Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2019 5:50 PM
17 online now:
JonF, Tanypteryx (2 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,041 Year: 7,077/19,786 Month: 1,618/1,581 Week: 440/393 Day: 31/43 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   This settles it.. Never moving down south..
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 116 (19041)
10-03-2002 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Tranquility Base
10-03-2002 9:28 PM


T.B.,

Sure let's take the limitations of science as we now know it, and say it points to creation, becuase we do not know everything about it. Heck, it must point to creation or else we would know about it now?

How illogical is that?

In my opnion, creationism should not be taught as mainstream science. I have gone over and over this belief or pereference. Take either word, fine with me. I am sure others have agreed with my viewpoints. If the kiddies want to believe that they a "Creator" created them, then they should go and research that on their own personal time. No need to waste time spent in intelligent and accepted forms and proofs of science, mathematics, or anything. This would include theories that are backed up with considerable evidence, evolution.

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-03-2002 9:28 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 116 (19042)
10-03-2002 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Tranquility Base
10-03-2002 9:42 PM


T.B.,

"I do not beleive the origin of God is worth thinking about on this side of eternity."

So if God's orgin is not worth thinking about, why think about it at all? Heck, he may be Satan masquerading as God and laughing at you. And if you do not think or are even concerned with your God's orgin, what makes you think you can be an expert in saying what the earth's orgins were? Question, you seem to know everything, tell us why you seem to know that the earth was created, yet you cannot even asnwer direct questions directly.

"I believe by faith that my God is responisble for life on earth. I also scientifically beleive that the data backs it up, although not neccesarily uniquely."

Hah, belief by faith again blind faith. Can you prove that your faith is reliable and realistic? Hmm, science has to back up a supposition very uniquely, if not then we need to discard it. Bye-bye thoery.

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-03-2002 9:42 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 116 (19057)
10-04-2002 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by acmhttu001_2006
10-03-2002 10:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Nos482,

Well, then I will not give up the debate. Thank goodness, I have a cut and paste button, if something needs to be typed again and again. LOL.

Where they get those kind of points that you made, which are typical of creationists', I do not see the logic. My guess, is there is none.


Well, logic and reason are not needed when one has faith and belief.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 10-03-2002 10:36 PM acmhttu001_2006 has not yet responded

  
RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 116 (19077)
10-04-2002 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Tranquility Base
10-03-2002 9:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
There is no Bible or anything in this. The data does suggest creation irrespective of whether it is true or not. Evolution has a potential answer for each of these and we have potential answers for each of those rebuttals. But IMO these should be presented.

The problem still revolves around the fact that creationism is based on religous texts.

When Creationists can remove ALL religious overtones then, and maybe then can creationism be considered an alternative theory to evolution. But since it will always get back to the fact that creationism relies on a mystical being who is responsible for our existance, a being who cannot be seen, or shown to actually exist, that day will never happen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-03-2002 9:28 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-06-2002 8:49 PM RedVento has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 116 (19178)
10-06-2002 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by RedVento
10-04-2002 12:33 PM


RedVento

So if God did create and the geo-column was due to a global flood you are saying that the distinctneess of gene families in genomes and the domination of marine sedimentaiton on our continents is irrelevant? So scientific evidence is only relevant if God doesn't exist.

No. I,let alone God, will tell you that they were relevant. The potential God inhabited universe you allow for is ridiculous.

The Biblical God not only claimed to do things that must have left evidence he even told us that they did leave evidence! And that evience is there.

There is somehting in between your silly strawman 'Big Blue Banana' God and evolution.

Your logical breakdown is that you a priori pretend that God can't have left evidence.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-06-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by RedVento, posted 10-04-2002 12:33 PM RedVento has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by nos482, posted 10-06-2002 10:16 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 73 by RedVento, posted 10-07-2002 12:47 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 116 (19181)
10-06-2002 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Tranquility Base
10-06-2002 8:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
RedVento

So if God did create and the geo-column was due to a global flood you are saying that the distinctneess of gene families in genomes and the domination of marine sedimentaiton on our continents is irrelevant? So scientific evidence is only relevant if God doesn't exist.

No. I will tell you, let alone God, that they were relevant. The potential God inhabited universe you allow for is ridiculous.

The Biblical God not only claimed to do things that must have left evidence he even told us that they did leave evidence! And that evience is there.

There is somehting in between your silly strawman 'Big Blue Banana' God and evolution.

Your logical breakdown is that you a priori pretend that God can't have left evidence.


Hey, the Big Blue Banana is my supreme being example.

What is this evidence of god? It is one thing to tell us there is evidence, but it is another to actually show it. And using the circular arguement that one must first have faith and belief that god exists to see this evidence is not proof of anything but self-delusion.

BTW, your statement is very disjointed and somewhat confusing. You are beginning to sound desperate.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-06-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-06-2002 8:49 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-07-2002 3:24 AM nos482 has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 116 (19189)
10-07-2002 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by nos482
10-06-2002 10:16 PM


^ Read it again nos482.

The evidence is distinct lifeforms, distinct gene families and vast marine innundaitons on land. It does not prove anything but it is what we expect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by nos482, posted 10-06-2002 10:16 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by nos482, posted 10-07-2002 7:58 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 116 (19206)
10-07-2002 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Tranquility Base
10-07-2002 3:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Read it again nos482.

The evidence is distinct lifeforms, distinct gene families and vast marine innundaitons on land. It does not prove anything but it is what we expect.


And how is this evidence for the existence of your god? This is evidence for evolution from what I see. What you're basically saying is something like this. "Since the banana is shaped "perfectly" to fit the human hand and has a little tab on the end to peel it from that this proves the existence of god." (BTW, the correct way to peel a banana is from the other end, and not the stem.) Do you know how silly your statement sounds to us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-07-2002 3:24 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by nator, posted 10-07-2002 11:14 AM nos482 has responded
 Message 74 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-08-2002 3:06 AM nos482 has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 311 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 69 of 116 (19223)
10-07-2002 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by nos482
10-07-2002 7:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Read it again nos482.

The evidence is distinct lifeforms, distinct gene families and vast marine innundaitons on land. It does not prove anything but it is what we expect.


And how is this evidence for the existence of your god? This is evidence for evolution from what I see. What you're basically saying is something like this. "Since the banana is shaped "perfectly" to fit the human hand and has a little tab on the end to peel it from that this proves the existence of god." (BTW, the correct way to peel a banana is from the other end, and not the stem.) Do you know how silly your statement sounds to us.


I didn't realize that there was a "correct" way to peel a banana.

What advantage is gained by peeling it from the bottom?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by nos482, posted 10-07-2002 7:58 AM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by nos482, posted 10-07-2002 11:59 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 71 by John, posted 10-07-2002 12:01 PM nator has not yet responded

    
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 116 (19233)
10-07-2002 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by nator
10-07-2002 11:14 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Read it again nos482.

The evidence is distinct lifeforms, distinct gene families and vast marine innundaitons on land. It does not prove anything but it is what we expect.


And how is this evidence for the existence of your god? This is evidence for evolution from what I see. What you're basically saying is something like this. "Since the banana is shaped "perfectly" to fit the human hand and has a little tab on the end to peel it from that this proves the existence of god." (BTW, the correct way to peel a banana is from the other end, and not the stem.) Do you know how silly your statement sounds to us.


I didn't realize that there was a "correct" way to peel a banana.

What advantage is gained by peeling it from the bottom?


Actually it peels much easier from the bottom than the top. This is how other banana eating primates do it as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by nator, posted 10-07-2002 11:14 AM nator has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 116 (19234)
10-07-2002 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by nator
10-07-2002 11:14 AM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
"Since the banana is shaped "perfectly" to fit the human hand and has a little tab on the end to peel it from that this proves the existence of god."

I once got a pamplet from a local church which said exactly this.

The same pamplet explained how, since Coke cans do not arise spontaneously, neither can life arise via abiogenesis.

quote:
I didn't realize that there was a "correct" way to peel a banana.

What advantage is gained by peeling it from the bottom?


umm... yeah...

I want to know too.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by nator, posted 10-07-2002 11:14 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by nos482, posted 10-07-2002 12:10 PM John has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 116 (19235)
10-07-2002 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by John
10-07-2002 12:01 PM


Originally posted by John:

I once got a pamplet from a local church which said exactly this.

I had heard it from a TV preacher.

The same pamplet explained how, since Coke cans do not arise spontaneously, neither can life arise via abiogenesis.

It's amazing how they use an apples and oranges arguement to convince some. It just goes to show much bad science education is at the grade school level in the USA.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-07-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by John, posted 10-07-2002 12:01 PM John has not yet responded

  
RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 116 (19237)
10-07-2002 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Tranquility Base
10-06-2002 8:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
RedVento

So if God did create and the geo-column was due to a global flood you are saying that the distinctneess of gene families in genomes and the domination of marine sedimentaiton on our continents is irrelevant? So scientific evidence is only relevant if God doesn't exist.

No. I,let alone God, will tell you that they were relevant. The potential God inhabited universe you allow for is ridiculous.

The Biblical God not only claimed to do things that must have left evidence he even told us that they did leave evidence! And that evience is there.

There is somehting in between your silly strawman 'Big Blue Banana' God and evolution.

Your logical breakdown is that you a priori pretend that God can't have left evidence.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-06-2002]


No what I am saying is remove the bible. Use "creation science" to come up with a theory about a creator, and do not use the bible as a template for what/why/how the creator did it all. You can't. Without the bible there is no point to start from, your observations can all be answered by evolution. The introduction of a creator makes the subject philosophical. Answering the question of "why are we here?" That is a question that as far as I know evolution doesn't attempt to answer.

What no creationist seems to be able to admit is that the reason they need creationism to be "right" is that they have some need to validate their existance. "God made me so I must be special" Well that's fine and dandy, and I have no problem with that, however don't force that down our throats, and don't pretend that there is some other noble reason behind the madness. And finally accept that creationism is not, will never be, science. No ideology springing from a religous text can be construed as science. Period.

Red
- Confortable with his place in the universe, regardless of the possible existance of God.

- We were "created" with free will.. if "God" chooses to punish me for exercising it, then screw him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-06-2002 8:49 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-08-2002 3:09 AM RedVento has responded
 Message 78 by nator, posted 10-08-2002 9:02 AM RedVento has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 116 (19285)
10-08-2002 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by nos482
10-07-2002 7:58 AM


nos

Have a look at the use of the word 'distinct' in my post. Maybe it's nothing to do with bananas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by nos482, posted 10-07-2002 7:58 AM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by nos482, posted 10-08-2002 7:59 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 116 (19286)
10-08-2002 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by RedVento
10-07-2002 12:47 PM


RV

My 2 lesson syllabus for creation (see Quetzal's thread) outlines the evidence for creation that is Bible free. This is appropriate for a governmnet school course. It will not stop me from elsewhere demonstrating evidence of the Biblical God.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-08-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RedVento, posted 10-07-2002 12:47 PM RedVento has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by nos482, posted 10-08-2002 8:07 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 80 by RedVento, posted 10-08-2002 10:12 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019