Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 154 (8101 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-29-2014 2:39 AM
196 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 193 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Upcoming Birthdays: MFFJM2
Post Volume:
Total: 733,445 Year: 19,286/28,606 Month: 2,557/2,305 Week: 199/563 Day: 9/117 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)
jar
Member
Posts: 24595
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 61 of 89 (586734)
10-14-2010 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 2:33 PM


Since when on earth did Evo theory become fact!? There is plenty of scientific, and common sense evidence to point towards creation.....but I get it, you are allowed to choose whats healthy for my kids because its not religious.

That Evolution happened is more than a theory, it is as close to fact as science can ever come.

The Theory of Evolution is the ONLY model that has been presented that explain what is seen. There is no model of "Creation" that has been presented that explains anything.

There simply is no "Creation Science". It is an oxymoron.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 2:33 PM SignGuy has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12604
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 62 of 89 (586736)
10-14-2010 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 2:33 PM


I WANT TO CHOOSE WHATS GOOD FOR MY KIDS!

Well, you can. You can teach them creationism all you like. You can even (as I understand it, stop me if I'm wrong) have them sit out science classes in which evolution is taught, thus depriving them of the "options to explore" which were so important to you back in post #56. But I don't see how you get to rewrite the curriculum for everyone because it conflicts with your religious beliefs any more than a geocentrist or a flat-Earther does.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 2:33 PM SignGuy has not yet responded

  
SignGuy
Junior Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 10-14-2010


Message 63 of 89 (586741)
10-14-2010 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Coyote
10-14-2010 2:40 PM


Re: Religious indoctrination
CHILD ABUSE????? Christianity teaches SOO MUCH about treating people nicely. If fact it teach that if somebody does something wrong against you to return it to them with KINDNESS. The doctrines are endless that teach to treat people properly! And so many line up with our culture already but you still dont like religion.

HATE?????? I don think so, not a stitch of doctrine teaches hate, NOT ONE.

Parents scream constantly to be aloud to raise children as they see fit, for parental equality if you will. But when it comes to religion, everybody wants the parental rights yanked from them.

Let me tell you this........you say we are teaching children to be deliberately ignorant of the world, I say we are teaching them to have peace on there death bed......Yet you want them to be scratching, and clawing for every last minute of life they can get because of the fear of death. Being a Christian, offers a sense of peace on any deathbed.

The question is where do YOU draw the line? Anything that interferes in a conversation I have with my children at the dinner table is something that should NEVER be tought in public schools.

If my child ends up not following our family beleifs, I will not condemn that child, or forsake him or her. I may never drop the subject, but I will never stop loving them and treating them as I would any other person.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Coyote, posted 10-14-2010 2:40 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by zombie ringo, posted 10-14-2010 3:43 PM SignGuy has not yet responded
 Message 65 by jar, posted 10-14-2010 4:04 PM SignGuy has not yet responded
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2010 4:12 PM SignGuy has not yet responded

    
zombie ringo
Member
Posts: 9344
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 64 of 89 (586744)
10-14-2010 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 3:24 PM


Re: Religious indoctrination
SignGuy writes:

Christianity teaches SOO MUCH about treating people nicely.


Does it teach you not to use all capitals? Because that would be nice.


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 3:24 PM SignGuy has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24595
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 65 of 89 (586747)
10-14-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 3:24 PM


Re: Religious indoctrination
Let me tell you this........you say we are teaching children to be deliberately ignorant of the world, I say we are teaching them to have peace on there death bed......Yet you want them to be scratching, and clawing for every last minute of life they can get because of the fear of death. Being a Christian, offers a sense of peace on any deathbed.

And of course, nothing in science has anything to do with Christian beliefs.

The question is where do YOU draw the line? Anything that interferes in a conversation I have with my children at the dinner table is something that should NEVER be tought in public schools.

Nonsense. Your dinner conversations are NOT in anyway protected. In fact the very purpose of education is so that your children can learn to think for themselves and challenge, even criticize, your beliefs.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 3:24 PM SignGuy has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12604
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 66 of 89 (586749)
10-14-2010 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 3:24 PM


Re: Religious indoctrination
Anything that interferes in a conversation I have with my children at the dinner table is something that should NEVER be tought in public schools.

Once again, I should like to ask whether you just wish this principle to apply to you, or whether it should also cover the people who think:

* That Bush was behind 9/11
* That income tax is illegal
* That the Earth is flat
* That statute law only applies to corporations
* That black people and white people are different species
* ... and so on ad nauseam.

But even if we just make this a special privilege for creationists, we're having to throw away so much more than evolution. Information about the speed of light or what the theory of thermodynamics is will contradict the pet mistakes of certain creationists, and so might lead to controversy around the dinner table.

If we only taught children science that conflicted with no creationist argument, we'd be down to electricity. And even then, it is possible to derive the speed of light from Maxwell's laws ...

Who knows, indeed, what statements are safe? One chap on these forums tried to base his creationist argument on the claim that the Great Pyramid was built by a completely different civilization than the one that built all the others. That was in his top six creationist arguments. It seems that we can't teach kids about Cheops, lest we run the risk of teaching his kids about Cheops.

Another guy based his argument on the proposition that "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes". Now we can't teach kids that spiders have eight eyes, because if his kids get to hear it, it might lead to friction around the dinner table.

When almost anything can be the subject of a mistake by someone, what is safe to teach children? Can we at least teach them spelling? No, we can't --- because a really devout King James Onlyist will tell you that, for example, "cloak" should be spelt "cloke", like God spelled it. To say that "cloke" is wrong is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. What's going to happen when he finds out that his children are spelling "cloak" the Devil's way?

And yet it is, in the end, desirable that children be educated. Which means, I'm afraid, that we can't allow people like you, no matter how sincerely motivated, to play dog-in-the-manger.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 3:24 PM SignGuy has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 569 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 67 of 89 (586750)
10-14-2010 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 2:33 PM


Evidence please
There is plenty of scientific, and common sense evidence to point towards creation.....but I get it, you are allowed to choose whats healthy for my kids because its not religious.

I've asked this of numerous creos, but as of yet no answers, would you please show some of this evidence?


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 2:33 PM SignGuy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 4:42 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2114
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 68 of 89 (586754)
10-14-2010 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 2:33 PM


There is plenty of scientific, and common sense evidence to point towards creation

Such as? No, really, that is not a rhetorical question. I started studying "creation science" nearly 30 years ago, around 1981. I had first heard their claims (the live clam shell carbon-dated to thousands of years old and the story of the NASA computer that found Joshua's "lost day" when the sun stood still) back around 1970 at the on-set of the "Jesus Freak" movement, which coincided with the start of "creation science" (itself the anti-evolution movement reaction to having just lost their 1920's "monkey laws"). That NASA computer story was ridiculously false, so I immediately rejected "creation science" as false, but then in 1981 when I heard that it was still around, I thought maybe there might be something to their claims after all, so I started studying it. It didn't take me long to realize that their claims were completely and utterly false.

One of those false claims is the one that you have just repeated, that they have plenty of scientific evidence that points towards creation. For the past 30 years, I have been looking for that evidence and have repeated asked for it, including from "creation science's" top guns. So far, I have found none and no creationist has ever presented any of it.

In 1985, I went to a debate between the two top guns of creationism, Drs. Henry Morris and Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and two San Diego university professors, Thwaites and Awbrey, who had been running their own two-model class in which they gave half the lectures and leading creationists, many from the then-nearby ICR, gave the other half -- they finally had to drop the class after years of furious protests by the campus Christian clubs. Also in attendence was a creationist co-worker. At the end of the evening, my co-worker was stumbling out in shock, mumbling over and over again, "But we have mountains of evidence ... why didn't they present any of it? ... we have mounains of evidence ... why didn't they present any of it?". When he entered that debate hall, Dr. Gish was his hero; when i saw him again a few years later, he had nothing but contempt for creationists.

If creationists have so much "scientific evidence for creation", then why don't they ever present it? All they ever do is set up the false dilemma of the "two-model approach" (TMA) and then do nothing but attack their strawman "evolution model" (a caricature which only bears superficial resemblance to evolution) while refusing to discuss, defend, or even present their "creation model". Even Dr. H. Morris personally insisted to me that any evidence against their "evolution model" constituted evidence for their "creation model" -- an untrue statement, since their TMA is not a true dichotomy.

So if there is indeed so much "scientific evidence that points towards creation", where is it and what is it? No anti-evolution claims, please.

And as for "common sense", that means nothing. Common sense can only offer answers if it's based on knowledge of how something actually works, which most people's common sense does not.

For example, here are some common sense statements:

The sun and moon rise and set and move across the sky -- wrong; they only appear to do so because of the earth's rotation.

Heavier objects fall faster than light objects -- wrong; they fall at the same speed. It's just that lighter objects with higher coefficients of drag will be more subject to aerodynamic drag.

If a ball rolls down a corkscrew track and reaches the end and falls out, it will continue moving in a curved trajectory -- wrong; it will move in a straight line, albeit subject to gravity. This was an actual part of a scientific literacy test and the vast majority of test-takers answered that it would move in the same curved trajectory of the corkscrew track; we can't make that stuff up!

If you're driving along and your car starts to overheat, turning the air conditioning on will only make it overheat faster -- not anymore; that only worked when car engines were mounted in-line so that the radiator fan was turned directly by the engine. Now with traverse-mounted engines and front-wheel drive, radiator fans are powered by an electric motor which is controlled by one of the car's computers; in some cases where the computer has failed to detect that it needs to turn on the fan motor (I had a car with that problem) then turning on the A/C momentarily could get that computer to turn the fan on (which is what I found would work in my car's case).

To reiterate, the only way that you can get good answers from common sense is if you base it on a knowledge of how things really work. When we do base it on such knowledge, we find that the scientific explanations, including evolution, make the most sense. OTOH, creationists' "common sense" is based both on abject ignorance and contrary-to-fact claims, and so can only be relied upon to yield totally bogus answers.

In the mean time, it is possible that souls are at stake, but you aren't concerned with the possibility of interfering with a parents choice to raise there children as they wish or, the eternal destination of those kids.

You believe that there's a conflict between science and religion. Well, if the religion insists on teaching extra things that are contrary-to-fact, then there would necessarily be a conflict. However, that conflict is of that religion's doing, not science's.

Despite what you've been taught by your handlers, science does not conflict with believe in God nor can it be used to disprove God nor does it attempt to. Rather, it is certain religious groups (especially those who embrace the false theology of "creation science") that teach that science is used to disprove God. Rather, it is "creation science" which disproves God, in that it teaches that if its contrary-to-fact claims are found to be false, then God does not exist (or variations thereof; eg, then Scripture would have no meaning, then God is a Liar and must not be worshipped, then you must throw your Bible away and become an atheist).

Perhaps this little story will help make the situation clearer. A decade ago, I received an email from a creationist from whom I heard this particular argument for the first time:

quote:
I am a Christian, and I believe God to the creator, but I don't see how it can always be conclusively supported with given data. Now given, data doesn't lie, but I do not think that all data is intrinsically pure. In other words this: it has been tampered with by supernatural beings, namely satan himself. satan's (sic) main concern is that he takes as many people down with him as possible. If he can convince us that God doens't exist by "tampering" with geological data and other findings, then we will think that we are alone in this universe with no spiritual meaning, and that when we die, we are worm food. Has anyone ever expressed this view towards you before? How do you respond to it? I know it sounds like an easy cop-out, but God has given satan the power over the earth and spiritual warfare does take place every day. What are your thoughts?

Here is my reply:
quote:
An interesting view. No, I don't recall having heard it before. Of course, since it is impossible for us to know anything about the supernatural, we could come up with any number of supernaturalistic conspiracy theories to explain anything we want to. One that immediately comes to mind is Maya; all of our physical existence is just illusion anyway.

However, if it is a trick of Satan's, then it is a far more subtle and deadly trick than you think. At the end of my Quotes Page [ sorry, it's no longer on-line ever since my provider suddenly left the webhosting business ], I wrote from memory what a Christian had told me on CompuServe's Science Forum, circa 1997:
In order to ensnare Christians, Satan, the Great Deceiver, knows that he cannot fool them with single lies, so he always creates lies in pairs. The first and lesser lie is intended be alarming and to scare Christians and to drive them to embrace the second and more pernicious lie, trapping them there. That Christian viewed both creation science and evolution as lies, but evolution was the lesser lie which Satan uses to frighten Christians and to drive them to embrace the truly pernicious lie, creation science.

Think about it, Matt. You are trying to explain away the "lesser lie", but you do not see the "greater lie", even though it forms the basis of your entire argument.

Tell me, Matt, why would Satan's tampering with geological data convince us that God doesn't exist? Think about it. What assumptions have you made there? Haven't you embraced the "greater lie", the lie that science disproves God? The lie that forms the heart of creation science? Sneaky devil, isn't he? He snared you and you didn't even know it. And he didn't even have to tamper with the physical evidence; all he had to do was to trick you into believing that the evidence would convince you that God doesn't exist and then just let the universe do the rest.



He never answered back.

I WANT TO CHOOSE WHATS GOOD FOR MY KIDS!

As do all parents. But do you really know what's good for them? Do you really believe that ignorance and lies and deception are good for them? Do you really believe it's good for them to teach them that God cannot exist if the world is really how we find it to be, so they must exercise eternal vigilance in protecting themselves from ever learning anything about it? Do you really think that it's good for them to teach them that "creation science's" claims are found to be false, then they must become atheists? Do you really believe that?

We're talking about your kids and what's good for them! You need to really think about what you're teaching them and what the consequences are. Your kids are the most precious things in your life!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 2:33 PM SignGuy has not yet responded

    
SignGuy
Junior Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 10-14-2010


Message 69 of 89 (586757)
10-14-2010 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by bluescat48
10-14-2010 4:16 PM


Re: Evidence please
I'll admit, in my mind much of the evidence I see is in basic observation of our planet. Im very perplexed as (even with scientific evidence , not to be confused with proof ) anybody could image our wonderful planet being an accident....I know its very typical or a creo to say that.

But my bible teaches of a great flood......and I see the grand canyon a result of an enormous flood of the earth, not a gentle carving over millions of years because many rivers that exist today could possibly be just as old, but will never carve a canyon like that. And im not a specialist in rocks, aren't many layers of the grand canyon really hard rock?? Wouldn't an enormours flood of water be needed to carve it?

some links:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/09/070907150931.htm

tel aviv school doesnt seem to have any religious affilliations, as far as I can see

http://www.answersingenesis.org

There is a definate differance between proof, and evidence. Proof is a smoking gun, and evidence shows the possibilty of what is trying to be proved. In my mind if there are conflicting evidences, than neither side of any case can be "proved".

I will digress on banning evolution because, as you showed me, you cant take evolution out without taking so many other items with it. I will just depend on good ol fashion parenting to enstill what I beleive is right to my children. If they follow a different path, that will change very little in my relationship with them.

question, would you be willing to meet any creo in the middle of the road?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Got first link to be clickable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by bluescat48, posted 10-14-2010 4:16 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 10-14-2010 4:47 PM SignGuy has not yet responded
 Message 72 by frako, posted 10-14-2010 5:11 PM SignGuy has not yet responded
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2010 5:57 PM SignGuy has not yet responded
 Message 74 by zombie ringo, posted 10-14-2010 5:59 PM SignGuy has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24595
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 70 of 89 (586760)
10-14-2010 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 4:42 PM


Re: Evidence please
But my bible teaches of a great flood......and I see the grand canyon a result of an enormous flood of the earth, not a gentle carving over millions of years because many rivers that exist today could possibly be just as old, but will never carve a canyon like that. And im not a specialist in rocks, aren't many layers of the grand canyon really hard rock?? Wouldn't an enormours flood of water be needed to carve it?

However I can offer you pretty conclusive proof that there was never a Biblical Flood and that the Grand Canyon cannot be the result of a Biblical Flood.

Those two are very easy, the first (that the Biblical Flood never happened) can be covered in just one message, the later can be explored at Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 4:42 PM SignGuy has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2401
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 71 of 89 (586766)
10-14-2010 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 2:33 PM


Since when on earth did Evo theory become fact!?

it is the only model that explains the situation and it has tones of evidence to support it, creation has none. so it is as close to a fact that science can come to.

There is plenty of scientific, and common sense evidence to point towards creation.....

then show it to me why dont the creationist show the evidence to the world why dont they write a paper on it publish it and get it peer rewived.

but I get it, you are allowed to choose whats healthy for my kids because its not religious.

well if we go down that road you will haveto let them teach, the muslim, hindu... and other religions creation storries all whit no evidence if i might ad.

In the mean time, it is possible that souls are at stake, but you aren't concerned with the possibility of interfering with a parents choice to raise there children as they wish or, the eternal destination of those kids.

if you want to have your shildren thaught creation, or naything else you can teach them, your religions group can teach them but scools do not teach anything that is not proven beyond reasnoble doubt.

You want religion kept out of the way of science, but not the other way around because of intellectual integrity?????

well children have a right to lern what is true you can feed them your dogma on sundays or whenever you have time. if you prove god then we can talk about it going in to scools.

I WANT TO CHOOSE WHATS GOOD FOR MY KIDS! I dont want religion taught in schools, and I am a Christian

as do we all, so what is the problem if you do not want your children to lern evolution is like you do not want your children to learn to read, write, learn math, lern basic of biology like that sin does not cause desiese and so one evolution is as close to a fact as a fact can be and facts are thaught in scools.

God did not force me to follow him, so I dont want to shove religion down anybodies mouth. I thought that was the american way, to let everybody live how they wish, and have no interference.

sure i do not mind if you teach your kids voodoo, muslim, hindu, if you want them to fall in to your dogma let them, dont tell us not to teach facts in school


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 2:33 PM SignGuy has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2401
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 72 of 89 (586768)
10-14-2010 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 4:42 PM


Re: Evidence please
question, would you be willing to meet any creo in the middle of the road?

the middle is dangerus lets meet on the side walk

im not saying there is no god, im saying there is nothing pointing to god at the moment so the safe bet is there is no god. if we find something that science cannot explain, and cannot be explained in a nother way than god did it that would point to a god like being though it would not say anything on what god that is christian, muslim greek, ... or on the wishes of the deity for all we know he wants to be left alone and any atempt to contact him would resault in the erth being vaporised.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 4:42 PM SignGuy has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12604
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 73 of 89 (586777)
10-14-2010 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 4:42 PM


Re: Evidence please
But my bible teaches of a great flood......and I see the grand canyon a result of an enormous flood of the earth, not a gentle carving over millions of years because many rivers that exist today could possibly be just as old, but will never carve a canyon like that. And im not a specialist in rocks, aren't many layers of the grand canyon really hard rock?? Wouldn't an enormours flood of water be needed to carve it?

First, the walls of the Grand Canyon are overwhelmingly sedimentary rock --- limestone, sandstone, and shale. These are not hard rocks.

Now, let's have a think about the amount of water involved. Before it was dammed, the flow of the Colorado was 623m/s (the overprecise figure is because of a conversion from imperial to metric). As not all of its tributaries have joined it by the time it gets to the Grand Canyon, let's call that 500m/s at that point.

According to geologists, the Colorado has been flowing in its present course for 17 million years. Which is 6 billion days. Which is 144 billion hours. which is 8.6 trillion minutes. Which is half a quadrillion seconds. Which is 250 quadrillion cubic meters of water flowing though it, or to put it another way, about a fifth as much water as there is in all the seas and oceans.

Whereas forty days and forty nights is about how much rainfall they get in Sydney, Australia, every year.

Of course, this is all very approximate back-of-a-used-envelope stuff, but if you want some idea of the scale, you now have it.

Besides this, the erosional forms cut by the Colorado clearly were cut by a river, How else were meanders like this produced except by the meandering river that meanders through it?

some links.....http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070907150931.htm

tel aviv school doesnt seem to have any religious affilliations, as far as I can see

And they claim that a local flood in the Middle East occurred which they suggest was the origin of myths of a global flood for which they do not claim that there is the slightest shred of evidence.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 4:42 PM SignGuy has not yet responded

  
zombie ringo
Member
Posts: 9344
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 74 of 89 (586778)
10-14-2010 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 4:42 PM


Re: Evidence please
SignGuy writes:

But my bible teaches of a great flood......and I see the grand canyon a result of an enormous flood of the earth, not a gentle carving over millions of years because many rivers that exist today could possibly be just as old, but will never carve a canyon like that.


You can do the experiment yourself in your own back yard. Dig up a garden patch with a little slope on it so it drains nicely. Then put two barrels of water on one side. In one barrel, make a little hole at the bottom so that the water trickles out slowly. Then push over the other barrel to dump the water quickly. Which one do you think will simulate the Grand Canyon?


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 4:42 PM SignGuy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by SignGuy, posted 10-15-2010 11:03 AM zombie ringo has responded

  
SignGuy
Junior Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 10-14-2010


(1)
Message 75 of 89 (586877)
10-15-2010 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by zombie ringo
10-14-2010 5:59 PM


Re: Evidence please
Look, nomatter what evidence I bring to the table for creation there is an enormous amount of data interpreted to support your views. I still just see mounds and mounds of evidence, but no smoking gun.

And to be frank, I see the appeal of choosing to believe in evolution or some other natural process of existence. It is very convient, even if it all seems to be "logical". Because you see if a person doesn't want to be affiliated with any religion, they have secular science with mounds of data (that gets interpreted, the data may be true but it still gets filtered by scientific interpretation.....) to back up a "logical" choice. Furthermore, he or she never feels responsible for there actions to a higher being. They can live life as they choose, with little to no consequences and feel comfortable because a small group of people interpret data, and write convincing papers to justify the way they chose to live.

On the contrary, the reason science doesn't reason with Christians is because it is something you feel & experience. Becoming a true Christian is not easy, and not taken lightly. It is a VERY hard thing to trust in a God you cannot see with your eyes but know is true, alive, and Holy....consequently it is a VERY VERY emotional process filled with joy. Don't be suprised or offended if the majority of Christians dont even look at the data you present them. These people have experienced God, creator of the uninverse, personally and are very grateful and humbled that God cared so much to save them through Jesus Christ. But you want to take that away with science? cuz its more logical?

Be it pushy bible thumpers, or pushy evolutionist.....both parties can get very arrogant. From what I read from scriptures not everybody will end up choosing to follow God, so then why should I look down on people who beleive different? I dont, and I wont do that ever. I will, however, do what I am called to do. I will stand up for the Lord and share my beleifs with people who are willing & wanting to listen....I will not force feed my beleifs to anybody.

But in general, on this website, I do not feel a common respect for other parties. I have seen people who are religious called **** for brains, stupid, ignorant and ironically wicked. But actually it is very arrogant to think, even if it you are conviced its true, that any one party should insist that other people beleive the facts you claim are facts indeed, or else you are dumb. Brilliant people are Christians, and brilliants people support scientific studies....but neither should expect an entire planet will end up beleiving ONE point of view.....that is impossible without brainwashing on some level.....dont cry over spilled milk it doesn't change anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by zombie ringo, posted 10-14-2010 5:59 PM zombie ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 10-15-2010 11:13 AM SignGuy has responded
 Message 78 by zombie ringo, posted 10-15-2010 11:56 AM SignGuy has not yet responded
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2010 12:22 PM SignGuy has not yet responded
 Message 80 by Granny Magda, posted 10-15-2010 12:36 PM SignGuy has not yet responded
 Message 81 by hooah212002, posted 10-15-2010 1:13 PM SignGuy has not yet responded
 Message 82 by Modulous, posted 10-15-2010 1:31 PM SignGuy has not yet responded
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2010 1:33 PM SignGuy has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014