with algae (well the beginning steps at least). Cells aggregate and take on different rolls. Over time, this aggregation becomes dependent as the cells reproduce and lose functionalities they once had in favor of others. Bacteria in a biofilm express different genes depending on their location-over time, certain traits (while still present genomically speaking, such as in our cells) are repressed in favor of others.
-
The idea of DNA transfer is hardly a multicellular concept-even bacteria have ways to transfer DNA. The major downside to asexual reproduction is that the offspring are IDENTICAL to the parent minus mutation. Sexual reproduction allows the mixing of DNA, which can mix and match to maximize survival quite well.
-
I would need specifics on this, but when you are dealing primarily with microscopic organisms that lived billions of years ago…probably going to be tough to find them/tell AHA! THIS BUBBLE LOOKING INDENT IN A ROCK IS DIFFERENT THAN THIS ONE!
-
Just because there is an offshoot within a species does not mean the original cannot still exist. The offshoot could fill an entirely different niche, allowing for prolonged survival of the original.
-
Evolutionary? Our purpose is to make more humans. The question of the creation of consciousness is a GREAT one (or defining what organisms are “conscious”) and why I cannot separate science and God. As far as the nervous tissue needed to maintain our thoughts goes, there is a vast range of nervous tissue centralization present in organisms today that could serve as a map of where we came from.
-
Evolution is being faulted for being able to explain observations we see? This point seems odd.
-
Evolution touches on all fields of biology. In order to truly understand how to combat, let’s say, bacteria, you need to understand how they evolve and then transmit resistance to certain antibiotics. Evolution, in its purest form, is backwards looking-you won’t see a cure for cancer coming from the past. However, the idea of gradual change in genetic code resulting in traits with differential survival results underscores many modern efforts in the understanding of disease. Just because we don’t see massive scientific breakthroughs due to addition and multiplication doesn’t mean they aren’t fundamental.
-
Sure, because observing a process that takes millions of years is super easy. The best that we can do is to speed up evolution (the basic context of it) by altering genomes through random mutation (radiation) and observing results. Even in undergraduate level biology courses, you can irradiate bacteria, stick 'em on a growth media with spots of antibiotics, different foods, etc and see strains survive in these areas while the unaltered strain dies. Mutation = change in phenotype = survival = reproduction.
-
Because it can be taught. Creationism in the religious sense can be taught in one sentence. Heck, in three words: God made everything. As explained in 14, various aspects of evolution are/can be tested in a controlled setting. Creationism simply cannot.
It’s really hard to believe in a book that could had been easily altered.
[quote]DazeDolo wrote:
It’s really hard to believe in a book that could had been easily altered. [/quote]
You mean one that could evolve?
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
“there is no such thing as knowledge of ANY kind for ANYbody without faith” -God[/quote]
Faith means accepting something as a fact without logical or empirical evidence.
[/quote]
No it’s not. It’s simply a matter degrees of certainty. for that which you cannot be absolutely certain, requires a certain degree of more, or less. There is very little one can be certain about, therefore almost everything accepted as fact, is based on varying degrees of faith.
You believe black holes exist, I presume? Prove it absolutely. Since no body has seen one, but have some degree of evidence that they exist, the acceptance of their existence requires some degree of faith.
I don’t expect somebody of you little intellect to understand this at all. I am pretty sure it went several miles over your little head.
To regard as knowledge that which is not absolutely certain is plain stupid. I reckon the shoe fits.
Because they are smarter that you. Which is certainly no big feat.
[/quote]
I like rustling your jimmies. But have you noticed that you have anger issues? You like to insult and denigrate. Isn’t that one of your 7 deadly sins?
Further, didn’t Jesus say to offer the other cheek?
Now I know that you, who takes the actual teachings to heart about as much as I do, just like to spit and sputter. But must you be a hypocrit also? It becomes rather boring after a while.
So have your morning coffee, give your boyfriend a big sloppy kiss, and be happy.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
In regards to:
- Sure, because observing a process that takes millions of years is super easy. The best that we can do is to speed up evolution (the basic context of it) by altering genomes through random mutation (radiation) and observing results. Even in undergraduate level biology courses, you can irradiate bacteria, stick 'em on a growth media with spots of antibiotics, different foods, etc and see strains survive in these areas while the unaltered strain dies. Mutation = change in phenotype = survival = reproduction.
[/quote]
Well, observation and hypothesis testing, the scientific methodology, all those things are wonderful but they are cold comfort to some. 
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Some fodder[/quote]
LOL…you creationists are a funny bunch.
Do you really think Science has nothing on those questions? And even if science had nothing on those questions you posted, how would that prove for you “magic deity in the sky did it” theory? Anyways…I found the following over at rationalskepticism.org.
1. How did life originate?
What strikes me as odd about this is that creationists and theists in general are so quick to point to a supernatural cause when they cannot explain phenomena they observe. Sometimes I want to slap people in the face and say, “You know it is okay to admit you have no clue.” In this case, creationists do not understand how proteins form and how an assembly of proteins can give way to a cell. What is remarkable is that if one were to observe mitochondria within a given eukaryotic cell one would find an assembly eerily similar to that of a prokaryote. Add this to the study of how prokaryotes evolved and one discovers what are known as protobionts. Basically a protobiont is a system which can use trapped RNA to function. If one understands and trusts the scientific research that suggests that RNA was a precursor to DNA then this makes believing that research all the more reliable.
Next, the conditions in the pre-Cambrian period were ripe with abundant materials to make the basic components of life. The pressure and heat that geologists believe to have been around that time period also adds to the likelihood that life can emerge. Now I use that term loosely. It was not as if all of a sudden a cell appeared. When I mean life emerged it was the bare minimum requirement for life. The notion that many creationists believe evolutionists claim is that a random blob appeared and that random blob turned into a fish which turned into a lizard, which turned into a bird, which turned into a dog, which turned into a monkey, which turned into a man. Any person who simply takes the time to research evolution can figure out that that statement is as ludicrous as… well God creating a man from dust.
In conclusion, I think that if creationists would stop hiding behind dogma and doctrine and actually showed a passion to learn they’d be surprised just how much sense the origin of life makes.
2. How did the DNA code originate?
This is the one thing that drives me insane nowadays because I hear it left and right. Does DNA have a code? Yes, but not in the sense of an inanimate object. DNA is simply a sequence of nucleic bases (Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, and Cytosine) which when a RNA polymerase transcribes the DNA and creates a mRNA, not through an intelligent means but simple chemical reactions, forms the “message” which tRNA uses to sequence amino acids which create proteins.
To put it in another way, if I mix baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) and vinegar (acetic acid) I get a chemical reaction. It fizzes violently. This is a double replacement chemical reaction. This reaction does not happen because of an intelligent design, in fact, this chemical reaction happens in nature without a sentient force (in the case of the classic lab volcano I am the sentient force) driving a reaction. Likewise, the chemical reaction that happens with mRNA and DNA is not caused by a sentient force, but rather a natural chemical reaction which matches the bases Adenine with Uracil (the RNA equivalent to Thymine) and Guanine with Cytosine.
So now that I hope, we understand what the DNA “code” is. I can discuss the origins of it.
If you remember my mentioning of a RNA based world in dealing with question one, you will find the answers along that path. RNA can transmit genetic material just the same as DNA and it also can form proteins. The evolution of RNA can allow for specialization which would call for the origins of a more productive system. If the RNA can specialize in function than instead of using a base RNA strand, it can read off a system of chemical bases. These chemical bases can then be found alongside a very similar structure in chemical materials called DNA. This is a liquefied version of DNA evolution, being that I am merely doing a crash course, but please, look up this information. I found the research to be fun and worthwhile.
3. How could mutations create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?
By huge volumes of information, I assume the creationist misunderstands what DNA is. It is not information in nature. Nature does not view it as information. We, as intelligent beings, see it as information because it contains a “blueprint” for how proteins form in the organism. I also assume that the creationist does not understand mutations. Most DNA mutations tend to be harmful for the organism resulting in death. However, most mutations that cause any significant change to organisms via natural selection are not found during Mitosis, the DNA replication, chromosome splitting, and cell duplication process found in eukaryotic cells, but rather Meiosis, the cell division necessary for sexual reproduction. These mutations arise because the chromosomes during the phase of synapsis go through genetic recombination which causes chromosomal crossovers. This results in a likelihood of genetic mutations. A small chance, but given that meiosis and even Mitosis occurs frequently in eukaryotes the small chances probability shoots up.
Now this is not to say that all mutations produce HUGE changes in species. That is not scientific at all. If anything, if the species does have a mutation which was not harmful, it is more than likely neutral and not anything significant. But when that given individual reproduces its genetics, mutation and all, transfers to the offspring generation. If you really want to see mutations in action, perform a simple Drosophila experiment and observe the various mutations that occur in each given generation. You’ll be surprised.
4. Why is natural selection taught as if it explains the origin of life?
Plain and simple, it’s not. Natural selection is a component of evolution. But it is not the entire thing. Scientists know this and understand this. The origin of a particular organ, or anatomic feature such as a beak or wing in birds, however, can be explained through natural selection. In this case, I think I will use the eye for my example. A human eye simply focuses light, turns that light into a message which the brain can read and bingo! We have an image.
Simple life forms have eyes. They are called photoreceptors which are made up of photoreceptor proteins which pick up light in movement. In time through gradual change these photoreceptors gained a “cup shape” which made it easier to pick up light because the receptor could get light from an angle and not just a spot. Add a muscle behind the cup and the receptor can now move. Add a lens, the receptor can focus. Add, a protective membrane and the receptor is shielded from harmful material that can obscure vision. This simple evolution which many creationists such as Michael Behe claim cannot “evolve” because of its complexity is actually simply observed in nature. The different eyes and there functions. Don’t believe me? How about instead of looking at the evolution of the eye, we look at the devolution of the eye. These creatures are called Troglobites. Due to the adaptation of the subterranean environment the eye sight on almost all species of animals are either extremely low or non-existent. The blind salamanders for example, aside from pale skin and red gills look almost similar to terrestrial salamanders. It is not unthinkable that a population of terrestrial salamanders made their way down a spring into a cave and over time through natural selection as their other senses increased for hunting their eye sight weakened until they became blind: the devolution of the eye.
5.How did new biochemical pathways originate.
Natural selection.
I also am suspicious of how carelessly creationists throw around the term originate. They must think evolutionists believe things must poof into existence all of a sudden by some magic means. Silly evolutionists donâ??t you know it takes at least 6 days.
6. Living things look like they were designed so how do evolutionists know that they were not?
Can you give me some design example? I look at myself in the mirror every morning going darn, I sure wish I looked better. The fact that we have to expend energy to eat, drink, and through that process of gaining energy we have to deal with biological waste shows poor design. If we are truly designed, our designer must have screwed up, or is not perfect.
Design is only ascertainable because we are sentient enough to understand “design.” Just as with how we interpret DNA as information, design in function is subject to who is observing it. Scientists do not see life as designed because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Plain and simple.
7. How did multi-cellular life originate.
Well, there is the word originate again. Also the answer is natural selection. But I think this time, unlike with question 5; I will go a bit into the question. Thanks to paleontologists we have discovered that prokaryotes were some of the earliest life forms on Earth. A prokaryote is a single celled organism that does not have a nucleus or membranes containing its genetic material or structures. Its cell material is floating around within the cell’s cytoplasm. Well a eukaryote is an organism that has its complex structures, such as DNA, enclosed in membranes. Thanks to natural selection, a prokaryote that developed a protective membrane would in theory and practicality have an increased chance of survival and genetic replication. This prokaryote would give way to eukaryotes being that it has protective membranes now. Over time and gradual change, the cells would form cell bodies which make up tissues and organs and organ systems and eventually life. This increases 1) efficiency of energy used 2) chances of survival and 3) chance for genetic replication.
8. How did sex originate?
You would think creationists would dread this question, when some scientists view sexual reproduction vs. asexual reproduction as a design flaw. But the concept of “sex” is found in animal species. Plants donâ??t have sex, but they go through sexual reproduction. Likewise, early eukaryotes in order to reproduce had to have a way in which their chromosomes could be transferred.
9. How are the countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
As any paleontologist can explain, the preservation of fossils is not instant, not always likely, and is not a common occurrence. So of course there will be “missing” fossils. But that still does not account for the millions of transitional fossils we have found which can explain and detail the evolution of given animal species. This case is a moot case.
10. How do Living Fossils remain unchanged if evolution’s have changed worms into humans in the same time span?
Define “unchanged?” Even modern species of horseshoe crabs have differences with each other, let alone ancestors. A living fossil means they are “unchanged” from the fossil record, which means that natural selection did not play a huge role in their populations lives. The population of the animals remained constant, stable and located in specialized areas. Koalas, echidnas, etc. are found in the area of Australia and their ancestors are predominantly found in that area.
Also, no evolutionist says that a worm evolved into a human in millions of years. So this is a straw man.
11. How did Blind Chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism, and morality?
Intelligence is how the body reacts to its surroundings. In the case of human intelligence, I am responding to communication, senses, and past experiences. Trial and error. There is nothing “special” about human intelligence aside from the fact that our minds are highly developed and allow for more complex responses.
Meaning is subjective and again based on a response to an environment. Altruism can be beneficial for the given individual, increasing chances of survival. In primitive animals, altruism can be simply the male protecting the female mate from predators at the cost of the male’s life. This increases the chances for the female to raise offspring and pass on the genetic information. In humans, we perceive altruism and morality as being philosophical, but in reality it all goes back to how one reacts to surroundings. In older days, the concept of mercy and showing compassion on the weak was spat upon. Today that concept is admired and applauded.
12. Why is evolutionary “just-so” story telling tolerated?
Ummm…it is not a “just-so” story telling. It is a peer-reviewed, experimented, and scientifically evaluated theory. Why is a creationist’s “just-so” blind assertion that God created life in 6 days tolerated?
13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
Having an interest in biochemistry, I can think of hundreds, but Iâ??ll give you one to satisfy your curiosity/stupidity. Thanks to microbiologists studying the evolution of viruses and bacteria, we can create pharmaceuticals to counter diseases and viruses. The Black Plague is now nothing more than a cold for medical science.
14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work. Why is evolution, a theory about history taught as if it were observable science?
Because it is observable. Here is an idea. Why don’t you research the countless of research projects and experiments that have gone into studying evolution, before you make blind assertions that are baseless and untrue.
15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea taught in science classes?
It is NOT a religious idea, unlike your so called “intelligent design” bullshit. It is a tested, peer-reviewed, theory that has support from scientific laws. Meaning it is a well reasoned explanation for how life developed on earth. Just because it does not correlate with the Bible, does not mean it is wrong. Have you stopped to ask yourself maybe your Bible is wrong? Maybe there is no God?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
“there is no such thing as knowledge of ANY kind for ANYbody without faith” -God[/quote]
Faith means accepting something as a fact without logical or empirical evidence.
[/quote]
No it’s not. It’s simply a matter degrees of certainty. for that which you cannot be absolutely certain, requires a certain degree of more, or less. There is very little one can be certain about, therefore almost everything accepted as fact, is based on varying degrees of faith.
You believe black holes exist, I presume? Prove it absolutely. Since no body has seen one, but have some degree of evidence that they exist, the acceptance of their existence requires some degree of faith.
I don’t expect somebody of you little intellect to understand this at all. I am pretty sure it went several miles over your little head.
To regard as knowledge that which is not absolutely certain is plain stupid. I reckon the shoe fits.
Because they are smarter that you. Which is certainly no big feat.
[/quote]
I like rustling your jimmies. But have you noticed that you have anger issues? You like to insult and denigrate. Isn’t that one of your 7 deadly sins?
Further, didn’t Jesus say to offer the other cheek?
Now I know that you, who takes the actual teachings to heart about as much as I do, just like to spit and sputter. But must you be a hypocrit also? It becomes rather boring after a while.
So have your morning coffee, give your boyfriend a big sloppy kiss, and be happy.
[/quote]
I am not angry, at all. You’re not worth all that. Just providing valuable information, even with the understanding that you don’t get it.
On the contrary, you appear very bitter, affronted and whiny. Why else would you create thread after thread after thread trying to mock something you don’t understand? I know there is no chance at a even a pitiable chance of an intelligent conversation with you, so I talk on your level, that’s all. It shouldn’t be mistaken for anger. Hell you should be even honored I respond at all…After all, getting a response, any response at all is all you are after, right? So you got a few. Relish your moment, you got responses. Feel microscopically important for a nanosecond, it won’t last.
[quote]DazeDolo wrote:
It’s really hard to believe in a book that could had been easily altered. [/quote]
Doesn’t that apply to any book? Name a book that cannot be easily altered?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DazeDolo wrote:
It’s really hard to believe in a book that could had been easily altered. [/quote]
Doesn’t that apply to any book? Name a book that cannot be easily altered? [/quote]
What? Why does that even matter? Yeah i guess any book could be altered but not many books expect you to live by it’s rules or whatever. I guess you could argue school books or whatever could easily be altered and be all false , but those are edited all the time anyways to be kept up to date unlike the bible.
I like how people say God inspired man to write the books ,therefore it’s His word…But were humans just like us? Whose to say they didn’t add their own little things or decided to take some things out? Didn’t one of Jesus’s apostles sin against him? What makes the rest so different? Not only that but didn’t the Pope forbid people from reading the bible a while back and punish those who did? Whose to say they didn’t change a few things in there.
I’m not an atheist btw…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
“there is no such thing as knowledge of ANY kind for ANYbody without faith” -God[/quote]
Faith means accepting something as a fact without logical or empirical evidence.
[/quote]
No it’s not. It’s simply a matter degrees of certainty. for that which you cannot be absolutely certain, requires a certain degree of more, or less. There is very little one can be certain about, therefore almost everything accepted as fact, is based on varying degrees of faith.
You believe black holes exist, I presume? Prove it absolutely. Since no body has seen one, but have some degree of evidence that they exist, the acceptance of their existence requires some degree of faith.
I don’t expect somebody of you little intellect to understand this at all. I am pretty sure it went several miles over your little head.
To regard as knowledge that which is not absolutely certain is plain stupid. I reckon the shoe fits.
Because they are smarter that you. Which is certainly no big feat.
[/quote]
I like rustling your jimmies. But have you noticed that you have anger issues? You like to insult and denigrate. Isn’t that one of your 7 deadly sins?
Further, didn’t Jesus say to offer the other cheek?
Now I know that you, who takes the actual teachings to heart about as much as I do, just like to spit and sputter. But must you be a hypocrit also? It becomes rather boring after a while.
So have your morning coffee, give your boyfriend a big sloppy kiss, and be happy.
[/quote]
Hell you should be even honored I respond at all [/quote]
Angry hypocrit is angry.
You spew forth vile and venom. But you’re not angry.
You name call, when I make you think. You do not turn the other cheek.
I certainly hope God is in a forgiving mood when your time comes.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
1. How did life originate?[/quote]
Evolution and abiogenesis are completely separate topics. They have literally nothing to do with one another. Evolution doesn’t claim to answer the origin of life, the universe, etc., despite the fact that Creationists say it does. This is an extremely elementary point, and ignorance of it is simply embarrassing to anyone who is looking to “debate” the theory of evolution.
Same goes for question 11, which states “…and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching…” Again, evolutionary theory has NOTHING to say about where “God” comes from.
It really highlights how useless it would be to even bother answering the rest of the questions… we are simply not dealing with people who fully understand the subject they are trying to disprove.
That went about as planned =]
[quote]DazeDolo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DazeDolo wrote:
It’s really hard to believe in a book that could had been easily altered. [/quote]
Doesn’t that apply to any book? Name a book that cannot be easily altered? [/quote]
What? Why does that even matter? Yeah i guess any book could be altered but not many books expect you to live by it’s rules or whatever. I guess you could argue school books or whatever could easily be altered and be all false , but those are edited all the time anyways to be kept up to date unlike the bible.
I like how people say God inspired man to write the books ,therefore it’s His word…But were humans just like us? Whose to say they didn’t add their own little things or decided to take some things out? Didn’t one of Jesus’s apostles sin against him? What makes the rest so different? Not only that but didn’t the Pope forbid people from reading the bible a while back and punish those who did? Whose to say they didn’t change a few things in there.
I’m not an atheist btw…
[/quote]
You introduced a slippery slope, I was just pointing it out.
When it comes to history, it’s all hearsay. Somethings can be verified, most cannot in any detail. So we are really relegated to trusting people not to lie to us about lots of things.
How do I know the Bible was never altered? I don’t, but that goes for a lot of things. For instance, how do we know the constitution was never secretly altered? It likely wasn’t but if it was we’ll never know.
Now the Vatican archives does hold a lot of original scriptural materials so there is a way to cross reference some stuff. Man would I love a tour of that place.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
a whole bunch[/quote]I find it astonishing that people that seem hell bent on scrutinizing evolution are unable or unwilling to apply the same level of critical thinking to their creationism.[/quote]I don’t find it astonishing at all that people who ARE hell bent on scrutinizing the living God are unable and unwilling to apply the same level of critical thinking to their belief that 2+2=4.
DrMatt. Allow me to subtly, but profoundly rephrase my question. What MAKES 2+2=4? Language is the vehicle. I’m talkin about the cargo.
Lol religion. Love that South Park where the practicing Catholic and Protestant are in hell and ask why and the guy is like “Mormon, Mormon was the correct religion.” It is fun to try and watch people explain the unexplainable. But the flying spaghetti monster…he’s the one in charge. Sure everyone has a different spaghetti monster, but they all know he’s out there.
If the God exists that the Bible says exists then he is the biggest prick in existence and I wouldn’t bow down to him anyways. Seriously. Believe in me or be punished for ALL ETERNITY? We call that terrorism and don’t you guys say we don’t negotiate with terrorists? And yes I’ve heard all the responses to this, but it never ceases to amaze me the amount of people who buy into this fable.
Also big flamer I haven’t read all your post, but it will be interesting to see if anyone tries to tackle that.
And creationism has absolutely no room in a science class. None. Unless you would like your science class to not be about science of course, and many seem to want that.
H factor. Please forgive what will appear to you to be my insufferably condescending arrogance, but DrMatt is a much juicer opponent. In this gym you’re a pink dumbell. I am trying to move some real weight here.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Lol religion. Love that South Park where the practicing Catholic and Protestant are in hell and ask why and the guy is like “Mormon, Mormon was the correct religion.” It is fun to try and watch people explain the unexplainable. But the flying spaghetti monster…he’s the one in charge. Sure everyone has a different spaghetti monster, but they all know he’s out there.
If the God exists that the Bible says exists then he is the biggest prick in existence and I wouldn’t bow down to him anyways. Seriously. Believe in me or be punished for ALL ETERNITY? We call that terrorism and don’t you guys say we don’t negotiate with terrorists? And yes I’ve heard all the responses to this, but it never ceases to amaze me the amount of people who buy into this fable.
Also big flamer I haven’t read all your post, but it will be interesting to see if anyone tries to tackle that.
And creationism has absolutely no room in a science class. None. Unless you would like your science class to not be about science of course, and many seem to want that. [/quote]
SCIENCE IS SCIENCE AND RELIGION IS RELIGION.