Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 166 of 180 (69636)
11-27-2003 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by ChildOfGod2516
11-27-2003 6:43 PM


Well, thank you for coming back. We were wrong to be suspicious. Just so you know that someone posts something like you did every week or so and then disappears when the going gets a bit tough.
CoG writes:
I have, on the other hand, seen almost all of the info I posted before in numerous places.
So what? The junk that many creation sites put up is copied all over the place.
If we have evolved into more intelligent beings over millions and millions of years, then why is it that more than three people I know have run into a wall in the past week?
I will take this as a joke. lol
Now another suggestion is that you don't put too much stuff up until you have handled the objections to each one. I think if you browse around here you will find each of your points in that big post have already been dealt with.
If you think that any of them are really, really important and unanswerable then you could post them to the appropriate forums.
This one is about evolution being a religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by ChildOfGod2516, posted 11-27-2003 6:43 PM ChildOfGod2516 has not replied

  
Finniss
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 180 (89662)
03-01-2004 8:24 PM


Some aspects of evolution are theories, not laws. A theory is something that has been tested over and over and has not been disproven. People love to cite tests that have found something that would disprove some theories. That is horrible science. First we all know that it is easy to make errors while performing a test. We often take special measures to make sure that errors do not occure. No test that I know of can be repeated disproving the current theories. I would love to see someone who can point me to a scientific experiment that can be performed to disprove current evolution theories. There are 100's that seem to prove that it is how things were created and none that show that it isn't. We can never prove or disprove God or the heavens while on Earth but we can do our best to prove how things happen while we are here.
One way to show that the universe is older than 5000 or so years is astonomy. The laws of motion have been proven time and again and I doubt any of you believe that they are incorrect. By using simple principles of physics we can look at the stars and know with realitivly good accuracy how far that are away. We have also proven that the speed of light never changes, through both simple and complex tests. Therefor if everything just appeared by creation about 5000 years ago we would not see any stars or other objects further than about 5000 light years away, yet we do. Perhaps god created everything to appear that it was always here? If you wish to argue that there is no way to disagree but you essentially are agreeing that god created everything to appear as if it "evolved". I can cite 100+ examples that I can even prove to you through simple experiments on earth that would make everything appear to be far more than 5000 years old. But I could also argue that everything was created by God 5 minutes ago and he just implanted the memories you have of "your life" into your head. Ether things were not created or they were created with "memories" of events that obey the laws of physics that would have happened many years before things were created.
I cannot argue that God did not create the earth 5000 years ago but gave us an Earth that seems to have memories from much longer ago, but scientifically speaking everything we know points to much further back than 5000 years.

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 168 of 180 (89665)
03-01-2004 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by ChildOfGod2516
11-27-2003 6:43 PM


ChildOfGod2516,
Another question I have is If we have evolved into more intelligent beings over millions and millions of years, then why is it that more than three people I know have run into a wall in the past week?
You mean God couldn't design people to not run into walls? Shame on him.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by ChildOfGod2516, posted 11-27-2003 6:43 PM ChildOfGod2516 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 169 of 180 (89751)
03-02-2004 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by ChildOfGod2516
11-27-2003 6:43 PM


Another question I have is If we have evolved into more intelligent beings over millions and millions of years, then why is it that more than three people I know have run into a wall in the past week?
Only three? That's way down from when I was your age. We must be getting better at either walking or placing walls.
Did any of your friends die from walking into walls? No? Then maybe you can see why there wouldn't be a selective pressure to eliminate wall-walking-into genes from the population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by ChildOfGod2516, posted 11-27-2003 6:43 PM ChildOfGod2516 has not replied

  
mf
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 180 (94601)
03-24-2004 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mark24
02-12-2002 9:27 PM


Dr. Hovind is much better at specifics than I am. And the bible has already been written.
Don't embarrass your self. Please don't make us all look like that dude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 02-12-2002 9:27 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by mark24, posted 03-25-2004 4:05 AM mf has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 171 of 180 (94635)
03-25-2004 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by mf
03-24-2004 8:45 PM


mf,
You do realise that the quote you made wasn't me but Christian1?
Cheers,
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by mf, posted 03-24-2004 8:45 PM mf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by mf, posted 03-25-2004 7:10 AM mark24 has not replied

  
mf
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 180 (94646)
03-25-2004 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by mark24
03-25-2004 4:05 AM


Yea man sorry I just clicked reply the first place I saw it! Sorry I will be careful not to do that in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by mark24, posted 03-25-2004 4:05 AM mark24 has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 173 of 180 (96036)
03-30-2004 3:45 PM


Damn, I arrived too late.
First of all, I looked through and tried to read as many posts from Christian1 as I could. After reading all of that, I still couldn't see anything but "evolution cannot be proven... creation is proven over and over..." reworded 30 times. I still haven't seen any logical argument from this person.
I am having doubts about this place, because it seems that creationists here are no more than bible thumping fanatics without any kind of logical and reasonal evidence to back up their claims. I was hoping to find more of a "here is why we believe creation is true:..." kind of attitude from creationists here. Guess I was mistaken.

  
Finniss
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 180 (96304)
03-31-2004 10:23 AM


I think what it comes down to is faith. Any logical creationist who has done some studying knows that there is currently little scientific evidence that supports a young earth. It comes down to believing that another scientific descovery will come along that modifies the way we think about the way the universe works, like Einsteins relativity. It's possible but there is little or no evidence to support it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Brad McFall, posted 03-31-2004 10:56 AM Finniss has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 175 of 180 (96315)
03-31-2004 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Finniss
03-31-2004 10:23 AM


I DONT think this comes down to the money. Yes we are closer to collecting the sum by posting here on EVC today than yesterday but that there is LESS evidence (scientific) for YEC than BILLIONS of DIFFERENT PROBABLE PLAUSIBILITYES does not mean that the approach to some unconditioned it(creationism) supplies with MORE abduction(should be "deduction" but we just dont have that induced today as of yet) (intellectuallY)DOES NOT(your presumption)gain say more quickly the balance of any future discovery JUST as the present information will be the same total tommarrow. You have assumed a multipolar relation of mind and matter and that by itelf ONLY (to be fair, which I am saying you were not!)puports by way of support the difference if any material probabilites. SO- NO, I dont think there is little of no evidence for GR for the individual selection of path may of present outspace science may ONLY depend on a tensor relation TO celluar physiology generalized per all psycholigies regardless of different favors different races supply or do not or rather should not for any every or all ought(s). But that is my opinion and little subject to reversal by me. His thought of the the "Clock in the BOx" is enough to keep me reading for some more time than Roland Hoffman refused to discuss art and science with me unless I had a taken "quantum mechanics". Just thinking E'GR is enough to show that HOffman was off his video between snakes and DNA but who am I to tell...And creationists are giving this art of thought a hearing where if black hole theorists might suspect Penrose are not.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-31-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Finniss, posted 03-31-2004 10:23 AM Finniss has not replied

  
Finniss
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 180 (96364)
03-31-2004 1:54 PM


I do not think it comes down to GR. I'm sorry if I was unclear but I was saying that a descovery that completely changes the way we think about our current model would have to come along. GR showed us that there is a universal speed limit. Until Einstein showed us this we thought that we could just accelerate to any speed. It changed newtons laws of motion.
There are not even any sound theories that I know of that can explain why science shows the age of the earth to be billions of years old. This does not mean we will not descover something revolutionary that changes the way we think LIKE GR. Those who discount our current studies because of their faith I believe to be foolish, but those who have faith that our current models could be off by some unseen factor just have faith.

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Brad McFall, posted 04-01-2004 11:52 AM Finniss has not replied

  
LoganGator
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 180 (96457)
03-31-2004 6:31 PM


hey christian 1! way to go! just wanted to let u know that im on yer side, dont let all these people to tear u down! :-)

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Quetzal, posted 03-31-2004 8:13 PM LoganGator has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 178 of 180 (96474)
03-31-2004 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by LoganGator
03-31-2004 6:31 PM


Sorry to burst your bubble there, pal, but the guy you're cheering on hasn't been around for about, oh, two years. I think your support is a tad late.
Oh, btw, welcome to the forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by LoganGator, posted 03-31-2004 6:31 PM LoganGator has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 179 of 180 (96620)
04-01-2004 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Finniss
03-31-2004 1:54 PM


OK I simply disagree. I'll leave that at athat ++. A self-measured velocity and the difference of onevstwo way velocities might amagamate phyiscally but be different bioloigcally. Idont know I'm just saying. I agree to disagree. I dont think we need any mORE discoveries. But again that was me. Thanks for the input.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Finniss, posted 03-31-2004 1:54 PM Finniss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by BigMike, posted 04-26-2004 10:38 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
BigMike
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 180 (102931)
04-26-2004 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Brad McFall
04-01-2004 11:52 AM


No More Discoveries?
"I dont think we need any mORE discoveries."
I hope that I am taking this statement out of context, Mr. McFall. It's entirely possible that I am, as context is quite elusive in your charmingly fragmented english. If I am not and it means what it appears too, you should be deeply ashamed. If I'm wrong, forgive me.
As to the main topic of this section, has anyone attempted to define religion? It seems to me that to discuss classifications one must be clear on the categories of classification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Brad McFall, posted 04-01-2004 11:52 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024