[quote]BeefEater wrote:Not attempting to troll here but I genuinely want to know. How do creationists explain dinosaurs?[/quote]A good case can be made that dinosaurs are mentioned plenty of times in the bible. I have not myself done that study with sufficient depth to reliably present it here. I do believe dinosaurs existed contemporaneously with man and have since been driven to extinction by one of several possible causes. One day I may get motivated to really buckle down and study that too. Maybe not. Lotsa other stuff far higher on my list.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Well, 2+2=4 is the necessary outcome of a system with pre established rules.
Insofar this system is a lot like yours, but mathematicians are usually willing to admit that those convention are entirely man made.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Again. Until we settle HOW we know anything at all? Any discussion of WHAT we know is so much mental masturbation.[/quote]
First, you are such a troll. You make up your own excuses so that you can stay ignorant. Stay in your box.
Second, the process of how we come to know something is that it is observed, evidence is collected, studied, interpreted, and understood to the best of our collective abilities.
Third, “2 + 2 = 4”? Really? Really? It’s math. That is it’s own system. We’ve defined what each of those symbols mean and it’s been communicated and agreed upon.
Fourth, the only thing you’ve thought through is thinking yourself scared and into a corner.
Fifth, no offense to Fletch, but I couldn’t care less if he agrees with you on that.
I’d really like to know, how is my existence a rip-off of yours?
Atheism is the default position. Until there is evidence of the God you want to claim, there is no good reason to believe it. It’s too bad you didn’t possess better critical thinking as a child or you wouldn’t be so lost now.
How the hell did this thread get to 8 pages. Even if it were real, creationism is not science, maybe it could be taught in a history class or something? Science is not for everyone anyway, it keeps the pay on jobs a bit higher since a majority of the population is unable to get past elementary knowledge.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[I do hereby submit that NO MATTER WHAT findings are EVER brought to the light of day and studied, enough so called scientists will absolutely find a way to interpret that “evidence” so as to allow for the possibility of evolution and not allow for what is to them a credible possibility of creation by God.[/quote]
Any man who did so would be immeasurably famous and probably become just as rich.
Scientists, as you lot keep trumpeting, are also human and would gleefully snatch up that opportunity.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:Not attempting to troll here but I genuinely want to know. How do creationists explain dinosaurs?[/quote]A good case can be made that dinosaurs are mentioned plenty of times in the bible. I have not myself done that study with sufficient depth to reliably present it here. I do believe dinosaurs existed contemporaneously with man and have since been driven to extinction by one of several possible causes. One day I may get motivated to really buckle down and study that too. Maybe not. Lotsa other stuff far higher on my list.
[/quote]
If they existed simultaneously surely there would be fossil records of that coexistence. There isn’t.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
…But it is disingenuous to say that all men are the same in their attachment to dogma. Some are more, some are less, in everything in life.
[/quote]
That was precisely my point so no disingenuousness on my part. You effectively agreed with me.
Scientists, generally speaking, are “normal.” They pack their share of - as I mentioned earlier - presuppositions, assumptions, succumbing to peer pressure and belief systems into any realm of life including their scientific field.
And just like some “serious” plumbers are piss poor plumbers, some “serious” scientists are piss poor scientists.
And mediocre plumbers. And mediocre scientists.
And excellent plumbers. And excellent scientists.
Exactly. You smacked the nail on the head with exquisite precision. Many, if not most, believers in evolution (not the the type of evolution that we all recognize is observable and quantifiable but rather the type that requires changes that increase genetic information) desperately and faithfully and yes, religiously, cling to their belief because “it beats the hell out of the alternative.” In their minds.
It doesn’t matter what gigantic leaps of faith they must make to maintain their fervent embrace with evolutionism because they obstinately, as you put it, will not consider the alternative. It’s that simple.
Yes it does. And the true purveyor of objectivity will recognize just that and not plead and whine and bellyache in Jimmy Swaggart-esque fashion, like Bill Nye did in this video.
There aint a doggone thing wrong with listening to those who express what you don’t like. That’s how we all become more effective in advancing our cause, whatever it may be.
[/quote]
This sounds a bit like this:
â??Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'â??
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:Not attempting to troll here but I genuinely want to know. How do creationists explain dinosaurs?[/quote]A good case can be made that dinosaurs are mentioned plenty of times in the bible. I have not myself done that study with sufficient depth to reliably present it here. I do believe dinosaurs existed contemporaneously with man and have since been driven to extinction by one of several possible causes. One day I may get motivated to really buckle down and study that too. Maybe not. Lotsa other stuff far higher on my list.
[/quote]
What!?!
You think that they walked with dinosaurs and they somehow alluded subtly to THE GIANT FUCKING BRONTOSAURUS THAT WAS BIGGER THAN THEIR WHOLE FUCKING VILLAGE?
There are tales of lions and wild asses and whatnot BUT THE TYRANOSAURUS THAT JUST WIPED OUT AN ENTIRE FLOCK OF SHEEP does not feature at all, or only as some hint?
They have whole litanies on what you can or cannot eat and nobody mentions whether giant lizards are kosher or not?
Come on man.
Their bones were put there to test your faith or something, or maybe they are like the little castles in aquariums so that the fish do not get bored.
There, two explanations that work much better.
edited
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
A lot of strawmen and hyperbole there. To address each and every point, I’d have to go into depth explaining the scientific method and development of science as a method before I go into the evidence. I also need to know if I need to explain Wegner’s model of plate tectonics. Basically, do you believe that deep time and plate tectonics is invalid?[/quote]
Not really. Faith is the acceptance of concepts that are based on suppositions rather than percepts. Faith is anti-reason.
We have reasons to accept evolution. There is no reason to accept creationism other than supposition.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
You’re so fucking brainwashed Tiribulus.
You have no measurable evidence for the existence of your God. And no the bible is not a valid or reliable source, so take your circular reasoning and fuck off with it.
At least science has the humility to say “We don’t know, we’re working on it.” while you just jump to the conclusion(and the assumption of correctness) of the theory of an unknowingly complex super-entity that is capable of listening to everyone’s thoughts and judges them based on what HE hears and sees. Contradictory to his super powers, this omnipotent entity also happens to be the pettiest thing to have ever existed.
When’s the last time you took part in a public stoning Tiribulus? That’s in the bible too, or do you just pick and choose what parts you’d like to follow?
Religion was a control mechanism to keep people in line because life was very shitty back then and people were liable to rise up on a moments notice. When the fraudulent promise of heaven was waved in front of them that a better life awaited them when they were dead, it calmed them down and they had something to strive for.
The fact that in the 21st century, seemingly intelligent people like yourself are still capable of falling under the spell of religion shows just how powerful and dangerous a drug theism can be. If you were born somewhere else you’d be praying to Allah or Vishnu or Quetzalcoatl or any of the other Gods that you have just as much evidence to believe in but choose not to. The bible is a thought-trap for any person that isn’t capable of thinking for themselves, it’s time to wake up already.
For you or anyone else to condemn others, and to claim that you possess knowledge of this super-entity and that you know what it is that he wants is absolutely abominable and you should be ashamed of yourself for telling such lies.
[/quote]
MattyG35, I hate to break this to you, but you are just as bad as those you seemingly look down upon. For whatever reason you assume that those that have faith are brainwashed, but the fact is science does not have all the answers. I like to think of the evolution of human life much like the evolution of an individual person’s life. For generations we relied on what many call God to guide them and that guidance helped to form early civilization. Now I feel we as a species are in our teenage years. We are rebelling against the very God that help guide us, much like a teenager rebels against his/her parent. We assume because of how advanced we are that we know what’s best and that we are the center of the universe. We think science is the end all be all and can answer all of life’s riddles. We mock our parents for ever having faith in something that can’t be quantified. I believe in a number of generations we will mature as a species and like many rebellious teens we will come to realize that are parents aren’t as useless and stupid as we originally thought again look to God for guidance.
You make a number of solid points, but your delivery is full of arrogance. Religion has been used to control the masses. That has nothing to do with God or the existence of God. It has everything to do with us as a species and our need to control others. Stoningâ??s? I don’t believe the teachings of Jesus taught us to stone others. As a matter of fact I believe he said something along the lines of only one free from sin should cast the first stone.
As far as Bill Nye goes. He’s a very intelligent man and he’s done good things for this world. This is also his opinion and while I can respect his position he doesnâ??t speak for everyone and he doesn’t know what’s best for everyone either.
Where does science claim to have ‘all the answers’?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Where does science claim to have ‘all the answers’?[/quote]
I think there are a lot of arrogant scientist that claim science has all the answers. Just like there are a lot of religious individuals that claim to have all the answes. In both cases they are arrogant and full of BS.
Edit:
For example in MattyG’s statement he says science has humility and is looking for answers, but at the same time says God does not exist. Science hasn’t proven God doesn’t exist so isn’t that an arrogant statement and in a way acting as if scinece can explain all.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Where does science claim to have ‘all the answers’?[/quote]
I think there are a lot of arrogant scientist that claim science has all the answers. Just like there are a lot of religious individuals that claim to have all the answes. In both cases they are arrogant and full of BS.
Edit:
For example in MattyG’s statement he says science has humility and is looking for answers, but at the same time says God does not exist. Science hasn’t proven God doesn’t exist so isn’t that an arrogant statement and in a way acting as if scinece can explain all.
[/quote]
If any scientist claimed they or science ‘had all the answers’, they would by definition be out of work. So this sounds like one of those broad brush allegations that has no foundation in any fact. Please show me an instance of this.
Science is by its very nature the search to uncover and explain that which is not known. In the physical and observable world.
‘Science’ has no need to prove god doesn’t exist. I don’t know why that tired line keeps being trotted out.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Where does science claim to have ‘all the answers’?[/quote]
I think there are a lot of arrogant scientist that claim science has all the answers. Just like there are a lot of religious individuals that claim to have all the answes. In both cases they are arrogant and full of BS.
Edit:
For example in MattyG’s statement he says science has humility and is looking for answers, but at the same time says God does not exist. Science hasn’t proven God doesn’t exist so isn’t that an arrogant statement and in a way acting as if scinece can explain all.
[/quote]
If any scientist claimed they or science ‘had all the answers’, they would by definition be out of work. So this sounds like one of those broad brush allegations that has no foundation in any fact. Please show me an instance of this.
Science is by its very nature the search to uncover and explain that which is not known. In the physical and observable world.
‘Science’ has no need to prove god doesn’t exist. I don’t know why that tired line keeps being trotted out.
[/quote]
You’re right it is a broad statement. I purposely made it a broad statement because MattyG, the person I was addressing, painted those that believe with a broad brush. It was to point out the hypocrisy.
I also doubt I can find a YouTube video or quote of a well-known scientist saying, “Science has all the answer.” That doesn’t mean the sentiment doesn’t exist. I think when guys like Bill Nye use their influence to say God doesn’t exist, which he has, he is implicitly saying that science has all the answer. That’s what I read into it and it very well might not be what he or others mean, but that’s how they come across to me.
I also didn’t say science has to prove God doesn’t exist. You came to that conclusion. I happen to think science is more important than religion. I just happen to also think that God is more important than science.
Edit:
A quick search found this:
“In his bestselling 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking drew on the device so beloved of Einstein, when he described what it would mean for scientists to develop a “theory of everything” â?? a set of equations that described every particle and force in the entire universe. “It would be the ultimate triumph of human reason â?? for then we should know the mind of God,” he wrote.”
Okay, I am not a ‘creationist’, but I want to play a little devil’s advocate in favor of the creationist side…
Supposedly the oldest human fossil known to date is about 200,000 year’s old. That being the case, there is no evidence of anything intelligent and self aware until about 4 century B.C.
So say for instance, you divide creation into 6 periods. It could actually work.
So Day 1: God created heavens and earth. Ok, so this would be the theory of primordial soup, for instance.
Day 2: Let there be light! = Big ass Bang! - Light from darkness, objects separating the from the illumined and the void or unillumined.
Day 3: God separated the heavens from the watery expanse. The watery earth gets an atmosphere due to the ‘firing up’ of the earths magnetic field, which is what allows us to have an atmosphere and viola. We have an atmosphere! It’s magic!
Day 4: Let the water and the heavens gather in to one place and let dry land appear. - No longer the earth is a steamy place covered by cloulds and oceans. The water cools the crust and tectonics cause land to raise out of the water in places and the earth begins to cool from it’s beginnings.
Day 5: Let the earth sprout vegetation. Life, begins. Algee and simple single cell life begins, unto sea vegitaion, to tree plants and bushes…
Day 6: Let the earth bring forth creatures. Then lastly, man in His image. - Animal life begins and flourishes and evolves…Then at the end, Man to rule it all.
Forget about what you think of the Bible for a minute. And look at the order of the events. Whether you consider Genesis to be true or not, the order of event’s from the perspective of Earth dwelling creatures is correct.
The bible did not specify what a “day” was as indeed, in at least the first 2 ‘days’ there was no such thing as a ‘day’. And then from 3 forward what a day technically was varied quite a bit between then and now, if talking earth day. The bible didn’t specify ‘Earth days’ We just automatically jump to that assumption. And since time a space are a function of each other, what constituted a ‘day’ way back may be fractions of a second if we were to observe it from the outside.
While we may have evidences of early man, we have no evidence it’s sentience was beyond that of a dog. The world as we currently know it, is about 6000 years old. That’s not a fossil record perspective, that is what we know as our world, our history as a sophisticated, conscious, morally apt people is only 6000 years old as we know it and there is zero evidence of that beyond 6000 years old.
I would like to have come up with all this stuff myself, but it was actually an article posted by Jewbacca that got me thinking differently about Genesis and reconciling it with was found scientifically.
Genesis was written for early peoples, they don’t know quantum theory, they don’t know about the big bang or stars as being billions of light years away, they know they are here and there is a reason.
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]
I think the real question is, what made it “alive”? Organic material alone, does not account for why it’s alive. But I do believe in evolution, but I don’t believe the ‘life force’ is merely a function of collected organic material. You can assemble all the organic material you want, you cannot make it live.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
MattyG35, I hate to break this to you…originally thought again look to God for guidance.[/quote]
There is nothing that is taught in the bible that can’t be taught without the bible, it’s become vestigial.
Actually that does have to do with the God they claim to represent. It discredits them fully and they shouldn’t be listened to because of this.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21. I know that’s the old testament but it’s still in your bible and you choose to not follow it. God really mellowed out when he sent his son to be brutally murdered.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Where does science claim to have ‘all the answers’?[/quote]
I think there are a lot of arrogant scientist that claim science has all the answers. Just like there are a lot of religious individuals that claim to have all the answes. In both cases they are arrogant and full of BS.
Edit:
For example in MattyG’s statement he says science has humility and is looking for answers, but at the same time says God does not exist. Science hasn’t proven God doesn’t exist so isn’t that an arrogant statement and in a way acting as if scinece can explain all.
[/quote]
Do you believe in unicorns? the Tooth Fairy? Santa Claus? Underwear gnomes? No, you don’t, or at least I hope you don’t, because there isn’t evidence to support a belief in them that’s why. You can’t prove a negative.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Where does science claim to have ‘all the answers’?[/quote]
I think there are a lot of arrogant scientist that claim science has all the answers. Just like there are a lot of religious individuals that claim to have all the answes. In both cases they are arrogant and full of BS.
Edit:
For example in MattyG’s statement he says science has humility and is looking for answers, but at the same time says God does not exist. Science hasn’t proven God doesn’t exist so isn’t that an arrogant statement and in a way acting as if scinece can explain all.
[/quote]
If any scientist claimed they or science ‘had all the answers’, they would by definition be out of work. So this sounds like one of those broad brush allegations that has no foundation in any fact. Please show me an instance of this.
Science is by its very nature the search to uncover and explain that which is not known. In the physical and observable world.
‘Science’ has no need to prove god doesn’t exist. I don’t know why that tired line keeps being trotted out.
[/quote]
You’re right it is a broad statement. I purposely made it a broad statement because MattyG, the person I was addressing, painted those that believe with a broad brush. It was to point out the hypocrisy.
I also doubt I can find a YouTube video or quote of a well-known scientist saying, “Science has all the answer.” That doesn’t mean the sentiment doesn’t exist. I think when guys like Bill Nye use their influence to say God doesn’t exist, which he has, he is implicitly saying that science has all the answer. That’s what I read into it and it very well might not be what he or others mean, but that’s how they come across to me. [/quote]
You’re over-interpreting what I write. See my above post about evidence and existence.
Ok, your God is more important to you than science. You get appendicitis, do you go to a hospital or gather your friends in prayer?