Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aqizzar]

So forget about him, and explain yourself for the benefit of those who will listen to you.  Like I said, I really want to know why you believe Creationism more verifiable than any alternative.  I'll admit straight up I'm never going to agree with you, but I do want to know, and I'm not going to berate you about it.

[Pathos]

You sound like a fundamentalist preaching against Communism. Misinformed, very loud, and on most occasions flat-out wrong.

It's not every day when I find a topic that the OP should be booted from. You are the most impossible person I have ever met. You're hypocritical, you're too loud (which is an achievement considering we are speaking through text) and your default response seems to be "I go by the FACTS. What do you mean 'what facts'? You're a fucking dirty creationist, I don't have to tell you lesser shitbags what proof there is."

See, there's a lot of bitterness here. You should resolve this before bringing it on the 'net.

To those who forgot what CJ's premiere post in this thread was, here it is:

Not only does it provide an sort of end to the suffering of tens of thousands of people being sexually abused by priests

Yeah, this is where I had to stop.

You've taken the Catholic Church and turned it into the Fourth Reich. Seriously, you've blown this far out of proportion.

Also, the Vatican City, while small, is that the very least a Principality, and its ruler (the Pope) can make up whatever rules he wants, although if he is doing what is accused (which I'm pretty sure he isn't; Richard Dawkins is as reliable as Sun) it is pretty reprehensible.

And for that matter, I'd like to bring up another crime against humanity. I know many people in schools who are mentally abused by their own teachers because they do not agree with the theory of evolution. They are told they are wrong, that they are stupid, that their own opinion means nothing.

Richard Dawkins should be sent to jail for mentally scarring actions!

[Jackrabbit]

On the other hand, I had a World History professor, y'know a college professor of History, who believed in the literal truth of the Noah's Ark story.  Actually truly believed that some time around 4000 B.C. the entire planet flooded at once, and only a smattering of humanity and land animals survived.  College professor of world history.  Yeeeaaah.

It's an interesting subject, and of course the flood is a myth, but there's some interesting evidence in support of it and I personally think it probably happened. In almost every native culture in the entire world, flood myths exist. Going back a loooooong time too? All over the entire world native Americans, Maoris, Aborigines of all sorts, have remembered a great flood at approximately the same time. No, Noah's whoop-de-doo magical boat probably doesn't exist, but, well, humans evolved during the end of the last ice age, right? And towards the end of the last ice age, temperatures rose, as you'd expect to happen at the end of an ice age. The melting of the ice-caps are believed to have caused a large rise in water levels around the world. The story of Noah is believed to describe the disappearance of the Tigris-Euphrates Delta under the Persian gulf. What's more, the flood kickstarted agriculture. Humans could no longer be hunter-gatherers and hope for much success, what with the amount of animals and people wiped out. In response, they turned to farming and the first settlements began popping up. Hence why the Bible believes the world started around this time (and why it's believed that we only became good after the flood - people had to live completely differently because of it. Maybe God just hated hunter-gatherers and that's why there's all this animosity about cavemen).

Aborigines can actually name and locate mountains that have been under the sea for 8000 years, their oral tradition goes back that far.

Here's some interesting sites cataloging a large amount of flood stories from round the world. There's more if you want to look it up, and I suggest you do. It's fun to read about.

[Leafsnail]

There just... isn't enough water in the world for it.  It seems far more likely that most cultures who have a trouble with flooding remember a bad flood the local area and pass on the knowledge to their children.  If a culture doesn't have a problem with flooding, they generally don't have a flood myth.

[Jackrabbit]

I'm not saying the entire world was totally flooded, as the Bible seems to claim. Just that water levels reached record heights and yes, a massive amount of land was covered. But not worldwide. Just enormously widespread.

I'm not really sure what your professors opinion on the subject is, Aqizzar, I just thought I'd share some interesting information with you all.

[CJ1145]

So forget about him, and explain yourself for the benefit of those who will listen to you.  Like I said, I really want to know why you believe Creationism more verifiable than any alternative.  I'll admit straight up I'm never going to agree with you, but I do want to know, and I'm not going to berate you about it.

Well, personally, it comes down to a few things.

First, on the subject of actual evidence, I'll give evolution that it has many things going for it, but at the same time creationism has its own merits that the scientific community seems to try really hard to ignore. For one, the fossil index makes no sense, being made up of fossils from all over the world to make a single timeline, and in other places the timeline moves backwards. Though I will grant a few of those places are mountains, where that would kind of make sense. Then there are the multitudes of blue stars throughout the universe. If it was as old as evolution would imply, would there not be far fewer of these stars around? Then there's the idea that if evolution were so gradual, how could these creatures possibly survive? There would have to be a point where a bat/shrew would not be able to fly OR use its fingers for grasping food. Or in the same train of thought, a point where a hippo/whale would be too clumsy to survive in water, yet dependent on it to the point of being unable to survive on land.

Also, the idea of the evolution of the modern horse bugs me, based on the whole changing ribs thing. That and they somehow decided horses evolved from what was essentially a hyrax.

Second, there's the merits of the Bible itself. Now I'm not going to fight a lost cause and say the Bible is totally infallible because I'd look the fool. However, it gets things right more than you'd think. I only have on example on the top of my head, though: When it says that man was made from the dust of the earth, it sounds pretty stupid right? Well if you look at it from a different point of view, it could mean that man is simply constructed of the same kinds of materials that can be found in and on the planet, which is actually pretty accurate.

Finally, there's the benefits of Christianity. I mean, some people take it too far, but what does Christianity really ask you to do? It says that I can spend all of eternity in eternal joy and happiness, and all I have to do is trust this little book that God died for my sins. On top of that it teaches you to be generous and thoughtful, caring for you neighbors and to generally be a good person. Seems like a pretty good deal if you ask me.

See, there's a lot of bitterness here. You should resolve this before bringing it on the 'net.

Oh, I'm not bitter at all. I just happen to get very angry when I see stupidity thriving, whether it be Christian, atheist, Islam, capitalist, communist, or Pathos.

[Jackrabbit]

On Blue Stars: aren't most already dead? Unless you know exactly how far away they are, how can you tell? Their light takes years and years to reach Earth, what's saying they're not already dead and gone and all that's left is their light?

[CJ1145]

On Blue Stars: aren't most already dead? Unless you know exactly how far away they are, how can you tell? Their light takes years and years to reach Earth, what's saying they're not already dead and gone and all that's left is their light?

Good point, and I can't solidly argue against that. But if my knowledge is correct, and it might not be, there are some stars close enough that we know they still exist, but they're still burning.

[Jackrabbit]

But there could be far fewer of those stars in the universe, even if there are still burning ones close by, which is what you said in the first place.

EDIT: Okay, someone is going to hit me over the head with the stick of actual logic for this, but as for species not being able to survive because of evolution, doesn't it work this way?

A child is born with something new, another eye, wings, stuff like that. If it works and because of this new thing, the child is better able to survive, then the changes become more and more widespread and better formed (stronger wings, bigger teeth) as more and more children with the same additions are born. If it doesn't work and the child dies because, as you say, he cannot survive on land or water or he cannot fly or grasp things then he does die, but the species as a whole doesn't. And either the next child born with a similar addition has a more formed one that doesn't end in his death, or it doesn't happen again because it's not conducive to survival.

So yeah, entire species don't just wake up with half formed wings and drop dead. It's gradual.

[CJ1145]

But there could be far fewer of those stars in the universe, even if there are still burning ones close by, which is what you said in the first place.

Exactly. We have no idea of knowing, I suppose.

However, something sparked in my head that might help my stance.

If the Earth was billions of years old like the evolution theory would suggest, we'd have gotten the first specks of light from those stars long ago, and a good deal of them should be burnt out by now. But they are not.

[Pathos]

Aqizzar, to me they always sound like tsunamis.

First, on the subject of actual evidence, I'll give evolution that it has many things going for it, but at the same time creationism has its own merits that the scientific community seems to try really hard to ignore. For one, the fossil index makes no sense, being made up of fossils from all over the world to make a single timeline, and in other places the timeline moves backwards. Though I will grant a few of those places are mountains, where that would kind of make sense. Then there are the multitudes of blue stars throughout the universe. If it was as old as evolution would imply, would there not be far fewer of these stars around? Then there's the idea that if evolution were so gradual, how could these creatures possibly survive? There would have to be a point where a bat/shrew would not be able to fly OR use its fingers for grasping food. Or in the same train of thought, a point where a hippo/whale would be too clumsy to survive in water, yet dependent on it to the point of being unable to survive on land.

Just from this part of your rant can we tell you've really done no research. You've cherry picked "facts" that you feel comfortable with and have decided that they are the be all and end all of the subject. Like the whole hippo thing. It's gradual, it requires specific conditions, MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY mutations were weeded out due to random chance, despite the fact they might have a niche someplace in today's world. Creationists don't have a sense of time, a sense of scale. Sure, 10,000 years is a long time, but 4 billion is a LOT longer.

Also, for god's sake man, hippos are god damn fast and agile, even out of water. Do some research.

Second, there's the merits of the Bible itself. Now I'm not going to fight a lost cause and say the Bible is totally infallible because I'd look the fool. However, it gets things right more than you'd think. I only have on example on the top of my head, though: When it says that man was made from the dust of the earth, it sounds pretty stupid right? Well if you look at it from a different point of view, it could mean that man is simply constructed of the same kinds of materials that can be found in and on the planet, which is actually pretty accurate.

This is as bad as the whole Mayan Calendar 2012 thing. It's really taking it out of context. Now, if it'd said that we were formed from the very "essence" of the sun itself, or some crap like that, I might believe it.

Finally, there's the benefits of Christianity. I mean, some people take it too far, but what does Christianity really ask you to do? It says that I can spend all of eternity in eternal joy and happiness, and all I have to do is trust this little book that God died for my sins. On top of that it teaches you to be generous and thoughtful, caring for you neighbors and to generally be a good person. Seems like a pretty good deal if you ask me.

Alternatively, it teaches you to be a radical against corrupt society, rebelling for the sake of it. Also, this has no place in this thread, please take your agenda elsewhere. This is my last polite asking.

See, there's a lot of bitterness here. You should resolve this before bringing it on the 'net.

Oh, I'm not bitter at all. I just happen to get very angry when I see stupidity thriving, whether it be Christian, atheist, Islam, capitalist, communist, or Pathos.

Yes, you are bitter. Really. Go relax. Take your mind off all that anger towards non-Creationists.

[Leafsnail]

But there could be far fewer of those stars in the universe, even if there are still burning ones close by, which is what you said in the first place.

Exactly. We have no idea of knowing, I suppose.

However, something sparked in my head that might help my stance.

If the Earth was billions of years old like the evolution theory would suggest, we'd have gotten the first specks of light from those stars long ago, and a good deal of them should be burnt out by now. But they are not.

Well, how would we know if they are?  If we can't see the light from the burnt out stars, we can't see if they've gone off or not, yes?

[Aqizzar]

9 new replies while typing.  Not a record, but close.

When it says that man was made from the dust of the earth, it sounds pretty stupid right? Well if you look at it from a different point of view, it could mean that man is simply constructed of the same kinds of materials that can be found in and on the planet, which is actually pretty accurate.

I think you're giving ancient herdsmen an awful lot of credit for a notion of humans being made of the same matter as the Earth that's both so generic as to be meaningless, and a logical jump that's present in almost every creation myth in the world.

For one, the fossil index makes no sense, being made up of fossils from all over the world to make a single timeline, and in other places the timeline moves backwards. Though I will grant a few of those places are mountains, where that would kind of make sense. Then there are the multitudes of blue stars throughout the universe. If it was as old as evolution would imply, would there not be far fewer of these stars around? Then there's the idea that if evolution were so gradual, how could these creatures possibly survive? There would have to be a point where a bat/shrew would not be able to fly OR use its fingers for grasping food. Or in the same train of thought, a point where a hippo/whale would be too clumsy to survive in water, yet dependent on it to the point of being unable to survive on land.

Also, the idea of the evolution of the modern horse bugs me, based on the whole changing ribs thing. That and they somehow decided horses evolved from what was essentially a hyrax.

I really don't want to sound insulting, but you've fallen into the same trap as so many other people who think divine creation is somehow more "provable" than random creation.  The evidence doesn't make sense to you, because you're not very familiar with the evidence, you're not seeing patterns where they are and seeing patterns where they're not, completely ignoring the very important fact that the fossil record is simultaneously gigantic and incredibly sparse because that's just how fossils work, and frankly you don't really seem to understand what the scientific process means.

You're compressing to whole of hundreds of millions of years of geological movement and the crap-shoot process of preservation into a storybook timeline of the Earth.  The timeline of fossil evolution doesn't jump around, your incomplete perception of it does.  There aren't an abundance of blue-light stars; blue light propagates better, and travels through the atmosphere, which is why the human eyeball isn't the preferred tool of astronomy.  Your concepts about gradual evolution leaving problematic holes at cross-over points is a valid question, but it's not so stumping as you think it is: bats transitioned from shrews though a stage not unlike flying squirrels, they just got lighter and more muscular, because once random evolution finds an unexploited niche, selection pressure-relief causes it to fill that very fast (in the timescale of evolution).  Like I said, I really don't want to sound like an ass, but your arguments are either drawn from somebody else's very slanted presentation of reality, or the result of a tremendous lack of research.

[defense of world-floods]

...What?  No.  The entire world did not flood all at once.  It just didn't happen.  There haven't even been any Earth-shaping floods.  Yes many civilizations have mythologies with massive floods in them.  Because that shit's scary, and because most civilizations formed around fertile (i.e. frequently flooded) river valleys.  So pretty much all river-centered civilizations and their decedents have stories of massive floods, because they all experienced them some time.  You'll notice that they're all separated by hundreds or thousands of years along the mythic timeline, let alone the real one.  As for the Aborigines, I'd love to know how anyone can verify their oral history over eight thousand years.  Leaving aside that those islands sank beneath the ocean from being porous and/or volcanic.  And I don't even want to get into the horribly subjective notion of "ice ages", or the absolutely preposterous idea of humanity being descended from some tiny band of survivors.

There's a difference between straight-up faith, and pseudoscience bullshittery.  And world-floods are definitely in the realm of pseudoscience bullshittery.

[Jackrabbit]

But there could be far fewer of those stars in the universe, even if there are still burning ones close by, which is what you said in the first place.

Exactly. We have no idea of knowing, I suppose.

However, something sparked in my head that might help my stance.

If the Earth was billions of years old like the evolution theory would suggest, we'd have gotten the first specks of light from those stars long ago, and a good deal of them should be burnt out by now. But they are not.

Well, how would we know if they are?  If we can't see the light from the burnt out stars, we can't see if they've gone off or not, yes?

Ninja'd, damn.

There's a difference between straight-up faith, and pseudoscience bullshittery.  And world-floods are definitely in the realm of pseudoscience bullshittery.

Fair 'nuff. I didn't say humanity was descended from a small band of survivors though, if this pseudoscience bullshittery really did happen, there'd be hundreds of thousands of humans left. As for worldwide flooding, why don't you think that it could happen? No, remember, I'm not saying the entire Earth was covered with water, just that there was a huge amount of floods all over the world. Not all at the same time, sure, but fairly close together considering evidence of humans has been found as far back as 100 000 years. Surely that's not all that preposterous?

[Aqizzar]

I'm not saying the entire Earth was covered with water, just that there was a huge amount of floods all over the world. Not all at the same time, sure, but fairly close together considering evidence of humans has been found as far back as 100 000 years. Surely that's not all that preposterous?

Of course that's not preposterous.  It's entirely normal for there to be natural disasters.  I'm saying it's preposterous to assign any kind of confluence or relation to them.  There is no pattern to singular events separated by thousands of years, and it bothers me to no end that there's at least one college professor walking around in America thinking there is such a pattern.