[quote]harris447 wrote:
No. We’re playing the “you’re stupid because you believe in stupid things” game.[/quote]
Stupid things? What stupid things? You mean, I believe that we were created by God. Is that what you mean?
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Please give examples of specific prophecies which have come true.
[quote]
All you people that want nothing to do with God keep throwing this same garbage around. [/quote]
There are a lot of Christians who would argue exactly the same things I am arguing. My stance is not atheistic, it is scientific. I am not using my belief or lack of belief in an all-powerful being anywhere in my statements.
You are still avoiding the evolution discussion, I see.
I have another example for you: Human females are much more susceptible to complications when giving birth than other primates, because human pelvises had to shrink (as we evolved from monkeys!) in order to allow us to walk upright. It doesn’t seem likely that an intelligent creator would allow this kind of flaw (and let those damn dirty apes off the hook).
I’m interested to see if you are actually willing to participate in a mature debate, or just accuse me of thinking that you are an ignorant christian. I have said many times before that I work with many people of faith (who are also physicists/astronomers) and I do not judge people based on their belief systems. But I DO judge people for being arrogant, ignorant, and unwilling to have meaningful discussions without resorting to defensive or aggressive tactics.
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
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.
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.
[/quote]
YES! How is it physically possible for dolphins to be technological? They have no opposable digits, let alone appendages! What exactly is your argument? That we are somehow special, but they aren’t?
Its not just our brains. Our brains evolved because we had opposable digits, and were bipedal. It was genetically advantageous to have larger brains. Its pretty simple.
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
harris447 wrote:
No. We’re playing the “you’re stupid because you believe in stupid things” game.
Stupid things? What stupid things? You mean, I believe that we were created by God. Is that what you mean?
[/quote]
“In the beginning God created…”
“In the beginning…BANG!..”
Once again I have to remind you that both are questions and assertions of FAITH and NOT science.
Nobody was there and both “theories” are not able to be proven false. Therefore, both are assertions of faith and either they BOTH belong in religion class or you have to present the other “theory” in science class if you present one. Othewise it is a de facto stamp of approval of one faith over another.
Now for all the flamers out there, I will save you time. I don’t want to hear about all the reasons evolution is “science.” You are simply wrong – it cannot be science if we cannot set up an experiment and prove it false. Just like Creation – it is faith. Evolution is the faith that there is no divine creator and thus, all of the things that were made were made by itself…
…I choose to believe God…
God says it!
I believe it!
That settles it!
Take care!
SteveO
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
harris447 wrote:
No. We’re playing the “you’re stupid because you believe in stupid things” game.
Stupid things? What stupid things? You mean, I believe that we were created by God. Is that what you mean?
“In the beginning God created…”
“In the beginning…BANG!..”
Once again I have to remind you that both are questions and assertions of FAITH and NOT science.
Nobody was there and both “theories” are not able to be proven false. Therefore, both are assertions of faith and either they BOTH belong in religion class or you have to present the other “theory” in science class if you present one. Othewise it is a de facto stamp of approval of one faith over another.
Now for all the flamers out there, I will save you time. I don’t want to hear about all the reasons evolution is “science.” You are simply wrong – it cannot be science if we cannot set up an experiment and prove it false. Just like Creation – it is faith. Evolution is the faith that there is no divine creator and thus, all of the things that were made were made by itself…
…I choose to believe God…
God says it!
I believe it!
That settles it!
Take care!
SteveO
[/quote]
We have observational evidence which supports a Big Bang model. Scientists didn’t just pull it out of a hat. All distant galaxies are receding from us at a velocity proportional to their distance. There is a uniform background spectrum from every direction. These facts support the theory. When these ideas are taught in schools, they are taught as theories, not fact. The evidence is presented, and then the theory is presented.
I have no problem with you attributing the creation of the universe to an intelligent creator, but if you don’t like the conclusion based on the observations, then you should come up with another self-consistent model which reproduces the observed phenomena.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
harris447 wrote:
No. We’re playing the “you’re stupid because you believe in stupid things” game.
Stupid things? What stupid things? You mean, I believe that we were created by God. Is that what you mean?
“In the beginning God created…”
“In the beginning…BANG!..”
Once again I have to remind you that both are questions and assertions of FAITH and NOT science.
Nobody was there and both “theories” are not able to be proven false. Therefore, both are assertions of faith and either they BOTH belong in religion class or you have to present the other “theory” in science class if you present one. Othewise it is a de facto stamp of approval of one faith over another.
Now for all the flamers out there, I will save you time. I don’t want to hear about all the reasons evolution is “science.” You are simply wrong – it cannot be science if we cannot set up an experiment and prove it false. Just like Creation – it is faith. Evolution is the faith that there is no divine creator and thus, all of the things that were made were made by itself…
…I choose to believe God…
God says it!
I believe it!
That settles it!
Take care!
SteveO
[/quote]
Stevo, were you directing this post at me? I do believe in God.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
ACTS 18-9:
One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: Do not be afraid keep on speaking do not be silent.[/quote]
This is probably the same night Paul was drinking and smoking hash.
[quote]JAMES 1-21:
“Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.”[/quote]
Hopefully this is a personal instruction. Get to work on yourself and leave the judgment for someone qualified.
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
harris447 wrote:
No. We’re playing the “you’re stupid because you believe in stupid things” game.
Stupid things? What stupid things? You mean, I believe that we were created by God. Is that what you mean?
“In the beginning God created…”
“In the beginning…BANG!..”
Once again I have to remind you that both are questions and assertions of FAITH and NOT science.
Nobody was there and both “theories” are not able to be proven false. Therefore, both are assertions of faith and either they BOTH belong in religion class or you have to present the other “theory” in science class if you present one. Othewise it is a de facto stamp of approval of one faith over another.
Now for all the flamers out there, I will save you time. I don’t want to hear about all the reasons evolution is “science.” You are simply wrong – it cannot be science if we cannot set up an experiment and prove it false. Just like Creation – it is faith. Evolution is the faith that there is no divine creator and thus, all of the things that were made were made by itself…
…I choose to believe God…
God says it!
I believe it!
That settles it!
Take care!
SteveO
We have observational evidence which supports a Big Bang model. Scientists didn’t just pull it out of a hat. All distant galaxies are receding from us at a velocity proportional to their distance. There is a uniform background spectrum from every direction. These facts support the theory. When these ideas are taught in schools, they are taught as theories, not fact. The evidence is presented, and then the theory is presented.
I have no problem with you attributing the creation of the universe to an intelligent creator, but if you don’t like the conclusion based on the observations, then you should come up with another self-consistent model which reproduces the observed phenomena.[/quote]
Thank you for your thoughtful and respectufl post. I really appreciate that.
As for your points, I would simply like to make two points:
(1) The observable facts that you cite are not in dispute. I take that as fact. However, are you saying that a “Big Bang” is the ONLY plausible theory that comes out of those facts? Why couldn’t a Divine Creator create such a Universe in which the objects of His creation are moving apart from one another?
In other words, the facts that you cite do not demand a “Big Bang.”
(2) You are completely wrong that evolution is taught as a “theory” and not as “fact” I went to public school from K - 12 and then a public university for 4 years. In high school I was in a math/science program and had a minor in mathematics in college. In ALL that time, Evolution was treated and taught AS FACT. From what I know, it is still taught as FACT. When you read about evolution in any secular magazine it is treated AS FACT.
I wish it was taught as a theory, because if it were, then other competing theories (such as ID and Creationism) would have to be taught right beside it. It wouldn’t make sense to teach one “theory” and not the others. It seems that evolutionists, in an attempt to garner a monopoly on the brains of our youth, must offer their “theory” which is really a faith in “no Creator” as science and that science as fact.
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
harris447 wrote:
No. We’re playing the “you’re stupid because you believe in stupid things” game.
Stupid things? What stupid things? You mean, I believe that we were created by God. Is that what you mean?
“In the beginning God created…”
“In the beginning…BANG!..”
Once again I have to remind you that both are questions and assertions of FAITH and NOT science.
Nobody was there and both “theories” are not able to be proven false. Therefore, both are assertions of faith and either they BOTH belong in religion class or you have to present the other “theory” in science class if you present one. Othewise it is a de facto stamp of approval of one faith over another.
Now for all the flamers out there, I will save you time. I don’t want to hear about all the reasons evolution is “science.” You are simply wrong – it cannot be science if we cannot set up an experiment and prove it false. Just like Creation – it is faith. Evolution is the faith that there is no divine creator and thus, all of the things that were made were made by itself…
…I choose to believe God…
God says it!
I believe it!
That settles it!
Take care!
SteveO
Stevo, were you directing this post at me? I do believe in God.
[/quote]
Emu,
No, I just used your post as a springboard to “weigh in” after reading all of the posts.
I have agreed with all of your posts, I believe, and was just reiterating part of a discussion that we have had before, since I believe it is germaine to the argument at hand.
That is that both Creation and Evolution are a form of faith and either both go into the religion class or both go into the science class, but you cannot have one without the other.
Nobody was around when the Universe was created. Either you had some material that apparently just appeared and then “boom,” or you had the loving God of Eternity deciding in Himself, to Create all that there is. Of course I believe the latter like yourself, and just feel it is necessary to point us back to the real facts in this “debate.” Scream as they might that evolution is “science,” alas, it simply is not true.
Take care!
[quote]vroom wrote:
ZEB wrote:
ACTS 18-9:
One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: Do not be afraid keep on speaking do not be silent.
This is probably the same night Paul was drinking and smoking hash.
JAMES 1-21:
“Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.”
Hopefully this is a personal instruction. Get to work on yourself and leave the judgment for someone qualified.[/quote]
Vroom,
I have been away from posting for awhile, but have read most of this and other threads.
It seems like you are more intolerant of Christians excercising their faith on these threads. This last post seems downright hostile. The man is posting Scripture which he believes is God’s Holy Word. You then make fun of a great man of God (Apostle Paul) and go on to seem a bit intolerant or not open to see in yourself what the Bible is saying.
I cannot speak for Zeb, but as a Christian I am always “working on myself” by asking God to work in me and through me.
Why is it that I don’t see you or others decrying the “faiths” of the atheists, Buddists, Muslims, on other threads. Only Christians get this treatment. Why?
Vroom, in the posts where we have debated, I have always seen you as a reasonable and thoughtful individual. I am a bit disappointed here…
Take care!
Thanks SteveO
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
you had the loving God of Eternity deciding in Himself, to Create all that there is.[/quote]
Cute theory. Too bad there’s no evidence to support it. I wish the churches wouldn’t preach of God as “fact”, when it’s only a theory; and a flaky one at that.
In fact, it’d be nice if churches/temples/mosques/synagogues/etc. had to give equal time to all god theories. Odin is pretty cool and who doesn’t like Hercules (ok, only half-god, but so was Jesus…) We could have Allah week, Tiamat week, etc. I’m sure church attendance would go up if it wasn’t always the same old tripe being repeated ad nauseam.
And Flying Spaghetti Monster week! Who’d miss that?
That’d be great, no? You’d surely approve, seeing as you’re so big on teaching “all the theories”.
[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
you had the loving God of Eternity deciding in Himself, to Create all that there is.
Cute theory. Too bad there’s no evidence to support it. I wish the churches wouldn’t preach of God as “fact”, when it’s only a theory; and a flaky one at that.
In fact, it’d be nice if churches/temples/mosques/synagogues/etc. had to give equal time to all god theories. Odin is pretty cool and who doesn’t like Hercules (ok, only half-god, but so was Jesus…) We could have Allah week, Tiamat week, etc. I’m sure church attendance would go up if it wasn’t always the same old tripe being repeated ad nauseam.
And Flying Spaghetti Monster week! Who’d miss that?
That’d be great, no? You’d surely approve, seeing as you’re so big on teaching “all the theories”.[/quote]
Pookie,
I thought you are better than this. Nice try though, but your “logic” does not work.
In my church, we are not interested in other “theories” because we believe the fact of Creation and teach and preach it that way. However, in a public school setting – let me say this again slowly – P U B L I C S C H O O L – no purely religous (i.e. “faith”) dogma should be preached there (well at least not in the absence of others). These are supposed to be institutions of learning where kids are FORCED to go. Nobody has to force me to go to church to hear what we hear – I go because I WANT TO of my own free will.
Now, if you want to start the “First Darwinian Church of the Galapagos Islands” and teach and ‘preach’ evolution, I have no objection and you need not include Christianity or any other faith. You make my point clearly – either take it all out of the schools, or you must present all of the theories since these are educational institutions and not churches.
Why can’t you understand the difference Pookie?
[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
you had the loving God of Eternity deciding in Himself, to Create all that there is.
Cute theory. Too bad there’s no evidence to support it. I wish the churches wouldn’t preach of God as “fact”, when it’s only a theory; and a flaky one at that.
In fact, it’d be nice if churches/temples/mosques/synagogues/etc. had to give equal time to all god theories. Odin is pretty cool and who doesn’t like Hercules (ok, only half-god, but so was Jesus…) We could have Allah week, Tiamat week, etc. I’m sure church attendance would go up if it wasn’t always the same old tripe being repeated ad nauseam.
And Flying Spaghetti Monster week! Who’d miss that?
That’d be great, no? You’d surely approve, seeing as you’re so big on teaching “all the theories”.[/quote]
Pookie,
Oh,one other point:
There is as much evidence to support Creation as there is to support evolution. In fact, I would argue that the Creation side of the debate is far stronger.
Just saying there is “no evidence” does not make it so…
“The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth forth His handiwork.”
The Creation “screams” for a Divine Creator, not a “Blind Watchmaker.”
Take care…
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
In my church, we are not interested in other “theories” because we believe the fact of Creation and teach and preach it that way.[/quote]
Well, you church is exempt from taxes. In other word, it is costing the taxpaying public money by not paying it’s fair share of property taxes and revenue tax.
You want to be exempt from the “teach all the theories law?” Fine, pay your taxes like all other private citizens and corporations and you can do what you want.
A good Christian like you can’t be against fairness, right?
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
There is as much evidence to support Creation as there is to support evolution. In fact, I would argue that the Creation side of the debate is far stronger. [/quote]
No one was there to witness creation, so it’s dead in the water as far as evidence goes. Many parts of evolution can be observed in a lab setting.
Neither does just saying there is.
Yeah, but that’s just what some guy wrote a long time ago. We don’t know that guy. Was he of sound mind? Maybe the oral tradition went thru a couple of deaf guys with speach impediments. Who knows? At best, it’s hearsay written down. And of dubious origin at that.
That’s your theory. It’s very cute, but it’s got no legs to stand on. The “Blind Watchmaker” is not an entity or a deity of any kind, Occam’s razor favors that explanation.
[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
In my church, we are not interested in other “theories” because we believe the fact of Creation and teach and preach it that way.
Well, you church is exempt from taxes. In other word, it is costing the taxpaying public money by not paying it’s fair share of property taxes and revenue tax.
You want to be exempt from the “teach all the theories law?” Fine, pay your taxes like all other private citizens and corporations and you can do what you want.
A good Christian like you can’t be against fairness, right?[/quote]
What in the world are you talking about? The fact that my church and churches like it are tax exempt, has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of my points. The church is made up of plenty of taxpayers who work very hard for our pay and pay much in taxes here in New York. We are paying plenty.
This has nothing to do with anything. Pookie, what happened to your logic and reason? Why is it that when it comes to Evolution / Creation you seem to get so upset that you sort of “lose it?”
[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
There is as much evidence to support Creation as there is to support evolution. In fact, I would argue that the Creation side of the debate is far stronger.
No one was there to witness creation, so it’s dead in the water as far as evidence goes. Many parts of evolution can be observed in a lab setting.
Just saying there is “no evidence” does not make it so.
Neither does just saying there is.
“The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth forth His handiwork.”
Yeah, but that’s just what some guy wrote a long time ago. We don’t know that guy. Was he of sound mind? Maybe the oral tradition went thru a couple of deaf guys with speach impediments. Who knows? At best, it’s hearsay written down. And of dubious origin at that.
The Creation “screams” for a Divine Creator, not a “Blind Watchmaker.”
That’s your theory. It’s very cute, but it’s got no legs to stand on. The “Blind Watchmaker” is not an entity or a deity of any kind, Occam’s razor favors that explanation.[/quote]
Pookie,
Again a lot of fluff but no substance. You are clearly making MY points.
(1) Exactly what aspects of macroevolution can be “observed in a lab.” Please enlighten us…
Have they stuck a monkey in a flask and did a million year time warp and “poof” out came a human?
What are you talking about?
(2) The second point is my point exactly. Saying there is or not evidence doesn’t make it so on either side. My point exactly!
(3) Bible is of “dubious” origin. Tell that to the people who found the Dead Sea Scrolls. You should really look into this Pookie before you make such outlandish comments.
(4) Evolution is “your theory” and it is not very cute. Actually it is very impersonal and leaves no other conclusion but that there is no purpose of our being here except to be here for a tiny amount of time and then die.
Again, you are making my point which is nobody was there at the Creation or when the “Bang” happend. Nobody can observe macroevolution anywhere. Faith is faith. The fact remains that people like you who choose to believe in evolution want a total monopoly on the minds of our youth. The fact that there are people like me out there really gets people like you mad. You have had years of having it your way, and we are changing that little by little through the democratic processes.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
What in the world are you talking about? The fact that my church and churches like it are tax exempt, has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of my points.[/quote]
Let me explain for the slow kid in the back. You’ve often repeated that PUBLIC SCHOOLS should have to present all competing “theories,” because they’re all unproven and unprovable. Public schools get public money, so they’re public property, yadda-yadda-yadda.
Your church has tax exempt status. So it’s also costing the taxpayers money, the same as the public school. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. You want to teach creation and ID in school, fine. As long as you either preach Darwin and evolution in church or renounce your tax exempt status; therefore becoming a “private” church where you can preach what you want.
Yeah, you are, but the church itself isn’t. You tithe or something, right? And all that nice property and those nice buildings? Think of all the property taxes being lost to the public good.
No, it’s perfectly logical and quite reasonable. You and your church want to ram religion into the school’s curriculum. In the best interest of the kids, of course. Since the idea is so great, I think it should be applied to the church with equal gusto. Think of all those fine church attending people who might have never heard of Darwin, or might not be on the up and up on DNA and the latest genetic research.
I don’t understand how you can be against that? It’s your own idea. Since it’s so good, I think it should apply across the board to every institution that teaches or preaches. I mean, science is just another religion, right? And all theories, even yours, should get equal time?
What is it you don’t understand about this simple idea?
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
(1) Exactly what aspects of macroevolution can be “observed in a lab.” Please enlighten us…[/quote]
Where have I written that macroevolution could be observed in a lab? I wrote “many parts of evolution.”
Can’t you make any valid point without resorting to dishonesty? You’re going to make your Sky Daddy vewy angwy. Oh, I forgot, there’s no Commandment against lying, especially if it’s to push your religious agenda.
So your creation fable is just as flaky as evolution then? Why do you defend that side more than the other? Since there both flaky theories with no evidence, why go with creation? Did you flip a coin?
They found an old incomplete copy of the Bible… it’s still dubious. Who wrote these? Was he serious? Of sound mind? What if it was meant as a play to amuse the children?
My theories are just as valid as yours, seeing as you can’t back yours up any more than I can mine.
Yeah, it’s called ree-aaa-li-tyy. Deal with it.
Nobody can observe God anywhere either. At least macroevolution is worth something at Scrabble. God? Pffft.
No, no. I already said I’m fine with sharing the classroom if you’ll give us pulpit time. That way, the most people are exposed to the most ideas. Win-win.
Personally, I tend to find people like you quaint and amusing. Unfortunately, you vote and reproduce in droves. Therein lies the problem.
We’d be fools to ignore the power of stupid individuals in large numbers.
I mean, it got Bush elected once and let him steal his first election without so much as a whimper of protest.
The base cause is the crap that passes for “education” in the public schools. When you know nothing, you believe anything.