Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

[Old Marcus]

Evolution is another theory of many theories, and I choose to believe it. I have no objections to your believing in Creation, I do object to you claiming it to be solid irrefutable fact, as it isn't. To be honest, humanity could well die not knowing either way.

[markfiend]

Yeah I had a huge pro-evolution post typed up, but then I thought "why bother?"

No-one on here really cares, do they?

[MALsPa]

Yeah I had a huge pro-evolution post typed up, but then I thought "why bother?"

Yeah, that's how I feel, why bother? You're either "preaching to the choir" or else whatever you say will be something for someone to argue against. Not likely that anyone is going to change their minds about these things because of what someone here writes.

No-one on here really cares, do they?

Probably not!

[Kaye]

FedoraRefugee

I don't particularly want to get wrapped up in a huge discussion here, but I have to be clear on one thing. As a student of the natural sciences, "creation science" is one of the biggest misnomers I can think of. There is an extremely minuscule amount of science in any kind of "creation" story. Pseudoscience abounds (and an utter misunderstanding of science is often masqueraded as fact), but little true science can be found.

Additionally, your assertion that creation mythology (a much more accurate description) has more facts to back it up than evolution is laughable at best. The fact that you believe so indicates that no amount of evidence will change your mind, so I won't bother going out of my way to espouse the many, many "facts" that are simply not true involving creation.

You are free to believe whatever you like, it really doesn't effect me in any way; however, do not attempt to support religion with science. What religion will accept as "science" and what science really is are two very different things.

Let me leave you with two quotes that will hopefully get you thinking:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Men think epilepsy divine merely because they do not understand it. We will one day understand what causes it, and then cease to call it divine. And so it is with everything in the universe.

[MALsPa]

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

I stumbled upon that one years ago. I had forgotten all about it -- thanks, Kaye! It does express the way I feel about things.

[FedoraRefugee]

FedoraRefugee

I don't particularly want to get wrapped up in a huge discussion here, but I have to be clear on one thing. As a student of the natural sciences, "creation science" is one of the biggest misnomers I can think of. There is an extremely minuscule amount of science in any kind of "creation" story. Pseudoscience abounds (and an utter misunderstanding of science is often masqueraded as fact), but little true science can be found.

Additionally, your assertion that creation mythology (a much more accurate description) has more facts to back it up than evolution is laughable at best. The fact that you believe so indicates that no amount of evidence will change your mind, so I won't bother going out of my way to espouse the many, many "facts" that are simply not true involving creation.

You are free to believe whatever you like, it really doesn't effect me in any way; however, do not attempt to support religion with science. What religion will accept as "science" and what science really is are two very different things.

Let me leave you with two quotes that will hopefully get you thinking:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Men think epilepsy divine merely because they do not understand it. We will one day understand what causes it, and then cease to call it divine. And so it is with everything in the universe.

Actually, you are completely wrong. I have science on my side, you name the argument and I will beat you. Hands down. You cannot show life from non-life, you cannot show evolution, radiometric dating is based on pure assumption, big bang can be disproved in many ways, there is evidence of Noah's flood on every corner of this planet and it better explains the present geology of the earth, things like the Grand Canyon. In fact, I challenge you here and now to try and refute just one single claim made in the Bible! You state that many many "facts" are not true involving creation, name just one! Actually the few laws of science are on MY side! Try the law of biogenesis just for starters. Science is defined as a field of study seeking to understand natural phenomena through repeated observations and experiments. Scientific conclusions, while never final, must be based on evidence, something that has been observed with instruments or our senses, is verifiable, and helps support or refute possible explanations for phenomena. Please explain to me how the theory of evolution or the big bang can even be considered as science? Listen my friend, when you can show me how life can be formed from non-life, or when you can show me one species turning into another, then you come back and we will talk. Till then you are just another sucker buying all the hype.

I backed down from this thread because it is futile to argue this. Old Marcus actually has it right in his last post. Markfiend and MALsPa wanted the last word and that is fine. I exert myself way too much in this forum, it wouldn't hurt me to humble myself here. However, you present a direct challenge! I accept! Put your money where your mouth is. But I will tell you this right up front, you need to accept the facts as they fall. I do not want to hear anything about pseudoscience. There are many brilliant men working in the creation field. Men much smarter than you or I ever will be. They have a different world view than you do, why not take them on with the facts? Anyone can bash sources and disparage personalities, but you need to concentrate on the facts. No matter where they come from. Put your money where your mouth is, show me where I am wrong.

[MALsPa]

MALsPa wanted the last word

I did?

[MALsPa]

FedoraRefugee, any thoughts on that Stephen Roberts quote?

[Old Marcus]

FR: Creation is a belief, a theory at best. No one can prove it, nor noah's flood. Stop posting it as fact.I simply can not be bothered to argue with someone who believes so strongly.

[FedoraRefugee]

FedoraRefugee, any thoughts on that Stephen Roberts quote?

I dismiss all other gods because there is only one God. Scripture tells us this and the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I believe this because Jesus Christ endorsed the Bible and was crucified and rose again the third day. This is indisputable fact, you may not believe it, but no one at the time questioned it. If Jesus was not who He said He was then God would not have allowed Him to rise. As He endorsed Genesis I also know that the creation account is true.

I do not have any thoughts on Stephen Robert's quote. He obviously thought it was clever, but it is irrelevant to me. He dismisses God on the grounds that Christians (and Jews and Muslims) recognize that there is only one God. It is faulty logic.

FR: Creation is a belief, a theory at best. No one can prove it, nor noah's flood. Stop posting it as fact.I simply can not be bothered to argue with someone who believes so strongly.

Hmmm...Did I ever say I could prove creation? No, no more than you could prove evolution. I said that the scientific facts we know can be easily reconciled with the Genesis account of creation. I claimed that there are, in fact, far fewer problems accounting for the known facts by using a creation model than an evolution model. But no, I cannot prove creation to you. Don't really want to, it is obvious to those the Lord chooses to reveal Himself to.

Now Noah's flood is another story! Flooding in every part of the world is proven. In fact, evolution science now recognizes that flooding and water erosion played a part in most of the earth's current geology. The only difference between them and creationists is that the evos believe in local floods at diverse periods in earth's history. But the fact still remains that we find clam shells on top of Everest and whale skeletons in the Sahara. The Grand Canyon was shaped by water and the evidence is obvious and prolific. I will not bring up the recent Noah's Ark find, I do not believe they found the ark. I do not think they ever will. The fact that it was carbon dated to the time of Noah proves that it is not old enough. C-14 atmospheric equilibrium error would throw off any dates gotten by the C-14 method for Noah's Ark. Wood cut 4458-4358 years ago would likely end up getting dated as more like 7500-8000 years old, given that the C-14 amount in our air was rising then, and still is now. But the ark aside, there is little dispute that the geography of the present earth was shaped by water. So yeah, I would say a global flood was pretty certain, though I would not call it proven fact. No one was there, there is no way to replicate it. But Dr. John Baumgardner has done some awesome work modeling the flood using the Los Alamos computer. He calls his THEORY catastrophic Plate Tectonics. It shows the global flood in a light that makes total scientific sense, even accounting for facts that currently stymie evos.

http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCcpt.html

You do not want to argue? Then don't bother! I know what I know. I know this because I take the Word of God as an irrefutable source. If something disagrees then we are wrong, not the Bible. Disprove the Bible and you have won the game. If you cannot then you cannot win. No matter how airtight you believe your theories are I can show how they are flawed. You can do the same to mine, but that is irrelevant. I know the truth. If you choose not to believe it that is your problem, not mine. I can easily account for any scientific fact you have.

[mick55]

No matter how airtight you believe your theories are I can show how they are flawed. You can do the same to mine, but that is irrelevant. I know the truth.

Not much point in having a discussion with you then, since you're always "right".



You can't convince a believer of anything;
for their belief is not based on evidence,
it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."

~Carl Sagan~

[MALsPa]

He dismisses God on the grounds that Christians (and Jews and Muslims) recognize that there is only one God. It is faulty logic.

When I read the quote, I understood him to be saying, "Why is this god real, and all of the other gods who anyone believes in or has ever believed in, are not real?" That is how I read it because that is what I have asked myself. I guess that is not how you read it, though.

And the answer, which you yourself give, amounts to "Because I believe in this one."

Well, sir, you believe there is one God, you believe the Bible is the Word of God, and you "take the Word of God as an irrefutable source."

Belief: Any cognitive content held as true. Mental acceptance of a claim as truth. The psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. And so forth.

But believing that something is true doesn't mean that it is true.

At least to me it doesn't!

[FedoraRefugee]

No matter how airtight you believe your theories are I can show how they are flawed. You can do the same to mine, but that is irrelevant. I know the truth.

Not much point in having a discussion with you then, since you're always "right".



You can't convince a believer of anything;
for their belief is not based on evidence,
it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."

~Carl Sagan~

But is that not in itself irrelevant? Do you not believe yourself to be right and argue from that position?

It still does not change the FACTS! Facts are facts. I simply account for them in a different way than you do. Explain to me how a T-Tex bone could have viable red blood cells still intact after 65 million years? That is the fact. I explain it by saying that T Rex lived 4,000 years ago. Can you refute that statement?

Something interesting about Sagan; do you know that in later years he would always capitalize the word "cosmos?" It became his God!

[FedoraRefugee]

He dismisses God on the grounds that Christians (and Jews and Muslims) recognize that there is only one God. It is faulty logic.

When I read the quote, I understood him to be saying, "Why is this god real, and all of the other gods who anyone believes in or has ever believed in, are not real?" That is how I read it because that is what I have asked myself. I guess that is not how you read it, though.

And the answer, which you yourself give, amounts to "Because I believe in this one."

Well, sir, you believe there is one God, you believe the Bible is the Word of God, and you "take the Word of God as an irrefutable source."

Belief: Any cognitive content held as true. Mental acceptance of a claim as truth. The psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. And so forth.

But believing that something is true doesn't mean that it is true.

At least to me it doesn't!

Merely word games. I don't believe you are real. I believe you came from Mars. Whatever...My God has shown Himself to me. Jesus Christ was real, He existed. This is historically accepted by everyone who is anyone. To say He was not real is silly. We also know about His life from sources outside the Bible. We know He was crucified for claiming to be God. We know He was laid in a tomb and we know that three days later the body was gone! Where did it go? That might have been the end except many people saw Him afterward. In many places at many times, sometimes in groups. Explain that? Explain how the cowering disciples who denied Him at the end went on to each die a terrible, unimaginable death in His name? All except John anyway, though John suffered also. You do not die for what you know is a lie! You may die for something you believe is true that actually is a lie, but you will never die for what is a known lie. They believed...They knew...

But we are not discussing religion or beliefs here. That is the evo's number 1 tactic; turn the argument AWAY from the scientific facts. I cannot prove God or the Bible to you. But you cannot prove the Bible wrong either! I can show you how your beliefs are wrong though, if you let me. Evolution cannot work. It is impossible. I state that as a fact, a law of science. If evolution is not true then where did we come from? An alien race? Maybe...But where did THEY come from? How did it begin? Secular science STILL does not have a plausible answer for this question. I do.

[MALsPa]

Explain to me how a T-Tex bone could have viable red blood cells still intact after 65 million years? That is the fact. I explain it by saying that T Rex lived 4,000 years ago. Can you refute that statement?

You must be joking.

[MALsPa]

Jesus Christ was real, He existed. This is historically accepted by everyone who is anyone.

I am nobody.

To say He was not real is silly.

Not only am I nobody, I am silly.

[mzsade]

I am a Muslim by birth, yet i refuse to take the scriptures literally (Adam and Eve could well have been two classes of individuals scattered all over the earth, rather than exactly two people, if at all one wanted to reconcile the scriptural account with the present population and the age of the Universe as given there). Faith should never seek to rely on the historical or scientific authenticity of the scriptural accounts--they are only the outpourings of a highly attenuated consciousness reflecting some inexplicable universal truth allegorically, which is beyond the scope of normal human understanding and language. If you want to believe, do so, but please don't try to juxtapose your beliefs with scientific or historical facts, it will never succeed. As for me, i do have a loose belief in a supreme being whom i call Bog, but which i attribute to my conscience rather than faith. Phew! I don't think i can say anything more on this, what with my limited erudition and understanding, and capacity to articulate.

[FedoraRefugee]

I am a Muslim by birth, yet i refuse to take the scriptures literally (Adam and Eve could well have been two classes of individuals scattered all over the earth, rather than exactly two people, if at all one wanted to reconcile the scriptural account with the present population and the age of the Universe as given there). Faith should never seek to rely on the historical or scientific authenticity of the scriptural accounts--they are only the outpourings of a highly attenuated consciousness reflecting some inexplicable universal truth allegorically, which is beyond the scope of normal human understanding and language. If you want to believe, do so, but please don't try to juxtapose your beliefs with scientific or historical facts, it will never succeed. As for me, i do have a loose belief in a supreme being whom i call Bog, but which i attribute to my conscience rather than faith. Phew! I don't think i can say anything more on this, what with my limited erudition and understanding, and capacity to articulate.

Once again, nothing but talk! Why should i not use science to show me that the Genesis account can be true? Especially if science shows the Genesis account to be the most plausible theory about how we were created? You preface your post by stating you were a Muslim as if that gives you some kind of insight in the matter? I am glad you saw the error of your ways, I hope one day you lose Bog also and turn to your creator. Call on the name of Jesus Christ and share eternal life with me. But that is all still beside the point here. SHOW ME why I should not take Scripture literally!

MALsPa, I am not joking! Again, I am arguing scientific fact here, we not only have a single T-Rex bone but MANY other examples of supposedly millions of years old remnants with intact organic matter still inside. EXPLAIN IT PLEASE?

As far as Jesus Christ being real, that is beside the point, but why do you not believe He was a real person? You do understand that even most secular scholars readily admit He was a real person? I mean, a whole religion was started on His name...

Do yourself a favor, take your time and look into both of these questions. The evos have a few answers for the dino blood cells, but they are all unsatisfactory.

[mick55]

I am silly.

I am sillier.

[mzsade]

Well, don't Muslims have a reputation of being the most fanatical adherents of the scriptures? That's what i was implying, that despite that i am not.

Also, whatever errors that may exist in Carbon dating etc. they certainly cannot be in the range of several million years. To yet insist that Creation is only several thousand years old is ridiculous. And do relax, my friend, I never said that Jesus Christ was not real (The Adam and Eve example too was only to explain the various races, an argument in your favor in fact), and i am still not scoffing your Faith, only let it be just that. Better minds have tried to prove the existence or non-existence of a Supreme Being with science and logic, and failed to do so irrefutably. There are sound arguments on both sides, agreed, but Faith should be far removed from such things and not have to rely on that, it is a purely subjective matter and any attempt to make an objective argument for it amuses me.

Edit: Note how i studiously avoid taking "The name of the Lord in vain"