Evolution/Creation discussion

[Ghost Rider]

We should always give the condem...new posters a shot, even ones that come in blustering.

Maybe we'll get surprised...then again maybe not.

I don't know. Like Bassman said, reform is possible, but not likely. Her blog apparently reveals her character as your typical high schooler who thinks she's an expert in everything because she has high SAT scores. Then there's all the god stuff......

Well this was offense number 2.

Number three is in the far more appropriate place.

[Lagmonster]

In case you were thinking about how we're all a bunch of meanies, try to envision the most lunatic argument for something you've ever heard, along the lines of "Poodles are furry, therefore milk tastes funny". Then, surround yourself with people who repeat it over and over for a few years. Finally, picture that you're somewhere years later, minding your own business, and some random person wanders in and feeds you the exact same line as though it were the most common-sense and novel thing you'll have ever heard.

And then you'll understand why you are getting verbally poached.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That's a beautiful analogy, Lag. Poetic even.

[Darth Wong]

That's the biggest problem with the entire bloated social network of churches and Christian youth groups and summer camps in which people like this spend their formative years. They become accustomed to an environment where they mostly preach to the choir, and have little or no experience dealing with people who actually disagree with them.

Unlike a typical flamewar veteran, they've made a point of avoiding open confrontation with people who have opposing viewpoints, and if they ever get into one, they can't hang in there and take their shots. Instead, they'll just run away and commiserate with their little empty-headed friends about how mean and unreasonable and close-minded those horrible evolutionists are. Just watch what happens when you accuse a typical creationist of being ignorant of the underlying science; he will say that you have no right to call him "ignorant" and run away accusing you of ad-hominems, even if you showed clearly and factually that his claims are ignorant of the facts.

A typical creationist's idea of "research" is to read creationist websites. They avoid reading what the competition has to say, never mind analyzing it. I think that on some level there's a fear reaction at work: people like this are afraid to delve too deeply into what secular science has to say. They're afraid that if they give it a chance, read it honestly, and try to understand what it's saying, it might start making sense. They're warned every Sunday in church that the world has a "corrupting" influence, and they fear that if they listen, this "corruption" will happen to them.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I just stumbled across here which shows the typical clique you can expect from these people. The rules are very prohibitive and the link sticky is a thread full of AiG and similar URLs, as if it's something revolutionary. TO.org seems to be something "evolutionists" made up to stroke their materialistic egos.

[SirNitram]

This particular Creationist also demonstrates the attitude towards Christians who are 'corrupted': The average christian is weak and confused, doesn't know their bible, etc. Because apparently, exposure to anything but recursion is weakening, instead of strengthening. This ironically is the opposite: Consider the Christians of our forum vs. these Creationists who only post among their own kind. One is alot more sturdy in their faith, because they have challenged it, adapted it, and continued. Those who shirk from the challenges are eternally weak in their inability to face anything different.

[Darth Wong]

It's actually very similar to UFOlogists. If you've ever listened to these crackpots, they exist in an entirely separate parallel world of pseudo-academic journals and self-congratulatory circle-jerking in which actual debate from skeptics is simply ignored. A great deal of their rhetoric revolves around the conspiracy theorist notion that all of the "mainstream" scientific and technological authorities are lying, which is very similar to what you hear from creationists.

[SirNitram]

It's actually very similar to UFOlogists. If you've ever listened to these crackpots, they exist in an entirely separate parallel world of pseudo-academic journals and self-congratulatory circle-jerking in which actual debate from skeptics is simply ignored. A great deal of their rhetoric revolves around the conspiracy theorist notion that all of the "mainstream" scientific and technological authorities are lying, which is very similar to what you hear from creationists.

We've discussed this before, I think. The main difference is a UFOlogist exists in his bubble only for his paranoia-circle jerking. Fundamentalist Christians are actively attempting to create a whole life seperate from the evils of the 'Outsiders', replicating everything popular so they can avoid anyone being tempted away. See: Bibleman(Augh, dear god, the flashbacks..).

[Admiral Valdemar]

I wouldn't have believed any of these nutcases existed a few years ago. Over here, the term "fundie" is one I've yet to utter in public. The wonders of the Internet allow these people to reach their wider audiences far easier and it scares me that they come out of their shells to preach such ignorance.

I really did think the rabid Christ worship in America was a figment of the media down to Hollywood artistic licence rather than being the reality.

[Lagmonster]

The wonders of the Internet allow these people to reach their wider audiences far easier and it scares me that they come out of their shells to preach such ignorance.

On a much more pleasant note, when you spend your entire life surrounded by a town full of people who all agree with you, it's always nice to watch the stunned reactions of people when they discover that vast amounts of people don't buy what they're selling.

As a teenager, I knew someone in Newcastle, Ontario (a farm town of a few hundred or so) who wouldn't even go into Toronto on a Saturday night for fear that she'd run into someone who wasn't Christian.

[Lonestar]

Wow, we're really jumping on 'em today.

Our first Creationist of the new year, yes?

[Darth Wong]

I've met people like this in real-life. The interesting thing is that in real-life, they can't just spout copy-paste bullshit and then ignore rebuttals like this pitiful coward "meliora" is doing. A face-to-face conversation just doesn't work like that.

In front of a crowd they can play to the prejudices, ignorance, and passions of the mob, but face to face is a whole different situation, and it's pretty easy to twist them in knots. I find that they usually either get hostile or pull that laughable "let's agree to disagree" backpedaling running-away behaviour.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Wow, we're really jumping on 'em today.

Our first Creationist of the new year, yes?

Ohh yes, yes indeed. What will be interesting will be to see what goes on tonight when the child presumably comes home from school. Will she make an actul effort at responding to the ten thousand counters to her assertions? Will she just blindly copy and paste more canned Creationism, or complain about how mean we are, ignore our points, and wind up in Parting Shots tomorrow morning? Or will she flee from the board in terror, write about how the unbelievers have been blinded to the love of Christ in her blog, and get kudos and attaboys from her circle of like-minded friends for trying to do His good work.

Find out in our next exciting episode. Same Bat-time, same Bat-channel.

[Surlethe]

A typical creationist's idea of "research" is to read creationist websites. They avoid reading what the competition has to say, never mind analyzing it. I think that on some level there's a fear reaction at work: people like this are afraid to delve too deeply into what secular science has to say. They're afraid that if they give it a chance, read it honestly, and try to understand what it's saying, it might start making sense. They're warned every Sunday in church that the world has a "corrupting" influence, and they fear that if they listen, this "corruption" will happen to them.

And this is because of the fundamentalist Christian tenet that humans are, in the end, utterly inadequate and unable to comprehend nature, let alone God; that's the basis of the belief in Jesus' sacrifice. Because such Christians attempt to live every aspect of their lives in the perceived light of human wretchedness, research is self-defeating: they believe themselves unable to understand. I often think the Genesis allegory saying eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge says a whole lot about the fundamentalist Christian attitude toward learning.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The "agreeing to disagree" thing pisses me off no end. I'm pretty sure they'd start seeing how silly that is when you start applying it to Holocaust deniers or flagrant bigots.

[Coyote]

I think she won't be back. Too bad. Maybe we should turn the roasters to 'rare' and allow for more staying power...

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I think she won't be back. Too bad. Maybe we should turn the roasters to 'rare' and allow for more staying power...

Let's be optimistic here. She might turn out to be willing to make a serious effort at defending her position. She might even be capable of seeing some of the logic behind our views. In spite of the flaming she's gotten. I mean, is it too unreasonable to expect the redshirts to actually read the board before posting? I mean, flames are a way of life here, they should know what they're getting into.

Oh, who am I kidding? More importantly, what am I smoking? Even more importantly, who wants some?

[Coyote]

And this is because of the fundamentalist Christian tenet that humans are, in the end, utterly inadequate and unable to comprehend nature, let alone God; that's the basis of the belief in Jesus' sacrifice. Because such Christians attempt to live every aspect of their lives in the perceived light of human wretchedness....

The thing is, a lot of Christian identity is wrapped up in the concept of sacrifice, suffering, and persecution. But in a land where society has mandated Sunday and Christian holidays as the approved 'days off' and where most Audi-driving, suburban-living, Hawai'i-vacationing people identify themselves as Christians (at least nominally) it is hard to support that. Nothing seems more incongruous than some white old guy in an Armani suit and gold rings whining about how he's being 'persecuted' because some store clerk didn't say "Merry Christmas" to him.

So, in the abscence of things like Emperors throwing them to lions, they have to come up with nebulous "everybody's picking on my beliefs" statements that just do not fit in with the reality on the ground...

[Zero]

I get the feeling she's going to feel alienated enough that she simply never returns here again. We're ignorant atheists that refuse to reguard the one trustable source of knowledge (the bible) as truth, and who disreguard her claims that evolution is a lie.

The sad thing is, these people probably continue believing that they're right. They likely will openly condemn us, and tell us we're off to hell, ignoring the one phrase in the bible I agree with: Judge not lest ye be judged.

Bloody fundies...

[wolveraptor]

Check this out. Another mathematician that proves God existed. It's from a link Dalton stumbled across, either in the original thread, or in this split.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Check this out. Another mathematician that proves God existed. It's from a link Dalton stumbled across, either in the original thread, or in this split.

Confusing Dalton with me is very likely to get you bludgeoned one day, by either one of us. I shall accept an apology this time, if you empty your bank account into mine.

Mathematical proofs and disproofs of God are littered all over the web. They don't usually amount to anything, since maths is purely theoretical in that respect anyway. Disproving a deity through physical sciences combined with logic is better.

[Surlethe]

Check this out. Another mathematician that proves God existed. It's from a link Dalton stumbled across, either in the original thread, or in this split.

From the link:

(1) God is defined as an infinite (eternal, omnipresent, ..etc), and all powerful being; Does such an entity exist?

(2) All in existence is essentially energy which implies infinite (eternal, omnipresent, ...etc) energy exists.

(3) Gradient energy involves all power which implies energy is integrally all powerful.

(4) Infinite energy thats integrally all powerful exists and God is defined as infinite and all powerful wherefore energy is not in God, nor is energy equivalent to God, and energy is similar to God which is absurd.

(5) Infinite energy thats integrally all powerful exists and God is defined as infinite and all powerful we infer energy is in God, or energy is equivalent to God which implies God exists.

He was using symbolic logic to represent these steps. Of course, he messes up in the very first step with the assumption God is infinite in some respects. The second step is also bullshit. However, it is interesting to note he also ignores the leap from "collective energy" to "conscious, intelligent being".

[Base Delta Zero]

Oh look! It’s my very first fundie troll punching bag!

You're all begging for evidence...I'm a creationist and I say evolution has no evidence at all...I know this isn't an evolution/creation discussion, but I just think if you're going to attack people using science and history in these cases, you should back up your evolutionary claims with the same amount of proof.

Uh, no. Actually, there’s lots of evidence for evolution (refer to the Creationism branch of the main site, or talk origins or anything… I won’t get into that.) The burden of proof is on creationists to prove their so-called ‘theory’ has any merit at all – and currently, - we have every reason to believe its impossible.

If you believe in the Judeo-Christian God, you will accept that things like a "talking shrubbery", a talking donkey, and worldwide floods are completely possible.

And you’d be an idiot for it.

I'm not sure about the OT (I'll admit I haven't studied up on secular historical records from the OT times) but atleast for the New Testament, there are about 24,000 ancient copies of NT writings. Meanwhile, there are only 640-something for The Odyssey. If you're gonna say the NT cannot be supported, then you also have to toss out every other piece of ancient writing, all of antiquity, cuz nothing else has that much documentation, copies made so close to the time of the original writing, than the NT.

For one, The Odyssey is much older than the New Testament. And Two, The Odyssey is a fictitious story, much like Star Wars or Snow White. The New Testament is as well, but it likes to pretend it isn’t.

Jesus' crucifixion was recorded by 17 secular historians, so that is not disputable. But the impression I've gotten is that pretty much everyone believes Jesus existed, they just don't agree that he was who he said he was. Am I right here? Or are their people who don't think he ever existed?

There were two historians, a Roman and a Jew, both of whom mentioned the event only in passing – as the execution of a cult leader – There may, however, be some who do not believe he existed. They are probably wrong.

Every prophecy in the Bible, except those concerning the events of Revelation, have been fulfilled.
Jesus himself fulfilled 300 prophecies during his time on earth.The likelihood of that happening? For one person to fulfill just eight of those 300 prophecies, would be comparable to this:
-Build a small fence around Texas
-fill it two feet deep in silver dollars
-paint one red
-mix them all up
-starting at the Louisiana border, walk blindfolded as far into Texas as you want to go,
-lean over, still blindfolded,
-and pick up the red silver dollar

Setting the insane rant aside, let’s examine the ‘All prophecies have been fulfilled’ quote.

Deuteronomy 7:14 Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.

Apparently, no Jews have ever been infertile…

Samuel 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever…

7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

This is talking about Solomon’s Kingdom, and is, of course, untrue. Israel may have been revived, but not Solomon’s dynasty.

Dragons will live in Babylonian palaces and satyrs will dance there. 13:21-22

Not true, but wouldn’t it be nice?

These verses falsely predict that Babylon will never again be inhabited. 13:19-20

Although it does get regularly curbstomped by the USA, Iraq occupies the geographical area of Babylon.

Okay… I’m done for now.

Thank you, come again.

[wolveraptor]

Check this out. Another mathematician that proves God existed. It's from a link Dalton stumbled across, either in the original thread, or in this split.

Confusing Dalton with me is very likely to get you bludgeoned one day, by either one of us. I shall accept an apology this time, if you empty your bank account into mine.

D'oh! You umbrellas and apes all look the same. Sorry.

Obviously, the guy fails on step two, by saying that there's an infinite amount of mass/energy.

[mr friendly guy]

When they can't even get their grammar correct, its not a good sign for their level education. More examples of Creationist stupidity.