Jesus Rode a Dinosaur

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
226

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
harris447 wrote:

No. Science is not a leap of faith. It is, in fact the OPPOSITE of a leap of faith. Fossils, carbon dating, etc. These are not articles of faith. They are things that can be proven or disproven.

To further show you to be an incredibly thick moron, were you around 200 and something years ago? No. Then how do you know that the American Revolution took place? Do you believe in it based on faith?

Jackass.

Bones left in the ground can fossilize rather quickly.

Carbon dating is a myth.

On faith, I believe our history books since I was not around 200 years ago for the American revolution.

Boy harry, you are quite dumb to believe everything people tell you. Do your homework…you might actually learn something.

You no longer have any credibility whatsoever.

Hmmm. You are qualified to make that decision? I think not.

Yeah, I am. Seeing as how you’re the lackwit who said that carbon dating was a myth, it can be clearly stated that you are not bright.

Harris, you are just a prissy little punk. I bet you got your tail waxed in high school and now you pretend to be tough on the net as a form of redemption. I’d bitch slap you if I ever saw you.

That said, there are many qualified and intellignet people who believe that carbon dating is flawed. Need links?

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/06dat5.htm

Remember Harris…As much as you hate the Bible, and God, and things of morality, if I’m wrong in my religious philosophy, then when I die it doesn’t matter much. If you are wrong, don’t forget the suntan lotion![/quote]

You’d “bitchslap” me?

Wow. Mighty Christian of ya.

But, seriously, you saying that I “hate” the bible or whatever you mumbled just proves your ignorance.

I don’t care what people believe in, what gets people through the night. It’s when they start pushing their psychotic (and to claim the earth is 6,000 years old and that carbon dating is a “myth” is psychotic) agendas on the rest of us, it pisses me off.

There are no intelligent or qualified people who believe what you believe in regards to carbon dating. There are, however, people with hidden (and not-so-hidden) agendas and bullshit degrees who agree with you.

And as for your last witty little riposte: the logic you’re using belongs to Pascal. It is the logic of cowards. Believe in God, Allah, Buddha because you believe in him…not because you’re afraid not to.

227

[quote]DPH wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
DPH wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
The idea that the world was flat was a scientific fact of that day, like evolution today, until proven wrong by someone sailing around what was considered the end of the world.

could you please tell me the names of the scientists that claimed the earth was flat…I’d really like to know…

could you give references to the peer reviewed scientific studies that these scientists did that show they concluded the earth was flat…

I’ve searched on the internet for a list of scientists that concluded the earth was flat and haven’t been able to find any…

I asked you this once before and you never replied…

your help would be appreciated…thanks!

Well, I guess I used the word “scientists” too loosely. We are talking about AD 200-300, so there were really no scientists as we view them today. Just philosophers who came up with theories and apparently didn’t understand or know the scientific process we know today. The term “peer-reviewed” did not exists in AD 200.

In any case, not everyone believed in the flat earth, but many of the so-called scalars did.

Here is a reference:

so, another words, the number of scientists throughout the ages that have espoused a flat-earth hypothesis is zero…

thanks for clearing that up![/quote]

Give me the name of one actual scientist in AD 200 who new anything about the scientific method or peer review and your point might make sense. But since science and scientists did not exist during that time as we understand them today you have no point. The fact is that many of the leading “thinkers” of the day believed the world was flat.

228

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
As a science/math teacher, I want to compliment you on your presentation of the the facts. I am also deeply religious and it pains me to see the ongoing debate between two vastly different realms. Matters of faith and matters of science should not be antagonistic – they are simply two facets of the human experience.
[/quote]

What do flightless birds and butterflies have to do with religion?

Religion is just a word. I believe in God.

I don’t believe in macroevolution for me, not because my Bible tells me not to. I don’t think the story of macroevolution is possible. I think its pathetic and rediculous.

The evolutionists keep saying, “we haven’t found all the pieces yet, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true”. It doesn’t mean that it’s true either! So stop passing it along as fact. When are they going to find the missing pieces?

It’s obvious that macroevolution is mans far fetched story to discount any intelligent designer at all costs no matter how rediculous it sounds. WE MUST FIND AN ANSWER THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD, WE MUST!!!

They go off of carbon dating, skeleton remains and their HUMONGOUS IMAGINATIONS.

Science is like a new play toy for mankind, not all that long ago we worked out the challenge of building indoor toilets, switching over from gas lighting to electricity, developed the “horseless” carriage, and we even learned how to make refrigerators.

All this happened within the past 100 years!!

Science is our new thrill, and we are so pleased with ourselves. Many look back on the previous centuries of scientific ignorance and they want nothing to do with “faith” in God! Critics of religion point to Galileo and how he was treated badly by the church of the dark ages. Well what would you expect?? ALL MANKIND WAS SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT!

229

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
For the last time: Science is not in the business of proving things. Science offers models and theories to explain the natural world based on mathematical principles of logic.
[/quote]
Don’t you mean models and theories to have faith in? Since it’s not proven, it is faith.

Why then is it taught in schools as fact and not theory?

So when none of the million + intermediary species between man and apes have been discovered why has macroevolution not been discredited? At what point in time will this lack of evidence discredit this theory?

You see, your assessment is correct about science, but that process has not been followed with the theory of macroevolution. So in that regard it is not like other scientific disciplines.

Not true. It can be tested just like other things that don’t fit into the western view of science. For example, acupuncture has been tested by western medicine and shown to be effective for certain conditions even though western medicine has no way of understanding how/why it works.

Another example, there have been a number of studies that have demonstrated that prayer works for healing people. People who did not know they were being prayed for got better when others prayed for them compared to the control group. This was a scientific study that demonstrated that the supernatural is real and works, even though science does not currently have the tools to know why it works. Here is an example: http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract&artid=61047

So the point is that science can verify the supernatural, they just can’t currently explain the mechanisms of action.

230

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Give me the name of one actual scientist in AD 200 who new anything about the scientific method or peer review and your point might make sense. But since science and scientists did not exist during that time as we understand them today you have no point. The fact is that many of the leading “thinkers” of the day believed the world was flat.
[/quote]

the idea that science claimed the world was flat way back when is your claim not mine…

in the future maybe you should change this statement to read: Some people (not scientists because scientists didn’t exist at the time) accepted as fact that the earth was flat. That was fact to some people (but not scientists because scientists didn’t exist at the time) until proven wrong. Look it up in your history books mate!

231

It’s amazing that out of all of the species on the entire planet, not one of them is close to human beings.

If every living organism came out of primordial ooze and then evolution ran rampade, how did no other species manage to come even close to our intelligence? Seriously, we put a man on the moon, we make sophisticated computers, internet, fighter jets. I don’t see any animals doing anything of these things, do you?

Why only us???

232

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
It’s amazing that out of all of the species on the entire planet, not one of them is close to human beings.

If every living organism came out of primordial ooze and then evolution ran rampade, how did no other species manage to come even close to our intelligence? Seriously, we put a man on the moon, we make sophisticated computers, internet, fighter jets. I don’t see any animals doing anything of these things, do you?

Why only us???[/quote]

We’re the only species that invented the atomic bomb, racism, terrorism, and lite jazz.

Why only us?

The point (because you seem to not get points) is that our intelligence doesn’t make us better. Just different. When our intelligence gets those mushrooms clouds blooming, we’re all gonna envy the cockroach.

233

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:

Science is our new thrill, and we are so pleased with ourselves. Many look back on the previous centuries of scientific ignorance and they want nothing to do with “faith” in God! Critics of religion point to Galileo and how he was treated badly by the church of the dark ages. Well what would you expect?? ALL MANKIND WAS SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT!

[/quote]

This is an unwarranted claim and you know it. The fact is (for example headhunter) that many scientists are men/women of FAITH! You don’t have to choose one or the other. If you don’t want to believe in macroevolution, that’s your right. But don’t try to justify it by saying that scientists make up theories to avoid faith. It is offensive to those scientists who work their asses off trying to discover the physical processes which govern the universe, and are religious.

We understand (because you are like a broken record), that you think carbon dating is made up, and that the skeletal remains of homo erectus are either fabricated or classified in error, or only a hundred year old, etc. However, that is your opinion, nothing else.

Please explain why the carbon-14 levels in those bones are so low. What physical process, other than vast stretches of time, could cause most of the C-14 to decay? You refuse to believe a scientific result based on personal beliefs. That’s okay, but don’t expect anyone to take your objection seriously. If you had a scientific objection, on the other hand (and no, saying its a myth doesn’t count), then you would be taken seriously.

You have to understand that this debated is not about your faith. I have no problem with that, as long as you don’t try to force it on me. My problem is your justification of your objection to good science based on it. Why can so many other religious people embrace science but you can’t?

And as for the historical argument: When I look back through history, before the technological revolution of the 20th century, I see pestilence, slavery, persecution, sexism, brutality, and the Spanish Inquisition. And then in the 20th century until the present, we had…pestilence, slavery, persecution, sexism, brutality, and the rise of fundamentalism.

The point is: there was never (and might never be) a golden age, when life was just right. Humans love to rape, maim, and kill each other. Its been going on since day 1, and will go on for quite a while it seems. And to blame either religion or science for this is just ridiculous.

234

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
It’s amazing that out of all of the species on the entire planet, not one of them is close to human beings.

If every living organism came out of primordial ooze and then evolution ran rampade, how did no other species manage to come even close to our intelligence? Seriously, we put a man on the moon, we make sophisticated computers, internet, fighter jets. I don’t see any animals doing anything of these things, do you?

Why only us???[/quote]

Netanderthals were close to us, surely. And as top predetors with amazing intelligence, we do a good job of wiping out competition.

How arrogant are you. If an attribute is not required then it is not required. Say spiders. Make silk. Stronger than steel, flwxible, and efficiently made. I certainly cant do that, bat dozens of species do it is dozens of ways.

Bats echo locate. Octapus’s self cammoflage. Our large brain was one way to ensure survival. I is that at the moment it is the best thing for survival as it allows us to invent, as you have rightly pointed out.

Intelligence of the order we have is not necessary for all animals survival. they would be a nonsense as all animals would therefore compete. You dont get businesses all doing the same thing do you? They all have niches to exploit, as does life.

235

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
I don’t think the story of macroevolution is possible. I think its pathetic and rediculous.[/quote]

The word is “ridiculous.” http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=ridiculous

Macroevolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent 29 “Evidences” that support it. I’d be interested in knowing what you disagree with on each of those 29 points.

It’s “ridiculous.”

Carbon dating: Radiometric Dating A Christian’s point of view.

Are humongous imaginations supposed to be a bad thing?

And science had nothing to do with electricity, cars or refrigeration! No siree!

236

And monkeys have no problem masturbating in public. If that’s not advanced, I don’t know what is…

237

[quote]harris447 wrote:
We’re the only species that invented the atomic bomb, racism, terrorism, and lite jazz.

Why only us?

The point (because you seem to not get points) is that our intelligence doesn’t make us better. Just different. When our intelligence gets those mushrooms clouds blooming, we’re all gonna envy the cockroach.

[/quote]

I don’t seem to get points? On the contrary.

I was making a point that no other species on the planet builds wide ranges of technology. Spiders spin webs, yes, you are right. What else do they make? Do they think about whether or not they are going to be able to purchase that big screen tv at the end of the year? Do they stress over their mortgage? Nope.

After millions and millions of years of evolution, why are we the only ones that can do all of these things? There should be many other species that are up to our intelligence.

238

Here’s a link to Kenneth Miller’s website. He is an evolutionary biologist and a Christian. I’m pretty sure I’ll see him in Hell…

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

239

[quote]pookie wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
I don’t think the story of macroevolution is possible. I think its pathetic and rediculous.

The word is “ridiculous.” http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=ridiculous

Macroevolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent 29 “Evidences” that support it. I’d be interested in knowing what you disagree with on each of those 29 points.

no matter how rediculous it sounds.

It’s “ridiculous.”

They go off of carbon dating, skeleton remains and their HUMONGOUS IMAGINATIONS.

Carbon dating: Radiometric Dating A Christian’s point of view.

Are humongous imaginations supposed to be a bad thing?

Science is like a new play toy for mankind, not all that long ago we worked out the challenge of building indoor toilets, switching over from gas lighting to electricity, developed the “horseless” carriage, and we even learned how to make refrigerators.

And science had nothing to do with electricity, cars or refrigeration! No siree!
[/quote]

Have you ever miss spelled a word? I put an “e” instead of an “i”. Is that really all you can do, correct minor spelling? Who cares? They are internet forums. What happens when you miss spell something? If I correct you, do I win a prize or does that make me smarter than you?

Still playing the “you’re stupid because you don’t believe what I do” game?

240

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
pookie wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
I don’t think the story of macroevolution is possible. I think its pathetic and rediculous.

The word is “ridiculous.” http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=ridiculous

Macroevolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent 29 “Evidences” that support it. I’d be interested in knowing what you disagree with on each of those 29 points.

no matter how rediculous it sounds.

It’s “ridiculous.”

They go off of carbon dating, skeleton remains and their HUMONGOUS IMAGINATIONS.

Carbon dating: Radiometric Dating A Christian’s point of view.

Are humongous imaginations supposed to be a bad thing?

Science is like a new play toy for mankind, not all that long ago we worked out the challenge of building indoor toilets, switching over from gas lighting to electricity, developed the “horseless” carriage, and we even learned how to make refrigerators.

And science had nothing to do with electricity, cars or refrigeration! No siree!

Have you ever miss spelled a word? I put an “e” instead of an “i”. Is that really all you can do, correct minor spelling? Who cares? They are internet forums. What happens when you miss spell something? If I correct you, do I win a prize or does that make me smarter than you?

Still playing the “you’re stupid because you don’t believe what I do” game?

[/quote]

No. We’re playing the “you’re stupid because you believe in stupid things” game.

241

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:

I don’t believe in macroevolution for me, not because my Bible tells me not to. I don’t think the story of macroevolution is possible. I think its pathetic and rediculous.

[/quote]

best argument ever. The bible tells you not to? I assume you also do not believe in advanced calculus, biology, physical sciences, etc, because the bible doesn’t tell you to believe in them? Cos let’s be honest, our scientific endeavours have come a long way since biblical times, but I suppose having blind faith in a 2000 year old document stops you from reconciling with the advances of humanity.

Let’s be honest, if you want to play the whole “bible tells me” card you have to reject modern society as a whole, but I don’t see you doing that?

242

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Have you ever miss spelled a word? I put an “e” instead of an “i”.[/quote]

You misspelled “misspelled.”

No, no, no. I can also slice and dice and make you lose weight while you sleep. I can give you toned abs and hide your bald spot. I can sort your utensils and redecorate your bedroom. I can mow your lawn so it has that nice checkerboard pattern. I can explain to you the difference between horsepower and torque. I can give your wife her first orgasm. I can tune your SQL statements and debug your kernel drivers.

And much, much more. All for three easy payments of 19.99$ Call now, operators are waiting.

Who are internet forum? You meant “These are…”

When I misspell something, I use the excuse that English is my second language.

Yes, I send you a copy of “The Origin of Species” on audio cassette with giant cardboard cutouts. And no, it doesn’t make you smarter than me. That would fall under the “Act of God” category. You can pray for it, but you’ll get the usual prayer result of zilch. Nada. Nothing. Dumb you stay.

No, you’re stupid because you don’t know why you believe what you believe.

You’re stupid because you’re given references to check out and educate yourself and you keep ignoring them.

You’re stupid because you keep repeating the same idiotic arguments, even after they’ve been refuted countless times.

You’re stupid because you claim to know science but can’t discuss any topic on it without coming off as completely ignorant about it.

Hope that clears that up.

243

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
harris447 wrote:
We’re the only species that invented the atomic bomb, racism, terrorism, and lite jazz.

Why only us?

The point (because you seem to not get points) is that our intelligence doesn’t make us better. Just different. When our intelligence gets those mushrooms clouds blooming, we’re all gonna envy the cockroach.

I don’t seem to get points? On the contrary.

I was making a point that no other species on the planet builds wide ranges of technology. Spiders spin webs, yes, you are right. What else do they make? Do they think about whether or not they are going to be able to purchase that big screen tv at the end of the year? Do they stress over their mortgage? Nope.

After millions and millions of years of evolution, why are we the only ones that can do all of these things? There should be many other species that are up to our intelligence.
[/quote]

Well, keep in mind that its not exlusively our brains that separate us. Its the combination of bipedalism, opposable thumbs, and brains. And only primates have those things. So only primates could have evolved into us, and they did… A spider with a big brain will not have any survival advantage over another spider, say, with more powerful venom, or who can build a better web.

Look at dolphins. They have intricate communication (some call it language, others reserve “language” for humans), organized society, etc. But, they don’t have any way of using their brains for more than that. How could they build anything? How would a smarter dolphin be better at passing on its genes than a fast one?

Your questions really do seem to indicate that you don’t know much about evolutionary theory. It would help if you based your opinion on more than your opinion itself.

244

[quote]Ren wrote:
best argument ever. The bible tells you not to? I assume you also do not believe in advanced calculus, biology, physical sciences, etc, because the bible doesn’t tell you to believe in them? Cos let’s be honest, our scientific endeavours have come a long way since biblical times, but I suppose having blind faith in a 2000 year old document stops you from reconciling with the advances of humanity.

Let’s be honest, if you want to play the whole “bible tells me” card you have to reject modern society as a whole, but I don’t see you doing that?[/quote]

First of all, you completely twisted my words around. I said I don’t believe is macroevolution for me, NOT BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS ME NOT TO BELIEVE IT.

Second, what do you mean by “I have to reject modern society as a whole”. What are you talking about? Please explain.

Third, the Bible isn’t some 2000 year old document that means nothing. There is world history and prophecies that happened and are happening right now all through it. But I guess none of that means anything, it’s just some stupid old book.

Forth, this has absolutely nothing do with “reconciling with the advances of humanity.” Again, you don’t make any sense.

All you people that want nothing to do with God keep throwing this same garbage around. You assume all Christians are ignorant. You don’t even know the details of my relationship to God or my beliefs in him. Yet, you automatically assume that I think you are all going to hell. The same sterotypical nonesense that you put “religious” people in.

By the way Pookie,

Ren and swordthrower used improper grammer and punctuation. Shouldn’t you be correcting them?

Oh never mind, they believe what you do so they’re off the hook. I only get held accountable for spelling errors because we disagree.

245

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
Well, keep in mind that its not exlusively our brains that separate us. Its the combination of bipedalism, opposable thumbs, and brains. And only primates have those things. So only primates could have evolved into us, and they did… A spider with a big brain will not have any survival advantage over another spider, say, with more powerful venom, or who can build a better web.

Look at dolphins. They have intricate communication (some call it language, others reserve “language” for humans), organized society, etc. But, they don’t have any way of using their brains for more than that. How could they build anything? How would a smarter dolphin be better at passing on its genes than a fast one?

Your questions really do seem to indicate that you don’t know much about evolutionary theory. It would help if you based your opinion on more than your opinion itself.[/quote]

All you keep doing is simply saying that I don’t know about evolution.

That’s not an answer, you didn’t answer the question.

So because dolphins don’t have hands like us, this is what is keeping them from building anything similar to our technology. Do you really believe that?

All you can do is answer with “look at dolphins, they are smart and communicate”, yet you are trying to pass me off as being ignorant to evolution. This in no way answers the question.