Menu Bar
Needs Plugin: Flash | Not Working?
Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
<< Edward Current: People are not Animals and Evolution Never Happened
|
Richard Dawkins: Unintelligent Design >>
Excerpt from HBO's "Friends of God: A road trip with Alexandra Pelosi".
This segment focuses on the work of a traveling ministry "Answers in Genesis" teaching Christians how to refute Evolution.
This segment focuses on the work of a traveling ministry "Answers in Genesis" teaching Christians how to refute Evolution.
Feb 2, 2007 3:50 AM
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
yeah, ofcourse no humans died when all the dinosaurs lived, that's why we never find any human remains from that age.
i thought brainwashing kids was illegal, even in the US.
i thought brainwashing kids was illegal, even in the US.
By: SilenTom
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
Um... just out of curiosity, where'd you get "we never find any human remains from that age"?
By: squeakytoad
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
It's a misconception amongst children that human beings and dinosaurs were alive during the same era, when in actuality, the two species never roamed the Earth at the same time. This is proven by the fact that we've carbon-dated fossils from dinosaurs and we've carbon-dated fossils from humans, and they were not the same age. Therefore, the dinosaurs died long before apes evolved into humans.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
You know, the word 'gallbladder' can't be found in the Bible. Doesn't mean nobody had them back then.
By: squeakytoad
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
That's the point he was making. Just because "dinosaur" isn't in the Bible, it doesn't mean, to him, that there were no dinosaurs in Biblical times. They were just there under another name (like behemoth, or whatever other justification he can conjure up). Same with gallbladders.
By: iheartponeez
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
Ah, I stopped watching half a minute after that and didn't hear the rest.
I've gone back and watched just about all of it.
I've gone back and watched just about all of it.
By: squeakytoad
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
theres actually a good bill hicks skit on dinosaurs in the bible on arizona bay. that also means that theres probably a dennis leary skit thats not as funny about dinosaurs in the bible.
but trust me if there were dinosaurs then there would be a lot of mentioning of the giant fucking lizards. i mean, did these people see jurassic park? the characters in that certainly were pretty focused on the dinosaurs walking amongst them... i guess i cant use a movie as a point but seriously, if there were giant lizards running around we'd be talking about them, even if they're common place a tyranosaur is going to be pretty attention grabbing.
but trust me if there were dinosaurs then there would be a lot of mentioning of the giant fucking lizards. i mean, did these people see jurassic park? the characters in that certainly were pretty focused on the dinosaurs walking amongst them... i guess i cant use a movie as a point but seriously, if there were giant lizards running around we'd be talking about them, even if they're common place a tyranosaur is going to be pretty attention grabbing.
By: raubhi
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
Most creationists believe the dinosaurs were wiped out in the flood, not long before, or not long after.
Not much is recorded in the Bible for that period of history.
On top of that, very very few actual animals are mentioned in the Bible period. Just like very very few animals are mentioned in your history text. The Bible is meant to be a historical record. You can debate all you want about it being true or not, but the point is, historical records don't usually tell all the thrilling stories of people getting attacked by dinosaurs.
Also, giant ferocious reptilian creatures are referred to in the book of Job.
Just thought I'd state that in defense of the dinosaurs. All this controversy about them is really stressful. They have feelings too, people.
Not much is recorded in the Bible for that period of history.
On top of that, very very few actual animals are mentioned in the Bible period. Just like very very few animals are mentioned in your history text. The Bible is meant to be a historical record. You can debate all you want about it being true or not, but the point is, historical records don't usually tell all the thrilling stories of people getting attacked by dinosaurs.
Also, giant ferocious reptilian creatures are referred to in the book of Job.
Just thought I'd state that in defense of the dinosaurs. All this controversy about them is really stressful. They have feelings too, people.
By: squeakytoad
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
That kid is due for a rude awakening if he's serious about becoming a biochemist.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
When I was 7 I was a typical dinosaur maniac. My grandmother, a typical church-going grandmother, asked me if I wanted to go see a special speaker about dinosaurs. Of course I did! Man, I was super pumped.
Man, was I disappointed to have to go and end up sitting to one of these weird-os. Even at the tender age of 7 I knew it was all BS. On top of everything, the guy went on to say that dinosaurs were STILL alive in the "unexplored" jungles of Africa. Ok dude!
Man, was I disappointed to have to go and end up sitting to one of these weird-os. Even at the tender age of 7 I knew it was all BS. On top of everything, the guy went on to say that dinosaurs were STILL alive in the "unexplored" jungles of Africa. Ok dude!
By: McCorvic
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
Yeesh. This is one of those videos I am glad and regretful to have watched.
Refuting evolution is a luxury issue, that should be on the bottom of the list after: helping the needy, feeding the poor, and having love for humanity. Remember that? You know, the other 300 pages of the bible?
Refuting evolution is a luxury issue, that should be on the bottom of the list after: helping the needy, feeding the poor, and having love for humanity. Remember that? You know, the other 300 pages of the bible?
By: Szech
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
WTF happened to Dragons and Unicorns both are mentioned in the Bible? This little clip doesn't make any mention of these mighty creations. Maybe teaching kids that Dragons and Unicorns really existed might cause some of the parents to think this whole Fundamentalism is, well mental.
Maybe, just maybe the Behemoth mentioned isn't a dinosaur, but a Dragon.
Anyways I was always taught that fossils were made by the devil to shake Man's faith in God.
Maybe, just maybe the Behemoth mentioned isn't a dinosaur, but a Dragon.
Anyways I was always taught that fossils were made by the devil to shake Man's faith in God.
By: slackerdeluxe
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
CHECK THIS OUT.Evolution according to Ricky Gervais. Funny Funny Stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_EXqdJ4L7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_EXqdJ4L7I
By: PI55_FLAP5
Wow
this is absolutely disgusting, any person who does not believe in evolution is either severely uneducated/ignorant or just mentally retarded
By: frankiethefish15
Re: Wow
i believe in evolution but i wouldnt say someone who didnt was retarded. i mean it is a bit of a stretch. it's the best theory we have of our origins but since it was such a long process we still cant actually say it's fact.
the people in this video, though, may in fact be lacking some type of mental developement.
the people in this video, though, may in fact be lacking some type of mental developement.
By: raubhi
Re: Wow
No, that one's too easy. It's much more complicated than that. Clearly, there are very intelligent people who have a faith of some sort.
The problem is one of culture and immersion. When you are steeped in your culture's (or your family's) particular flavor of mythology from birth, it's exceedingly difficult to "break out" of that mindset and think for yourself.
Thinking for oneself isn't encouraged in any of the churches, congregations, or synagogues I've ever seen (though I think it's the worst in Xtianity).
I can't tell you how many "bible study" groups I've participated in over the years wherein people will self-importantly pontificate over meanings and word choices without ever thinking to stop and look at the translations they're using.
Besides which, just because a book (or a collection of books) has a rich tapestry of interwoven connections and interreferences hardly proves it's not mythology.
Hell, people believe in the teachings of the Church of Scientology. Xenu? I mean, come on.
So yes, even intelligent people find that it's very difficult to see through or around one's own indoctrination.
Though it is true that the proportion of religious believers versus athiests drops with higher education.
The problem is one of culture and immersion. When you are steeped in your culture's (or your family's) particular flavor of mythology from birth, it's exceedingly difficult to "break out" of that mindset and think for yourself.
Thinking for oneself isn't encouraged in any of the churches, congregations, or synagogues I've ever seen (though I think it's the worst in Xtianity).
I can't tell you how many "bible study" groups I've participated in over the years wherein people will self-importantly pontificate over meanings and word choices without ever thinking to stop and look at the translations they're using.
Besides which, just because a book (or a collection of books) has a rich tapestry of interwoven connections and interreferences hardly proves it's not mythology.
Hell, people believe in the teachings of the Church of Scientology. Xenu? I mean, come on.
So yes, even intelligent people find that it's very difficult to see through or around one's own indoctrination.
Though it is true that the proportion of religious believers versus athiests drops with higher education.
By: indigoandblack
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
ok, having finished the video...
this is why christianity is dying. they refuse to allow thought to go past one book. it's why so many people give up when they realize it's not going anywhere.
alright, here's an argument they could be making:
ok, god is not bound by time in anyway, so why would he tell man he created the earth in 6 days? well think of when the bible was written, the people then just wouldnt be able to handle the complexities of the earth's existense and how it and they came to be. so god sort of gave early man a simple version, explaining each phase as a day. nice, simple and easy for people to grab. since it's not the main message of god, why confuse people, they'll figure it out in a few thousand years. on that same note, why would mentioning the giant lizards who existed millions of years before the fact help anything?
as for evolution itself, couldnt just be how god made us? again telling anciant man he came from apes is just going to confuse the crap out of him, and it's not relevant to the point. so to make things quick and simple 'BAM i made you.' ('BAM' was god's catch phrase at the time, look it up)
but since fundamentalists christians fear questioning their religion they'll continue to destroy it by accepting it all at face value.
this is why christianity is dying. they refuse to allow thought to go past one book. it's why so many people give up when they realize it's not going anywhere.
alright, here's an argument they could be making:
ok, god is not bound by time in anyway, so why would he tell man he created the earth in 6 days? well think of when the bible was written, the people then just wouldnt be able to handle the complexities of the earth's existense and how it and they came to be. so god sort of gave early man a simple version, explaining each phase as a day. nice, simple and easy for people to grab. since it's not the main message of god, why confuse people, they'll figure it out in a few thousand years. on that same note, why would mentioning the giant lizards who existed millions of years before the fact help anything?
as for evolution itself, couldnt just be how god made us? again telling anciant man he came from apes is just going to confuse the crap out of him, and it's not relevant to the point. so to make things quick and simple 'BAM i made you.' ('BAM' was god's catch phrase at the time, look it up)
but since fundamentalists christians fear questioning their religion they'll continue to destroy it by accepting it all at face value.
By: raubhi
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
As a Christian who believes in aspects of Creationism, most of what I say will go on to deaf ears, but I feel it important to at least make this a less one sided debate. And I'll leave any talk about the Bible or Christianity OUT of this post, as most would glaze over and be defensive about it.
This will sound like I'm attacking Evolution, but I from my experiences, I've come to believe that most public schools have used it to "brainwash" our public. I was in these public schools too, so I know exactly what the Biology curriculum had in the Taxonomy units (by the way, I did rather well back then too). I only started looking into the differences of Evolution and Creationism in college (extracurricular learning of course). But I digress:
Contrary to what most textbooks will tell you, "The Theory of Evolution" (where all plant and animal life came from the same ancestor) is a religion (people believe in it while not being scientific FACT). Whereas the term evolution, (many times specifically labelled "Micro-Evolution") variations within kinds of plants/animals over time is never debated.
If there were any genuine examples in the fossil record of "missing links" (which there should be many, because there's so many variations within a kind found on earth now) there wouldn't be much of a valid argument now between Creation/Evolution.
There are discrepancies as to how old the earth is and when the dawn of life are in the "scientific" community. Some use the Geological Column (however different places on Earth have different strata or layers in them and can't be used as a perfectly objective timeline). Many use carbon dating, which is good (under normal conditions), however not knowing atmospheric conditions in the past really hinders our results now. But hiding behind a cloud idea of "millions of years" shadows this point. By the way, there's numerous examples of carbon dating error found on the same fossils, as well as LIVING animals (carbon dating is supposed to tell you when something died).
I've got way more info if anyone's interested, but for a post, this is getting long, and I'm sure a lot have already stopped reading. I'll just leave with one more thing to think about. There's major money in the field of trying to proove human evolution. Mostly backed by grants (private and government), archeologists and explorers are expected to find more evidence to build up the case of evolution, resulting in the discovery of Java Man, Lucy, Piltdown Man, and others... but don't hold up to much scrutiny. Most are best logically explained as 1) All human, 2) All ape, or 3) Bits and pieces of the two.
Best regards,
Kiuball
This will sound like I'm attacking Evolution, but I from my experiences, I've come to believe that most public schools have used it to "brainwash" our public. I was in these public schools too, so I know exactly what the Biology curriculum had in the Taxonomy units (by the way, I did rather well back then too). I only started looking into the differences of Evolution and Creationism in college (extracurricular learning of course). But I digress:
Contrary to what most textbooks will tell you, "The Theory of Evolution" (where all plant and animal life came from the same ancestor) is a religion (people believe in it while not being scientific FACT). Whereas the term evolution, (many times specifically labelled "Micro-Evolution") variations within kinds of plants/animals over time is never debated.
If there were any genuine examples in the fossil record of "missing links" (which there should be many, because there's so many variations within a kind found on earth now) there wouldn't be much of a valid argument now between Creation/Evolution.
There are discrepancies as to how old the earth is and when the dawn of life are in the "scientific" community. Some use the Geological Column (however different places on Earth have different strata or layers in them and can't be used as a perfectly objective timeline). Many use carbon dating, which is good (under normal conditions), however not knowing atmospheric conditions in the past really hinders our results now. But hiding behind a cloud idea of "millions of years" shadows this point. By the way, there's numerous examples of carbon dating error found on the same fossils, as well as LIVING animals (carbon dating is supposed to tell you when something died).
I've got way more info if anyone's interested, but for a post, this is getting long, and I'm sure a lot have already stopped reading. I'll just leave with one more thing to think about. There's major money in the field of trying to proove human evolution. Mostly backed by grants (private and government), archeologists and explorers are expected to find more evidence to build up the case of evolution, resulting in the discovery of Java Man, Lucy, Piltdown Man, and others... but don't hold up to much scrutiny. Most are best logically explained as 1) All human, 2) All ape, or 3) Bits and pieces of the two.
Best regards,
Kiuball
By: Kiuball
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
that's what i like to hear(read). the problem is the main people questioning evolution are very similar to the ones in the video. since creationism is often not well represented it's very easy to brush off as not the answer.
teaching evolution over intelligent design in school seems to be the best option, though, since intelligent design seems to lean towards straight up judeo christian beliefs. given the low quality of the teachers in public schools i'd imagine it would be taught more as a sermon than another possibility.
teaching evolution over intelligent design in school seems to be the best option, though, since intelligent design seems to lean towards straight up judeo christian beliefs. given the low quality of the teachers in public schools i'd imagine it would be taught more as a sermon than another possibility.
By: raubhi
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
Not to be disrespectful, but those conclusions are seriously illogical. Though evolutionary theory has some incongruencies, ID and creationism have been invalidated in 1,000s of ways. Its infinitely more likely that evolution is pretty damn close to reality than creation fantasy, just like the lack of evidence in the existence of God (the bible doesn't count as evidence) goes pretty far to prove he doesn't exist.
Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago so shut the fuck up. And "missing links" aside, you can track the development of biological structures and organs in a very linear way through millions of years.
I rank evolution denials in the same level of lunacy as holocaust denials. I fucking hate it when people play word games with the bible to try and eek a few more years of life out of their backwards beliefs.
Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago so shut the fuck up. And "missing links" aside, you can track the development of biological structures and organs in a very linear way through millions of years.
I rank evolution denials in the same level of lunacy as holocaust denials. I fucking hate it when people play word games with the bible to try and eek a few more years of life out of their backwards beliefs.
By: Sebastian_M
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
give the guy a break. atleast he's going about it better than the folks in the video
By: raubhi
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
I just want to squeeze this in before leaving work.
No disrespect taken, but are these "1000's of ways" really thought through in an objective manner, or are they mostly within the confines of the shadowing ideas that the earth is "Millions of years old?" Honestly, from the bottom of my heart, look into what you've been told, and THEN decide if you would make the same conclusions. If you do, and continue to see things the same way, more power to you. Then you can give more first or second hand experiences to proove your point, rather than to say "1000's of examples."
There's way more stuff going on in the world than what's presented to you. To go on a slight tangent, why is it that most of the industrialized world's media not showing the horrors going on in the rest of the world (particually Darfar right now). Sure, local news deals with local events. But just because certain issues aren't up to your attention doesn't mean that they don't exist. And if only some information is presented to you, is it fair to make a judgement call without looking for any validity from the opposing sides?
~Kiuball
No disrespect taken, but are these "1000's of ways" really thought through in an objective manner, or are they mostly within the confines of the shadowing ideas that the earth is "Millions of years old?" Honestly, from the bottom of my heart, look into what you've been told, and THEN decide if you would make the same conclusions. If you do, and continue to see things the same way, more power to you. Then you can give more first or second hand experiences to proove your point, rather than to say "1000's of examples."
There's way more stuff going on in the world than what's presented to you. To go on a slight tangent, why is it that most of the industrialized world's media not showing the horrors going on in the rest of the world (particually Darfar right now). Sure, local news deals with local events. But just because certain issues aren't up to your attention doesn't mean that they don't exist. And if only some information is presented to you, is it fair to make a judgement call without looking for any validity from the opposing sides?
~Kiuball
By: Kiuball
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
Please understand, I mean no disrespect to your beliefs or feelings on the matter. I just want to say what I believe is different between the two. When we say, “the Theory of Evolution;" theory has a totally different meaning in science, than in other realms. It means that this hypothesis has been tested and tested over again. This is the next best thing next to a scientific law. Think "Theory of Relativity." Very few would dispute it, but it is not in the same category as the "Law of Gravity.” If I wanted to take the time to go out and learn how to date rocks and fossils, and then test them through Radio-Carbon, Potassium Argon, or the many other ways of testing, I could run these tests myself, and get my own results. If I found a problem with the dating, I could publish it, then have THOUSANDS of other scientists test against MY research. Remember how cold fusion was literally destroyed when the testing couldn't be duplicated? Keep in mind, evolutionary theory has been tested and tested again, the concept has held up, even with many of the religious folks from other parts of the world. That’s the beauty of science, if your theory doesn’t hold up, it won’t last long. That’s the problem with Creationism. There’s no testing mechanism. “God said it, I believe it, end of story,” isn’t scientific, nor is “because the Bible said so.” There’s no way to empirically test it. In the scientific world, that’s just not good enough.
By: jynxicus
ReFriending God: Refuting Christians
My brain is going to explode thinking about how this became a headline. And being cynical as I am, its only popularity, in this medium, stems from it being as interesting as a car wreck. Having said that, its not THAT funny. People are really dumb. I am sorry, I meant Christians.
The only argument against evolution that I can see the intelligence in, I can't find. Its the clip of Mr. Garrison reluctantly teaching evolution. This clip has the audio from it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHUAd9PQUEQ
I was raised Catholic and dipped my toes in other sects of Christianity, so I know first hand how full of BS it is.
The only argument against evolution that I can see the intelligence in, I can't find. Its the clip of Mr. Garrison reluctantly teaching evolution. This clip has the audio from it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHUAd9PQUEQ
I was raised Catholic and dipped my toes in other sects of Christianity, so I know first hand how full of BS it is.
By: spinier
What if
When you were a kid, you believed in santa.
Do you now?
When mankind was young, we wrote the bible.
Its easier to believe in santa.
P.S. behemoth = elephant. :) not dino.
Do you now?
When mankind was young, we wrote the bible.
Its easier to believe in santa.
P.S. behemoth = elephant. :) not dino.
By: meat
Re: What if
Actually, meat, the meaning of the Ivrit (Hebrew) is not known. "Behemoth" is a literal transliteration of the Ivrit word "Behemot" (bet hey mem vav tav).
By: indigoandblack
Re: What if
What I meant was... well... elephants are pretty big animals... the behemoths they were mentioning were likely elephants...
Whatever. Its obvious I dont have the care to articulate.
Whatever. Its obvious I dont have the care to articulate.
By: meat
Love how the fundies love to pick and choose...
This video is frightening. What's most upsetting about it is how the adults in positions of authority are "brainwashing" (thank you, Xtian poster, for that term) small children by giving them selective information.
So Job refers to dinosaurs, eh?
If you care to read the passage mentioned in the sickly kitschy sing along, you might find yourself agreeing with the singer. Sounds like our authoritative bible might be spot on, there! Brontosaurus, something like that maybe? Mmmm, amazing accuracy of scripture...
The problem is that the song neglects to mention the *next* chapter, 41. And if you care to look it up yourself, you'll see why.
The description of the creature (the same creature being described at the end of 40) continues, and more detail is added.
When you're done with 41, you'll have an image in your mind of not a dinosaur (particularly not a brontosaurus), but rather...
A DRAGON.
Complete with interlocking scales, smoking nostrils, glowing eyes, and yes, it breathes fire.
DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT - DO YOUR HOMEWORK, LOOK IT UP.
So much for authoritative scripture, wouldn't you say? It peeves me to no end how the Xtian community will pick and choose the details that suits its agenda from their own Jewish scripture, while ignoring and in fact explicitly avoiding passages that don't fit.
Ugh.
So Job refers to dinosaurs, eh?
If you care to read the passage mentioned in the sickly kitschy sing along, you might find yourself agreeing with the singer. Sounds like our authoritative bible might be spot on, there! Brontosaurus, something like that maybe? Mmmm, amazing accuracy of scripture...
The problem is that the song neglects to mention the *next* chapter, 41. And if you care to look it up yourself, you'll see why.
The description of the creature (the same creature being described at the end of 40) continues, and more detail is added.
When you're done with 41, you'll have an image in your mind of not a dinosaur (particularly not a brontosaurus), but rather...
A DRAGON.
Complete with interlocking scales, smoking nostrils, glowing eyes, and yes, it breathes fire.
DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT - DO YOUR HOMEWORK, LOOK IT UP.
So much for authoritative scripture, wouldn't you say? It peeves me to no end how the Xtian community will pick and choose the details that suits its agenda from their own Jewish scripture, while ignoring and in fact explicitly avoiding passages that don't fit.
Ugh.
By: indigoandblack
Re: Love how the fundies love to pick and choose...
(As I'm addressing biblical material, it might be moot for many to read this. But hey, give it a shot. I might be crazy, and you might get a laugh out of it)
I wish I had a hundred hours to try address all this stuff. I don't agree with everything in the video, but to make it easier for the kids to remember, Brontosaurus will work.
First off, why would there be a discrepancy between dinosaurs and dragons. Many different cultures around the world have stories of dragons. But for some reason, I don't remember seeing any dragon bones in the museums... only dinosaurs'. Is it too far of a stretch possibly think that they might be of the same kind? (oh but it must be, being that scientists tell us that all dinosaurs were extint MILLIONS of years ago.) *sorry, i'll try to cut the sarcasm down a notch* The etymology of the word dinosaur comes from Greek, translated as terrible lizard. Over the course of the english language, it's taken on the connotation of being extinct, or just really old "that old dinosaur doesn't know what he's talking about."
Okay, so... if one does look deeper into the text in the book of Job, chapters 40 and 41 describe 2 different creatures. In 40, the Behemoth is mentioned starting at verse 15. Characteristics include: eating grass (either herbivorous or omnivorous), a tail that swings like a cedar [tree], bones like bronze, limbs like iron, and close knit thighs (not the most mobile). Highly unlikely it's an elephant (with a tail like a tree?). Others who argue it being a dinosaur might say Brontosaurus, but an open minded paleontologist migh call it a Sauropod.
Chapter 41 then describes a creature called the leviathan. It's in water, incredible in size and strength, most likely has jaws of fangs, and as described by indigoandblack, has scales, smoking nostrils, glowing eyes, breathes fire... basically, a creature without equal. Some might say that it's similar to a Plesiosaur.
If anyone was wondering why these chapters were in the bible at all, it's to show the power of God the creator. No man can overpower these two examples, but God created them, and is therefore even more powerful.
Oh yeah, if you're wondering about how these dinosarus/dragons might've gotten to their mamoth size... many reptiles don't have an adolecent period in their lifetime (where they would stop growing in size). I'm not saying that they grow like crazy, but if given the chance to have a long life (just for example, adam the first man lived till around 900 years old, moses, around 400's) well then, they might become rather massive don't you think?
~Crazy Kiuball
I wish I had a hundred hours to try address all this stuff. I don't agree with everything in the video, but to make it easier for the kids to remember, Brontosaurus will work.
First off, why would there be a discrepancy between dinosaurs and dragons. Many different cultures around the world have stories of dragons. But for some reason, I don't remember seeing any dragon bones in the museums... only dinosaurs'. Is it too far of a stretch possibly think that they might be of the same kind? (oh but it must be, being that scientists tell us that all dinosaurs were extint MILLIONS of years ago.) *sorry, i'll try to cut the sarcasm down a notch* The etymology of the word dinosaur comes from Greek, translated as terrible lizard. Over the course of the english language, it's taken on the connotation of being extinct, or just really old "that old dinosaur doesn't know what he's talking about."
Okay, so... if one does look deeper into the text in the book of Job, chapters 40 and 41 describe 2 different creatures. In 40, the Behemoth is mentioned starting at verse 15. Characteristics include: eating grass (either herbivorous or omnivorous), a tail that swings like a cedar [tree], bones like bronze, limbs like iron, and close knit thighs (not the most mobile). Highly unlikely it's an elephant (with a tail like a tree?). Others who argue it being a dinosaur might say Brontosaurus, but an open minded paleontologist migh call it a Sauropod.
Chapter 41 then describes a creature called the leviathan. It's in water, incredible in size and strength, most likely has jaws of fangs, and as described by indigoandblack, has scales, smoking nostrils, glowing eyes, breathes fire... basically, a creature without equal. Some might say that it's similar to a Plesiosaur.
If anyone was wondering why these chapters were in the bible at all, it's to show the power of God the creator. No man can overpower these two examples, but God created them, and is therefore even more powerful.
Oh yeah, if you're wondering about how these dinosarus/dragons might've gotten to their mamoth size... many reptiles don't have an adolecent period in their lifetime (where they would stop growing in size). I'm not saying that they grow like crazy, but if given the chance to have a long life (just for example, adam the first man lived till around 900 years old, moses, around 400's) well then, they might become rather massive don't you think?
~Crazy Kiuball
By: Kiuball
Re: Love how the fundies love to pick and choose...
Actually, mea culpa. I totally missed Livyatan in verse 25. Unfortunately, my biblical Ivrit leaves something to be desired.
Nonetheless, it doesn't minimize my distaste for drawing conclusions from a book of mythology.
Nonetheless, it doesn't minimize my distaste for drawing conclusions from a book of mythology.
By: indigoandblack
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
Heh heh... i dont know if any of you have looked around you, but notice that EVERYTHING is created, whether it be by man or nature.
Thus, Evolution theorizes that the ability to create was never created... EVOLUTION HAS NO FOUNDATION and we all know that everything scientific must have a foundation.
Creationism's foundation however is God, to have this foundation however, you must have FAITH that he exists. So creation does have the option of a foundation where evolution does not.
Another thing to note... creationists have nothing to worry about if they are right or wrong, ***Evolutionists spend their lives proving that doom awaits them!!!***
So your options are to believe that everything just popped into place. Or believing that some creative designer outside our realm was responsible for all of this.
Oh yeah whoever mentioned carbon dating... well ive seen results of 50,000 year old hotdogs from a landfill and million year old beach balls... so yeah.
Im currently studying nanotechnology (microelectronics) at a highly respected institute, so if you think I am ignorant to the sciences, and understandings of how things work, then feel free to have a go at me. :-)
Thus, Evolution theorizes that the ability to create was never created... EVOLUTION HAS NO FOUNDATION and we all know that everything scientific must have a foundation.
Creationism's foundation however is God, to have this foundation however, you must have FAITH that he exists. So creation does have the option of a foundation where evolution does not.
Another thing to note... creationists have nothing to worry about if they are right or wrong, ***Evolutionists spend their lives proving that doom awaits them!!!***
So your options are to believe that everything just popped into place. Or believing that some creative designer outside our realm was responsible for all of this.
Oh yeah whoever mentioned carbon dating... well ive seen results of 50,000 year old hotdogs from a landfill and million year old beach balls... so yeah.
Im currently studying nanotechnology (microelectronics) at a highly respected institute, so if you think I am ignorant to the sciences, and understandings of how things work, then feel free to have a go at me. :-)
By: jwtraik
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
Well, you've just demonstrated ignorance of what science is, my friend. The simple fact that you're working in a "highly respected institute" doesn't matter to the argument at hand... The fact that, say, one individual has a Doctorate and professes a belief in creationism doesn't prove god exists any more than, say, Stephen Hawking providing arguments for evolution proves that god does not exist.
It's not entirely clear what you mean by "everything scientific must have a foundation." The theory of evolution (actually a collection of theories) is a scientific means of investigating the origins of life on the planet. Science does not include god(s) in its investigation of facts, since the concept of god cannot be proven or disproven.
And to say "[e]volutionists spend their lives proving that doom awaits them," is entirely inaccurate and misses the point - evolution makes no statements concerning god. If you wish to believe in such a construct, that has (or should have) no bearing on your ability to conduct science.
Your comment about "everything just popped into place" is also inaccurate - no evolutionary scientist will say that. Humans didn't just "[pop] into place". Life came about through a series of subtle changes, mutations, and adaptations over an unimaginably vast stretch of time.
And 50,000 year old hot dogs - there is always anecdotal evidence to show anomalies like that. But radiocarbon dating is by no means the only method of estimating the age of something.
And before you comment on geological strata, keep in mind that the geological dating standards came about *prior* to Darwin's work. That work was done largely by Xtian researchers, who, incidentally, had no issue with an old earth.
It's not entirely clear what you mean by "everything scientific must have a foundation." The theory of evolution (actually a collection of theories) is a scientific means of investigating the origins of life on the planet. Science does not include god(s) in its investigation of facts, since the concept of god cannot be proven or disproven.
And to say "[e]volutionists spend their lives proving that doom awaits them," is entirely inaccurate and misses the point - evolution makes no statements concerning god. If you wish to believe in such a construct, that has (or should have) no bearing on your ability to conduct science.
Your comment about "everything just popped into place" is also inaccurate - no evolutionary scientist will say that. Humans didn't just "[pop] into place". Life came about through a series of subtle changes, mutations, and adaptations over an unimaginably vast stretch of time.
And 50,000 year old hot dogs - there is always anecdotal evidence to show anomalies like that. But radiocarbon dating is by no means the only method of estimating the age of something.
And before you comment on geological strata, keep in mind that the geological dating standards came about *prior* to Darwin's work. That work was done largely by Xtian researchers, who, incidentally, had no issue with an old earth.
By: indigoandblack
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
I think it's important to remember that any and all conclusions derived from scientific experiments can at best called subjective facts.
Hear me out. In the scientific method, one first makes a hypothesis, makes experiments to test the hypothesis, and makes conclusions drawn from them. That's all well and good, however, how do we make an absolute statement out of this, without making an infinate amount of experiments... taking into account each and every possible variable? That my friends is where the limitations of science are held. You can either make general statements, or at best make very very specific ones... the middle ground has too much room for error.
Ex: gravity... You hold something in your hand, you drop it, you see it fall. Test it over and over, and 1000 of 1000 times, you get the same result. Therefore, you can fairly make the assumption that when you drop something, it'll fall down. But never once in those 1000 experiments was a helium balloon dropped, nor was tin foil dropped in a tank of gas that was denser/heavier than air (saw that clip either here or some other link dump site), nor were the tests done in on moons with a mere fraction of earth's gravity.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with science. Science is our friend, although it may not seem like it when it's finals time. But we need to remember that there are limitations. The "Laws" of Physics are turned upside down when brought to the microscopic level. Biomedical testing goes through many many stages, because chemicals don't react to all animals the same way.
What I propose, is that you be careful of the absolutism in the conclusions that you draw from science... Make more experiments, with an objective mindset, THEN and only then, bring your results in together to make up your conclusions.
Hear me out. In the scientific method, one first makes a hypothesis, makes experiments to test the hypothesis, and makes conclusions drawn from them. That's all well and good, however, how do we make an absolute statement out of this, without making an infinate amount of experiments... taking into account each and every possible variable? That my friends is where the limitations of science are held. You can either make general statements, or at best make very very specific ones... the middle ground has too much room for error.
Ex: gravity... You hold something in your hand, you drop it, you see it fall. Test it over and over, and 1000 of 1000 times, you get the same result. Therefore, you can fairly make the assumption that when you drop something, it'll fall down. But never once in those 1000 experiments was a helium balloon dropped, nor was tin foil dropped in a tank of gas that was denser/heavier than air (saw that clip either here or some other link dump site), nor were the tests done in on moons with a mere fraction of earth's gravity.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with science. Science is our friend, although it may not seem like it when it's finals time. But we need to remember that there are limitations. The "Laws" of Physics are turned upside down when brought to the microscopic level. Biomedical testing goes through many many stages, because chemicals don't react to all animals the same way.
What I propose, is that you be careful of the absolutism in the conclusions that you draw from science... Make more experiments, with an objective mindset, THEN and only then, bring your results in together to make up your conclusions.
By: Kiuball
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
"subjective facts" And your point is?
Science produces hypotheses that can be tested and either supported or disproven. Note "supported", not "proven". There's no secret in that - every "fact" in science is always open to our changing understanding based on things we learn about the world around us.
I never once made any statements about absolutism in science. However, god(s) belong outside science, specifically because the existance of a god cannot be *disproven*. Science requires nothing of the supernatural in order to do its duty.
It annoys me when people speak of controversy and disagreement in the scientific arena (not that you are - apologies, I'm probably going off on a tangent) as if it's a bad thing, or as if to say "see? all the scientists are scurrying around fighting amongst themselves in a scramble to try to find *some* way around god". That is simply not true, and it belies a deep misunderstanding of the process of scientific inquiry.
Science produces hypotheses that can be tested and either supported or disproven. Note "supported", not "proven". There's no secret in that - every "fact" in science is always open to our changing understanding based on things we learn about the world around us.
I never once made any statements about absolutism in science. However, god(s) belong outside science, specifically because the existance of a god cannot be *disproven*. Science requires nothing of the supernatural in order to do its duty.
It annoys me when people speak of controversy and disagreement in the scientific arena (not that you are - apologies, I'm probably going off on a tangent) as if it's a bad thing, or as if to say "see? all the scientists are scurrying around fighting amongst themselves in a scramble to try to find *some* way around god". That is simply not true, and it belies a deep misunderstanding of the process of scientific inquiry.
By: indigoandblack
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
I agree that God does belong outside of science, if you were to figure out how he works (with the assumption that he does exist), that would limit his power, and therefore create a paradox. It was never my intent to argue that there is a God... just that I don't believe that Evolution is science. I believe it to be as much of a religion as any of the other major religions of the world. And people don't challenge the notion because it's taught in schools.
As I've said before, science is our friend... the PROCESS to find truth. But there are fundemental problems with how Evolution has become considered as truth.
As I've said before, science is our friend... the PROCESS to find truth. But there are fundemental problems with how Evolution has become considered as truth.
By: Kiuball
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
Every day I pray that this comment thread will just go away, but every day it just grows longer. How could a benevolent god allow this torture to continue?
By: tsackett
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
A benevolent God allows "torture" to happen because the only alternative (besides taking away free will) would be to punish every and all that is not perfectly good.
By: Kiuball
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
Would anyone care to explain why I can't seem to post my comment on Kiuball's claims?
By: SillyGrampa
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
This post is in response to Kiuball's comments, but mainly deals with the first one becase A) That is where he made the majority of his claims and B) I cannot debate scripture as I have not studied it in the slightest
Claim 1
"Contrary to what most textbooks will tell you, "The Theory of Evolution" (where all plant and animal life came from the same ancestor) is a religion (people believe in it while not being scientific FACT). Whereas the term evolution, (many times specifically labelled "Micro-Evolution") variations within kinds of plants/animals over time is never debated."
Then is no inherent difference between micro and macro evolution merely subject museings of people who like to label things. For futher information may I direct you here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
Claim 1
"Contrary to what most textbooks will tell you, "The Theory of Evolution" (where all plant and animal life came from the same ancestor) is a religion (people believe in it while not being scientific FACT). Whereas the term evolution, (many times specifically labelled "Micro-Evolution") variations within kinds of plants/animals over time is never debated."
Then is no inherent difference between micro and macro evolution merely subject museings of people who like to label things. For futher information may I direct you here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
By: SillyGrampa
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
If you think there's no difference between the claim that ALL life on earth has a common ancestor, and the claim that all dogs/wolves/coyotes came from a current ancestor (most likely a quadraped that barks) well then, I don't think there's much that I can say in response.
According to your link... 5 says there are many transitional fossils.
~~~
There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. HOWEVER, DIRECT LINEAGES ARE NOT REQUIRED; they could NOT be verified even if found.(???) What a transitional fossil is, IN KEEPING WITH WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION PREDICTS, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
~~~
I'm sorry, but isn't that totally circular thinking? "In keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts," but without the theory of evolution, what would your claims be? This bird here has funny skin on it's feet... kinda like a reptile (OH... they must be related). If you were from another planet, and found a pocket watch on the ground... analyzed it, disected it, and found out the elemental composition of it, then found yet another (but slightly different) pocket watch and did likewise... it may at seem like a fair asumption that the two were related. But it's not because one begot the other, remember, direct lineage may not be required, but it's because they were handcrafted by the same creator.
(I'll try my best to get to the others in a bit... this is more of a hobby than my entire life. But I promise you, I intend to read through and address each of your counter points. This is fun isn't it? I haven't been on a forum this much since I was killing time in college.)
According to your link... 5 says there are many transitional fossils.
~~~
There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. HOWEVER, DIRECT LINEAGES ARE NOT REQUIRED; they could NOT be verified even if found.(???) What a transitional fossil is, IN KEEPING WITH WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION PREDICTS, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
~~~
I'm sorry, but isn't that totally circular thinking? "In keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts," but without the theory of evolution, what would your claims be? This bird here has funny skin on it's feet... kinda like a reptile (OH... they must be related). If you were from another planet, and found a pocket watch on the ground... analyzed it, disected it, and found out the elemental composition of it, then found yet another (but slightly different) pocket watch and did likewise... it may at seem like a fair asumption that the two were related. But it's not because one begot the other, remember, direct lineage may not be required, but it's because they were handcrafted by the same creator.
(I'll try my best to get to the others in a bit... this is more of a hobby than my entire life. But I promise you, I intend to read through and address each of your counter points. This is fun isn't it? I haven't been on a forum this much since I was killing time in college.)
By: Kiuball
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
...Continued
Claim 2
"There are discrepancies as to how old the earth is and when the dawn of life are in the "scientific" community. Some use the Geological Column (however different places on Earth have different strata or layers in them and can't be used as a perfectly objective timeline)."
Folds account for out-of-order strata with sequences such as A-B-C-B-A. Faults create sequences such as B-C-A-B-C. The evidence is so overwhelming that these conclusions should be obvious. In many cases, the folds and faults can easily be seen in cross-sections of the strata. In other cases, further geological mapping verifies the presence of the fold or fault. Features such as ripple marks and mud cracks show that the strata were originally horizontal. Again for more info check out this link http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD102.html ( get used to going to Talk.Origins if you really are interested in learning about the evolution creationism debate, they are single greatest resource there is.)
Claim 2
"There are discrepancies as to how old the earth is and when the dawn of life are in the "scientific" community. Some use the Geological Column (however different places on Earth have different strata or layers in them and can't be used as a perfectly objective timeline)."
Folds account for out-of-order strata with sequences such as A-B-C-B-A. Faults create sequences such as B-C-A-B-C. The evidence is so overwhelming that these conclusions should be obvious. In many cases, the folds and faults can easily be seen in cross-sections of the strata. In other cases, further geological mapping verifies the presence of the fold or fault. Features such as ripple marks and mud cracks show that the strata were originally horizontal. Again for more info check out this link http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD102.html ( get used to going to Talk.Origins if you really are interested in learning about the evolution creationism debate, they are single greatest resource there is.)
By: SillyGrampa
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
Okay, I'll concede that folds and faults may change the order of strata before we are able to find them, but some of the biggest problems that I have with the Geologic Column are in the presuppostitions that it's based on.
First, there is a uniformitarian mind set. In other words, they believe that those strata could've only happened in similar ways that we can see in today's environment. But that would almost work against itself, considering the presupposition that the earth is millions of years old, where conditions of life are most likely not similar to that of our own... but I digress.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Law of Superpostition state that "layers are arranged in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top, unless later processes disturb this arrangement." -(Wikipedia) The main problem with the law of superposition is that it takes into account only ONE particular case of sedimentation. That is the case of an absence of current. It also implies that when a lower strata forms, there is no strata on top of it.
Superposition ignores the general case of sedimentation in moving water and most bodies of water have moving water. In moving water, sediment layers form horizontally (not vertically). These layers are being formed at pretty much the same time.
Not only this, but just how did they date each geologic strata? Why they used index fossils... "any animal or plant preserved in the rock record of the Earth that is characteristic of a particular span of geologic time or environment." (Brittanica) More specifically, they use marine fossils, as they've fit nicely for their definition. "The creatures thought to have evolved first are considered to be the oldest and are thus placed at the bottom of the column of layers. The creatures thought to have evolved later are higher up and so on. This has led many competent, accredited scientists to object, as this poses a circular argument: how can evolution be the basis for geologic conclusions while geology is taught as the basic evidence for evolution?" -(Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" Bioscience, vol. 28, November 1978, p. 714)
Ooh, which reminds me, PBS had a series on Evolution back in 2001, in which over 100 scientists either don't agree with evolution, or have some major problems with it. Since then 600 scientist have publically followed suit. But has anyone here heard of that? Probably not, as the media didn't really want to publicize this part of the series too much. (Tangent, I know, but I'm tired, and I don't remember who else's post I wanted to mention this to)
http://www.arn.org/docs/pbsevolution/meyer092801.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50747
First, there is a uniformitarian mind set. In other words, they believe that those strata could've only happened in similar ways that we can see in today's environment. But that would almost work against itself, considering the presupposition that the earth is millions of years old, where conditions of life are most likely not similar to that of our own... but I digress.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Law of Superpostition state that "layers are arranged in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top, unless later processes disturb this arrangement." -(Wikipedia) The main problem with the law of superposition is that it takes into account only ONE particular case of sedimentation. That is the case of an absence of current. It also implies that when a lower strata forms, there is no strata on top of it.
Superposition ignores the general case of sedimentation in moving water and most bodies of water have moving water. In moving water, sediment layers form horizontally (not vertically). These layers are being formed at pretty much the same time.
Not only this, but just how did they date each geologic strata? Why they used index fossils... "any animal or plant preserved in the rock record of the Earth that is characteristic of a particular span of geologic time or environment." (Brittanica) More specifically, they use marine fossils, as they've fit nicely for their definition. "The creatures thought to have evolved first are considered to be the oldest and are thus placed at the bottom of the column of layers. The creatures thought to have evolved later are higher up and so on. This has led many competent, accredited scientists to object, as this poses a circular argument: how can evolution be the basis for geologic conclusions while geology is taught as the basic evidence for evolution?" -(Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" Bioscience, vol. 28, November 1978, p. 714)
Ooh, which reminds me, PBS had a series on Evolution back in 2001, in which over 100 scientists either don't agree with evolution, or have some major problems with it. Since then 600 scientist have publically followed suit. But has anyone here heard of that? Probably not, as the media didn't really want to publicize this part of the series too much. (Tangent, I know, but I'm tired, and I don't remember who else's post I wanted to mention this to)
http://www.arn.org/docs/pbsevolution/meyer092801.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50747
By: Kiuball
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
...Continued
Claim 3
"But hiding behind a cloud idea of "millions of years" shadows this point. By the way, there's numerous examples of carbon dating error found on the same fossils, as well as LIVING animals (carbon dating is supposed to tell you when something died)."
I believe you are reffering to this incident http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html
Claim 4
"There's major money in the field of trying to prove human evolution. Mostly backed by grants (private and government), archeologists and explorers are expected to find more evidence to build up the case of evolution, resulting in the discovery of Java Man, Lucy, Piltdown Man, and others... but don't hold up to much scrutiny. Most are best logically explained as 1) All human, 2) All ape, or 3) Bits and pieces of the two."
This is getting a little old ....... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html
Claim 3
"But hiding behind a cloud idea of "millions of years" shadows this point. By the way, there's numerous examples of carbon dating error found on the same fossils, as well as LIVING animals (carbon dating is supposed to tell you when something died)."
I believe you are reffering to this incident http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html
Claim 4
"There's major money in the field of trying to prove human evolution. Mostly backed by grants (private and government), archeologists and explorers are expected to find more evidence to build up the case of evolution, resulting in the discovery of Java Man, Lucy, Piltdown Man, and others... but don't hold up to much scrutiny. Most are best logically explained as 1) All human, 2) All ape, or 3) Bits and pieces of the two."
This is getting a little old ....... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html
By: SillyGrampa
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
Claim 5
"This will sound like I'm attacking Evolution, but I from my experiences, I've come to believe that most public schools have used it to "brainwash" our public. I was in these public schools too, so I know exactly what the Biology curriculum had in the Taxonomy units"
There is no such "brainwashing" occuring, the simple fact of the matter is they teach science in science class (i.e. falsifiable claims with real reseach and real evidence backing it up) not millenia old folklore
and lastly I would like to comment on this statment
"There's way more stuff going on in the world than what's presented to you. To go on a slight tangent, why is it that most of the industrialized world's media not showing the horrors going on in the rest of the world (particularly Darfar right now). Sure, local news deals with local events. But just because certain issues aren't up to your attention doesn't mean that they don't exist. And if only some information is presented to you, is it fair to make a judgment call without looking for any validity from the opposing sides?"
If you are really are serious about researching each side of the argument and learning things for yourself then your already way beyond what most people are willing to do to make sure they are not being feed a load of crap at every corner and I comend you for that. And so I encourge you to continue your search for truth and wish the best of luck.
P.S. You better read this Kiuball you have no idea how long it took me >_
"This will sound like I'm attacking Evolution, but I from my experiences, I've come to believe that most public schools have used it to "brainwash" our public. I was in these public schools too, so I know exactly what the Biology curriculum had in the Taxonomy units"
There is no such "brainwashing" occuring, the simple fact of the matter is they teach science in science class (i.e. falsifiable claims with real reseach and real evidence backing it up) not millenia old folklore
and lastly I would like to comment on this statment
"There's way more stuff going on in the world than what's presented to you. To go on a slight tangent, why is it that most of the industrialized world's media not showing the horrors going on in the rest of the world (particularly Darfar right now). Sure, local news deals with local events. But just because certain issues aren't up to your attention doesn't mean that they don't exist. And if only some information is presented to you, is it fair to make a judgment call without looking for any validity from the opposing sides?"
If you are really are serious about researching each side of the argument and learning things for yourself then your already way beyond what most people are willing to do to make sure they are not being feed a load of crap at every corner and I comend you for that. And so I encourge you to continue your search for truth and wish the best of luck.
P.S. You better read this Kiuball you have no idea how long it took me >_
By: SillyGrampa
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
Nevermind, I figured it out apprently my post was far to long, so I just split it up.
By: SillyGrampa
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
I wonder how hard it can be to become a research scientist in Creation science. What science is there? I thought God wins in a fight of Him vs. Science. It's an oxymoron.
Galileo had the same fight with the Catholic Church. His main argument began with the Lutheran conclusion about the problem of evil in God's world, which is that God's mind is unsearchable to humans. It follows that no human can ever properly interpret the Bible, which explains the fractured organiztion and endless contention.
But given that nature is the other article of God's mind made manifest to us, then it falls on us to check the Bible against the probings of science into nature. Only in this way can human beings come closer to the proper meaning of the Bible, and thus salvation. Milton might have had the same idea with the ending of Paradise Lost, but he was just Milton. It's not a perfect argument, but it's still pretty tight, especially since it begins with prevalent Christian assumptions about God.
And now that there seem to be Creation scientists, it looks like the fundamentalists actually are cool with checking the Bible with nature, only not really checking it, but rather reaffirming it, even if it means biasing evidence and jumping to conclusions. Oh wait, that's not science, that's just being an asshole who hinders the progress of humanity. Cocks.
Galileo had the same fight with the Catholic Church. His main argument began with the Lutheran conclusion about the problem of evil in God's world, which is that God's mind is unsearchable to humans. It follows that no human can ever properly interpret the Bible, which explains the fractured organiztion and endless contention.
But given that nature is the other article of God's mind made manifest to us, then it falls on us to check the Bible against the probings of science into nature. Only in this way can human beings come closer to the proper meaning of the Bible, and thus salvation. Milton might have had the same idea with the ending of Paradise Lost, but he was just Milton. It's not a perfect argument, but it's still pretty tight, especially since it begins with prevalent Christian assumptions about God.
And now that there seem to be Creation scientists, it looks like the fundamentalists actually are cool with checking the Bible with nature, only not really checking it, but rather reaffirming it, even if it means biasing evidence and jumping to conclusions. Oh wait, that's not science, that's just being an asshole who hinders the progress of humanity. Cocks.
By: Wondahboy
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
These people needs some serious bukkake to wake them up. On the 7th day, god toke a break and created hentai so he can stroke it.
By: GodofHentai
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
I really wish I didn't create you all. Please stop arguing. All I wanted was to be loved and to love something special that I had created. I played around with a few designs, and the monkeys made me laugh, but it’s hard to really connect with a monkey, so I did him one better and created man. I figured a little more brain, some reasoning and all would be swell. I’d have a cute, loving creature that would respect me, follow my rules and procreate to help this little earth flourish and bloom into a utopia. Guess I went a little too far on the free will thing. And the ability to reason, well that just backfired. Many don’t believe I exist, and that hurts. Others are going around screwing animals and filming it and getting rich off of it. I put those animals there to be your companions and food, not your sex toys. You people will hump anything, in any orifice, I didn’t design you that way, that brown little balloon knot is an exit you freaks! All day it’s all I see… suck this…bang that, take two, did you get the whole cumshot in the frame…quick, drop this to DVD then get it on the internet. Dear Me!!! Stop it!!!
What am I to do with you?
What am I to do with you?
By: G-O-D
