A challenge for creationists.

[Hellbender]

Sure. I you want to read one book that has influenced more people across a larger portion of the Earth over more years than any other, you'd have to read the Bible.)

 

ok good point.the bible does influence s lot of people as it is the holy book of christianity, which is the dominant religion here in America. I don't know about the world, but historically, this may or not have been true. Remember there were cultures WAY before Jesus.

 

 

Reading "Zombie Survival Guide" might be fun and nice, but what advantage would it offer me when I have to deal people in everyday life (I run into zombies far less frequently than Christians...I think)?

 

I wasn't making fun of you by referencing this book. I was merely stating, off topic, that I enjoy this book for entertainment value.

[jordan]

ok good point.the bible does influence s lot of people as it is the holy book of christianity, which is the dominant religion here in America. I don't know about the world, but historically, this may or not have been true. Remember there were cultures WAY before Jesus.

Christianity, as the world stands now, is the dominant religion. It has been for some time. You can make the case that the Torah has been around longer and I would have to say that it is probably just as good to read as the Bible. As for the rest, they are either no longer in practice or just don't affect the same range of people.

 

I wasn't making fun of you by referencing this book. I was merely stating, off topic, that I enjoy this book for entertainment value.

I didn't assume you were making fun of me. But as long as you understand my above point, I think you understand my reasoning for allowing a general religion class in schools.

[Gnieus]

Sure. I you want to read one book that has influenced more people across a larger portion of the Earth over more years than any other, you'd have to read the Bible.

 

hmm, kinda of a Naked Emperor thing imo. Like the whole dreadful Shakespeare, Schiller thing, where masses of people are forced to read some boring drivel and pretend it's good.

 

I think the Bible's good message could be summarised in 2 pages flat.

 

When I heard about the "Gnostic Gospels", that gave it the coup the grace .... holy moly 2 millenia of male dominated churches and then Mary was the closest to Jesus ... honestly ..

 

http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

 

or use google ..

 

 

 

4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?

 

5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?

 

6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.

 

7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.

 

8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.

 

9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.

 

Ergo the Bible as published millions of time is an edited version in the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD and does not reflect exactly the teachings of Mr Christ ...

[Deathby]

I would like to raise one point that I don't think people have raised yet. (I just skimmed quickly through it)

 

What creationism are we talking about. Are we talking about God creating everything AS IT EXISTS TODAY WITHOUT CHANGE or are we talking about modified creationism where God created the universe and it changed to what it is now. A "theory" (I should rather say something like idea) which is more fitting to the evidence as we have it.

 

 

And secondly, science has to do with hypotheses which match existing data. Religion has to do with unswerving belief. I believe some prominent theologians thought it would be a terrible idea to have a proof of God.

 

Science is not inflexible, it is scientists who treat science as a religion who are inflexible. Religion is the most damned inflexible institution in the world.

[Sayonara]

How about if anyone who wants to criticise evolution has to pass an exam to see how well they understand it. If they fail, then they get tied up with iron chains and thrown into the ocean.

 

Just to be fair, the same can be done for anyone who wants to criticise evolution.

 

Golly gosh; I wonder who'll last longer?

[Hellbender]

I didn't assume you were making fun of me. But as long as you understand my above point, I think you understand my reasoning for allowing a general religion class in schools.

 

As long as it is taught objectively, fine.

[Hellbender]

How about if anyone who wants to criticise evolution has to pass an exam to see how well they understand it. If they fail, then they get tied up with iron chains and thrown into the ocean.

 

Thats the thing. Many people who criticize evolution don't understand it. The others are just stubborn, to put it bluntly. Neither would pass a test on it. You can see from typical biblical creationist arguments that they have a basic idea, and that is enough for them to refute it.

[Sayonara]

The double-plus super free bonus is that it's Darwinistic selection in action.

 

They'll hate that.

[swansont]

How about if anyone who wants to criticise evolution has to pass an exam to see how well they understand it. If they fail' date=' then they get tied up with iron chains and thrown into the ocean.

[/quote']

 

And if they happen to float, we'll know they're witches.

[Gnieus]

What creationism are we talking about. Are we talking about God creating everything AS IT EXISTS TODAY WITHOUT CHANGE

 

That's the one' date=' which is the REALLY BAD one..

 

or are we talking about modified creationism where God created the universe and it changed to what it is now. A "theory" (I should rather say something like idea) which is more fitting to the evidence as we have it.

 

That's the BAD one for the "creationist" who think that evolution disproves even that .... who knows ... I think one of the creationist book linked above makes a big point of that ... Just pop a God before everything we don't know yet ... kinda DOH ..

 

I believe some prominent theologians thought it would be a terrible idea to have a proof of God.

No sh|t LOL

 

Not directed at you btw

[-Demosthenes-]

Why do you even bother trying? Creationists are incapable of reason' date='

[/quote']

Skirting the fine lines of stereotyping. Just becuase they believe something doesn't mean that are are incapable of reason.

The thing about evolution is that it seems very cruel.

I would much rather live peacefully in a world populated by god fearing men.

How does it seem cruel?

If you have a Scientific mind it is relatively easy to see how: the process of selected elimination over time will produce biodiversity.

 

If you do not have a scientific mind' date=' then Evolution sounds like a hell of a hokey story.[/quote']

You said it so perfectly.

How come people complain about the cruelty of evolution, and yet gravity, which has caused countless injuries and deaths, gets a free pass?

Evolution is far more complicated than gravity, especially for an uneducated (in the science) or closed mind.

woooah there Hellbender.

As for post 189 why shouldnt schools teach RE as well as evolution.Or are you saying that in the US they actually teach creationist science(a literal bible interpretation)

You mean in the public school system and creationalism? Why don't they teach just anyhting? Because there is no proof.

 

I just answered your question' date=' not offering any oppinions of my own, but I might as well do so now. I think that making classes teaching the historical facts of all the world's major religion as manditory is a good idea. But I've also held for while now that if you're going to read one book in your life, the Bible would be the best to choose.[/quote']

Do you think a muslim family living in American might have a problem with that?

[-Demosthenes-]

Thats the thing. Many people who criticize evolution don't[/i'] understand it. The others are just stubborn, to put it bluntly. Neither would pass a test on it. You can see from typical biblical creationist arguments that they have a basic idea, and that is enough for them to refute it.

I think that vast majority that learned the science with an open mind would completely agree with it.

[Hellbender]

I think that vast majority that learned the science with an open mind would completely agree with it.

 

thats my point.

[Newtonian]

How about if anyone who wants to criticise evolution has to pass an exam to see how well they understand it. If they fail' date=' then they get tied up with iron chains and thrown into the ocean.

 

Just to be fair, the same can be done for anyone who wants to criticise evolution.

 

Golly gosh; I wonder who'll last longer?[/quote']

Completely agree,and that goes for peeps harping on about evolution.

[Sayonara]

Completely agree,and that goes for peeps harping on about evolution.

Hey, come up with your own system of persecution. Don't pervert mine.

[Mokele]

Skirting the fine lines of stereotyping. Just becuase they believe something doesn't mean that are are incapable of reason.

 

Some sterotypes exist for a *reason*.

 

Having a stupid belief does not make them incapable of reason. Inability to have a reasoned discussion on the subject, and inability to make logical connections no matter how much coaching they are given, however, *does* make them incapable of reason, at least in this area.

 

I've fought with these morons for a long while, and eventually I just got sick of wasting my time. *Every* creationist I've debated with has demonstrated the failings I noted above. That's not sterotyping, it's reasonable inference from extensive experience.

 

Mokele

[myeditorial]

The basis of confusion is the improper handling of words. I think the worlds like variance, variablity, invariance, invariablity, possibility and probability are often misinterpreted and misrepresented both by the crationists and evolutionary theorists. It takes a hell of time and argument to get clear with the connotations and contexts of both. My experience says this. For clarity in this connection: http://wwf.edula.com/content/topics/vandiv.html

[Deathby]

To play devil's advocate...

 

"Mah grandpappy wasn't no son o' a monkey!" - From a survey on views on evolution

 

But there are some who try and apply scientific theories to creationism. http://www.answersingenesis.org They generally seem to make a lot of sense, although some arguments are stronger/weaker than others. They are dismissive (as much perhaps as this forum is of creationism?) but they argue quite well.

 

I didn't read through very much of it, but one of their best points that I couldn't find a way to refute was a tree which stuck through several million years worth of strata. I could find an explanation but half the time it would seem as fanciful as some of the crap creationists use. A half-decent challenge for some of you fellows to disprove.

 

Their weaker points include why there are no human fossils in rocks scientists believe date back to the mesozoic. Apparently we ran away from Noah's Flood so we escaped. And there would only have been around 10,000 humans so the chance of finding a fossil is 10,000/SA of earth = 1 fossil per 100 thousand square kilometers (or something like that anyway). Evidently they didn't think of humans as social creatures.

[swansont]

To play devil's advocate...

 

"Mah grandpappy wasn't no son o' a monkey!" - From a survey on views on evolution

 

But there are some who try and apply scientific theories to creationism. http://www.answersingenesis.org They generally seem to make a lot of sense' date=' although some arguments are stronger/weaker than others. They are dismissive (as much perhaps as this forum is of creationism?) but they argue quite well.

 

I didn't read through very much of it, but one of their best points that I couldn't find a way to refute was a tree which stuck through several million years worth of strata. I could find an explanation but half the time it would seem as fanciful as some of the crap creationists use. A half-decent challenge for some of you fellows to disprove.

 

Their weaker points include why there are no human fossils in rocks scientists believe date back to the mesozoic. Apparently we ran away from Noah's Flood so we escaped. And there would only have been around 10,000 humans so the chance of finding a fossil is 10,000/SA of earth = 1 fossil per 100 thousand square kilometers (or something like that anyway). Evidently they didn't think of humans as social creatures.[/quote']

 

I thought that polystrate fossils were very easily explained.

 

Answersingenesis, et al. make sense to people who are (a) uneducated in science and (b) already part of the choir.

 

I looked at the site, which I haven't done in a while. There's a really big ad for a debate between Hugh Ross and a Dr. Lisle. While debates are not the right forum (refuting a claim often takes a lot longer than making it) I thought at least Dr. Lisle was someone in the evolution camp. But an article written by Ken Ham, when discussing the Creation Museum, he says, "We have real scientists, like Dr. Jason Lisle, on staff." So the "debate" is between two creationists!

[Newtonian]

A good link Swansont,seems strange how some can believe a GF to account for the rapid laydown of sediment.

Although i scanned the site,i still couldnt find a solid reason why an upright tree in situe could be fossilised through different strata though

[Gnieus]

Although i scanned the site' date='i still couldnt find a solid reason why an upright tree in situe could be fossilised through different strata though[/quote']

 

Sand clay coal

 

Just needs localised flood that swamps the tree, then the whole forest the tree was in, becomes coal.

 

An underclay is technically the bed of clay which underlies a coal-seam; but it has now become a general term for a fossil soil [Dawson's emphasis], or a bed which once formed a terrestrial surface, and supported trees and other plants; because we generally find these coal underclays, like the subsoils of many modern peat-bogs, to contain roots and trunks of trees which aided in the accumulation of the vegetable matter of the coal. The underclays in question are accordingly penetrated by innumerable long rootlets, now in a coaly state, but retaining enough of their form to enable us to recognize them as belonging to a peculiar root, the Stigmaria, of very frequent occurrence in the coal measures, and at one time supposed to have been a swamp plant of anomalous form, but now known to have belonged to an equally singular tree, the Sigillaria, found in the same deposits (Fig. 30).

 

 

in a manner which shows that these must have been soft sand and mud at the time these roots and rootlets spread through them.

 

 

It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into stone, and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft condition; 2ndly, that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the recent trees that underlie the Amherst marshes [these are local tidal marshes, some with recently-buried forest layers in the peat and sediment].

 

I can't really see why a tree should not die and be fossilised in some marshy anaerobic environment and it's upper bits out of the Marsh then became coal with all the rest of the organic material.

[swansont]

A good link Swansont' date='seems strange how some can believe a GF to account for the rapid laydown of sediment.

Although i scanned the site,i still couldnt find a solid reason why an upright tree in situe could be fossilised through different strata though[/quote']

 

Rivers. Sediment. Trees. Roots.

[-Demosthenes-]

Some sterotypes exist for a *reason*.

I've fought with these morons for a long while' date=' and eventually I just got sick of wasting my time. *Every* creationist I've debated with has demonstrated the failings I noted above. That's not sterotyping, it's reasonable inference from extensive experience.

[/quote']

So from you experience all creastionalists are incapable of reason. That would mean that all creationalists are creationalist becuase they are incapable of reason, and yet I know a good many people who think that the world and life was created, and they are quite reasonable.

[Hellbender]

So from you experience all creastionalists are incapable of reason. That would mean that all creationalists are creationalist becuase they are incapable of reason, and yet I know a good many people who think that the world and life was created, and they are quite reasonable.

 

They seem reasonable.

[Hellbender]

Creationists may behave reasonable enough, but we are talking about their debate tactics and mindset here. Most creationist arguments sound very reasonable, probably to adapt to increased awareness to the fact that they are usually lying and have no solid evidence to support their claims. A lot of creationist "evidence" contains a lot of big words and numbers to satisy the layperson that they know what they are talking about. (I can give examples) I am not saying all creationists are bad people. No one said that. Its just that most of them don't have a good grip on the rules of debate and scientific reason.