The atheist's journey - Religious Debate for the mature

[smashattack]

Thank you, Flaming Blaze. I am in total agreement with you. Be careful here, as it is futile to argue. The atheists have all their stuff proven, but our beliefs are hogwash.

Maybe one day we can get together and play some D&D, eh? I, too, watch R-rated movies and I think I am getting the fullest out of life. I am no slave to a god, merely a servant to the God.

But Bumble Bee Tuna... you yourself have given no evidence, either! Neither of us can prove our stuff. You continue to say it has been proven. Well, by who? Where? What exactly are you talking about? What has been proven? You rely on scientists you've never met. I've relied on a God I've never personally, face-to-face met. So we've both got it the same way. I don't know how yours all of a sudden overrules mine.

Debate is just a matter of opinion, no matter what you say. When you say it's fact, you are merely stating your opinion. You believe it is fact. I believe differently, so my opinion is that it's false. Nothing can be proven, nothing can be disproven.

In the end, it just turns out that we both defend our arguments so well that nothing gets accomplished. You just bash on Christianity all you want.

But like Gora_Nova, and Flaming Blaze, said. We Christians can make the most of our lives and have something to look forward to after death, if we're right. If we're wrong, and the atheists are right, then we're all screwed. Why take the chance, I must ask? I'll go for the only one that gives me any comfort at all.

I end my part in this debate now. You must have many more points to make, I understand. But the main point of a debate is to listen to others as well. So far I've only seen the tearing down of Christianity here. Everybody claims I'm a liar because I have different beliefs and opinions. Well, that's okay. I know what's true, and I'll stick to it.

And Bumble Bee Tuna, no hard feelings between us. Let us not let this petty debate run amock. If I ever meet you in a SSBM tournament (which I hope I do), we'll have a fair game and this subject will be long forgotten. Like I said, I think what goes on in here should stay in here.

Speaking of SSBM, were you at NDK? If so, who did you play as?

 

[game and kirby]

huh, funny that you mention it, but ALL scientist's conclusions, theories, and basically anything they say, do or think that actually gets to us is written and recorded in dozens of books. All the experiments are on tape, and their results archived, and the witnesses of those experiments have also either been recorded , or have written records around. That's proof. I don't suspect you could go into your average library and pull out the formula for creating the universe, or get a chunk of primordial ooze at the local research center.

FACT is that which is proven or provable through tangible means. DEBATE is the arguing or disproving of supposed facts, and the statement of a hypothesis backed by proof. You have no tangible proof that God exists. We have tangible proof that evolution happened. We don't need tangible proof that God DIDN'T exist, cos that's not the way the world works. You prove something true, not untrue. Do you want to know why? It's because if you had to prove something UNTRUE before it was, then we'd have an infinity of unproven hypotheses, and we'd be unable to distinguish fact from fiction, since if I just make something up, it's just as valid as a proven postulate. Unless you want to live in a world of lies, this is the right way.

We're not bashing you, or at least I'm not. We're ridiculing your preposterous beliefs, yes, but not you. I have no beef with you. You could be the nicest, kindest person in the world, but you still have beliefs which I think are unfounded and wrong. I wouldn't chase you down and start screaming insults at you on the street, but if you come into a debate room over such a topic, you should be prepared to take your money's worth. So to all future christian or other religious debaters, you're welcome here, and so are your opinions, but take some fact along with you to support them. If such fact exists, that is.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

You don't understand logic

In a topic like this, I am not trying to advance anything. The debate is on the existence of God. I cannot prove this wrong- it is impossible to prove a negative. I cann't prove the idea of invisible pink unicorns, either, but we discount the idea because there is no proof FOR it. The same works for this debate- You are the ones who have the burden of proof. The burden of proof falls upon those who are trying to prove something to be true. Your side has posted no such proof.
As for evidence, though, I have posted plenty in regards to religious debates. You see, while it is impossible to disprove the existence of God, it is possible to prove the Bible to be false or contradictory in places, and thus (because it is claimed to be infallible) infer that God does not exist. And I have proceeded to do so. Whether it be in the Big Bang topic, where evidence of the world being billions of years old and the universe coming from a Big Bang HAS been posted. If you read the topic, you'll see the evidence. In that topic, the burden of proof is on both sides, in a way. My side has the burden to prove the Big Bang true, your side has the burden to prove creationism true. Luckily for my side, however, proving the Big Bang to be untrue would not stop us. Proving the Big bang wrong doesn't prove creationism right...it just means we don't know the answer. But the score in that thread is this: the Big Bang side has posted theories with evidence, the creationist side has posted ideas without evidence.

It just bothers me how you keep saying I haven't posted proof. I have. You did actually claim to read these incredibly long topics, so you should have seen it.

If you don't understand the principles of science, and the reasons why we can trust science, maybe you shouldn't post here. Logic and science are the only way a debate can happen. Otherwise it's:
"I think this!"
"Well, I think this!"
"You're wrong! I think this, and that means it's true!"

The point is, debate needs evidence. You are right that nothing can be proven right or wrong. I can show that something is 100000 times more likely than something else, though. That's what this is about. And when one thing has been shown through debate and logic to have an infintesimally small chance of being wrong, it is considered proven correct.

You claim that we both defend our arguments well. This is false. You do not have an argument yet. And what little you have posted, you have not followed up. For example, you posted about Kent Hovind...but after we showed why his stuff was wrong, you did nothing to defend him...you just said 'well, I know he's right, because I say so'. This is not defense. This is giving up. Defense would be actually responding to our posts and showing us scientifically where we went wrong. (we didn't go wrong, but this is hypothetical)

When we say things are fact, we go by the aforementioned infintesimally small chance of being wrong bit. You can claim, if you want, that something with a .0000000000001% chance of being wrong is wrong if you want, but that's just being stupid. For all intents and purposes, facts exist.

Even if you ignore everything else I just wrote, at least read this, as it is nonargumentative.

You say that if you're right, you will have eternal life and I'll be screwed. Thus, why take the chance? The fallacy here is that there is not an equal chance of us being correct. You have little to no chance of being correct, because there is no evidence for your side. It's certainly a possibility that people go to heaven for believing in Jesus, but there's also a possibility that a different religion, where believers of other religions go to the worst **** imaginable, but believers of this different religion go to heaven, is true. If Islam is true, you're going to ****. Why take the chance? convert to Islam.
From the atheist's perspective, however, it works the same. When you die, you will cease to exist. This is the only life you have. Why waste it devoted to a God that doesn't exist? A God that tells you not to do things that are enjoyable, thus making your life (your ONLY life! Your one chance!) less worthwhile. From our perspective, we want to make the most out of the tiny amount of time we have here. It gives me comfort knowing that there is no chance I will go to **** when I die. In your view, where faith is a valid explanation, there's a perfectly good chance that Islam is correct and you're going to ****.
And I really wonder how it "comforts" you to know that you're going to heaven, and most of the people you know are going to burn in **** for all of eternity. I mean, it's great for you, but don't you feel bad for us heathens? We're going to burn in ****! how is that comforting? My view is much nicer- we're all going to cease to exist. Sounds bad for a second- until you realize that if you cease to exist, you don't know it. You're gone. You aren't "sad" at your nonexistence, because, well, you don't exist. And it's not just me! EVERYONE will cease to exist. Nobody will burn in **** for eternity. Which is a very nice view, IMO. However, if it consoles you to think that 80% of the world is going to burn in eternal torment, I suppose you can keep on believing that.

-B

 

[Flaming Blaze]

I wanted to repost this because I feel as if I am being ignored. The only one who answered me was Smashattack.

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna
Defense would be actually responding to our posts and showing us scientifically where we went wrong.

Please look at this post I posted earlier before you said the above.

Originally posted by Flaming Blaze
I know all you atheists out there want something to think about and I thought I might throw this into the works. I got this off a web site called "50 REASONS TO LEAVE YOUR FAITH (evolution)" and I thought it might be interesting to find out what you all thought. The site: http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/

Reverse geology -- The geologic table shows that rocks are in a sequential layer from pre-cambrian upward to the earth's crust. However, no place on earth has this sequential pattern from "oldest" to "youngest". In fact, there is a rock in Alberta that no evolutionist will discuss without resorting to outright lying. This pre-cambrian rock is 350 miles long by 15 miles wide by 7 miles deep. How did it get to the top if it's one of the oldest. Any scientist will tell you it's impossible to move something of this mass through the earth. Also, there are no "up-thrust" marks anywhere on this rock. In conclusion, there is no geologic table-just a tool for "duping" innocents.

I am a Christian, and believe to become one you must confess with your mouth Jesus is your king and savior and he died for your sins. I also believe you can not get into heaven through good deeds (sorry doesn't work that way).

I also want all of you to know I have a lot of fun with life. I love every minute of it and live life to the fullest. I play D&D, go to the amusment park, and watch rated R movies. I also have a very loving husband! I have no idea what sort of pleasures I could be missing out on.

 

[Novowels]

Sigh...

Ok smashattack, if you come willingly into a debate about the existence of God (I'm assuming nobody forced you to type your posts at gunpoint) It's kind of hypocritical to get mad at the other side just for trying to prove their points. I have been completely civil and I happen to take these things very seriously.

You are throwing a little temper tantrum because you're not winning, and honestly it bugs me, because it means you are dismissing my posts out of hand because of your childish superstitions that just can't be wrong.

Originally posted by smashattack:
Be careful here, as it is futile to argue. The atheists have all their stuff proven, but our beliefs are hogwash.

This is a snide remark of the worst type. Childish. One thing you may not understand is that "the atheists" (B and I, mainly) have been debating in here since the Debate Hall opened on this topic. We've gone through about 3 waves of fundamentalist Christians that have tried to prove the exact same things that you are, using the exact same arguments. And they failed. Part of the reason we are shrugging off some of your arguments is that we already answered them earlier in this very topic. It was months ago, yes, but we have already done it! Did you even read the whole topic?

Originally posted by smashattack:
Debate is just a matter of opinion, no matter what you say. When you say it's fact, you are merely stating your opinion. You believe it is fact. I believe differently, so my opinion is that it's false. Nothing can be proven, nothing can be disproven.

Nonsense. A debate can be about a matter of opinion, or it can be about facts. It's unfortunate that we have to have debates about facts, but it is true. Evolution, for instance, either happened or it didn't. There is opinion about believing it happened, but an honest debate about Evolution happening is called "Biology 101" and always ends up the same way.... "A" (it happened) or "F" (it didn't).

Originally posted by smashattack:
If we're wrong, and the atheists are right, then we're all screwed. Why take the chance, I must ask? I'll go for the only one that gives me any comfort at all.

You have my pity. To believe in something just because it sounds good... Well, it's what keeps the lottery going I guess. However, especially in dealing with life, the fact that it makes you happy doesn't make it true.

I think Robert Ingersoll explained my feelings on the subject rather well:

"When I became convinced that the Universe is natural - that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, of the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust."

In addition, I have a very full life that I make the most of every day. Aside from when I'm posting on here, maybe (ah, but I enjoy it, so it's all good :D). I make the most of life because I'm free. Perhaps you will understand someday. Perhaps not.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy these debates. But not when you make one or two (bad) arguments, and then have a temper tantrum over it not working on me. You claim that this is going to be your last post on the topic. Well, I've heard that one before too. Who did that? Was it CiG? Anyways. You'll either be back, or you won't. But I hope you mature a little bit in your arguments before then.

"And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Gora_Nova]

Novowels, here are some facts from http://informationcentre.tripod.com/creationist_corner.html .

Oops!: The year is 1970, in Guryul Ravine, Kashmir. Permian brachiopods are found mixed with lower triassic pelecypods. Though the two were supposed to be separated by millions of years, they were found in the same sediments. Evolutionists never attempted to explain this phenomenon. They simply ignored it.

Tell me what you think of this.

 

[smashattack]

I don't think I threw a temper tantrum.

Let me explain why. And this is totally the way I feel, nothing to "debate" here.

1. I feel that you all have totally ignored everything I have said. I tried to give points, and sorry that I don't have time to read the entire thread. The reason I brought up Kent Hovind was that he can explain things so much better than I can. Basically, he is a lot of my argument.

2. I feel that you are totally biased against me because of my religion. You have done nothing but insult my religion. I don't know why that's accepted here, because anywhere I've been to it's seen as one of the worst things one can do. We believe what we believe, you believe what you believe. Neither side can change the other, and nobody should even try. And even the forum rules say:

Religious reasons are unacceptable, as they are not based in fact, just your opinion. If you post your opinion and back it up with religion, you are backing up an opinion with an opinion which is not acceptable.

Come on, now, only you non-religious people think this. It is totally unfair. There is plenty of evidence involved with opinion, but you are simply being closed-minded. I admit I failed to give enough evidence, but that's why I suggested you see Kent Hovind. But as soon as I mentioned that, you all saw it and jumped on it.

3. This forum is a joke. It's not a place to debate, I have discovered. It is a place where you can tear down Christianity. That's not cool. You are pretty darn rude to those who try to debate with you (Gora_Nova, Flaming Blaze, and myself included). You are here to just drive us out. What is the point, may I ask? Once we're gone, you have no one to debate.

4. You are nothing but bullies, really. Once I came in here, you all saw me and just jumped on me. I don't think it would have mattered whether I presented evidence or not (which I did, and it can be found with Hovind), you still would have done what you could to beat me down and then kick me while I was down. You have not even tried to understand anything, you have all just been so preoccupied with getting your point across that you forgot that there was another side to it.

5. Bumble Bee Tuna actually threatened Gora_Nova. You threatened him! And he's the one giving you the most to debate about! You're biased against him, too, saying he has no evidence. How can you know this? You have not listened to him. And still you threaten to boot him out! Is this how a moderator/host is supposed to act? I understand it is partly your forum, but I've always thought it should be a rule that moderators/hosts cannot get involved with the posts, especially if they seem to be quite biased.

6. This board is very unwelcoming. The first day I got here I was not on Debate Hall. I was in some other forum and was pretty much dissed off. Why is it like this here?

7. This forum is a stupid idea. Why have a Debate Hall smack-dab in the middle of a SSBM board? I simply don't understand that.

Once again, this is simply what I've felt. I hope you can try to understand.

 

[Crono]

Laughable, really.

1. I feel that you all have totally ignored everything I have said. I tried to give points, and sorry that I don't have time to read the entire thread. The reason I brought up Kent Hovind was that he can explain things so much better than I can. Basically, he is a lot of my argument.

Your arguments, if you can call them that, have not been ignored. This is why there have been so many replies relating to your posts. And you really should make time to read the entire thread before you make a post to make sure you don't make the same mistakes as those before you.

2. I feel that you are totally biased against me because of my religion. You have done nothing but insult my religion. I don't know why that's accepted here, because anywhere I've been to it's seen as one of the worst things one can do. We believe what we believe, you believe what you believe. Neither side can change the other, and nobody should even try. And even the forum rules say: (blah) Come on, now, only you non-religious people think this. It is totally unfair. There is plenty of evidence involved with opinion, but you are simply being closed-minded. I admit I failed to give enough evidence, but that's why I suggested you see Kent Hovind. But as soon as I mentioned that, you all saw it and jumped on it.

This is debate, you really have to get used to it. No one is bashing you, just your arguments. You really need to learn about logic. And for something to be evidence it must be factual. Because opinions are only factual to one person, they cannot be evidence unless you are debating against yourself, or something. No one jumped on your debate, they approached it in a logical way, showing its faults with reason and evidence. And yes, one side can change the minds of the other. The debates against religion in this topic should have changed your mind, but you refuse to accept anything we say. It is you who has the closed mind because you refuse to accept logic and reason to blind faith and a religion that threatens to send you to **** if you stray a bit into skepticism.

3. This forum is a joke. It's not a place to debate, I have discovered. It is a place where you can tear down Christianity. That's not cool. You are pretty darn rude to those who try to debate with you (Gora_Nova, Flaming Blaze, and myself included). You are here to just drive us out. What is the point, may I ask? Once we're gone, you have no one to debate.

We tear down Christianity through logical debates.

4. You are nothing but bullies, really. Once I came in here, you all saw me and just jumped on me. I don't think it would have mattered whether I presented evidence or not (which I did, and it can be found with Hovind), you still would have done what you could to beat me down and then kick me while I was down. You have not even tried to understand anything, you have all just been so preoccupied with getting your point across that you forgot that there was another side to it.

No one jumped on you, as I said. And if you had presented evidence, we would have torn it apart. But in religion, evidence does not exist, at least that's what you have been showing to us.

5. Bumble Bee Tuna actually threatened Gora_Nova. You threatened him! And he's the one giving you the most to debate about! You're biased against him, too, saying he has no evidence. How can you know this? You have not listened to him. And still you threaten to boot him out! Is this how a moderator/host is supposed to act? I understand it is partly your forum, but I've always thought it should be a rule that moderators/hosts cannot get involved with the posts, especially if they seem to be quite biased.

He listened and tore the his "debate" apart (though most of it was whining about how unfair this place is). Just accept it. Bee is meant to get involved. He is the moderater of this particular forum because he has proven to be a strong debator. Did you expect a random shmoe who can't debate to mod this room?

6. This board is very unwelcoming. The first day I got here I was not on Debate Hall. I was in some other forum and was pretty much dissed off. Why is it like this here?

That's how it is for everyone. You must slowly work your way up through intelligent posting and such.

7. This forum is a stupid idea. Why have a Debate Hall smack-dab in the middle of a SSBM board? I simply don't understand that.
Life is about more than just Super smash brothers. This is an online community. It is more than just video games.

 

[smashattack]

Well, like I said, it's what I felt.

And for something to be evidence it must be factual. Because opinions are only factual to one person, they cannot be evidence unless you are debating against yourself, or something.

Well, sure, I know that. Lots of scientists, actual scientists with un-flawed degrees, agree with Kent Hovind and I. What I still don't understand is why my evidence is bogus yet everybody else's is perfectly normal. I am not merely stating something I have created in my head. If I did, I would not have come up here, because I don't think anyone is a "shmoe".

Kent Hovind offers some good proven theories on his video. A lot of the people on here checked out his site, sure, but nobody really watched the video. And if they did, they just insulted Hovind and his really great evidence because they simply did not agree.

I don't understand why "your" scientists are better than "mine". Both of ours have very good proven evidence for both sides, yet somehow... yours overrules mine no matter what.

Oh, you said life is more than just SSBM. I know. That's why I didn't read the whole thread.

 

[Mr. G & W]

Originally posted by game and kirby
You prove something true, not untrue. Do you want to know why? It's because if you had to prove something UNTRUE before it was, then we'd have an infinity of unproven hypotheses, and we'd be unable to distinguish fact from fiction, since if I just make something up, it's just as valid as a proven postulate. Unless you want to live in a world of lies, this is the right way.

actually, things are usually proven UNTRUE before being proven true. the reason is, it's practically impossible to prove something 100% true. but if you find one piece of evidence that proves it's not true, then it's not true.

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna As for evidence, though, I have posted plenty in regards to religious debates. You see, while it is impossible to disprove the existence of God, it is possible to prove the Bible to be false or contradictory in places, and thus (because it is claimed to be infallible) infer that God does not exist.

i already said that the bible isn't going to be 100% true because translators are not perfect. so there could be things in the bible that are wrong because people screwed up

by the way, novowels, where did that thomas jefferson quote come from? I find it odd, since Thomas Jefferson was the main writer for the Declaration of Independance, which states MANY times that "God gives men their rights" and other such references to Providence (God)

smashattack, yes you have been throwing a hissy-fit. Grow up, mature a little, and move on.

and as to all your scientific proof, hovind actually HASN'T had anything even close to being proven true, so he can't have any "good proven theories", as you say, on his videos. and as for all the other scientists with theories, you haven't named any, nor given any of their theories and such. therefore, they might as well not exist.

i hate to support the aetheist side so much, but they are proving more points than the christians....which reminds me, why is this another aetheist-christian fight? i realize the only religion that has its members replying is Christianity, but i thought this was talking about ALL religions????

btw, i know i spelled atheist wrong, sorry, my spelling sucks, i don't mean to offend anyone, if i did

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by smashattack
Well, like I said, it's what I felt.



Well, sure, I know that. Lots of scientists, actual scientists with un-flawed degrees, agree with Kent Hovind and I. What I still don't understand is why my evidence is bogus yet everybody else's is perfectly normal. I am not merely stating something I have created in my head. If I did, I would not have come up here, because I don't think anyone is a "shmoe".

Kent Hovind offers some good proven theories on his video. A lot of the people on here checked out his site, sure, but nobody really watched the video. And if they did, they just insulted Hovind and his really great evidence because they simply did not agree.

I don't understand why "your" scientists are better than "mine". Both of ours have very good proven evidence for both sides, yet somehow... yours overrules mine no matter what.

Oh, you said life is more than just SSBM. I know. That's why I didn't read the whole thread.

No certified authentic scientist would believe what Hovind says. Hovind's evidence all defies scientific physical LAWS.

The thing that makes "our" scientists "better" is that their hypotheses are tested with current scientific laws. Think of it as a geometry proof. You start out with a few givens, and you are asked to prove a hypothesis using items that are already known to be fact, accepted theory, or postulate. Anything Hovind says is pure presumption and blind faith. To prove something in a scientific way, it cannot break any scientific laws. Otherwise, the hypothesis is erroneous and holds absolutely no merit. This is the difference.

Given: Density exists.
Prove: A hydrosphere once surrounded the Earth.

1. Density exists--law of density (yeah i made that up, but i can't recall what defines density as fact at the moment, aside from mass divided by volume, etc...)
2. Air is denser than water--law of... oh wait air isn't denser than water. This makes the proof already void because it does not agree with the Given, so it cannot be true.

Then we have logic.
Conditional: If density exists, then there was no hydrosphere.
Contrapositive: If there was a hydrosphere, then density does not exist.
Converse: If there was no hydrosphere, then density exists.
Inverse: If density does not exist, then there was a hydrosphere.

The conditional is a true statement, and from this one statement we can duce 3 conclusions, all saying that as long as density exists, the hydrosphere could not have and can never exist.

EDIT: Actually, you can't get a conclusion from the converse and inverse statements, because even if density did not exist, a hydrosphere may also have not existed, and if there was no hydrosphere, density may exist. Well, that's logic. But the conditional and contrapositive are definitely true. The only way for this hydrosphere to have existed would be if there was no density, and last time I checked, rocks still sink in water.

 

[game and kirby]

Hey Novowels, what about me? I've been arguing for ages here! Anyway, I won't say you haven't tried to post evidence and scientific proof , because you have, in the form of Mr.Hovind ( I won't call him a doctor) We just mean that your evidence is totally null and void, because it simply isn't true! We took your evidence, and we took Hovind's. We disproved them, and told you that since we disproved the proof you offered that god exists, you were wrong. What did you expect in a debate? Did you really think that you would simply come on here and say, 'well I'm a christian and so is Dr.Hovind!' and everyone would get down on their knees and beg for god's salvation? Sh'ya right.

Gora Nova, that rock could have appeared there for any number of reasons. It could have been on the bed of an ocean which dried, it could have been exposed by earthquakes or other geological events, and it could have been a meteorite. I'm not too informed on the topic, but that immediately comes to mind.
Smashattack, no matter how you put it, we've been totally fair with you. You came on here and said that you were a christian and tried to back it up with evidence. We told you, we PROVED to you that the evidence was wrong. You started saying this board is unfair. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Face it. There's NO proof for religion. If you want to believe it anyway, and live a lie, fine. But don't try to prove with science something which requires you to condemn science. Your 'scientists' are hardly that, since they are selective in which theories of physics and chemistry they believe, and often distort or make up theories to fool young impressionable people. That sounds more like fraud than science.

Blazing Flame, we have read your posts, as we read everyone else's, and again, your posts were 40% whining about the board,40% personal insults and examples of your life, and 20% incredibly vapid 'fact' . These boards are not bashing your religion or tearing it down, people, they are merely stating that it is untrue. Smashattack, you're wrong. There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying that a religion is stupid and that it has no proof backing it and that it's untrue. What is wrong is when you assume that simply because you're religious, you're stupid, and fanatic. I have not done that, as I said, you might well be a great person, though from your posts, I would think not.

Crono, great posts, but the basic converse conditional stuff isn't needed, since they would ignore that anyway. It's more digestible to put it into simple language.

In essence, I agree with B. This is it, our only life. There is no point in shackling yourself with meaningless laws in the vain hope that somehow you'll receive eternal reward, while you get to snicker at everyone else burning in ****. That's not very christian, is it? And why does everyone think that eternal oblivion is a bad thing? It's like a long dreamless sleep which never ends. Nothing. Null. Rien. Niente. Scary, maybe. True, definetely.

Sigh, sometimes I feel that no one listens to me.

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Originally posted by game and kirby

Gora Nova, that rock could have appeared there for any number of reasons. It could have been on the bed of an ocean which dried, it could have been exposed by earthquakes or other geological events, and it could have been a meteorite. I'm not too informed on the topic, but that immediately comes to mind.

First of all, I was the one who wrote about the rock in Alberta.

Secondly, you didn't read the post very well. "In fact, there is a rock in Alberta that no evolutionist will discuss without resorting to outright lying. This pre-cambrian rock is 350 miles long by 15 miles wide by 7 miles deep." The oldest rock is on top. There was also no evidence of any "up-thrust" marks anywhere on the rock. Evolutionists have no way of explaining how a rock of this size could have moved through the earth. It is too big to be a meteor, a meteor of that size would destroy all life on earth (including those little microscopic organisms), and would more then likely throw earth into a new orbit. This rock is to big to be thrust up by an earthquake, and remember there are "up-thrust" marks. It could not have been at the bottom of the ocean because it is in the middle of North America. If you still want to argue it could have been at the bottom of the ocean then you are implying a world wide flood because acording to evolution North America was never in the ocean(Pangea).

Another thing I wanted to point out is all of us are not using Dr. Hovind and his web site as a resorce.

Originally posted by game and kirby

Blazing Flame, we have read your posts, as we read everyone else's, and again, your posts were 40% whining about the board,40% personal insults and examples of your life, and 20% incredibly vapid 'fact'.

I didn't whine about anything that is your presumption. I am not in anyway insulted by what you people have to say, that is also your presumption; and the examples of life I gave was in answer to the assumed fact made by aetheists: Christians miss out on the pleasures of life. As for the incredibly vapid facts, you have yet to prove I am wrong in this thread.

 

[Sirus011]

....

I feel i must give some sort of apology for my last post. I suppose I was rather overzealous in my desire to get my point across. To those who were offended I apologize.

Let me restate my stance. I don't have a problem with people beliving in god or any other deity, they may do so if they wish. I DO have a poblem with those who follow such things blindly, insisting that logic and rational thought take a back seat to arrogent selfish beliefs.

Take christianity it has one of the most self centered belief systems of all religions.

How is it that only those who believe are saved? Are they in the eyes of the lord more valuable as people? Are the rest of us simply refuse? Are humans such pathetic creatures that we need some sort of all powerful being to watch out for us? Are we truely so weak minded we lack the ability to think for ourselves?

I think its fairly obvious that religions are designed to influence weakminded individuals that feel as if they have no real power over their lives. And thus give them a feeling of emotional stability. ( shocking eh ? )

Is it so far fetched to suggest that religion was meant as a means of controlling large groups of people? Perhaps it was designed as a political player. One has only to look at the old roman churches to see how this could be true.

This was not an attack on those who belive in god or an afterlife.

This is the process of rational thought.

I say agian those who blind themselves to logic and rational thinking have no right to claim themselves human.

The human mind was designed to use rational thought processes.

If we choose to follow our biological inclenations and cast aside the limitations of foolish superstitions is somthing else entirely.

To those who would deny themselves a better life (now in the place they currently reside) and strive to assure themselves a place in an unproven afterlife.

Shame on you for not being mature enough to accept your fate. Shame on you for allowing wishful thinking to govern your actions.
Shame on you.

 

[Sirus011]

A quick rebuttal

Excuse me blaze but your mistaken, most of north america was once covered by water. Later there was somthing known as the ICEAGE.

During this many rocks were scattered across the continant as glaciers and ice sheets traveled to and fro. Any number of things could easily have caused the phenom you seem so certain is supernatural. But your statement that it could not have been caused by water is completely false.

 

[Gora_Nova]

Sirus011- I applaud and honor you for your statement about your overzealous.

Now to your recent post.

1. We did not say it was supernatural.
2. Moving a rock of this enormous size, even in the iceage, would have caused upward-thrust marks.
3. What many number of things could have caused this rock?

And remember a pre-cambrian (note: before the iceage) rock, that is 350 miles long, 15 mile wide, 7 miles deep, has no upward-thurst marks, and it is the oldest sediement above the newer sediement, is in Alberta, Canada, North of Montana.

This is impossible by the theory of evolution. But it exists.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

The only problem with your proof is that glaciers do not cause your "up-thrust marks". Heh heh heh.

 

[Flaming Blaze]

You still have failed to tell me how a glacier moved a "pre-cambrian rock" that "is 350 miles long by 15 miles wide by 7 miles deep," through five layers of rock with out causing markings! This leaves your iceage theory out in the cold! So sorry!

 

[Gamer4Fire]

No it doesn't, actually. When glaciers move they pick up and redistribute what is under them. If said rock was hard rock underneath alluvial ground of other said eras, then it might have been uncovered by said glacier(s) and transported after the rocks and debris above it were removed first.

This is of course only a passing hypothesis since I don’t know everything about the area, type of rock formations around it, how it was ten million years ago. I’m no geologist, but, with the information available, the hypothesis is sound… Unless you have more information that might counter it.

 

[smashattack]

Okay, first, I am now ready to debate maturely. I am sorry I threw a little fit or whatever. I forget all things said that I found offensive and hope you guys can do the same. So a truce, eh?

Let's start over, shall we? I now have some points I wish to make.

First of all, let me quote Sirus011:

How is it that only those who believe are saved? Are they in the eyes of the lord more valuable as people? Are the rest of us simply refuse? Are humans such pathetic creatures that we need some sort of all powerful being to watch out for us? Are we truely so weak minded we lack the ability to think for ourselves?

You don't have to accept this as fact, but it is! What you have all asked here, I must say in reply, "Yes." Don't tell me you've never done anything you felt was wrong! Well, one thing is a "No". God doesn't see anybody more valuable than the other. It's just that those who accept him because of what he's done for us simply get rewarded. Just like our business economy. You do a job at work, you get paid.

You follow the Big Guy Upstairs, you get eternity.

Now I've got some real evidence. This is a quote from my Psychology text book:

"What can happen is this: As information flows from scientist to reader, it gets simplified as well as embellished, much as gossip does in passing from one person to the next. A TV network picks up an interesting finding, then reduces it to a 30-second report with an 11-second sound bite from the researcher. This alerts a major newspaper to a story angle, which in turn gets picked up by popular science magazines and, eventually, by supermarket magazines and tabloids.

"At each step, notes Coren, 'Ideas become more speculative and more distant from the actual research...After a while, the neuropsychologist is no longer even visible in the communication chain." The rumors grow, accumulate, and evolve into scientific misinformation that becomes '"accepted truths", which show up in conversation and writing in sentences that begin with, "As everybody knows...," or "Scientists have shown that..."' In the end, sighs Coren, the public myth drowns out the voices of dissenting scientists."

(Psychology: Sixth Edition. Myers, David G.)

Now, as you've all said that evolution is the longest-lasting theory around, older than even the Bible and such, this kind of thing is impossible to avoid. What you're now listening to from your scientists and your text books is a jumble of mixed-up truths and lies. Unintentional lies, I might add. Just like a gossip line. We've all played the little "phone" game when we were children.

This is just like that. Only the stakes are so much higher. In the little game, you risk messing up the message. In this, the media risks the reader's soul. How awful. And pitiful.

So much has been skewered and stretched through the "millions of years" that all evolution is... is a lie.

Now, since you all seem to think the Bible and these beliefs are relatively new compared to evolution beliefs, it is obviously impossible that it has all been tainted the same way. Sure, like some other poster said, it's been translated incorrectly or something. But even through time, it has not had as many mistakes as the evolution and other textbooks have...

...through millions of years of gossip lines.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

What are you smoking?

I've never claimed evolution has been believed for millions of years. ****, "beliefs" haven't even existed for millions of years. The Bible is far older than evolution...Evolution was theorized by Charles Darwin, who lived in the 1800s. As in, 1800 years after Jesus' supposed existence.
I mean, how can you, a young earth creationist, say evolution has been around for millions of years? you contradict yourself.

So...you're own "argument" is used against you. The Bible is older and thus has been tainted like a gossip line, according to your logic. In fact, the Bible situation is worse because not only is it older, it has been translated multiple times.

Your quote from your psychology textbook is valid toward certain parts of science. When we discuss science in threads like these, however, we are discussing the science...of scientists. Not 'generally accepted truth' that is actually wrong, but 'proven fact' that scientists have shown to be true. So your quote appliesto something...just not our argument at hand. I would go so far as to say your argument is moot, however, because while society might get scientific ideas wrong through the process of the media you described, scientists will actually learn from the actual experiments and thus this effect will not affect them. And since we go by science, and not popular culture...it doesn't matter to us.

-B

 

[smashattack]

Oh, okay. Psychology is not tolerated, got it... well, unless it has something to do with the topic... and I admit, now that I'm reading it, it doesn't seem to do much with it anyway.

Okay, I'll be back later with some ideas and evidence.

 

[game and kirby]

True, the Bible is most probably the most distorted, as well as the most printed book in existance. The evolution theory, like all science, can be verified, because people are CONSTANTLY verifying them. They do not prove that mass does not fall proportionally faster to weight once, then say 'yeah, we proved it'. They are constantly redoing the theories and equations, every time they progress in science. Science , of all knowledge, is probably the least tainted, apart from mathematics.

To flaming blaze, I'm sorry if I was a little brusque, but I was trying to point out the lack of factual evidence presented. Now you have though, and I'll say this: Gamer4Fire has already told you that glaciers could have carried the rock to where it was, or what could have happened is that this area was a very low trough of a valley, containing low rock, and geological events might have pushed the newer rock BENEATH it, which wouldn't cause up thrust marks. Also, there is a LOT to science which has yet to be learned. I'm sure the answer will be revealed. And finally, if this rock is mysteriously there for a reason we don't know, so what? The evolution theory only applies to living organisms, not rocks and geology. I think this is a little off topic.

And Gora, you were trying to prove the rock supernatural, since there are two sides, science and the supernatural. You said that it wasn't science, so...drum roll... you're saying it's supernatural.

 

[Mr. G & W]

Awhile back, I said that things like mathematical proofs are proven UNTRUE, not true, because it is almost impossible to prove that something is 100% true, but if you find one thing that proves it wrong, then it is wrong. I haven't seen any proof that says religion is a wrong. I have seen some proof that shows that what some of the other posters think is wrong, but nothing that proves religion as a whole is wrong. So I guess if you can't prove that religion is wrong, then you haven't proved anything. It could be wrong, it could be right, but you haven't really proved anything yet...

 

[Novowels]

Guys, what Gora_Nova is trying to do with the rock is prove that the geological table is a fake created by the Evil Atheist / Evolutionist Conspiracy[tm] in order to fool all the innocent schoolchildren into "believing" the "evil lie" that the Earth/universe is billions of years old.

Young Earth Creationists entire argument hinges on somehow proving that the earth is less than 10,000 years old (Depending on the YEC you ask, it's somewhere between 10k and 6k years old!). Naturally, this means that any small glitch in the geo-table, carbon dating, and et cetera are blown way up out of proportion while all the evidence pointing towards an Old Earth are automatically considered lies.

Now, I haven't been able to find out much about this Geo-Table destroying evidence, the big bad rock of Alberta. I have asked a few people about it, since I haven't been able to find it in my searches and I'm still waiting for a reply. Crono's reply seems fairly logical, but I'm goig to continue my search.

[]

Gosh, I hope I didn't miss the Evil Atheist Conspiracy meeting where the Evil Atheist Overlord told us we weren't supposed to talk about it. I don't want to get kicked out!!

[/]

(noticed that I missed this earlier)

by the way, novowels, where did that thomas jefferson quote come from? I find it odd, since Thomas Jefferson was the main writer for the Declaration of Independance, which states MANY times that "God gives men their rights" and other such references to Providence (God)

Thomas Jefferson is commonly believed to be a "Deist," whose beliefs in a nutshell are "God is Nature." He disliked Christianity and other organized religion and wanted to keep it out of government (he is the one that coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state). Whenever a deist (of which many of the founding fathers were) says "God" he really means "Nature" I'd tell you to go to www.deism.com, but it seems to be down today for some reason. There was plenty of good information there. Hopefully it comes back up soon.

VIOLATED BY BBT: fixed Novo's url to the deism site.

 

[smashattack]

There are many good points here now, but I am going to reply to one of them for now.

Posted by Game and Kirby:

The evolution theory only applies to living organisms, not rocks and geology. I think this is a little off topic.

Wait... off topic? How so? Evolution gives a clear definition of the beginning of the universe, doesn't it? Everything was concentrated into a tiny dot no bigger than the size of a period on this post. Something suddenly happened and it expanded outward, not creating or destroying matter, but simply changing it and making the universe. And then evolution started with the lowest forms of life (single-celled protozoa and whatnot), gradually going up.

If evolution has nothing to do with geology, then what about the big bang? What can you account for that? If evolution accounts only for organisms, then your whole big bang theory is kaput. Which means there was no big bang to begin evolution... which then means evolution is very likely to be false.

Novowels, you're changing the subject. Why do you mock Flaming Blaze? She gave you a point. Now try your best to do something about it. You are disobeying rule #5 of the debate... don't post unless you have something to back it up.

Posted by Bumble Bee Tuna:

I've never claimed evolution has been believed for millions of years. ****, "beliefs" haven't even existed for millions of years. The Bible is far older than evolution...Evolution was theorized by Charles Darwin, who lived in the 1800s. As in, 1800 years after Jesus' supposed existence.
I mean, how can you, a young earth creationist, say evolution has been around for millions of years? you contradict yourself.

So...you're own "argument" is used against you. The Bible is older and thus has been tainted like a gossip line, according to your logic. In fact, the Bible situation is worse because not only is it older, it has been translated multiple times.

"Tainted like a gossip line"... yet there are no contradictions in the Bible, through numerous translations and years. Now you're going to try to say that we can't find these contradictions because somebody changed it during translation.

Prove it.

It is a perfect book. Nothing is wrong with it. You can't find a single contradiction in there. Show me a "contradiction", and I will prove you wrong.

 

[Novowels]

Dolphin Safe!

Ok, smashattack has put forwards a lot of misinformation that I will attempt to clarify for his, and everyone reading this topic's personal edification:

First of all: Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. The Big Bang did not "evolve" and Evolution does not "give a clear definition of the beginning of the universe." The only thing that the Big Bang theory and Evolution have in common is that one happened after the other (BB, then evolution, FYI). Additionally, Evolution does not attempt to explain where life came from (that is called "abiogenesis"). All Evolution deals with is how life changes via natural selection, mutation, and adaptation.

Evolution did not create geology, but geology helps us understand the path evolution took by giving us a timetable for when certain species existed, allowing us to date fossils. These fossils show us how animals have changed in the millions of years they've been around. And no scientist considers geology perfect: Because of volcanos, ice ages, earthquakes, and continental drift, the geological table is extremely complicated. Anyways....

I am not changing the subject, nor was I "mocking" anyone. Although I might have thrown in some good-natured ribbing. The main point of my last post was to inform game and kirby about why the rock was being harped about (I don't think he quite understood that it's not evolution they're attacking: it's the age of the earth). FB and GN are trying to prove a Young Earth, because evolution requires vast amounts of time.

There's a topic for Bible Contradictions already. If you want to argue about that one, I suggest you go to it and, most importantly, please please please read the whole thing before posting.

 

[smashattack]

"Misinformation"? I don't think so. Your sets of "evidence" are no more proven than mine.

No mocking? You're a liar.

Guys, what Gora_Nova is trying to do with the rock is prove that the geological table is a fake created by the Evil Atheist / Evolutionist Conspiracy[tm] in order to fool all the innocent schoolchildren into "believing" the "evil lie" that the Earth/universe is billions of years old.

This was intended as a joke against Gora_Nova (although it was not Gora_Nova who stated this--it was Flaming Blaze... next time, read the whole post) and the rest of us who are debating against you. I recall that jokes are not permissible.

And you keep going:

Gosh, I hope I didn't miss the Evil Atheist Conspiracy meeting where the Evil Atheist Overlord told us we weren't supposed to talk about it. I don't want to get kicked out!!

Well, I suppose I could take you seriously on all this. Perhaps you do follow some sort of Overlord... it would certainly explain your irrational behavior... you're just straying from the topic. Please... let's continue the debate!

Why exactly did you deter from the point of contradictions? I understand it's in another thread... but isn't this topic all about the Bible, atheism, and Christianity?

Check this out: Evolution's Big Bang. Whenever atheist evolutionists try to cover their dirty little tracks... they just get more and more confused. The more they research, the more they disprove themselves. If science really disproves all lies you once thought were true, you shouldn't try to change science. You should accept the plain and simple facts--God doesn't want you to burn.

Oh, I know, how awful that He cares...

When you reply, please stay on topic this time.

 

[Novowels]

[/joking]

Heh, ok I'll try not to have a sense of humor during my posts from now on.

I will rephrase my last post with said humor removed:

game and kirby, the age of the rock is indeed important, although evolution certainly does not affect non-living things. Our debators are Young Earth Creationists and they know that by proving the geological table wrong (something they believe a large rock out of its natural placement in said table would do) they would be able to throw a wrench into the Evolution theory. That is why they are talking about it. I still have not been able to find information about this rock, however I am still looking, as it sounds interesting.

Anyways, onward to the rest of your post:

Evolution's Big Bang:

Your link was quite interesting, especially the fact that it had nothing at all to do with the actual Big Bang theory other than incorporating the name. The subject was "the big bang of evolution" and was describing problems between the "cambrian explosion" and Darwin's theory of (slow) natural selection. The "cambrian explosion" was a frenzied rate of evolution during the cambrian era that has not been repeated since (evolution as seen today is an extremely slow process).

It is not about the cosmological Big Bang at all. (which is what we've been talking about for the last few pages)

Additionally, the writer is a subscriber to the ID theory (Intelligent Design) but it seems he is Old Earth and not a biblical literalist. In fact, he agrees that evolution happened, just not that all creatures evolved from the same thing. I have bookmarked the main site and will peruse it later -- I definately don't agree with Intelligent Design, and it sounds like you don't subscribe to his particular worldview either so it's a pretty moot point to argue what he believes. (he's not an "evolutionists," at least not in the sense you mean it in) He's also not an atheist, but a christian, and that is on a Christian Ministries page.

I hope this clears things up for you, but feel free to ask if you have any more questions.

Also: I deter from bringing up Biblical Contradictions in this thread because I feel it is cluttered enough as it is-- And my main point of study is the Bible. I know far more about it than about science, the Big Bang, and evolution. I find those things interesting, but I find mythology-- Especially Judeo-Christian mythology utterly fascinating and have been studying it for years. I want to go to college and study the history and culture of the Jews and Romans of those days, actually, to get a better understanding of how Christianity was created.

...in fact, it was a more perfect and intimate knowledge of the bible itself that lead me to become an atheist. I know more about it than probably any other subject. I'm more than willing to debate the Bible. But it has its own subject. I like keeping topics within their own subjects, both for ease of rebuttal and ease of reading.

Naturally, it's your call. I posted the last reply in said topic and I do not wish to double post just to bump it up. (and bumping is considered bad form in the Debate Hall anyways if I recall correctly.)

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

smashattack, you really need to lose that attitude

seriously, smashattack...Realize what you're saying before you say it. When Novo said 'misinformation', he was not talking about any evidence for your side or ours. He was talking about how you are so utterly misinformed as to think evolution and the Big Bang have anything to do with each other.

The Big bang deals with the origins of the universe.
Evolution deals with how life has changed (though not how it began, as Novo just said).
How would you ever think that how life changes on a single tiny planet could affect the happenings of the universe as a whole in any way, shape, or form? Frankly, it doesn't matter if life even existed on Earth or not...the Universe would still be here, from the Big Bang.

So yes, the Big Bang and Evolution are entirely unrelated. You are misinformed (probably by Mr. Hovind, he lumps them together under "evolution" despite the fact that they are unrelated).

BTW, guys, jokes are permissible. We don't all have sticks up our asses here. I believe we're all here to enjoy ourselves. They just can't override the actual content.

Listen I didn't even make the claim that the Bible was tainted (though it certainly is, but like Novo said, contradictions are another thread. We try to keep our arguments in their proper topics. If you want to talk about contradictions, go to that thread. Don't pretend that we're evading the point on it though). I merely was stating that by your own logic, the Bible is far older than evolution and thus should be tainted like thousands of years of gossip lines. It wasn't really intended so much to be a point of my own as to merely show you how ridiculous your point was.

It's annoying that you've suddenly tried to emulate us by repeatedly talking about "stay on topic" or "obey the rules" but it doesn't work because Novo IS on topic and obeying the rules. It only serves to make you look foolish.

 

[Flaming Blaze]

The reason why a glacier could not put the rock there is it is just sitting at the top of a mountain

Now what a minute before you start at me because I have not finished yet.

This rock has baffeled scientists since it has been discovered. Here is a excerpt from another web site I have found: http://www.rae.org/revev2.html .

"Evolutionists date the Precambrian rock at a billion years; the Cretaceous at 150 million years. The contact line between the two different strata is like a knife-edge, suggesting that instead of an overthrust, the strata were water-deposited in that order."

In other words they formed in that order!

"Evolutionists have proposed two theories[of the rocks formation], one that a massive fold got started in the earth's crust, sheared, and forced to the east3, the other that the block of strata slid down a slope.4 The biggest problem with both theories is the size of the rock sheet. In order for an overthrust of the entire geologic column to occur, the original rock sheet would have been three miles high. A three-mile high, 12,000 square mile rock sheet doesn't tend to slide anywhere or overturn easily. The forces required to move it would have exceeded the crushing strength of the rock."

In other words the rock is so big, the force needed to move it would have crushed the rock. This means it should not even be there. The sad thing is the evolutionists are still trying to explain the reason for it being there even though every angle has proven wrong. They have to lie about it, conveniently leaving out the most important parts of the facts surrounding it!

Also

 

[Gamer4Fire]

They aren't lieing, they are searching for answers. They describe a hypothesis and ask, "What's wrong with it. Somebody point out some (new?) information to prove me wrong." Then they rework the theory or start from scratch till they find a plausable explanation that fits all the facts. It's called the scientific method. Test all explanations till a/some sufficient ones are found and then eliminate the inplausable and find the most simple and most likely correct.

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Originally posted by Gamer4Fire

They aren't lieing, they are searching for answers. They describe a hypothesis and ask, "What's wrong with it. Somebody point out some (new?) information to prove me wrong." Then they rework the theory or start from scratch till they find a plausable explanation that fits all the facts. It's called the scientific method. Test all explanations till a/some sufficient ones are found and then eliminate the inplausable and find the most simple and most likely correct.

Then how do you explain all of the garbage they are writing about that particular rock? It is kind of sad when Evolutionists can't even prove their own stuff.

Ever-increasing stresses near the end of this great event shoved a huge rock wedge, several miles thick and several hundred miles wide, eastward more than 50 miles. Large masses of relatively stronger rocks were shoved over softer and more easily deformed rocks. Erosion stripped away the upper part of the original rock wedge and exposed the rocks and structures visible in the park today. Rarely have rocks of such ancient age been thrust over rocks that are so much younger. The overlying Proterozoic rocks are over 1,500 million years older than the underlying Cretaceous age rocks.

Again this is a misleading comment because the force needed to move this monstrosity would crush it. These people need to try harder to give the public accurate information.

 

[smashattack]

Re: smashattack, you really need to lose that attitude

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Why is it that I suddenly have an "attitude"? Hmm... I'm not insulting or anything. What makes you think I have an "attitude"? I am making points to disprove your rubbish.

I've not heard anybody mention anything about that little Bombardier Beetle Gora_Nova posted a long time ago. Nobody is giving sound evidence to disprove Flaming Blaze's rock ideas. In fact, I hardly saw anything of Dr. Hovind's disproved. You all may have mentioned a few things, but most of your time has been used to merely state that it is "ridiculous". Sure, you listed his points... but you did little to disprove them.

I found an evolutionist's site, and this is part of what it reads:

In complicated organic systems one often finds that the components have some other functionality, or did at one time. For instance in humans the ability to control air flow, especially with the larynx, was primarily used for making the upper body rigid so that it could be used as a lever. The fact that some organs become obsolete, or loose their original function, can also be seen in humans. The appendix was once a roughage stomach, it no longer fulfills that function or any other perceivable one. Not only do these anatomical facts serve to show that individual structures change, but that complicated mechanisms arise from existing mechanisms.

So, we had two stomachs at one time! I suppose this means we were once cows... and monkeys, therefore, must have two or three stomachs since we evolved from them.

How strange to think that my hundredth great-grandfather grew a second stomach! What did he do with the old one?

This site goes on about the "myth" of complexity in organisms. No myth! Sorry, but the Big Bang occurring has about the same chance of you throwing a canister of ink, a few hundred sheets of paper, and two covers together and ending up with a dictionary. The chance of getting the Big Band AND evolution is triple or quadruple less, since you not only need one, but both. Complexity, naturally designed by someone, makes much more sense and is the obvious truth.

About those monkeys... why do we still even have monkeys on the planet? The Earth is "billions of years old", therefore every living monkey has had enough time to get its genes in gear and evolve its offspring. Therefore, monkeys should no longer exist. Yet... in the local zoo I see plenty of them.

Some time ago somebody said that it is illogical of us to use mathematics and science to try and disprove evolution and/or the Big Bang simply because that would contradict. So I guess you mean it's also illogical to fight fire with fire, since it would of course spread the fire even more.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

your attitude

I'm speaking of your attitude that everyone is out to get you, and that all evidence is relative and nobody here proves anything. It's seriously sad reading your posts, right after we posted loads of proof against things you said, and then hearing you say "I haven't seen you guys post any proof yet". I can't make a blind man see. Sorry. Or when you say "your evidence is no more valid than mine". Actually, our evidence is actual scientific data found by accredited scientists. Your "evidence" is rambling ideas with no backup from a guy who not only got his Ph.D from an unaccredited institution, but has been arrested for a wide assortment of crimes and had to file for bankruptcy. So yeah, ours IS more valid than yours. Stop doing this charade.

Post any single argument mr. Hovind makes and I would be GLAD to disprove it to you (again).

As for your mild diatribe about stomahcs and appendixes, it was silly. Other things besides cows can have multiple stomachs. Your post contained nothing to actually disprove what was said in the article you mentioned (which makes me wonder why you posted the article in the first place). All you did was mock it because your ego cannot take the idea that you may have descended from an ape.

Once again, let me remind you: The Big Bang and Evolution are barely related theories. Do not lump them together. I know your personal savious Kent Hovind does, but he is an idiot. Nobody else does.

Your attempt to say that God is a simple solution is laughable. Laws of Physics state that matter cannot be created or destroyed. It isn't simple to add things. As the Universe is completely logical as it is, you are adding complexity when you add a creator. Because then you only add a new question...Where did this creator come from? And if he has always existed...why not just say the universe has always existed? it is simpler.

The only "point" you actually made in this post is the question of why monkeys still exist if we evolved from them. There are numerous reasons.
First, evolution does not state that we evolved from mdern-day monkeys. It says both humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor. So monkeys have been evolving, just as humans have. They just evolved down a different path.
If that isn't good enough, keep in mind that the world is a big place. A primate can evolve down one path in South America and down a completely different one in Africa. Evolution does not happen the exact same way in every location. It is a random process, and just because a monkey mutates in one location does not mean all monkeys in all places have the same mutation.
If you're still confused, feel free to ask questions.

Once again lose the mocking attitude that fails to make points...and actually make points.
(example of the type of thing you shouldn't post: So, we had two stomachs at one time! I suppose this means we were once cows... and monkeys, therefore, must have two or three stomachs since we evolved from them.

How strange to think that my hundredth great-grandfather grew a second stomach! What did he do with the old one?)

-B

 

[smashattack]

Look, I never mocked anybody. If anyone was offended, I'm sorry. If my tone somehow sounds that I'm playing the victim, you're totally wrong! Totally!

Sorry, I've got no bad attitudes against you. Just your phony beliefs.

Hey, would you quit with the Kent Hovind thing? I brought it up in my last post to make a point (and I didn't use his evidence). The point was that you never countered... I am not bringing Kent Hoving up, I am not using all his facts, I am not using him at all! In order to satisfy you, I am using other means which are sufficient to prove you wrong. I hope you understand this.

I have an explanation for the "cannot create nor destroy matter". Well... you see, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. If you read through a little ways, you'd see that everything was formed from God himself, taken directly from him. In essence, everything is a part of God. So there's the matter you asked about.

As for God's eternal existence, I have another explanation. It's called "Pandora's Box". We all have an innate desire to explore and try to find out what is true (and you yearn to seek truth, as do I). If we all lived in the Garden of Eden as planned, don't you think we would have had scientists? Everybody would still wonder why God has no beginning. So it would satisfy our curiousity to seek out the answers. As for why he has had no beginning, I can give no explanation because it is beyond my mortal brain.

Just as you can give no explanation for Flaming Blaze's rock because it is totally against evolution.

You said:

The only "point" you actually made in this post is the question of why monkeys still exist if we evolved from them. There are numerous reasons.
First, evolution does not state that we evolved from mdern-day monkeys. It says both humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor. So monkeys have been evolving, just as humans have. They just evolved down a different path.
If that isn't good enough, keep in mind that the world is a big place. A primate can evolve down one path in South America and down a completely different one in Africa. Evolution does not happen the exact same way in every location. It is a random process, and just because a monkey mutates in one location does not mean all monkeys in all places have the same mutation.

Where did the "common ancestor" go, then? It's strange that there are so many possibilities, yet, with as big as the world is and as long as it has supposedly been around, all these possibilities are not truth.

The common ancestor is missing, yet monkeys are still about. Protozoa is still about. So are amoebas. There's a gap in your reasoning. Where is the missing information?

 

[Novowels]

First you say that we can't have evolved from monkeys since there are still monkeys around, then you say that we can't have evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys since the common ancestor isn't around. HUH?!?

Anyways... I forgot to post about the beetle? (rereads thread) My gosh, I did!! Thanks for reminding me, I thought I did that. Here's how the beetle does it's thang:

Aneshansley & Eisner, 1969; Aneshansley et al, 1983; Eisner et al, 1989

The mechanism of their spray works thus: Secretory cells produce hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide (and perhaps other chemicals, depending on the species), which collect in a reservoir. The reservoir opens through a muscle-controlled valve onto a thick-walled reaction chamber. This chamber is lined with cells that secrete catalases and peroxidases. When the contents of the reservoir are forced into the reaction chamber, the catalases and peroxidases rapidly break down the hydrogen peroxide and catalyze the oxidation of the hydroquinones into p-quinones. These reactions release free oxygen and generate enough heat to bring the mixture to the boiling point and vaporize about a fifth of it. Under pressure of the released gases, the valve is forced closed, and the chemicals are expelled explosively through openings at the tip of the abdomen.

There were a few common misconceptions of this amazing beetle in the earlier post: Most notably about the anti-inhibitor and the combustion chamber. There is no such thing as an "anti-inhibitor." The reasoning for this is from the belief that the two chemicals explode when mixed. Sorry, that's not true, that belief is from a badly translated German study, and most people have known that's not true since the mid-80's.

More information:
Talk.Origins FAQ of the Bombardier Beetle

Onward...

Everyone I've talked to about the Lewis Overthrust in Canada says that it does have markings on it, so I'm attempting to find someone with more concrete evidence. Oh, and everyone I've talked to that studies the rock have been geologists, not "evolutionists." I don't know where Gora gets this "evolutionists are trying to prove X" about this rock, since evolutionists don't study rocks. Geologists do. Anyways, I'll try to find some pictures or something more concrete about this.

(special note for Bee: I hadn't heard about the Hovind's bankruptcy. I thought he was indicted for tax fraud? I could be wrong, though.)

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

What he said

about your attitude-

You did not mock individual members here, you just mocked science in general. But you definitely played the victim. It was funny too, because we didn't even really make fun of you despite ample reason to but you still insisted that we did.

about Hovind-

We countered Hovind so much I find it unbelievable you could claim that we didn't. Did you read any of our posts on the matter? Trust me, we thoroughly discredited mr. Hovind's ideas. A summary: A hydrosphere cannot exist because it is too heavy. Water falls in air. You think of clouds...they're water in air, right? Right. But when there gets to be enough water in the air...it rains. Water in the quantities necessary to rain for 40 days simply could not have existed without falling. See www.answersingenesis.com for answers from a Young Earth Christian point of view.
I won't even get into how Hovind provides no actual evidence for his idea...all he does is provide the idea. So even if we accepted that a hydrosphere could have existed, that is not the question at hand. The question at hand is DID it exist? and Hovind provides no evidence for that claim.

about the monkeys-

evolution can work in many ways. Sometimes, resources are scarce. A better-evolved specie will outdo it's counterpart and get more resources until the worse-off version dies out. Survival of the fittest.
It can also work where there is enough room for the two species to coexist. Usually in this situation the evolved specie is merely taking advantage of a particular niche in the environment. Thus, both species are suited to do their own thing, and they can coexist.

In this way, monkeys still exist (they take up different niches in the environment than humans), but the common ancestor (which just wasn't as good as the evolved versions) died out.

about the rest of your post-
It really didn't relate to the subject at hand or have a point so I'll refrain from commenting on it.

-B

 

[game and kirby]

Okay, three points for starters:

1. I still fail to see the significance of an unexplainable rock. I have already stated this, and I'll state it again: ROCK DOESN'T EVOLVE! It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or creationism. Maybe we got the whole rock thing wrong and what we thought was precambrian is actually something else. It doesn't bear any relevance to creationism or evolution. As far as trying to 'lie' to prove it, it's called hypothesizing, and if you haven't noticed, when we're proven wrong, we don't whine and say that these boards are unfair and evil.

2. Bombadier beetles. Are we suggesting that a beetle suddenly decided it was going to have a complex chemical apparatus in it's stomach? No. It evolved that way. The tiniest features of a particular beetle, like slightly stronger stomach acids, or acidic excretion, or any sort of anomaly which would help it survive, kicks off evolution. This is where the vast majority of creationists think that evolution errs. They think that it happens overnight, or in a very short period of time, barely more than 1000 years, mostly because they believe the universe started only 10 000 years ago. WRONG! Evolution takes literally millions, even billions of years to have any appreciable effect. The bombadier beetle would have had much less complex apparatus about two hundred million years ago, and those which blew up because of immiscible chemicals or the like wouldn't perpetuate their race, and those that didn't, would. It's that simple. When you think about it, there are a lot more complex organisms out there than the bombadier beetle, but that's your example.

3. Monkeys. Let me simply outline this. Basically, we evolved, originally, from very small mammals, rodents, which happened to have opposable thumbs, a little like lemurs or even opossums. Over the years (many many many years) we grew taller, stronger, and more adapted to our environment. The line of ancestors which we originate from is constantly splitting off into various branches, all the time, and those that are perfectly fine the way they are continue to live in the same state (which would explain the presence of other monkeys around the present) and those that don't have what it takes, either evolve or die off because they have NO advantageous features. About the time Neanderthal split off the main line, Cromagnon did soon after. These two were similar in appearance, with some scientists suggesting that they could even have interbred, but the neanderthals were slower because of their squat shin bones and pelvis, and most importantly were less intelligent. Neanderthal made spears, stone knives and fire. However, Cromagnon had a language, made daggers five times as sharp as a surgeon's scalpel, and had stone tipped spears which were straighter. Cromagnon was also taller and faster, and understood strategy of group attacks better. This meant only one thing: Competition. Around the France area, where the various ancient cave paintings are at Chauvet and Lascaux, Neanderthal and Cromagnon were in constant competition. The Cromagnon were more suited to the environment and were generally more advanced, and soon wiped out the Neanderthal. That is a perfect example of evolution.

Here's a basic table of monkey evolution. Some of the order might be off, but you get the general idea:

Common Ancestor
l
l
l_____________Orangutan
l
l
l
l_____________Gorilla
l
l
l______________Baboon and modern monkey
l
l
l_______________Neanderthal
l_______________Cromagnon(Modern Man)

 

[Novowels]

dammit g&k....

1. The rock is important. The geological table is important. If you don't know what you're talking about, just don't talk about it!

2. I already talked about the beetle, I also gave a link that explains (in depth) about the process the beetle goes through. You obviously didn't read it, but that's not my fault.

3. Chimps and humans evolved alongside each other, from a common ancestor. We are not "upgrades" of monkeys, they're more like a distant "cousin."

Why did you even post? When you weren't just making stuff up, you were just restating things that I said... I don't need an echo. Especially an overzealous one full of misinformation.

I appreciate that you're trying to help me out, but you're really hurting my position more than you're helping it...

Yes, I am glad that you believe in evolution, but from your information you don't understand it. I'd rather you understand evolution than "believe" it. Go to www.talkorigins.org and just start reading the stuff there. That's the best resource for learning about evolution, the big bang, and abiogenesis that I've been able to find on the Internet.

(sorry if I seemed harsh, I'm kinda grumpy today )