Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 447,051 views
- 4,494
- Vancouver, BC
danoff
Maybe we're a reality show?
GP to Earth, GP to Earth. Are giant squid smarter than humans?
- 87,575
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Anyone reading this thread who enjoys Terry Pratchett's "Discworld" series - and for those who don't, why the fudge not? - should go and pick up copies of the 3 "The Science of Discworld" books ("The Science of Discworld", "The Science of Discworld 2: The Globe" and "The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch").
Each contains a story, written by Pratchett, based on how the wizards at the UU accidentally create a universe where planets are spherical (taken from an earlier Discworld book), rather than the more logical disc on the back of four elephants on the back of a giant turtle swimming through space and covers their activities investigating and - given that wizards are the last people you put in front of a button marked "DO NOT PRESS OR ELSE" - interfering with it.
Every other chapter is written by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen covering, at a reasonable level (sort of basic, but sort of not), scientific themes covered in the previous story chapter. The third book - "Darwin's Watch" - is extraordinarily apposite to this thread.
Each contains a story, written by Pratchett, based on how the wizards at the UU accidentally create a universe where planets are spherical (taken from an earlier Discworld book), rather than the more logical disc on the back of four elephants on the back of a giant turtle swimming through space and covers their activities investigating and - given that wizards are the last people you put in front of a button marked "DO NOT PRESS OR ELSE" - interfering with it.
Every other chapter is written by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen covering, at a reasonable level (sort of basic, but sort of not), scientific themes covered in the previous story chapter. The third book - "Darwin's Watch" - is extraordinarily apposite to this thread.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
Earth
Agreed. I think nobody here will claim that it is not possible that a supreme being of some sort exists and/or created us in some sense.
Agreed. But comments such as "only the ignorant believe x" aren't the same thing.
As long as sombody doesn't pop up who says otherwise... then yes we can move on.
So we're sticking with the idea that god supplied light and heat for the grass and trees he created so they could hang in there until he made the sun later (for some reason). Ok.
Ok I don't see why we're talking about moses right now so I'll just move past this part...
Aside from the idea that plants were created before the sun... the order kinda makes sense.... but not in a direct fashion. In a God-made-it-directly sort of way, it doesn't gel with fossil records.
Yup
I'm going to leave this one to Famine. It's not impossible for something to evovle into existance in a relatively short period of time (relatively quick in fossil record terms is hundreds of thousands of years)
Ok A) brain size means nothing. B) The ability to use tools conferred a survival advantage. We're still working with that basic reasoning. People with the ability to learn and communicate survived much better than those who didn't learn these things. With learning and communication comes the rest of man's knowledge given a few thousand years.
Gaps in the fossil record? How can that be? You're glossing over all of the continuity in the fossil record and focusing on a few gaps.
That's a hilarious tactic. Invent a new argument for your oppoenent and then defeat it. Very funny.
As I said, this last part is valid but it hurts your own religious beliefs.
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
He could MAKE them harbor life. After all, he made ours harbor life, right? Yup, that's right. No denying it. I mean, look at all that evidence. I even made some up on www.answeringgenesis.com if you don't believe me but I'm not going to tell you where!11!
- 3,802
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2
Like Creationism vs Evolution...but only more stupid.
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants."
Dr. Ellen Carson
Imagine what it would be like to be as stupid as this person. I think this sums up why I hate fundies so much.
btw stole link from fark.com
Like Creationism vs Evolution...but only more stupid.
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants."
Dr. Ellen Carson
Imagine what it would be like to be as stupid as this person. I think this sums up why I hate fundies so much.
btw stole link from fark.com
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
"Intelligent Falling"! Bwahahahaha! What a bunch of dumbasses.
What they really want is a subtle way to enforce their views upon other people and attempt to make it seem as though the Church is always right. Because the church is a tad arrogant.
LMAO. This guy has no understanding of physics whatsoever!
[edit]
Nice how he mentions the bible doesn't say anything about gravity. Maybe because the word wasn't invented until a few hundred years ago?
What they really want is a subtle way to enforce their views upon other people and attempt to make it seem as though the Church is always right. Because the church is a tad arrogant.
LMAO. This guy has no understanding of physics whatsoever!
[edit]
Nice how he mentions the bible doesn't say anything about gravity. Maybe because the word wasn't invented until a few hundred years ago?
- 3,802
I'm waiting for a fundie to back this crap up! They will point out some Bible passage, as if the fact it's in the Bible makes it fact, talk some crap about God knowing all, point to a biased website at an article wrote by a child molester, that trys to prove said insane theory using pseudo science to cover up the fact he knows bugger all. There's a 99% of Bible quotes being used, making the article sound even more ridiculous. Much like trying to prove Creationism then. When we says he's talking crap, the fundie will cry about us not having open minds because we won't listen to garbage just made up. Anyone can make up theorys, and no, the Bible is not evidence in anyway shape or form, the people who wrote it were not there at the begining either. They *shock horror* just made it up.
http://www.venganza.org/
"WHY YOU SHOULD CONVERT TO FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTERISM
* Flimsy moral standards.
* Every friday is a relgious holiday. If your work/school objects to that, demand your religious beliefs are respected and threaten to call the ACLU.
* Our heaven is WAY better. We've got a Stripper Factory AND a Beer Volcano.
"
I'm sold. Who needs proof, stripper factory w00t. I challenge a Creationist to prove that the FSM did not exist and create the Earth (and a midgit).
*makes a pirate hat*
(I'm aware I'm not the first to mention the FSM in this topic)
http://www.venganza.org/
"WHY YOU SHOULD CONVERT TO FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTERISM
* Flimsy moral standards.
* Every friday is a relgious holiday. If your work/school objects to that, demand your religious beliefs are respected and threaten to call the ACLU.
* Our heaven is WAY better. We've got a Stripper Factory AND a Beer Volcano.
"
I'm sold. Who needs proof, stripper factory w00t. I challenge a Creationist to prove that the FSM did not exist and create the Earth (and a midgit).
*makes a pirate hat*
(I'm aware I'm not the first to mention the FSM in this topic)
- 2,208
In a desperate attempt to get an answer for my "Who created God?" question, I asked Google. I got zillions of hits, but of course I immediately went straight to the source:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/197.asp
I learned the following from those folks:
...God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question Who created God? is illogical, just like To whom is the bachelor married?...
...God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesnt need a cause...
Well, I had no idea it was that simple. God is "uncreated" and "had no beginning". Right. Got it. I'll sleep well tonight, as long as I don't think about the concept of an uncreated being that had no beginning that happens to have the power to create an infinite universe...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/197.asp
I learned the following from those folks:
...God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question Who created God? is illogical, just like To whom is the bachelor married?...
...God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesnt need a cause...
Well, I had no idea it was that simple. God is "uncreated" and "had no beginning". Right. Got it. I'll sleep well tonight, as long as I don't think about the concept of an uncreated being that had no beginning that happens to have the power to create an infinite universe...
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
code_kev
That stars and the sun are the same thing.
[edit]
Just something to add to my bombardment:
http://www.thegodmovie.com/
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
It's a good exercise to discuss things that we don't understand. The Scientific community talk about infinity like it's second nature because we have accepted our own lack of comprehension of infinity. We would like to think that we are intellectual enough to comprehend infinity, but the very concept is incomprehensible. We say, "Sure, infinity is forever", but that doesn't mean we have the slightest grasp of being able to define something so beyond our comprehension. It's not surprising when people can't comprehend God in much of the same manner. If you can accept (not comprehend) infinity, then you can also accept God. If you can't accept infinity, it's no surprise that you can't accept God. You want to understand and dissect the existence of God and it will never happen. We don't even understand our own species, how can we expect to understand God. The ONLY conclusion that is logical is that there IS a force that exists beyond all time and space and it is that force all things have come from. You might call that force something else, I call it God. By my own definition of God ( however of a humble attempt it might be ) God undeniably exists.
- 87,575
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
A couple of theological questions, if I may.
If you believe in the Genesis account, do you also believe in the exceptions to our diets made in Leviticus? Specifically, pork (swine) but also camel, coney, hare, "all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters", eagle, ossifrage, ospray (sic), vulture, kite, raven, owl, night hawk, cuckow (sic), hawk, little owl, cormorant, great owl, swan, pelican, gier eagle, stork, heron, lapwing, bat, weasel, mouse, tortoise, ferret, chameleon, "lizard", snail, and mole.
Secondly, why, do you think, is there no physical description of Jesus in the Bible?
If you believe in the Genesis account, do you also believe in the exceptions to our diets made in Leviticus? Specifically, pork (swine) but also camel, coney, hare, "all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters", eagle, ossifrage, ospray (sic), vulture, kite, raven, owl, night hawk, cuckow (sic), hawk, little owl, cormorant, great owl, swan, pelican, gier eagle, stork, heron, lapwing, bat, weasel, mouse, tortoise, ferret, chameleon, "lizard", snail, and mole.
Secondly, why, do you think, is there no physical description of Jesus in the Bible?
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
PS
Simple, why did the Irish paintings of Jesus have him with red hair and freckles? Because that's what the people that they KNEW looked like. That's all. This was before you could turn on a TV or hop in a plane and just know that other people looked different.
