Stupid Creationist!

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Originally Posted by firebird761

True miss. You do make a valid point,

Thanks. I certainly think so.

however I cannot say that all of the "hiccups" along the way are directly due to religion, from where I'm seated, most of those hiccups are due to the ugliness of the darker side of human nature, religion is not at fault but those who perpetrate the evils in this world are.

Of course religion isn't at fault for all the world's challenges. Saying it is would be like saying communism causes death. No, assholes like Mao and Stalin cause death. It's the people who manipulate the system that make it murderous.

Beyond promoting irrationality, religion isn't innately destructive. Lots of practitioners are capable of maintaining rationality outside religious practices anyways. Sadly, most mainstream religions are based on scriptures which are destructive as fuck. The Qur'an is horrifying, as are the New and Old Testement. Otherwise good people can be made to condone and perform heinous acts in the name of religion. Even a peace-loving hippie like Cat Stevens, pardon me, Yusuf Islam didn't speak out when Ayatollah Khomeini announced Salman Rushdie needed to be killed because acts like that are in perfect harmony with doctrine. Of course, there are many pick-and-choosers who want to believe in a cuddly god who would only condone the bits of His Word that were loving and convenient. For that, I am forever greatful. If I were a practitioner of an innately violent religion, I'd be making excuses for god too.

It's those faulty scriptures that have resulted in creationism though so, in this case, religion (by which I mean the movement that follows and promotes the legitimacy of religious scriptures that speak to the principals of creationism) is absolutely at fault.

[Sephie]

Originally Posted by Alien Armistice

I find your topic title ignorant and insensitive. Thank you for insulting all people that dare disagree with you. Also, I suggest seeking some help for your issues with this.
Being driven to the point of wanting to inflict pain on others just because they think you're wrong is dangerous, and you might hurt someone someday.

This was not an insult to creationists in general, nor to people who disagree with me. Those who have debated me before on this forum can vouch for my civility in debate. Also you are mistaken that I was driven to anger because the other individual thought that I was wrong. My anger and the title refer to his shouting over the top of me when I was attempting to be civil. I thought I had clarified in the original post and in the ones that followed that my anger stemmed from what amounts to PTS. Being in a situation that can drive a 2nd grader to attempt suicide tends to have that effect on people.

[Guado]

Originally Posted by polarkrackin

My extreme example of what? I left it open ended. I said if we put someone in a situation where they had to make a choice I predicted they would make the same choice over and over if they could not add to their history. So just to spell it out to you, it could be innocuous and simple. Three playing cards laying face down. We ask him to pick one. He picks the middle one. We replicate the situation to the perfect degree and ask him once his history is control for, and ask him again. If he does again and again and again... what does that mean? The level of control required is the only thing that is extreme. For me to say that I can create an environment in which he will absorb his environment the same way over and over sure is questionable. Let's imagine he is about to make his choice. He looks at me, he looks at the cards, he looks at me again, then chooses. Then the next time, he looks at me and then the cards and picks without looking at me again. Suddenly I realize a portion of the control has been lost.

Then I will leave you with this. You are basing your "experiment" on the belief that free will is choosing something different. (Picking the same card would be proof to you) but as I continue to inform you over and over and over again THAT.... IS.....NOT...... FREE WILL. Free will is the ability to do so your experiment wouldn't determine anything whether or not the subject picked the same card four hundred times or a different one four hundred times. That would be merely showing the out come of free will or a lack there of if you decide to falsely believe. To actually see if free will exists you would have to find out if they have the ability to pick a different card and that is quite impossible.

The Qur'an is horrifying, as are the New and Old Testement. Otherwise good people can be made to condone and perform heinous acts in the name of religion.

Oh do tell the new Testament has horrifying parts in it? Please post these horrible parts as you have a tendency to come up with some pretty wacky posts without actually reading the bit your commenting on.

Edit: My money is on either Revelations or the letters of Paul. Mentioning either will betray your ignorance of the Bible.

[genderhazard]

The beheading of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas.

Herod had imprisoned John because he reproved Herod for divorcing his wife (Phasaelis), and unlawfully taking his brother Herod Philip I's wife, Herodias.

On Herod's birthday, Herodias' daughter (Salome) danced before the king and his guests. Her dancing pleased Herod so much that in his drunkenness he promised to give her anything she desired, up to half of his kingdom.

When the daughter asked her mother what she should request, she was told to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a platter. Although Herod was appalled by the request, he reluctantly agreed and had John executed in the prison.

That wasn't very civilized.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I remember a time I was criticizing the bible and was called on to find something wrong with it. I picked a page completely at random from the new testament just to be fair and what I got was a passage basically saying women are fit to be seen and not heard.

Seriously, is this the kind of mind set we should be looking up to as a foundation of morality? The bible promotes prejudice, cruelty, superstition, misinformation and barbarism. I'll give Jesus credit for being one of the few characters in it who does have some good wisdom to share but there's little else going for it.

I know I can't prove there is no god but I can prove that if there is, the bible is not his word.

[Moonblast2]

I consider myself to be a creationist and a scientist. I don't have any problem with science and creationism coexisting and the guy you were debating with sounds like a looney to me. Just my 2 cents.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Originally Posted by Moonblast2

I don't have any problem with science and creationism coexisting

Then you either don't know what science is or what creationism is.

[Vengeance1701]

Guado, can you manage a post without insulting someone?

[Vengeance1701]

Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn

Then you either don't know what science is or what creationism is.

Rachel, I think he's just saying...people can believe whatever the hell they want and shouldn't bother each other.

At least that's what I hope he's saying.

[sodacat]

Well you can believe in the sort of creationism that just claims that god kicked everything off and then sort of gently pushed things in the proper direction for humans to show up. That doesn't conflict with established science too much. It does kind of make for an incredibly vague, and patient, god however.

On the other hand there's young earth creationism, which is twenty different kinds of crazy.

[Gregor Samsa]

To say that the body of scientific knowledge completely changes every fifty years is in itself false. Although science is an extremely dynamic field, with newly accumulated evidence throwing doubt on older theories, science relies on data and theories formulated in the past.Furthermore new discovers often compliment older theories or imply that older theories only hold true under certain contexts. For example, the over 300 year old theories of Isaac Newton are still accepted as true within the scientific community. However, quantum physics have shown that Newton's laws only hold true in the realm of normal size and are non-applicable in the context of macro or subatomic particles. Thus Newton's laws are not rejected as false, but are shown to only hold true in particular contexts.
More often than not, however, new discoveries compliment older theories. Darwin's work was supported by Mendel's work, which was in turn supported by Crick's work etc...
The modern discipline of science has only existed since the 17th century when the grounding breaking work of Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes and, especially, Isaac Newton (one of the greatest humans to have ever lived) was synthesized to create the modern scientific method. These men were all well aware of the fact that the world is not flat and that the solar system is heliocentric. Thus modern science never claimed the world was flat, and your creationist antagonist is confusing generally accepted beliefs (that is beliefs that are held by the non-scientific population) and formal scientific theories. For although laypeople may have assumed the world was flat, Scientists understood the world to be round.

[OhZone]

Originally Posted by Gregor Samsa

To say that the body of scientific knowledge completely changes every fifty years is in itself false. Although science is an extremely dynamic field, with newly accumulated evidence throwing doubt on older theories, science relies on data and theories formulated in the past.Furthermore new discovers often compliment older theories or imply that older theories only hold true under certain contexts. For example, the over 300 year old theories of Isaac Newton are still accepted as true within the scientific community. However, quantum physics have shown that Newton's laws only hold true in the realm of normal size and are non-applicable in the context of macro or subatomic particles. Thus Newton's laws are not rejected as false, but are shown to only hold true in particular contexts.
More often than not, however, new discoveries compliment older theories. Darwin's work was supported by Mendel's work, which was in turn supported by Crick's work etc...
The modern discipline of science has only existed since the 17th century when the grounding breaking work of Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes and, especially, Isaac Newton (one of the greatest humans to have ever lived) was synthesized to create the modern scientific method. These men were all well aware of the fact that the world is not flat and that the solar system is heliocentric. Thus modern science never claimed the world was flat, and your creationist antagonist is confusing generally accepted beliefs (that is beliefs that are held by the non-scientific population) and formal scientific theories. For although laypeople may have assumed the world was flat, Scientists understood the world to be round.

With that excellent response, Gregor Samsa returns!

Welcome back!

OHYEAH!