Jesus

[Stellar]

You guys are funny. *tumbleweed rolls by*. That's something only Seraphina would say. Man I love you guys. I'm glad I can argue with you guys and not some actually smart scientist or a real athiest. Man, that would be trouble, me arguing with people who aren't faking not having a religion.

would it? or would you just disregard their posts?

[saucy]

oohh, was that an insult? Can't any of you have a conversation without insult or getting frustrated? If you get too frustrated to have a simple conversation on an internet forum then maybe you should ignore these type of threads and posts. It's all in the spirit of debate but it's people like you who get defensive. Did I strike a nerve in you Stellar? Did I embarrass you by making you sound wrong or something? Truth is nobody is gonna win these debates, but they're fun to have and they're nothing to get angry over. Please, calm down, take a few pills and relax. Stop calling me an idiot, because I am not. I have something that is common sense, pehaps you should read up on it.

Edited May 15, 2004 by saucy

[Ozmeister]

I'm glad I can argue with you guys and not some actually smart scientist or a real athiest.

Guess what Saucy.......I'm your worst nightmare going by your statement above. Even more so than being an atheist.

I am a scientist......but I'm also deeply spiritual, though not religious.

[saucy]

I'm scared

[Ozmeister]

Now you're being facetious.

[Seraphina]

*is both a scientist...being a university student studying the sciences...and an athiest*

Saucy, if the best arguement you have left is some sort of thinly veiled insult to make it seem like your arguements aren't actually floundering in pond water, maybe you're the one who shouldn't be posting in threads such as this one

You go from registering fake accounts in order to give yourself at least a shadow or moral support (are you sure you're 20?) To the typical last resort of the five year old: "Oh, I'm sooo scared".

would it? or would you just disregard their posts?

Stellar's right. This is exactly what you've been doing since your very first post in this thread. Your tactic seems to be picking out one very minor point that you think you can argue against (incidentally, your arguement is always rebuked...something you also choose to ignore) and seem to think the rest of the post will just 'go away'

Your arguement doesn't have common sense; you're taking the typical creationist stand point of dancing around facts and opposive arguements, and somehow...and this is the part that amazes me...you somehow think you're making more sense

As for my comment about aliens...they ARE more likely than god

We live in a vast universe, with millions upon millions of planets...as I've stated, the laws of average make it impossible that life has not sprung up on at least some of these planets aside from our own; the possibility of aliens is indeed far, far more likely than God.

Incidentally, though I don't believe they have been, aliens have provided a great deal more evidence for their past intervention in this planet than God has also

Wow, I'm glad I can argue with you and not somone who actually knows the meaning of the world "logic" or common sense, and isn't basing their religion on a whimsicaly change of heart

Edited May 15, 2004 by Seraphina

[saucy]

Well, at least I don't go through and pick apart every single word and phrase someone says and posts them with a reply as if you know what the truth is and I admit what I believe is not set in stone and that I'm in a learning phase. Why do you attack people so harshly and vigourously? Maybe I'm getting upset because everything I say, I get insulted by six or seven other people who call me ignorant for my beliefs. What makes what you say true? Because science says it's true? Come on. Where on scientist supports it, another debunks it. At least us creationists have something called community. Scientists can't get anything done because they're always fighting and looking only to make a quick buck and want their name on a theory or cure. Just like you use "I wasn't there to know what happened in the bible," it can be used the same way for you. "No scientists were there to know what happened in the beginning."

I'll say it again: There's no way to know what happened during the beginning. I'm not ignorant for what I believe because science takes as much faith as religion. I'm learning as should everyone else. Nobody here has the right or the knowledge to claim otherwise.

[Stellar]

No ones calling you ignorant for your beliefs. People are calling you ignorant for posts like that one! Ever thought that maybe we know a bit more about science than you? We started getting frustrated by your erroniouse arguments in support of the Bible and your blatant disregard for logic, common sense, science, and evidence. We try to teach you why and how science has debunked your arguments but you dont even read it. Science relies on evidence and logic. The bible doesnt rely on those, and therefor, what science says is true, is most likely true. You obviously dont even know what a theory is though. One scientist supports it and another debunks it? What do you mean, like, a true scientist debunks a creationism scientists argument with ease? That happens all the time. Never has any creationism scientist debunked an actual scientist btw. And I feel sorry for you if you think scientists are all rogue and dont have a community, and always fight so much that they dont achieve anything. I guess it was praying to god that gaves us computers, planes, nuclear reactors, cars, satellites, space stations, space shuttles, the theory of evolution, harnessing the power of electricity, harnessing the power of the atom, tv, radio, microwaves... I can go on. Suffice it to say, if anything, religion is what hindered scientific developpment through out history. We say "I wasn't there to know what happened in the bible" and it can be used against the scientists too... but scientists have another thing called evidence, which creationists dont have. Anyone who claims that science takes as much faith as religion IS ignorant. Science is based on evidence, faith is not. If you know theres no way to be sure to know what happened during the beginning, why cant you admit that evolution is a very real possibility, and theres evidence supporting it? Why are you so intent on defending creationism just because a book says so?

[saucy]

I did believe evolution. I've said it more than ten times I bet. I admit that science is working towards something amazing. But I've personally experienced something spiritual in my life that I cannot, no matter what anyone else tells me, say that God doesn't exist. No scientific theory can ever nor will ever say God doesn't exist. I felt it, I've seen it, I've heard it and it was real. I'm not the only one who has gone through the same thing I am. That's why it was so easy for me to give up evolution, then I come across some genuine scientific arguments that make sense, I tend to believe them because let me say this again: THEY ARE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS! Not by creationists, but by real scientists and by you debunking them and saying they are false proves to me, maybe not you, that science isn't always true. It takes common sense for someone to say that if humans were a million years old, there should be a lot more of us. I'm sorry, but that makes sense to me. A scientist, not a creationist, takes a look at all the generations of humans and sees that the generations started around 4,500 years ago, during the time of the arc. If the same scientist said that all the generations now prove that humans are a million years old, you would probably be first in line to use that against me. Why does it make me ignorant to use such claims? Because it supports creation? Is that why it's so bogus?

[Chauncy]

Well put Stellar, very well put for that matter.

I agree fully in the sense that if creationists refuted evolution as a result of scientific evidence derived from scientific principles then their arguement would have more credibility. The fact their disputation is not derived from such but from a literal interpretation of scripture makes their line of attack somewhat fraudulent in essence.

This broad stroked brush that saucy used to describe scientists is very much NOT an accurate description of ALL scientists or sciences.

What if we saucy were to use the same broad stroked brush to describe all people of religion? You, then would take on the appearance of Jim Baker or Jerry Falwell and I'm sure you would find that offensive or if the brush would automatically categorize you as having the same tendacies as Catholic Priests with altar boys.

You will never be able to refute science with religion, the only thing that can refute science is more science!!!

[saucy]

I agree fully in the sense that if creationists refuted evolution as a result of scientific evidence derived from scientific principles then their arguement would have more credibility.

That's what you said. How about the point I've been trying to make that all of my evidence has come from scientific theories and scientists? Nobody seems to want to comment on that. They call me ignorant for using the evidence, but it's science! Not creationist dribble or a preacher's sermon. It's science my friend, but nobody has yet to give a single word of it any credability because of the fact that it does deal blows to your ideology. Because it goes against what you think you know, that what makes the evidence less true? Come on, now you're being ignorant and you're contradicting your own words.

[Seraphina]

How about the point I've been trying to make that all of my evidence has come from scientific theories and scientists?

As has been pointed out to you over...and over....and over...and over...and over...and I'm sure is going to continue to be pointed out to you: so called "creationist science", that being science that claims evidence of creationism, has always been proven to be down to a misinterpretation of scientific fact or law. To this day, no scientific arguement for creationism has been put forward that hasn't been either ten or twenty years out of date, or a deliberate twisting of what science has established (for example, the old therodynamics arguement...which, despite having been fully established as utter rubbish, continues to be printed on creationist sites).

Scienve, evidence, and what we've investiaged currently supports evolution...the only so called scientists that have tried to "prove" creationism or other theories are either proven wrong in short order (through actual scientific research) or well known crack pots who are simply sticking to their guns even today after being proven wrong anyway.

The point is that every creationist arguement has been rebuked...creationists have yet to rebuke a single arguement in favour of evolution. One arguement is getting stronger and stronger, and the other is getting weaker, even though a few passionate followers of it (yourself included) are so ready to stick to your guns, even after you've run out of ammo.

As for the above...

I'm sorry if I offend you...really I am...but allow me to make it very clear where I stand on this: I hate religion. I don't disagree with people's right to practice it...but I wholeheartedly hate it. I hate the way it makes people give up their lives to it and get nothing in return, I hate the way it leads people away from the truth using heresay, and appealing to whatever they want to hear, and I hate the way it leads to backward thinking and ignorance.

I don't have some kind of grudge against Christianity or your beliefs...we could as easily be talking about Islam, or the worship of Norse Gods, or just about any religion that demands the worship of a diety. Don't take it personally...it's just because its your religion that's the topic at hand.

Now, all that being clear, I hope some of your questions above are answered.

[saucy]

even bobo?

[Chauncy]

Well saucy lets try then from a different approach.

If you would like you could right now show me your scientific evidence that makes evolution invalid. No need to type it all out, just state the scientist the gist of his/her evidence and maybe a link where I can get indepth with it. And we can examine it to see if it holds water.

I think that the reaction you've been getting is not because we feel that you are "dealing a blow" to our ideology, but because we feel that you are throwing little stones at the skeleton of evolution in HOPES that it comes crashing down and your religion will get proved scientific in the subsequent fallout.

But we can put that type of disputation aside and concentrate on the evidence that you say proves evolution incorrect. And I promise that I will look at this scientific evidence objectively, as long as you look at my analysis of said evidence in the same fashion.

Deal?

Edited May 15, 2004 by Chauncy

[Seraphina]

Bobo isn't a diety Bobo is the wandering minstrel with a seductive walk and swaggering hips. We rejoice in the laughs he brings us, and the songs that inspire us. The only thing the followers of Bobo think he created are all those annoying tunes that, no matter how hard you try, you just can't get out of your head.

[saucy]

maybe I'll start worshipping bobo then. Now he's someone with character.

Chauncy, all the evidence I have is written out in the other thread above this one called "I now have evidence, everyone read it please." If you don't want to read everything I wrote, then I'll just write out the basic ideas.

[Stellar]

That's why it was so easy for me to give up evolution, then I come across some genuine scientific arguments that make sense, I tend to believe them because let me say this again: THEY ARE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS! Not by creationists, but by real scientists and by you debunking them and saying they are false proves to me, maybe not you, that science isn't always true.

*Sigh* what scientific arguments did you come across? Those that you posted in the other thread? Those are creationists ideas of scientific arguments, when infact, they only took the bits and pieces of the scientific theory/principle/law whatever it is to make their argument. THey DIDNT use the actual science, they manipulated it, therefor me debunking them doesnt prove that science isnt always true, its me proving that creationist science isnt always true, and that its manipulative, decieving and dishonest and has no regard for the truth. If youd have bothered to even read my post you would know that. I never have debunked a scientific theory or anything truely scientific here, but I have debunked your arguments because your arguments didnt use the true science it was based on, it only used parts of it, and when viewed in whole its not an argument against evolution or old earth no more.

[saucy]

Would you stop saying I didn't read your post. Geez, I read every word and don't say I didn't because that is one thing you cannot prove

[Chauncy]

Thanks saucy for the directions to the thread that contained your evidence.

1) The first evidence you stated was the population of the Earth corresponding with it's age. All though that theory does at first seem to make sense , once examined becomes seriously flawed. The reason why the population is not like that is because of things like the Black Plague which killed several millions of people. War has taken millions and millions over time as well. All sorts of natural balances keep population in check like illness, life expectancy and so on.....so the scientific equation you used to ellucidate this example is actually very wrong. Also the Earth is billions of years old but mankind is not!!

2)You said the Sun is shrinking, this I believe is false also just because it appears to be shrinking today doesn't mean it has always been doing so nor does it stipulate if it is doing so at a constant rate. Also the gentlemen(Eddy and Boornazian) that promoted this theory didn't do so as an absolute but to warrant more discussion the only people by the way that say it is absolute fact are Christians.

3)You mentioned the Earth's magnetic field diminishing , again the same factors that govern the Sun shrinking would apply here. What the magnetic field diminishing seems more indicative of is the fact that our Earth may have reached its pinnacle life and is now in decline, but again the rate and frequency of this depletion is not yet at all known.

4)The "big structures" in space and the fact that we are not aware of a force that could make them. Well put it this way we know nothing about the universe in comparison to what there is to know about the universe. Just recently Hubble discovered 10,000 new galaxies that up untill last month we were totally unaware of. So to take something like the "big structures" and say "well based on what we know of the universe this seems impossible" is very premature because you are only basing this arguement on what we know of the universe

5)The receding Moon evidence is flawed as well saucy. The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon's gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth's rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the Earth's rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit which makes it farther away. In all due respect saucy Dr.Hovind is a character you should stay away from. (just a suggestion is all)

I'm interested in your response to the things I posted here as well saucy. But use science instead of Bible scripture to elucidate your evidence please

Edited May 15, 2004 by Chauncy

[Stellar]

How about the point I've been trying to make that all of my evidence has come from scientific theories and scientists? Nobody seems to want to comment on that. They call me ignorant for using the evidence, but it's science!

Ok now I'm not sure if you dont understand or if you just dont want to understand. Your arguments are based on science, but a faulty version of it. The theories you use are never the whole scientific theory. You used part of it, not all of it, and that is not acceptable in science. The way I debunked your "scientific" arguments is that I used the same scientific theory that you used in the argument, but explained the complete theory to you and only then when the theory is taken as it is meant to be taken does it not prove creationism. Do you understand now, or are you going to just ignore this post again and say no ones made any effort to comment on your "scientific" arguments? Using half of a theory is not science. Using the whole theory is science.

[Chauncy]

Also saucy you must ask yourself if this cartoon here is accurate, all due respect intended.

[Seraphina]

....ROTFLMAO!

lol...it's a little tongue in cheek, but not entirerly inaccurate

[chico del nacho]

i shall now make a post with about as much point as this entire thread:

"down at an english fair,

one evening i was there,

when i heard a showman shouting underneath the flair

'i've got a lovely bunch of coconuts

there they are all standing in a row

big ones,

small ones,

some as big yer head!

give a twist,

a flick of the wrist,'

that's what the showman said"

[Xenojjin]

.........yah.........

As I said before , god cannot be scientifically proven or disproven . The most you can get through this is insulting each others beliefs . BAH !

Want a serious argument ? Shift this over to theology and philosophy .

[Chauncy]

Lets shift it in that direction, would you like to begin?