Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...45678...30
ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted:ok so first read this http://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored this is.

*deep cleansing breath*

ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?

Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers

i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes? confused
/end vent


Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?

Delete Topic

TheBovrilMonkey
TheBovrilMonkey

Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England
Member Since: 3rd Sep 2001
Total posts: 2629
Posted:If nothing tells you to believe in evolution and at the same time nothing tells you not to believe in evolution, shouldn't you decide for yourself?

But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: TheBovrilMonkey

If nothing tells you to believe in evolution and at the same time nothing tells you not to believe in evolution, shouldn't you decide for yourself?



I can't. I don't have free will. Nothing does.


Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Surely the big question is:

Why did God create the Earth 6000 years ago to really, really, really look like it has existed for 6 billion years?

I mean, layering all those fossils (specifically made to confuse us of course) in exact order of complexity in the sediment. Then changing the carbon 14 content of all organic matter he had faked and buried so they looked like they were millions of years old. Then wiring the retinas of vertibrates in backward for no reason at all, thus making them worse than they need be. Then giving us gill slits and tails in embryological developement and giving whales back legs in their embryonic states. Makeing both cheetahs and their prey antelope have to run so fast they nearly die was a particularily good joke on his part as well.

So in conclusion-The Earth is only 6000 years old. All evidence to the contrary is just God's little joke on all of us. After all it must get pretty boring having all that power sometimes.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:Well remember that God also has really bad aim. He keeps killing people in Tsunamis and Hurricanes for sins I've done.

Now I'm going to go eat a banana for breakfast. I've got to remember to spit out the large seeds since God put bananas on the earth with seeds and there's no such thing as evolution.

God's so wacky that way.

Oh, and Jeff, the fosils and such were planted by Satan to tempt man into forsaking God. That's what God told somebody to tell me.

You're going to look really stupid when God jumps out from behind the van with his television camera and tells you "You've been punked."

And Jeff, The idea behind religion is to discourage free thought. Once someone has reached that stage there's really no debating them. The only thing I don't understand is why those who have picked one God over the other Gods feel the need to keep talking since they're clearly not going to be influenced by what others are saying.

I like this quote:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - - Stephen Roberts

Religion requires the suspension of logic and reason because requires the belief in something above logic and reason. So trying to be logical and reasonable about religion is just as inapropriate as being spiritual when a practical answer is sought.

If someone is TRUELY religious then they SHOULDN'T listen to what you have to say. And any conversation is merely butting heads against a wall built by God.

Baa, Sheep.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:I hope you're not suggesting that Patriarch917 is in any way irrational?!

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

TheBovrilMonkey
TheBovrilMonkey

Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England
Member Since: 3rd Sep 2001
Total posts: 2629
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917


I can't. I don't have free will. Nothing does.





If nothing has free will, why are we bothering to discuss this?



What's the point in trying to justify ID or evolutionary theory if we don't have a choice in what we believe in?

Also, why did you go to the trouble of writing a review about Kong? Surely if you really believed that no-one had free will, there'd be no point. As a slightly off topic addition, you really mis-interpreted whole swathes of that film, they weren't surveyors for a start.


But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)

I hope you're not suggesting that Patriarch917 is in any way irrational?!



No sir. I was actually referring to people I'd met at University. Which was the first time I was exposed to strongly religious people.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:There is a distinction between free will and will.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917

Written by: TheBovrilMonkey

If nothing tells you to believe in evolution and at the same time nothing tells you not to believe in evolution, shouldn't you decide for yourself?


I can't. I don't have free will. Nothing does.


Or, more likely, you're too proud to admit your error.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:I hope you're not suggesting that Partrarch917's ego might be influencing his logic.



It just cracks me up that back in the 80s the Pope and the Vatican both came out saying that Evolution wasn't such a bad idea. But I guess the newer cults aren't that enlightned.



Bah, I gotta get out of here. When people on the internet start agreeing with me it's time to go. wink


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted:Written by:
Poster: NYC

Bah, I gotta get out of here. When people on the internet start agreeing with me it's time to go.



Then I feel the need to disagree

Written by:
Religion requires the suspension of logic and reason because requires the belief in something above logic and reason



Seems somewhat totalising to me. Belief in a God or Gods has nothing to do with logic or reason. It all depends on your subjective interpretation of what God is. ONLY if you conceive of God as a transcendental entity (which admittedly is what most, though not all people think of as God) does it impact on logic and reason. It logically follows (to me at any rate) that an immanent God is not capable of conscious decision making in the same way as we are. The idea of an 'intelligent' designer is merely the projection of anthropocentricism onto natural systems more powerful than ourselves.


The socially accepted results of logic and reason themselves are also culturally constructed. Logic to a tribesman living in the Middle East three millenia ago would provide a series of conclusions that we'd find distinctly illogical.

The problem isn't religion, or religious texts, its interpretation. And unfortunately the way in which social hierarchies have systemically used religious beliefs as a form of social control creates the conception of religion itself as repressive.

As far as communicating with religious types... Religious teachings are widely used as a form of social repression in which the repression of the individual is indoctrinated and imbibed with repressive ontological concepts, until he himself becomes a cog in the repressive social machinary.

The only way to break, or disrupt this repressive machinary is to engage with it - the same applies to repressive political and cultural machinery. Ignoring the problem, and stating that it (both systemically and individually) cannot be 'cured' of its repressive tendencies merely allows the machine to continue spreading its plague.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:Hee hee... you tried to disagree and failed. wink

I think that there are areas that can be engaged and areas that are too far gone. It usually takes only a few posts to figure out which is which.

It still confuses my as to why anyone who is positive they have the backing of God would engage in a discussion. Except to stroke their own ego.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted:Written by:
Poster: NYC

It still confuses my as to why anyone who is positive they have the backing of God would engage in a discussion. Except to stroke their own ego.



I take by 'the backing of God' you're referring to a transcendent, humanized god.

In which case the answer is they get engaged in discussions to try and convert people so as to save their souls from eternal damnation.

ubblol ubbloco ubblol ubbloco ubblol

I like playing with fire... bring on the flames


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:*shrug*

Yeah. Makes sense.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)

Surely the big question is:

Why did God create the Earth 6000 years ago to really, really, really look like it has existed for 6 billion years?

I mean, layering all those fossils (specifically made to confuse us of course) in exact order of complexity in the sediment. Then changing the carbon 14 content of all organic matter he had faked and buried so they looked like they were millions of years old. Then wiring the retinas of vertibrates in backward for no reason at all, thus making them worse than they need be. Then giving us gill slits and tails in embryological developement and giving whales back legs in their embryonic states. Makeing both cheetahs and their prey antelope have to run so fast they nearly die was a particularily good joke on his part as well.

So in conclusion-The Earth is only 6000 years old. All evidence to the contrary is just God's little joke on all of us. After all it must get pretty boring having all that power sometimes.



God did not create the Earth to look like it has existed for billions of years.

1. The fossils are not in exact order of complexity in the sediment. Only in textbooks does the evolutionary column exist. A good example is the trilobite, which arguably had the most sophisticated eyes that have ever existed. A better way to explain fossils is a global flood, which would have buried bottom dwelling sea creatures and other relatively immobile animals first, with bigger animals coming later. Dont mistake size for complexity. The myth that even single celled organisms are simple was debunked long ago.
Trilobite eyes- http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=2021&cat=11
br>
2. Last time I checked, carbon-14 dating methods were not able to give ages of millions of years, only thousands of years. But thats a common mistaken belief, so Ill let it slide for now.

Dating with carbon-14 requires you to first estimate the ratio of carbon-14/carbon-12 in the atmosphere at the time the animal lived. This is a touchy assumption, since the c-14/c-12 ratio changes. It has changed quite a bit, for instance, since the industrial revolution.

If you start with an assumption of uniformity, that the carbon ratio before the industrial revolution was basically constant, then you can get dates longer than 6,000 years. However, if the environment was very different, say, before the flood (as the bible says), the ratio would have been different too, which would throw off the dates of very old objects.

In other words, interpreting the data requires you to make certain assumptions. If those assumptions are wrong, the dates will be wrong.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
br>
3. There is a perfectly good reason to have retinas in backwards. Its better for us than having them face forward.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/retina.asp
br>
4. I barely feel the need to address the belief that embryos have gill slits. That argument was debunked long ago. Even evolutionists no longer use it. Yeah, embryos have grooves that superficially resemble gills, but these arches and pouches develop into part of the face, muscles of mastication and facial expression, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro06.html
br>
5. Finally, God did not originally design cheetahs to eat meat. After man sinned, animals (and later men) began to eat each other. The fact that a particular breed of cats has to run fast to catch its food is evidence of the corrupting influence of sin.

Youve read Genesis, so you know what Im talking about.


Delete

Cantus
Cantus

Tantamount to fatuity
Location: Down the road
Member Since: 30th Jul 2001
Total posts: 15965
Posted:Written by: dream
Poster: NYC

Oooh NYC is a poster boy biggrin


Ok back to your bickering...


"I'll carry this....It's harder to spill a hat" - Chellybean
"...like a rabbit caught in a lighthouse?" - Chellybean

Delete

TheBovrilMonkey
TheBovrilMonkey

Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England
Member Since: 3rd Sep 2001
Total posts: 2629
Posted:Trilobite eyes -

Written by: the page Patriarch linked to


Darwinian models that attempt to explain the trilobites eye are completely unable to account for such complexity, especially considering the fact that the trilobite is considered to have evolved so early. When one considers the complexity of the trilobites eye, and compares it with the considerably less-complex eye systems of animals and/or humans today, it would seem that evolution has gone in reverse.





The people who wrote that site don't seem to understand how evolution works - just because one species evolves something good, it doesn't mean that every other species on the planet will as well. Trilobites just got lucky.

And then, they got not so lucky when they became extinct - that's why our eyes are different - trilobites died out and took their genetic patterns for cool eyes with them. In the meantime, our eyes were evolved from different stock.

It's not anywhere near going in reverse, just branching off and heading down a different road.



Inverted retinas - I take that as evidence that even if we were designed by a higher power, it wasn't too intelligent.

An intelligent design would be to have a filter built into the eye's lens to protect the photosensitive cells in the retina and have them facing forward for higher visual acuity.



Cheetahs eating meat - Can you give me a chapter and verse reference for this? I had a look myself but couldn't find anything and I'm very interested to read about it.


But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Delete

Cantus
Cantus

Tantamount to fatuity
Location: Down the road
Member Since: 30th Jul 2001
Total posts: 15965
Posted:apologies if this has been posted before:

Non-Https Image Link


"I'll carry this....It's harder to spill a hat" - Chellybean
"...like a rabbit caught in a lighthouse?" - Chellybean

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Cantus posting in 'Discussion' eek



What more proof of evolution could there ever be? biggrin


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Cantus
Cantus

Tantamount to fatuity
Location: Down the road
Member Since: 30th Jul 2001
Total posts: 15965
Posted:Well people keep discussing things in Chat. I thought it was only fair to return the favour biggrin

"I'll carry this....It's harder to spill a hat" - Chellybean
"...like a rabbit caught in a lighthouse?" - Chellybean

Delete

Mint Sauce
veteran
Location: Lancs England
Member Since: 7th Sep 2003
Total posts: 1453
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917


A better way to explain fossils is a global flood, which would have buried bottom dwelling sea creatures and other relatively immobile animals first, with bigger animals coming later





In that case why did these guys die out then

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/dinosaurs/seamonsters/
br>


surely they would just swim about in your flood "having a see monster of a time" te he





I'm sorry this is just plain stupid are you telling me that because an animal is large it will be buried latter or some how survive a flood longer





go look in the land behind any dam you will find a whole host of all animal remains big and small, slow and fast all buried in the same layer of sediment.





before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: TheBovrilMonkey

Trilobite eyes -
Written by: the page Patriarch linked to

Darwinian models that attempt to explain the trilobites eye are completely unable to account for such complexity, especially considering the fact that the trilobite is considered to have evolved so early. When one considers the complexity of the trilobites eye, and compares it with the considerably less-complex eye systems of animals and/or humans today, it would seem that evolution has gone in reverse.




The people who wrote that site don't seem to understand how evolution works - just because one species evolves something good, it doesn't mean that every other species on the planet will as well. Trilobites just got lucky.
And then, they got not so lucky when they became extinct - that's why our eyes are different - trilobites died out and took their genetic patterns for cool eyes with them. In the meantime, our eyes were evolved from different stock.
It's not anywhere near going in reverse, just branching off and heading down a different road.

Inverted retinas - I take that as evidence that even if we were designed by a higher power, it wasn't too intelligent.
An intelligent design would be to have a filter built into the eye's lens to protect the photosensitive cells in the retina and have them facing forward for higher visual acuity.

Cheetahs eating meat - Can you give me a chapter and verse reference for this? I had a look myself but couldn't find anything and I'm very interested to read about it.



I think they understand the Darwinian model of evolution just fine. Modern models of evolution have to reject aspects of the Darwinian model, such as the theory that early organisms were less complex than modern ones.

It doesn't really matter for our discussion what the authors of that particular article interpret the trilobite eye to mean. I merely use it as an example of how the evolutionary column of organisms being organized in perfect order of complexity is not supported by the evidence.

I've already addressed the question of whether an intelligent designer would always have to use the "best" design according to what we think would have worked better. I concede that if you had designed our eyes, you might have done it differently.

According to Genesis 1:30, God intended for animals to eat plants, just like the first humans. Especially after the flood, plants would have been scarce since there seems to have been an ice age for quite some time afterward. This would have induced many animals to start eating meat. Men were specifically allowed to eat meat after the flood, so it is not inconcievable that animals first started to eat each other at this time. However, I would not be surprised to learn that both humans and animals started eating meat right after the fall.


Delete

Mint Sauce
veteran
Location: Lancs England
Member Since: 7th Sep 2003
Total posts: 1453
Posted:no seriously do you truly belive this

i dont mean to mock but


before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)

Delete

TheBovrilMonkey
TheBovrilMonkey

Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England
Member Since: 3rd Sep 2001
Total posts: 2629
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917


I think they understand the Darwinian model of evolution just fine. Modern models of evolution have to reject aspects of the Darwinian model, such as the theory that early organisms were less complex than modern ones.



It doesn't really matter for our discussion what the authors of that particular article interpret the trilobite eye to mean. I merely use it as an example of how the evolutionary column of organisms being organized in perfect order of complexity is not supported by the evidence.







Now I'm starting to think that you don't quite understand it fully - organisms are organised in complexity in their own evolutionary tree, not necessarily in the grand scale of life in general.

The evidence does indeed support this, and not some random evolution backwards before going forwards again. You're thinking that evolution is one long line through every creature - this is most certainly not the case - it's a huge network of branches, some of which grow faster than others, some of which grow quite slowly and some of which are pruned back by natural disasters.



Just because the organisms in one branch develop a characteristic, it doesn't mean that creatures on the other branches will develop it too.

So, it's higly plausible that the trilobites develop different eyes, then die off. The creatures who live after them, who are from a completely different evolutionary branch, don't have these eyes because they're nothing to do with the trilobites at all.

It's not a step backwards - it's a step across to a completely different type of creature.



As to the bible stuff, I have to ask... Why do you worshop a god who repeatedly shows an almost complete lack of logic and extreme punishment?

Don't you think it shows a complete lack of sense to put the forbidden tree in the garden of eden in the first place? And then to punish every living creature for the mistakes of two people, isn't that a little harsh?



edit.. that last part reads more hostile and insulting that I'd meant, but I don't know how to re-word it and still ask what I want to - please don't take it as purely hostile, I'm genuinely interested in some answers, as I really don't understand why people can worship a being that's so inconsistant and harsh.

EDITED_BY: TheBovrilMonkey (1138507025)


But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:I like the part in the Bible where Jesus kills a fig tree just because it wouldn't make figs for him. It makes him seem way more badass.

But my ABSOLUTE favorite part of the bible is Deuteronomy 23:1

If you get your testicles crushed, you can't get into heaven. Period.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

shen shui
shen shui

no excuses. no apologies.
Location: aotearoa
Member Since: 4th Jan 2005
Total posts: 1799
Posted:bovril, im enjoying reading what you are typing.
-makes bovril a cup of tea-


those that know, dont say. those that say, dont know.

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: NYC

I like the part in the Bible where Jesus kills a fig tree just because it wouldn't make figs for him.


Does anyone else think that sounds strangely similar to the story of King Canute?


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Cantus
Cantus

Tantamount to fatuity
Location: Down the road
Member Since: 30th Jul 2001
Total posts: 15965
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)
Does anyone else think that sounds strangely similar to the story of King Canute?

No. King Canute tried to stop the sea because his advisors told him that he held supreme majesty over all the earth. He did this to prove them that no one but God holds sway over nature.

History has just twisted the story to make him look foolish.

ubbrollsmile


"I'll carry this....It's harder to spill a hat" - Chellybean
"...like a rabbit caught in a lighthouse?" - Chellybean

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: TheBovrilMonkey


Now I'm starting to think that you don't quite understand it fully - organisms are organised in complexity in their own evolutionary tree, not necessarily in the grand scale of life in general.





I was intentionally giving jeff(fake) the most general interpretation of his claim because the general statement is easiest to defend. Often, you can find smaller, immobile, water dwelling creatures buried lower than larger land dwelling creatures. However, I disagreed with the assertion that those smaller creatures were less complex, and used the trilobite as an example. I took him to be extrapolating from that general idea.

I understand the theory you expressed, that organisms developed on their own trees, and that we do not have to be surprised at sophisticated organisms that are buried deeper. However, I am sure you did not mean to suggest that anyone as actually found a specific series of transitional forms buried in order of complexity, because you probably know that this is not the case (and most modern evolutionists do not expect to ever find such a series).

The true difference between the views is based on what you think created most of the fossils. If you believe that fossils are the result of gradual burial, with layers being distributed over long periods of time, then it make sense to think that deeper fossils are a lot older. If you think that the animals were buried quickly and the layers were laid down in a global flood, then it makes sense to think that deeper fossils were probably those that were least able to try to avoid the flood.

In other words, one view says that trilobites are deep because the lived millions of years ago, and that men are not found with trilobites because they did not exist at the time. The other view says that trilobites are found deep because they were bottom dwellers, and that men are not found with them because they tried to swim, drowned, and were eaten by scavengers rather than quickly buried.

Written by: TheBovrilMonkey


As to the bible stuff, I have to ask... Why do you worshop a god who repeatedly shows an almost complete lack of logic and extreme punishment?
Don't you think it shows a complete lack of sense to put the forbidden tree in the garden of eden in the first place? And then to punish every living creature for the mistakes of two people, isn't that a little harsh?

edit.. that last part reads more hostile and insulting that I'd meant, but I don't know how to re-word it and still ask what I want to - please don't take it as purely hostile, I'm genuinely interested in some answers, as I really don't understand why people can worship a being that's so inconsistant and harsh.



Dont worry, I take your remarks as genuine incredulity, not an insult. They are valid questions, and I would be happy to answer them in a PM or a more appropriate topic. Im trying to stick with ID/evolution on this one, though.


Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:But for that hypothesis to work there would need to be evidence for a large global flood and a mechanism by which an organism could be fossilised extremely rapidly, so rapidly that it would be possible to observe it. Looking at the grand canyon on Google Earth (36"06'29.19" N 113"13'35.01" W) shows geography akin to to gradual erosion and bears little likeness to areas which have experienced flooding in the past. And while we're on the topic: where did all the water come from and where did it go?

Written by: Cantus


Written by: jeff(fake)
Does anyone else think that sounds strangely similar to the story of King Canute?





No. King Canute tried to stop the sea because his advisors told him that he held supreme majesty over all the earth. He did this to prove them that no one but God holds sway over nature.



History has just twisted the story to make him look foolish.



I know wink but it is still very similar. Man tries to do the impossible and fails. The difference is that Canute admitted that he couldn't do the impossible

Written by: Patriach917
They are valid questions, and I would be happy to answer them in a PM or a more appropriate topic. Im trying to stick with ID/evolution on this one, though.



I think it's critical to the discussion as it is the sole reason for you being a creationist. Why do you see fit to worship the rascist, blood-thirsty, baby eating, mass murdering and egotistical volcano god of the ancienct Isrealites? Why not Allah or The Flying Spaggetti Monster? You have yet to make a comment to explain your dismisal of those hypothesises which are of equal validity to your own.



EDIT:I'm really trying not to be offensive but the actions reputed to be caused by Yahweh over the millennia can be described as nothing but evil.

EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1138609247)


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Page: 1...45678...30

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [intelligent design v* evolution] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Is Intelligent Design a Theory or a Critique? [60 replies]
2. Forums > Intelligent Design vs Evolution [874 replies]
3. Forums > need your help/opinion [14 replies]
4. Forums > Burning Man 09' Evolution [17 replies]
5. Forums > 5/19 The Next Evolution Sideshow

     Show more..