Creation vs. Evolution

[Wayne Gratiot]

Famine, I want to thank you again for your neverending quest to get these tunnel-visioned, narrow-minded, uneducated throwbacks to the dark ages to open up their minds to the wonders of the reality of life in the universe. Your perception of the creationist mindset of sticking their fingers in their ears (along with closing their eyes) is the whole problem here. They know what they want to know and refuse to listen or see anything that would destroy their religious fantasyland in any way.

The inane ramblings of goofballs like "Not Too Swift" and "17" are extremely funny to read, but very sad when you take into account that these aren't just comedians on stage for our entertainment, but possibly somewhat rational beings who have slipped to the dark side and totally away from reality.

I keep wondering why Not Too Swift keeps referring to Devine Creation. I had no idea that Andy Devine, who played Jingles, the overweight funny sidekick of Wild Bill Hickock in the 50's western series on TV had anything to do with creationism. The only connection I can see is that both Jingles and creationism are very funny. Could Not Too Swift possibly be talking about divine creation. His overall ignorance and refusal to learn something new leads me to hope that he is just not a very good speller.

To get back to my original point, I think Famine has gone way beyond the effort and time he should have had to to teach these goofballs some very enlightening and realistic facts about our incredible universe. You would be hardpressed to find a better education on the subject in any university and this has all been free education.

The main problem is and always has been that these unrealistic religious fanatics are all running scared as the neverending amassing of more and more scientific evidence keeps adding more problems to their belief in the severely outdated Goofy Guidebook that they continue to bury their faces in. They have made up their minds and just like spoiled little kids who don't get their way are not going to listen.

Well listen to this then; especially Not Too Swift and 17.

There is no god. There never have been ANY gods. There never will be ANY gods. There is no Heaven. There is no Hell. There never has been any Heaven or Hell and never will be. These are the FACTS. Quit making fools out of yourselves and start learning about the real world. You were born. You will live for a while. Then you will die. END OF STORY.

Boy, you can just feel their bloodpressures rising and the indignation oozing from every pore, can't you. Watch for all the spelling mistakes now as Not Too Swift frantically begins typing away in another hilarious attempt to refute anything I have said.

I do, however, have a plan for these poor fools. What they need is a way to prove us all wrong and have everyone come to the dark side with them. It appears that blind faith is the name of the game for religious zealots and that is the keystone for what I would like to propose.

Famine, you would be a perfect candidate to oversee the implementation of my plan in Europe and could surely find many to help organize this great exhibition of blind faith over there. Likewise, I know there are plenty of people here in the USA that would love to participate in my grand scheme. Expanding this to the whole world would be great and others are welcome to form committees to organize their particular areas or countries and make it a worldwide celebration.

What I propose is a way for all religious faiths who insist that an imaginary, amazing, incredible "Super Sky Guy" (or Gal) is responsible for creating the entire universe. HAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh sorry. I was just sidetracked for a moment when I thought about the hilarious ramblings of 17 and his continuing ranting about the "Six Day Quickie". Very funny. But back to the plan.

On Christmas Day this year I want all the religious zealots to find the nearest tall building, mountain, bridge, pier or whatever will work in your area and all take a Jump For Jesus Blind Faith Leap To Heaven. We will then bury the bodies where they can be guarded and wait for your particular Super Sky Guy or Gal to bring you all back to life on Easter Sunday to prove once and for all that all you say is true.

You have many months to all get together and pray real hard to the Super Sky Guy or Gal of your choice to hear your pleas to let all us heathens know he or she exists by bringing you all back to life. I would request that you do not take any young children who are not old enough to have been brainwashed yet. There are plenty of normal intelligent people who would love to take them in and allow them to educate themselves as they grow up free of all the religious mumbo-jumbo.

If you all arise from the dead, think of how much you could do with all the new converts ready and willing to listen and pray with you. On the other hand, if you stay dead and all the Super Sky Guys and Gals gradually fade into the past with all the other old myths from the old days, think of how nice you will have made existance on Earth for everyone else. There will be more air to breathe, more food and other resources, an overwhelming zest to learn by everyone who learned from your mistakes and, of course, more room for new housing after all the old outmoded places of worship are all leveled. All in all, a much better place to live and our univeral imaginary supreme being, Mother Nature, will prevail for all time.

Gosh, I hope I didn't offend anyone! It is just an opinion after all.

 

[code_kev]

The above post is about as subtle as being ran over by a bus.

 

[Touring Mars]

We need to make a distinction here, between religion and faith, and Creationism. I understand and appreciate the important role religions and faith plays in our society and in many people's everyday lives. But the same cannot be said for Creationism, and it has no place in our schools.. (the U.S. Supreme Court says so too.) http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/preface.html The point is, Creationism is trying to pervert science to explain the Bible as fact.. but it fails at every step.

But just because Creationism is junk, that in no way diminishes the fact that there may well be a God... I think Creationism detracts from and debases religious belief, and makes a mockery of people's faith. That's one of the reasons I'm so against it. I don't see the need to 'prove' the things in the Bible actually happened verbatim. The world is such a wonderous and amazing place, one doesn't need to invent all this nonsense to describe it. It does it perfectly all by itself.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Swift, dinosaurs.

Faith is Faith, Faith is fine, however bollocks is bollocks. I'm sorry. I get the impression that creationist would believe the moon was a giant banana if the bible said it was.

No ones insulting you. If I am, sorry, but opinions are opinions and I shaln't cushion them for anyones sake.

I havn't made up MY mind, I see the evidence and I rationalise. If something proves me wrong, fine, I accept this, and change my mind.

Now I'm going to be more persistent...

On whose calender?

Gosh, I hope I didn't offend anyone! It is just an opinion after all.

You start out by flaming people and then you conclude with "it's just my opinion, I hope I didn't offend anyone"?

 

[code_kev]

Regardless of calenders, if dinosaurs existed at the same time as giraffes (as an exmple of a a modern animal), why don't we find giraffe as deep down as dinosaurs in the same rock formations? Why do you never find bit of modern day animals inside dinosaurs? Why..oh you get the point. Where's my fossilsed giraffe dammit!

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Regardless of calenders,

No, you've got it wrong. The calender that's used is paramount.

if dinosaurs existed at the same time as giraffes, why don't we find giraffe as deep down as dinosaurs in the same rock formations? Where's my fossilsed giraffe dammit!

I never said dinosaurs had to exist at the same time as giraffes.

 

[code_kev]

I'm now confused. 6000 years is simply not enough time for the Earths climate to change anyway for all these species to survive. So there. .

BTW is there an ice age on the fundie calender?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I'm now confused. 6000 years is simply not enough time for the Earths climate to change anyway for all these species to survive. So there. .

On the Gregorian calendar, yes -- I agree. You still didn't answer my question, though. 6,000 years on whose calendar?

BTW is there an ice age on the fundie calender?

You would have to ask one.

By the way, Wayne (Wayne Gratiot )-- you're much older than I had origianlly expected. Based on your previous post, I assumed you were much younger.

 

[code_kev]

Umm fundies, what about the ice age? Ta!

What calander, well when I say a year I mean 365 days, 24 hours a day etc. I guess a year could be different lenghs of time etc depending on...stuff.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Umm fundies, what about the ice age? Ta!

There now, that wasn't so bad. See?

What calander, well when I say a year I mean 365 days, 24 hours a day etc.

That's because you are used to using the Gregorian calendar.

I guess a year could be different lenghs of time etc depending on...stuff.

Can you see where I'm going with this? Just because it says 6,000 years, that does not necessarily mean 6,000 years based on the Gregorian calendar. It could be 6,000 million years based on our calendar...

 

[Famine]

Ok, fine...hmm...how would someone from the 1600's explain a TV? Magic! That's right, cause we didn't get it back then.

Come on! You can do it! You know you want to answer the question!

How would Luke tell you how a television works? How would a Sony engineer tell you how a television works?

Which version would you believe? Why?

Why would God list each and every animal on the entire planet? So what. I seriously doubt you would deny the existance of a kangaroo and neither would I. But there's no specific mention of that animal in the bible. So I guess I should just deny that it exists. Come on.

I'm not asking you deny the existence of an animal you know exists. I'm asking you to think WHY they aren't in the Bible.

If the Bible was written by God or through the auspices of God, you'd think that every animal would be mentioned. But in fact every animal mentioned is native to, or commonly found in, that little part of the world where some people got together and made a book of stories.

You do not find elephants, or kangaroos, or koalas, or Komodo dragons in the Bible because the MEN who wrote it had never seen any since they don't live in the part of the world where the MEN who wrote the Bible lived. God isn't limited by mere geography, so why should the Bible be if it is written by God?

OK, you say that you believe in something greater then yourself but you have not faith in things unless you see them. That's a contradiction is it not? Or is it what they call agnostic?

I didn't say I believed in something greater than myself. I said I KNOW that there are beings superior to me in the Universe. It isn't a contradication at all - the Universe is VAST. The probability of life on other planets is 1. The probability of there being both inferior and superior life on other planets is also 1 - after all, all life on Earth evolved from a few species only 400 million years ago after the Devonian Extinction. That's only a tenth of the history of Earth and only an eighth of Earth's habitable history - and barely even one fiftieth of the history of the Universe... Imagine what could have evolved, given all that time...

 

[MrktMkr1986]

after all, all life on Earth evolved from a few species only 400 million years ago after the Devonian Extinction. That's only a tenth of the history of Earth and only an eighth of Earth's habitable history - and barely even one fifty-thousandth of the history of the Universe...

According to which calendar?

 

[Touring Mars]

What calander, well when I say a year I mean 365 days, 24 hours a day etc. I guess a year could be different lenghs of time etc depending on...stuff.

A year is the length of time a celestial body takes to make one complete revolution of it's parent start i.e in the case of our Sun, a 'year' on Pluto is 247.7 times longer than a year on Earth... it's an exact measure of time relative to each star, and it doesn't matter how you split it up or represent it as a calendar. Here on Earth, 6000 years is 6000 years. The length of time it takes for Earth to revolve around the Sun 6000 times....

here's a good one... if the Universe was created 6000 years ago, how is it possible for us to see objects that are a million light years away? There is a very simple answer. It's not possible. The only possible explanation is that the Universe is older, much older, than that...

 

[code_kev]

Aha nice point.

BTW Famine, nice avatar hahah.

 

[Famine]

According to which calendar?

The Universal calender, based on the Universal Constant "c".

 

[MrktMkr1986]

A year is the length of time a celestial body takes to make one complete revolution of it's parent start i.e in the case of our Sun, a 'year' on Pluto is 247.7 times longer than a year on Earth... it's an exact measure of time, and it doesn't matter how you split it up or represent it as a calendar. 6000 years is 6000 years. The length of time it takes for Earth to revolve around the Sun 6000 times....

here's a good one... if the Universe was created 6000 years ago, how is it possible for us to see objects that are a million light years away? There is a very simple answer. It's not possible. The only possible explanation is that the Universe is older, much older, than that...

With today's technology, we know that a year is the length of time a celestial body takes to make one complete revolution of it's parent start etc.

Are you aware that there was a period of time that people thought the SUN REVOLVED AROUND THE EARTH? Is it possible that primative calendars were based on a different scale?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The Universal calender, based on the Universal Constant "c".

Thank you, Famine. When may I ask was this calendar first established?

 

[code_kev]

Are you aware that there was a period of time that people thought the SUN REVOLVED AROUND THE EARTH? Is it possible that primative calendars were based on a different scale?

Didn't they just base it on seasons, day light hours etc etc

 

[Famine]

Thank you, Famine. When may I ask was this calendar first established?

It depends which calendar you're using.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Didn't they just base it on seasons, day light hours etc etc

Who is "they"? The same calendar that was developed in China is not going to be the EXACT same calendar that was developed in Central America...

It depends which calendar you're using.

Either you see my point, or you're just being facetious...

edit 2: Or if you really did want to know which calendar == Gregorian.

 

[DQuaN]

It depends which calendar you're using.

👍

.........................................1................ .............................2.......................
Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter. Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter. Spring, Summer,
....................3.........................................4...........................................5
Autumn, Winter. Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter. Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter.
...........................................6..........................................7
Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter. Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter. Spring, Summer,
...................8
Autumn, Winter.

It's the same no matter where in the world you are (apart from the polar regions but no one lived there).

 

[Famine]

Either you see my point, or you're just being facetious

You started it. It seemed churlish not to join in.

Taking the definition of "year" to be "The time needed for a cesium-133 atom to perform 290,091,439,519,565,040 complete oscillations":

• The Universe is 18.5 billion years old.
• The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
• The Devonian Extinction occured 400 million years ago.
• I am 27 years old.

That was all fairly clear in my original post (apart from my age, which is fairly clear in my profile). The point being that WE have arisen in less than one tenth of the Earth's lifespan since almost all life on Earth was wiped out. The Earth has only been habitable for about 3.6 billion years. The Universe has been in existence 46 times longer than our particular lineage and it is more likely than not, in this infinite cosmos, that more advanced lifeforms than humans have evolved and exist today.

What all this goosenaargh about calenders has to do with any of this escapes me.

 

[Touring Mars]

Are you aware that there was a period of time that people thought the SUN REVOLVED AROUND THE EARTH? Is it possible that primative calendars were based on a different scale?

Doesn't really matter what we used to think a year was... Creationists today claim the Earth is 6000 years old, based upon our modern definition of a year as the period the Earth takes to orbit the Sun. They are wrong. Indeed, people used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth. They were wrong too.

edit: since the time the Earth takes the orbit the sun is always subtely changing, the SI definition of a year has now been standardised and calibrated against the Cesium clock, as Famine points out...

 

[MrktMkr1986]

What all this goosenaargh about calenders has to do with any of this escapes me.[/color][/b]

When calendars and clocks were first created, they didn't go by "atomic time". Variations in what we NOW know of as "time" (versus what was thought to be "time") could easily explain the 6,000 years and 6 days -- whether or not Creationists believe it's 6,000 years based on the Gregorian calendar.

That's the point I was trying to make.

 

[Swift]

Come on! You can do it! You know you want to answer the question!
I'm not asking you deny the existence of an animal you know exists. I'm asking you to think WHY they aren't in the Bible.

If the Bible was written by God or through the auspices of God, you'd think that every animal would be mentioned. But in fact every animal mentioned is native to, or commonly found in, that little part of the world where some people got together and made a book of stories.

You do not find elephants, or kangaroos, or koalas, or Komodo dragons in the Bible because the MEN who wrote it had never seen any since they don't live in the part of the world where the MEN who wrote the Bible lived. God isn't limited by mere geography, so why should the Bible be if it is written by God?



I didn't say I believed in something greater than myself. I said I KNOW that there are beings superior to me in the Universe. It isn't a contradication at all - the Universe is VAST. The probability of life on other planets is 1. The probability of there being both inferior and superior life on other planets is also 1 - after all, all life on Earth evolved from a few species only 400 million years ago after the Devonian Extinction. That's only a tenth of the history of Earth and only an eighth of Earth's habitable history - and barely even one fiftieth of the history of the Universe... Imagine what could have evolved, given all that time...

Famine, you question about the TV is the most irrelevant, loaded, and frankly ignorant question about the validity of the bible. You don't have to go back 2000 years. Go back 300, where we have the documented proof of the colonies and all that. If you just popped in with a TV, they would do one of two things. Praise you as a prophet or kill you as a warlock. So how does that apply to biblical teaching or the records from a few hundred years ago? It doesn't. So what was your point again. Also, what are these magical things that you're talking about?

Why would God mention everysingle animal in the bible. That's ludicrous. The bible would have to have a second appendix longer then itself to list all the animals. What kind of argument is that? Even now with all our technology we don't know all the animal life forms on earth. And, who cares anyway? Sure, it's cool stuff to know, but since Kangaroo's are native to Australia and I'm in the USA, it's not that significant of an issue is it?

When calendars and clocks were first created, they didn't go by "atomic time". Variations in what we NOW know of as "time" (versus what was thought to be "time") could easily explain the 6,000 years and 6 days -- whether or not Creationists believe it's 6,000 years based on the Gregorian calendar.

That's the point I was trying to make.

Good Point Brain. 👍

 

[DQuaN]

When calendars and clocks were first created, they didn't go by "atomic time". Variations in what we NOW know of as "time" (versus what was thought to be "time") could easily explain the 6,000 years and 6 days
That's the point I was trying to make.

The difference between 6000 years and Billions of years is more than a variation.

 

[Swift]

Gosh, I hope I didn't offend anyone! It is just an opinion after all.

Stop lying. You meant to insult as many people as you possibly could.

Here's the deal. It may get a little heated in here. But outside this forum the majority of us, Including Famine, Sage and others get along just fine. We don't even mention this stuff and we work together to make GTP a better community. I don't directly attack Famine or anyone else.

You on the other hand have decided to directly attack me. That's a totally different story. I suggest you change your tone.

 

[Touring Mars]

When calendars and clocks were first created, they didn't go by "atomic time". Variations in what we NOW know of as "time" (versus what was thought to be "time") could easily explain the 6,000 years and 6 days -- whether or not Creationists believe it's 6,000 years based on the Gregorian calendar..

Creationists can't have it both ways... they say the Earth is 6000 years old - this means they interpret a year as something much LONGER than an actual SI year. They also say Adam lived for 900 years - this implies the opposite, that a year is much SHORTER than an SI year...

It's much easier to explain it like this... the method by which Creationists calculate the age of the Earth is completely flawed... they do it by adding up the ages of people in the Bible!! Using this method, it follows that they must be using a constant definition of what a year is... so what's it to be? Is a year the same (as it must be for their calculation of the age of the Earth is to be correct), or is it different? (as it must be to explain the disparity with the actual definition of a year as described in the paragraph above.)

 

[Duke]

According to which calendar?

WHY in the name of trees are you so hung up on "which calendar"?!

Pick your favorite. I don't care which calendar - any calendar will do. We can use the Greorian or the Augustine or the Chinese Sexagesimal calendar or the biblical-apologist "each day is like a thousand years" calendar.

It's literally irrelevant what the particular time scale is, just as long as both ideas are measured against the same scale. NOW, answer this question:

Why is there NO fossil record of an antelope - or any other mammal at all - dating from the same time as a Tyrannosaurus Rex?

Remember, it doesn't matter what time scale you use. Both animals should give the same reading on the big 'Time-o-meter', no matter what scale you have the little "units" dial set to... if they coexisted in the Garden of Eden.

In all honesty, it's immensely frustrating to try and explain logic to people who refuse to understand what logic is.

Here's the deal. It may get a little heated in here. But outside this forum the majority of us, Including Famine, Sage and others get along just fine. We don't even mention this stuff and we work together to make GTP a better community. I don't directly attack Famine or anyone else.

You on the other hand have decided to directly attack me. That's a totally different story. I suggest you change your tone.

I'll second that. I understand your frustration, Wayne, and I know you and I share the same understanding of the world.

But play the ball, not the man.

 

[Famine]

Famine, you question about the TV is the most irrelevant, loaded, and frankly ignorant question about the validity of the bible. You don't have to go back 2000 years. Go back 300, where we have the documented proof of the colonies and all that. If you just popped in with a TV, they would do one of two things. Praise you as a prophet or kill you as a warlock. So how does that apply to biblical teaching or the records from a few hundred years ago? It doesn't. So what was your point again.

It's not even slightly loaded.

However, I'll make it easier for you.

Here is Luke. Luke lived around the time of Christ (4-36AD). Here is a volcano. It is erupting. Ask Luke what is going on to make the volcano erupt.

Here is Yamada-san. Yamada-san is a vulcanologist and was born in 1972. Here is a volcano. It is eurpting. Ask Yamada-san what is going on to make the volcano erupt.

Which of the two explanations do you take as being true? Why do you prefer that explanation over the other?

It's simple enough and the point should reveal itself in your answer.

Why would God mention everysingle animal in the bible.

Why wouldn't He? It's a big book and there's been plenty of time to write it. Why just pick on the 126 ones named? Which, I might add, include fictional animals like the Basilisk and Unicorn...

And, who cares anyway? Sure, it's cool stuff to know, but since Kangaroo's are native to Australia and I'm in the USA, it's not that significant of an issue is it?

Hmm. Interesting.