Beardo
Push away at buttons, but do try to do so in a fashion which doesn't make yourself appear foolish; thus my comments about how dumb ass it is to be anti-intellectual.
Nice to see you totally refuse to engage with my point; i.e., how unreasonable it is for those with little or no knowledge of a subject to try to engage in a meaningful discussion about it from the premise of "if I don't "get" or know something then it can't be so". No smart reply? Illustrative!
And please don't re-run the tired old myth of atheists/agnostics having no sense of spirituality. It's as hacknied and trite as white men having no rythm. Atheists and agnostics CAN have a sense of spirituality; it's just we look for slightly different explanations for these feelings instead of warming over millenia-old shamanistic nonsense.
Creationistic beliefs used to answer unanswerable questions. Evolution replies to many of those unanswerable question. Now Creationistic beliefs only RAISE unanswerable questions.
I have learnt a lot at ocult forums; what I learnt was that not once, ever, in all of history, has any paranormal or occult happening been proved to have taken place to the standards that one would expect in a science lab or court of law. Doesn't mean they aren't 'real' outside of the minds of those experiencing them (and yes, it's easy to explain groups having the same perceptions without invoking the paranormal), just no one yet has proved they are real outside of the minds of those experiencing them.
Goes back to one of my original questions to you; how do you know you're not imagining things? Wishful thinking + enculturation? How come others have similar 'spiritual' experiences which contradict yours; are they right? Are you right? Are you both wrong? Hmmmm.... no answers?
Avoiding a question which effects the credibility of your belief structure is an admission of the weaknesses of your belief structure. By all means invoke the name of another sci-fi charcter as a glib method of engaging with my point, especially as you use smart ones. Oh - notice how I address the questions pertaining to the reliability of my belief struture?
As LittleToe shows, the entire evo/creao debate is a Trojan Horse of religious fundies. You can believe in god and Jesus (or Brahma and Vishnu for that matter) AND believe in evolution. All you have to do is stop believing the little black marks on a piece of paper are literally true and it is easy. Be followers of spirit rather than of squashed dead trees that have been printed on.
Of course, why stopping believing in the literal nature of the Bible is something Fundies don't want to do is it kicks away the crutch they use. If they admit the Bible is wrong about Creation, what about the place of women, homosexuality, or any number of other topics? If the Bible isn't a totally accurate guide it means you can't be a self-rightous Pharasee any longer. You have to THINK about your beliefs and take personal responsibiliy rather than kneee-jerking your way through life looking down your nose at those who don't believe exactly the same as you when you can't prove shit about your own beliefs.
It's like the apostle Paul said; baby food for babies, adult food for adults.
If you want to know god as (s)he/it may or may not be, you have to open your mind and reject foolish historical beliefs in the light of modern knowledge. We evolved, women are equal, homosexuality is a part of the spectrum of normal human behaviour.
TopHat
THERE! Does it make you feel better and does it make evolution correct "IN YOUR MIND" to call an inspired person from God a "goatherder" Is that all you have to prove we have no creator? You are starting become a BORE!
How very dare you!!! Zoraster is the only true prophet! Or was it that Brahmain is the only true god? No, no, it was Thor, that's it.
TopHat; you have a presuppostion what you were taught is correct. Ancient Persians, modern day Hindus and Dark Ages Viking all believed the same thing; what they were taught was correct. Why should I regard your assumptions as any worse/better than a Zoratoran, a Hindu or a follower of the Norse mythos?
I think it is YOUR responsibility to prove that;
a/ Moses was the author of Genesis and it was writen when some people say it was.
b/ That what the person (Moses or some other) who wrote it said is accurate and true to an extent that indicates divine inspiration.
.... as most scholars feel Genesis was written much later and is actualy several sources put together, and as the Genesis makes dozens of impossible or inaccurate claims (from the manner of Creation to the occurance of the Flood to the cleanliness of women), I will be interested to see you do this.
It might upset you that I laugh at your beliefs and parody them. Would you defend a Wiccan if I laughed at them or parodied their beliefs? I don't think so. Be consistent before whining.
OH MYYYYYYYYYY HERE WE GO AGAIN!! If you don't believe in evolution then you'er ignorant...OH PLEASEEEEEEEEEE!!! BORRRRRRING
No, it is people too lazy or complacent to make a study of a subject, but with the breath-taking arrogance to assume from a potiion of sublime ignorance they are capable of determining whether a subject is ture or not who are boring.
Why not actually, rather than just typing nonsense, actually address some of the information regarding evolution. If it is as wrong as you say it is it wouldn't take you long to show how right you are.
whyizit
Creation is a theory. Evolution is a theory.
Look up the definitons of theory and hypothesis. You will find Creation is a hypothesis and Evolution is a theory. Creation has no direct evidence. A petri-dish of bacteria will prove in a few days the basic mechanisms of evolution.
Niether can be proven, because no one alive today was there.
No, but you are basing your beliefs on what some B.ronze A.ge G.oatH.erd allegedly wrote about what he said happened.
Evolution is based on direct evidence of organisms from the past and observation of organisms in the present. Doesn't mean it is 100% right, but as new evidence is discovered or better theories develop the theory can be fine-tuned.
The BAGH hypothesis cannot be fine-tuned. No new evidence to make it more belivable can be found. If you LITERALLY believe it, you have to do just that.
Of course, if you literally believe it you also have to believe other stuff in the Bible that didn't happen, like the Flood. Or stuff that may have happened, like god directing the Israelites to kill all inhabitants of a town apart from the virgin girls (during the ethnic cleansing of the 'Promised Land'). I find imaginary genocidal inundations and god-approved sexual servitude of minors rather depressing. If you want a god like that, go ahead and believe in it and good luck to you.
Trying to inter-mix them doesn't make any sense either, because they always end up separating from each other. Like oil and water.
For you; but the alternative (genocidal god approving of sexual servitude of minors, and that's just the first few books of the Bible) is far less attractive for me. Others don't find mixing a belief in a Creator and evolution impossible. Are you gonna now tell THEM how wrong they are as well as the evolutionists. And WHO is dognatic exactly??
Paragraph begining "You see it on TV" and ending "closely related"
Once again we see someone entirely ignorant of any real learning about a subject basing their belief evolution is wrong on a bunch of misconceptions they have themselves or lies they have swallowed from others.
Once again, I bet, whilst such people consider themselves smart enough to rubbish 150 years of slow development of a theory by tens of thousands of sceintists, >97% of which find no major fault in modern evolutionary theory, they will NOT go to a plumber if they have tooth ache as they wouldn't want to put themselves in the hands of someone who knows nothing about a subject.
let me know that I'm not a brilliant mind, so I should not be in this conversation, etc.....
And here we have someone, despite it being made fairly obvious this is about LEARNING not INTELLIGENCE, acting like they've been called stupid. Nope, I believe what you are being called is ignorant.
If you are a devout skeptic, then you will want to accept evolution as true, since a mental hiding place is needed.
Typical false characterisations; too lazy to learn anything about a subject they have decided is false, so therefore as they cannot have a conversation about that subject without appearing foolish, rather than addressing the FACTS behind the belief they oppose they attack the MOTIVES of those holding the beliefs they oppose. Get a job in the Writing Department, they love that shit...
To say that evolution is not a religious belief is not accurate.
... why? Becuase you have typed a dictionary where the word definitons suit your complacent beliefs and lazy attitude?
It takes just as much faith to believe evolution as it does to believe in a creator.
I've done both lady, and you are wrong. And too complacent to do anything other than tell us (with hideous innacuracies as you don't know a thing about the subject) why we are so wrong.
dido
Abbadon- first of all i don`t have a chip on my shoulder, i think it`s the other way round, you have a very condescending attitude, i just can`t suffer fools gladly!
I could have said that. You admit you know next to nothing about the subject but consider your depth of knowledge suffcient to reach a firm conclusion. An obvious reply to you would be "you have a very condescending attitude, i just can`t suffer fools gladly!". I can see why you might feel I am being condescending but surely you can see why I think your attitude also sucks.
Bacteria, is that all you can come up with? That`s nothing new, been around since time indefinate.
There is more than one type of bacteria. Some have died out. New forms arrise. Why do you think that some infections become drug resistent? BECAUSE THE INFECTIVE AGENT EVOLVES AS ONLY THOSE WHO SURVIVE THE DRUGS GET TO REPLICATE AND THUS THEIR DESCENDENTS ALL HAVE THE SAME IMMUNITY TO DRUGS.
Sorry. It's just you really need to learn more; you make such simplistic errors (like thinking bacteria are a stable indefinately exisiting thing rather than a changing and evolving group of organisms) that the conclusions you reach are totally wrong.
At no point has it occured to you or any of the "creationists who know nothing of evolution-ists" possee to say "Golly, well, it looks like I might not know enough about the subject to make such assured sweeping statements, looks like I need to learn more about it to be sure, can anyone make a book recommendation".
Which is a pity, as I know at least a half-dozen posters here who have done exactly that to me at various points in the past.
So, the choice is yours; blissful ignorance of evolution combined with certainty of creation as a fact (even the description sounds ludicrous), or reading a book on the subject.
The reason i commented on here was to say that i believed in creation, not to get into a debate about all the theories about evolution, i was asked for my opinion, and gave it!
Yup, but in doing so revealed you didn't know enough of evolution to have a valid opinion. It's like asking a person raised to be a racist who has never met a black person what they think of black people. They'll have an opinion all right... a sad-ass ignorant excuse of an opinion they will be ashamed of it they ever stop beleiving the myths they were twisted with as a child.
The title of this thread is "evolution or creation? lets talk" This is a discussion board. Please at this stage do not do yourself the diservice of being surprised people want to talk about or discuss your opinion. Your actions generated a reaction in a forum where this is entirely normal. Don't make it out this is extraordinary, deal with the reaction you generated in a reasonable fashion. Take responsibility for your actions and ownership of your opinions.
And if I didn't think you were smart enough to bother saying this too I wouldn't.
