Hi all

Haven't been in this section in a very long time (mainly due to flamers). Anyway, I met someone at college the other day and I was astonished to find that he is a devout Christian. Not just you're GI Christian but the whole hog. He believes in the six day creation and believes that every species that has walked the Earth was created at the same time (and this somehow disproves evolution?!?) so Dinosaurs and man once walked the Earth at the same time little over 6,000 years ago.

Now, this guy is nice enough but I just can't talk to him without getting into Religion. I just can't get past it and neither can he (I'm a Fully Fledged Athiest borderline Nihilist). I try to imagine what it must be like in his head but I just get headaches. I put forward scientific facts about Dinosaurs and evolution (Moths in the US that evolved over a matter of months) yet he says that's ll athiest propaganda. AND he believes the world is flat and once refused to go on a flight from Japan to America as he thought it would be suicide. He gave me a leaflet the other day about how NASA is a hoax to try and disprove the bible.

Can anyone help? I know alot of information that would turn any Christian to the otherside but that's not my aim. I just want to put forward the facts to him and I want him to stop trying to convert me.

Sorry if that seemed jumbled, it's 3 in the morning.

Focus on the flat Earth part. Maybe he'll realize he isn't right about everything once you convince him that the Earth is spherical.

Seems like the easiest target, to me.

Why are you interested in him? Why do you care what he thinks or believes?
Surely you have other friends that are more sensible. If you desire friendship with this person accept their religion and any other habits you disagee with as their own foibles. Clearly you are not going to be moved on the subject, what makes you think he is not as immobile? If you don't desire a friendship, disengage.

The Bible does not say the Earth isn't flat. What is his basis?


And I'm curious about this "information that would turn any Christian to the otherside". Maybe is this sort of heresy and arrogance that "endears" you to him?

Do tell us more.

I'd guess that he's the type of guy who isn't going to debate any of his beliefs. They are true and he won't even bother going to any lengths to show why they're so. He's a believer and nothing else. I have a friend, a good friend, who is kind of like that. I don't think he takes it to the extremes your buddy is taking it to. (To be honest, I've never heard of anyone that believes in the flat earth. Makes him sound borderline retarded.) But my buddy believes in prophecy and refuses to even consider evolution. He's open enough to listen to my attempts at debate without scorn, but he really isn't interested in it. He doesn't build up the fire that is needed in debates of that sort. The ability to dig and examine, poke and prod. He usually just puts me on hold til he can run it past his preacher. At least he's not a devout christian. He's a true believer, but doesn't devote himself to it.

We grew up in Kansas (he's still there), and I recently heard that Kansas started teaching creationism in school. This kinda blew me away. I grew up there and I got a pretty good liberal education. This creationism thing was just a slap in the face. I tried to discuss it with him and he just refused to accept that creationism isn't science. I explained to him what science is and how it's structured and how creationism doesn't fit in to any of these categories, and he just refused. Simple as that. He couldn't begin to explain why, he just knew it was science, that's all. (BTW, he doesn't want to vote for Bush because of the war but he won't vote for Kerry unless Nader is his vice-president. Here's a guy that could possibly make a difference, but he votes with his religious ideals. Go-go christian right.)

There's not much you can do. You can always try bashing your head into the wall for awhile, but you'd have to be a masochist to continue past a certain point.

As for the Bush thing I have no comment.. :bugeye:


If Creationism isn't science, what is it?

//Refers you to the ICR. :P

Uh oh, here we go. I think that should be another topic. Don't you?

His mind isn't open to reason so any reasoned argument will fail on him so it is a waste of time trying. In this case you cannot win.

Simply smile inwardly with the satisfaction of your own valid position and very politely ignore him. If he has any semblance of rational ability then he might eventually discover his errors for himself.

However, if you enjoy bashing your head against a brick wall, i.e. trying to hold a rational debate with Christians, then carry on and enjoy the debacle - but don't expect any positive results - and that is pretty much what we do here at sciforums.religion anyway.

Kat

... i.e. trying to hold a rational debate with Christians...

Sometimes debate with Christians can be fruitful. It all depends on how willing they are to examine their own faith and rationally discuss their holy book. It's rare, but it does happen from time to time. I think the difference might be in people who see themselves as biblical scholars rather than just believers of the faith.

SouthStar,

If Creationism isn't science, what is it?Religion, since it concludes from the outset that a god did it. Science makes no conclusions until it has evidence.

Hence science and religion are opposites as is science vs creationism.

Kat

Invert,

Yes I agree but then they aren't truly Christian if they display skepticsm and genuinely wish to discover truth since they already believe they have discovered the ultimate truth in their Jesus deity. If they express doubt then they can't be believers.

Kat

Invert,

I hadn't read your post when I posted mine - curious that we both used the head bashing the wall analogy. :D

Kat

I wouldn't say that they're not christian. There are levels of christianity. One can be a christian and look at the bible as a metaphor rather than a literal truth. In this case, they might even add to a better understanding of the philosophy embedded within the bible and increase their own faith by the same process by which I further my distance from it. A mutual advantage. It seems that in these days, it becomes harder to find the liberal christians. Fundamentalism is becoming more common. Perhaps it's just that the fundamentalists preach more. Same could be said for Islam.

Of course, this liberal viewpoint of the bible could very easily be labelled heresy. So, as you say, they may not be true christians. I think I know how the Pope would weigh in.

i suggest you both sign a pact, stating that he will not try to convert you and you will not try to convert him. mutual non-aggression. if that doesn't work, the brick wall is always an option. :D

also, nexus, how do you define "fruitful" [i.e. in what sense do you use the word]?

U have to love fanatisim!!!

I basically described it above. But more than that, I enjoy studying the bible and the events of those times as a study of human nature. Christianity is one of the prime religions in the world. The ideals that are incorporated into the bible can lead to certain truths of human nature. What we desire in a religion. What we desire for the world, ourselves.

Religion is a basic need of humans. It is a need that in my opinion is of the past and is in the process of being superseded should all go well. But it is still a need. Religion can be ascribed to the rise of our ancestors from animal status. Literacy stems from religion. It was at the root of vast movements of power in the past, present, and future.

Bah, I don't know what I'm trying to say exactly. But, you join in on religious conversations as well. What do you get out of it? It has to offer at least the hint of fruitfulness. ;)



Edit: Katazia, yes. I imagine head bashing often comes to mind in situations such as this. :D

i join in when i see a blatant contradiction of fact, or when i am asked my opinion [as in "atheists"] yet i have no sense that what i say can ever change someone's beliefs about something they think they know. it feels remarkably like hitting one's head against a brick wall [well put analogy], and i know that going in. but as to why i do it...to present an alternate point of view, perhaps. ahem, well that was useless. i guess it's too early for logic.

We need some sort of ethical/moral structure. We get this from influences such as religions. Now days you can see how morals have dropped due to lack of religion. We seem to have replaced it with money.

that's not necessarily true. i know many people who are religious and quite immoral. :p

Yeah, but my point is where would we get morals/ethics without religion? The basis for this country was founded on laws which were rooted from christianity.

not necessarily, for instance; not killing people. it seems like the basis for this is the commandment "thou shalt not murder." however, imagine a society where everyone killed everyone else. doesn't seem very nice, eh? that is what hobbes, locke, montesquieu, and all those dead guys from the enlightenment liked to chat about in their "salons". and that is where american laws stem from, "natural" rights.

I dont understand what you are trying to point out. Homocide takes place in many cultures, look at the eskimos who kill off their young and elderly. Mainly becuase food is scarce and if they tried to feed the elderly and very young (who dont participate in the collection of food) they would starve themselves. So homocide is accepted in some cultures. All our basic laws stem from religion. However culture varys and so do religions-- proving that people dont come up with ethics and morals out of common sense but through belief or nessecity.

sorry 'bout the spelling.

Morals and ethics were human traits before religion. They are part of our basic makeup as social animals. Its a fallacy that morality come from religion. If anything, religion comes from morality. It is a primitive social contract.

then how do u explain the differences in cultures??? If your ideals held true everyone would have the same underline morals! And as we all no this is false!!!!

know*---haste

What I mean is, among primitive tribes(pre-and modern human without religion) the only way to stay alive was to become the alpha male-and even that didnt secure your life. Religion can be traces many many years before civilization.

Civilization being first city of Jericho

okay, so even in your eskimo example, i would argue that the reason for said act is the survival of the greatest number or the community as a whole. where is the religious basis?

Necessity--but through that their religion accepted this "homocide"

I see what you are getting at antifreeze. This is what I will go with now.....First comes the needs of a social group--this need is recognized--then is adopted as a standard ---these standards are preserved through a ideal such as religion. These standards vary from culture to culture.

religions vary, and there are laws based directly on religious dogma [e.g. retail businesses closed on sunday], i tend to think of them as part of the "face" of culture. each is distinct and recognizable, but underneath the main issue is the survival of said social group.

::anyone remember what this thread was about, by the way?::

I agree, --- yeah i guess some bible beater thought the worls was flat.

--I am still waiting for your post on abortion

then how do u explain the differences in cultures???

Just like that, cultural differences. Different cultures have different moralities and ethics, therefore the religions are based on different moralities and ethics. This is getting into the whole chicken and the egg scenario, but it's obvious that the egg came first. The moralities in the cultures are the egg, religion is the chicken.



edit: Of course, this is one of the fatal flaws of religion. When they were made, they incorporated the morals and values of the day into them. As time has gone on and people's cultures changed, the various religions don't catch up. This causes dichotomies in the morals and ethics in the religious texts and the morals and ethics of the culture at large. Most religionists get around this by just ignoring those passages which push a moral view that they don't share.

Bloody hell. Here I was thinking now one would reply but BAM! Cheers guys!

Lemme get some of my answers in....

Focus on the flat Earth part. Maybe he'll realize he isn't right about everything once you convince him that the Earth is spherical.

I have tried to explain this to him, tried to tell him why one of the most Christian countries on the Earth wants to disprove the fact that the Earth is round. And he claims that early pictures of Earth from space are fakes. And my return is 'How did they make them? They didn't have the technology to make something that accurate back then' but still...

Why are you interested in him? Why do you care what he thinks or believes?

Because he does seem like a really good person and we're often put into situations where I have no other choice but to talk to him (college classroom).

And I'm curious about this "information that would turn any Christian to the otherside". Maybe is this sort of heresy and arrogance that "endears" you to him?

Just my own personal beliefs, scientific and social evidence and a lot of ammo I got from fighting in this forum a year or so ago.

His mind isn't open to reason so any reasoned argument will fail on him so it is a waste of time trying. In this case you cannot win.

Simply smile inwardly with the satisfaction of your own valid position and very politely ignore him. If he has any semblance of rational ability then he might eventually discover his errors for himself.

This appears to be the only way I can win, enjoy the satisfaction that I have an open mind and take into account various ideas and evidence thrown at me. But I only set out to win when he brings it up, I never bring up the subject.

bashing your head against a brick wall

Sometimes I feel like bashing his head against the wall. Maybe something will get knocked into him.

i suggest you both sign a pact, stating that he will not try to convert you and you will not try to convert him. mutual non-aggression. if that doesn't work, the brick wall is always an option.

I have already politly requested that he doesn't try and convert me nor that he doesn't bring up religion. But as it is his main way of life and his reason for being we find it hard to talk about cars, boobs or computer games :(

We need some sort of ethical/moral structure. We get this from influences such as religions. Now days you can see how morals have dropped due to lack of religion. We seem to have replaced it with money.

I have brought this up. I said to him that religion formed the basis of law back then and also it is quite possible that that was religions main goal. Bringing order out of chaos - you just have to insight a little fear to get your way. But no, this is impossible to him because it was not written. Gah!

And the rest of the thread you guys just argue about eskimos and other make believe creatures so I'll stop here ;)

Perhaps it's best to simply respect his mindset and let it go. If and when challenged, deal with the specific argument and note that the evidence is insufficiently compelling to warrant belief.

Thor, are you familiar with the concept of triage? Doctors in war have to break casualties into three categories - those who will probably survive, even without treatment, those will probably die, even with treatment, and those for whom treatment will make a difference. Doing a little intellectual triage on this guy, he's a misologist, not receptive to other arguments, and hence, not really worth your time.

SouthStar,

Religion, since it concludes from the outset that a god did it. Science makes no conclusions until it has evidence.

Hence science and religion are opposites as is science vs creationism.

Kat

Have you heard of the ICR, per chance?

SouthStar,

Have you heard of the ICR, per chance?Yes, and their opening sentence on their web page describing the tenets of Creationism is -

And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein... Rev 10:6 "For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day..." Exodus 20:11

http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm

There really was no point reading further since that is a statement of religion and the basis for their perspective. That is clearly not science.

However, their first tenet states –

The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.

Again this has nothing to do with science.

Kat

Perhaps it's best to simply respect his mindset and let it go. If and when challenged, deal with the specific argument and note that the evidence is insufficiently compelling to warrant belief.

Words of wisdom indeed. I have a hard time remembering to do that a lot of the time and especially enjoy seeing it put so plainly and direct. Thank you.

he believes the world is flat and once refused to go on a flight from Japan to America as he thought it would be suicide. He gave me a leaflet the other day about how NASA is a hoax to try and disprove the bibleOther than forcing him to get on a plane... you have no chance.

I think even if you take the flight yourself, he'll doubt you. This guy is certifiable from what you are saying... I'd distance yourself.

How do you talk to someone who believes...


When talking to a believer , look them directly in the eye and say...... if your Holy Babble is correct and I am wrong, I will not ever worship such an evil being no matter what the cost - Period.

Walk away and let them figure it out.

End of talk.

Just ask him to pull your finger. That should break the ice.

Hello Thor :)

I have talked to guys like this before and the only way you can cause them to think about the validity of their belief "that the wold is flat" is to use the bible.

Try using the following:

Job 26:7: "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing."

This is saying that the top of the world is in the north. and God hangs the world on nothing therefore the earth floats in space.


Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth."

Here it states that the earth is a "circle" not a flat board with 4 corners. So we now have the top of the world being in the north and the world is not hung on anything and the world being circular. Now this does not biblically prove that the earth is a sphere but using these in conjunction with the following scripture usually has an impact.


Luke 17:24-34:
24For as the lightning that flashes out of one part under heaven shines to the other part under heaven, so also the Son of Man will be in His day. 25But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.
31"In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. 32Remember Lot's wife. 33Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 34I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left. 35Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left. 36Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left."

Now Jesus is talking about His return to earth. We know from other scriptures that upon His return a "catching up" or more popularly known as a "Rapture" will occur this rapture will happen in a "twinkling of an eye: That is all true followers of the Messiah will be “caught up” at the same time. Note how Jesus said “In that day” and then went on say “in that night”? See Jesus knew that at the moment of His return it would be day time for some and for others it would be night time.

These two following scriptures describe the Rapture and give details of its suddenness.

1 Thessalonians 4: 13- 18
13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.
15For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18Therefore comfort one another with these words.


1 Corinthians 15: 50- 52
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed-- 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."

Now if all the followers of the Messiah that remain on earth and are still alive will be changes in a twinkling of an eye upon the second coming and this will happen for some during the day and for others during the night. Then the earth cannot be flat.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I am a devout Christian who does not take the Genesis stories literally, as most Christians don't, but when someone tries to argue about my faith with me it is quite irritating, as well as pointless. What on Earth does an atheist gain by trying to convince a believer that he/she is going to go to a hole in the ground and rot and no more? What do atheists care, if that's what they really think is happening to everyone anyway? I have honestly met some atheists who were more evangelical than any religious person I've ever known.

Not every scientist buys Darwin's theory that biological change over time is necessarily impersonal and accidental, but rather the end result of a purposeful design. It was reading up on some of these scientists that started my entire spiritual journey in the first place. If you want someone to stop converting you, then tell them, but the ridiculous notion that you have knowledge that would turn Christians from God is as annoying to us as it is when Christians say the same to atheists.

We, too, feel like we are hitting our heads against a brick wall when our collective spiritual experiences are dismissed immediately (and without much open-minded listening by the atheists who constantly preach it to us) by people who know very little about them firsthand.

THOR
why are you bothering, with this person, he is the epitome of ignorance.
Ignorant people, dont alter their view's to fit the fact's.
Instead, they alter the fact's to fit there view's.
you've got no chance.
forget him.

SouthStar,

Yes, and their opening sentence on their web page describing the tenets of Creationism is -

And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein... Rev 10:6 "For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day..." Exodus 20:11

http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm

There really was no point reading further since that is a statement of religion and the basis for their perspective. That is clearly not science.

However, their first tenet states –

The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.

Again this has nothing to do with science.

Kat

Yes, but I have read a few of their articles which are based entirely on "science" and not even a word about religion, as you say, as models for discrediting heresy.

Paula,

What on Earth does an atheist gain by trying to convince a believer that he/she is going to go to a hole in the ground and rot and no more? The point that they are trying to make is that no one can show anything different and are challenging you to support your claims.

What do atheists care, if that's what they really think is happening to everyone anyway? If more people didn’t believe they had eternal lives and would see real life as precious then they’d be less likely to waste it – i.e. we could put an end to wars overnight.

I have honestly met some atheists who were more evangelical than any religious person I've ever known.I suspect there is an oxymoron there somewhere, but unfortunately atheists do not have any policies for trying to convert religionists unlike Christians who definitely have such an irritating policy. But really the most enthusiastic atheists tend to be those that were once theists and can now see the paradoxes of theism.

Not every scientist buys Darwin's theory that biological change over time is necessarily impersonal and accidental, but rather the end result of a purposeful design. But can you name any scientist, preferably one who is fully conversant with biological evolution, who can turn those non-scientific opinions into real science. But I guess we are really talking about abiogenesis here and currently the origins of biological life are still speculative.

It was reading up on some of these scientists that started my entire spiritual journey in the first place. Can you share with us their names and work?

We, too, feel like we are hitting our heads against a brick wall when our collective spiritual experiences are dismissed immediately (and without much open-minded listening by the atheists who constantly preach it to us) by people who know very little about them firsthand. I think you are on very thin ice here. Most serious atheists reach their conviction through some serious study and many have been through past religious ‘experiences’. While there are a few exceptions, as there is to everything, it is rare to find one with such conviction turning back to religion. Remember that most religionists around the world are that way because of custom, culture, and racial origins, and of course from extreme indoctrination and brainwashing, e.g. Islam.

But with perspective, who does the most preaching, religionists or atheists? You would have to agree that religionists are going to account for 99.99% of all the preaching in the world, right?

And take care with accusations of closed-mindedness, what atheists are saying is that they don’t believe you not that they are offering any alternatives or have the answers. It is because they are open-minded that they are open to any and all speculations, but note that it is theists who have closed their minds to anything other than their own narrow belief, i.e. God did it – can you get anymore closed minded?

Kat

He believes in the six day creation and believes that every species that has walked the Earth was created at the same time (and this somehow disproves evolution?!?) so Dinosaurs and man once walked the Earth at the same time little over 6,000 years ago.

I beleive all that. For me, when I look at things, it makes SO much more sense that stuff was created as it is then it evolving from a premordial soup. I don't agree with the earth is flat part. There is nothing like that that I have ever read religious or other. Don't know were he got it from. :confused:

For me, when I look at things, it makes SO much more sense that stuff was created as it is then it evolving from a premordial soup.Well, the evidence says the exact opposite... go figure.

I believe that a guy like the one Thor describes must be extremely thickheaded and deserves to be beaten repeatetly with a very big and heavy copy of the bible until his head is about as flat as he thinks the earth to be.

Alternatively, I would give him a boat trip around the earth to his next birthday. :D

Well, the evidence says the exact opposite... go figure.

No, it doesn't. Would you like a list of examples?

Why do you insult my intelligence?

No, it doesn't. Would you like a list of examples?

Why do you insult my intelligence?

He is part of the heretical groups that believes in "creation ex nihilo", the impossibility of impossibilities.

Go figure..

I'm confused, who's he?

I think he means Persol. (or you ??? No, don´t think so)

I'm confused, who's he?

The one you were talking to.. obviously. :p

No I think it is me because Persol doesn't believe in creation ex nihilo, but I do. Let me know if you want the evidence I beleive in. I have alot of it.

Make my day.

Enigma,

No, it doesn't. Would you like a list of examples?

Why do you insult my intelligence?Ah don't be such an idiot. You have zilch worth looking at.

Go do some real studying. Try this first, after that I can give you a long list of science texts and books.

Lots of evidence for evolution. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html)

Kat

Enigma,

Ah don't be such an idiot. You have zilch worth looking at.

Go do some real studying. Try this first, after that I can give you a long list of science texts and books.

Lots of evidence for evolution. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html)

Kat

Enigma,

Don't listen to one who refuses to be "open minded" but advises others to do the same.

Since she is so sure of herself, she can 'refute' the evidence shown here. :rolleyes:

Scientific Case Against Evolution (http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html)

SouthStar,

Here is an index to Creationist claims against evolution. There are hundreds of them and each one has been refuted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

Here are a select few that seem relevant to your ICR article.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA112.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html

Enjoy
Kat

SouthStar,

Here is an index to Creationist claims against evolution. There are hundreds of them and each one has been refuted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

Here are a select few that seem relevant to your ICR article.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA112.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html

Enjoy
Kat

VERY scarcely related to what I posted. The nature of the analysis is far less "scientific" than the data included in the ICR article.

Let's look here:

Some supposed problems are questions about details about the mechanisms of evolution. There are, and always will be, unanswered details in every field of science, and evolution is no exception. Creationists take controversies about details out of context to falsely imply controversy about evolution as a whole.

Gee if because "there are, and always will be, unanswered details" we didn't question what is scientifically false, as they hypocritically urge, we would be disobeying another of their "points", which is that a scientist is skeptical about all things.

At the bottom of the quote, we see a crass generalization, VERY vague, no examples, but yet "scientific" :rolleyes: .. I hope you too have read the ICR article to at least, juxtapose.

I assure you, the ICR article is far more scientific than this opinionated..

The three foundational assumptions for evolution (cosmological and
biological)
are:

1. Matter from non-matter (where did the matter from the big bang
come from
in the first place? Was it always there?)

2. Life from non-life (abiogenesis)

3. Random genetic mutation resulting in an INCREASE in genetic
information


We have zero empirical evidence to make these assumptions. The laws of
thermodynamics state the matter is neither created nor destroyed. We
have
never seen abiogenesis take place and cannot feasibly predict a
mechanism
where is would/could occure, and in the case of assumption three our
observations are the opposite that random genetic mutation results in a
loss
of genetic information.

Without empirical evidence, evolution must be accepted by faith taking
it out
of the realm of science and into the realm of religion.

... the ICR article is far more scientific....

I shudder at the use of "ICR" and "scientific" in the same sentence.

ICR peddles garbage dressed up in pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo. Nobody with any scientific background could read that site without laughing out loud.

Nobody with any scientific background could read that site without laughing out loud.

I beg to differ. A true scienentist would read the statement, and then objectivly analyze it, not laugh because it is too far fetched sounding. People laughed at the thought of the earth being round.

Enigma,
Just read what ICR has to say and compare it with the references in "talkorigins".

I have read ICR. I agree with them.

@sideshowbob

You are disappointing me. Have you actually READ the articles on talkorigins?

Let's take a look at a few:

Evolutionists are intellectual snobs.

This is obviously and BLATANTLY propaganda. Is that even an argument? What does that have to do with proving or disproving evolution? I can dismiss the entire site's validity on this farfetched claim but let's look at a few more.

Hitler based his views on Darwinism.

Again what does this have to do with evolution? Why did they include it but to maliciously discredit skeptics. Even if he did, SO WHAT? What creationist uses this claim to DISPROVE evolution? Again, more propaganda and even more stupid than the last.

A lot, if not all of these are either made up lies or things said by individuals that have been stupidly applied to mean creationists in general believe these things.

Tell me, how many of those claims do you see on the ICR? Does the ICR stoop to sling mud on evolutionists by such preposterous claims?


I am ENTIRELY SHOCKED that you would even consider these claims valid! I hope you too will take the time to at least fairly critique the article I provided since I also took the time to skim through. I will return again to read a few more of the talkorigins article later on today.

SouthStar,

The two examples you give are charges that are, in fact, levelled at evolutionists by creationists.

But we were talking about scientific matters, not insults from either side. If you would bother to read the scientific analysis of ICR's preposterous claims, and the references....

1. Matter from non-matter (where did the matter from the big bang
come from
in the first place? Was it always there?)
2. Life from non-life (abiogenesis)
3. Random genetic mutation resulting in an INCREASE in genetic
information1 has nothing to do with evolution. 3 has been demonstrated. 2 is very likely considering the probability of the right atoms lining up to make simple life.

SouthStar,

The two examples you give are charges that are, in fact, levelled at evolutionists by creationists.

But we were talking about scientific matters, not insults from either side. If you would bother to read the scientific analysis of ICR's preposterous claims, and the references....

How interesting that you should say that :rolleyes:


Why don't these talkorigins "scientists" actually analyze creationism instead of what individual creationists say.

If the people at the ICR were remotely that ignorant, they would also make a page about what evolutionists say.

Now I truly hope you don't believe that what individual evolutionists may say at all reflects evolution.

Let's just make an example, shall we:

Creationist Mark Johnson and or his organization say "Evolutionists are intellectual snobs". The talkorigins webpage makes a preposterous statement, totally without any sort of evidence that such has been said. The ICR on the other hand, does not attack the statements of evolutionists since that is entirely foolish, but the theory of evolution.

And instead of accusing me of not "bothering" to read, why don't you also point out some of your alledged "fallacies". That would be more constructive.

"1 has nothing to do with evolution. 3 has been demonstrated. 2 is very likely considering the probability of the right atoms lining up to make simple life. "

1 has everything to do with evolution. If cells are made of matter, therefore, where did the matter come from. It just appeared doesn't cut it because that would be breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

2 has already been demenstrated as impossible by pasteaur with his meat expariment. No one has been able to create a cell from no living matter.

3 GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE! Mutations cause a LOSS of information, not a gain.

1 has everything to do with evolution. If cells are made of matter, therefore, where did the matter come from. It just appeared doesn't cut it because that would be breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

See, this is where creationism gets into problems. It not only tries to deal with the creation of life, but the creation of the universe as well. So, according to creationism, one is very important for their argument. But to evolution it doesn't relate. The matter is there. How it got there is another branch of science altogether.

Alight, forget number one.

Lol... that's just funny

1) Evolution has to deal with one form of life EVOLVING into another. It has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Even saying that it has to do with the creation of life is pushing it. It only has to do with the changing of life.

2) LMAO. I just left my meat out for 2 years, and it didn't turn into a star. That proves that stars are not made of matter. Stupid argument, eh? I fail to see how your meat example has anything to do with evolution, or for that matter how matter formed complex amino acids. If you wish to explain why you think this proves something, please do. In the meantime consider that it doesn't tkae many atoms to form life... it was just a matter of time.

3) How about:
Parkinson's Disease
Extra Immune Genes - http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/10_03/defensins.shtml
Down Syndrome
E. Coli (this has been shown in the lab, no escpaing this one)
Distal Trisomy

The list goes on and on.

Stars are not living matter, and the meat was no longer living, thus it couldn't reproduce. Cows produce more cows, ducks produce more ducks, cows donot produce ducks. If something will kill you off sooner than the rest of your species, what advantage is that?

Try questioning him. Ask poigniant questions about his beliefs. Questions that lead him to question his beliefs and point out flaws. When you see his reasoning you can understand what's wrong with it and direct him to the flaws you see with your questioning.
You may also be interested in this:
- http://www.suttononline.org/suthiswal.htm
It's about a bet I remembered reading about that took place couple centuries ago. They set up an experiment to test whether the earth was flat or not, placing three poles at the same hight along a river, and sighting through a telescope from the first to the last. The middle one appeared to be a few feet higher due to the curvature of the earth.
You might also ask him about refusing to go on a plane. How could so many people who take the plane all across the world be lying? Try taking him to an airport and interrogating people. :P

Stars are not living matter, and the meat was no longer living, thus it couldn't reproduce.Do you pay attention? What does dead meat have to do with amino acids forming? They are already there, but in small enough quaitites and not very good conditions. Compare this to a planet full of them. Cows produce more cows, ducks produce more ducks, cows donot produce ducks.Says the creationist. Yet we see animals which can produce different animals. Some horse families are like this. Many types of bactieria... etc.. etc. If something will kill you off sooner than the rest of your species, what advantage is that?Most mutations will be bad. However, some are not. Did you look at the extra immunity gene? In some cases it is better.

So, do you actually have any reasoning... or are you just going to stick with 'my parents/preacher/whoever told me so, so it must be true'.

You might also ask him about refusing to go on a plane. How could so many people who take the plane all across the world be lying? Try taking him to an airport and interrogating people. :PLol... and if you can't get him to realize the earth is round... at least you'll get him arrested:)

Lol... and if you can't get him to realize the earth is round... at least you'll get him arrested:)LOL, I hadn't looked at it that way .;p
But seriously, thousands of people take the plane to various parts of the world every day. Ask him where they're going. Ask him about all the people who have flown around the planet. Are they all liars? Are they making flights solely for appearances?
If you ask your questions right you can make him sound pretty foolish.

This isn't an evolution thread, but it's turned into one in many ways, so I'm gonna post this here. It might be better in Enigma's new thread in biology, but I don't want to start attacking creationism in there... until someone else does first. :p

Here's why creationism isn't science (other than the reasons already given by Katazia above). Creationism is based on two things. God and overruling evolutionary theory. Science isn't about disproving other sciences (although that might be a side effect) it's about proving it's own. When you go to creationist web sites, you see page after page on why this or that particular evolutionary claim isn't true. You don't see much on why creationism is true. Their viewpoint is once evolution is done away with they have no need for further advancement in their "science" because it's all been figured out.

Evolution on the other hand is incomplete. Evolution is a complex web of biological, mechanical, psychological, environmental, and other factors that we don't fully understand. We see a small portion of it and build the knowledge gradually. As we do so, some "truths" are overturned and new ones are added. This is science.

Creationists want it all in one go. Evolutionists just want to advance science. Nuff said.

why cant it be both? has anyone ever thought that "God" could have created everything over time istead of just in a blink of an eye. For all we know he could have created everything with the intention for us to "backtrack" all of creation to him.
Just food for thought :D

I always throw that point into evolutionary arguments as well. I think "Inherit the Wind" did an excellent job of combining evolution and god. Too bad more christians (and others) don't feel that way. They refuse to be the monkeys that they are. Ok, apes... :D

They refuse to be the monkeys that they are. Ok, apes...
LMAO- :D go apes!

Seriously, If a person does not believe in evolution, and does not believe in creation, what is the alternative? Is there even one?

In the broadest terms it has to be one or the other. Either we were placed here exactly as we are now or we slowly changed to become what we are now. There could be different views of how evolution works and what caused it. I suppose there are different views on creation and how it worked too. So, there's lots of shades of grey, but the main argument can be split into diametrically opposed values represented by creationism and evolution. Change vs. Non-Change.

People want proof if they are going to believe something, right. So then, by disproving evolution, saying hey, this really isn't an option, there's not enough evidence, creationists are able to introduce their theory. After that, a person can choose which is most logical to him.

But, evolution takes into account that the mechanisms by which evolution take place are subject to debate. Creationism allows no debate about the mechanisms of creation. It was god and that's that. Creationism's goal is the eradication of evolution and once it's done that, it can just be put in the annals of the church as another means of eradicating the pursuit of truth outside of religious rhetoric.

Creationism is not some cult, and therefore, it doesn't have any goals. Creationism is a theory proposed as an alternative to evolution. Their is no debate over mechanisms used because as you said, God did it all.

I guess it all boils down to these are two theories, neither of which can be proven true, and groups of stubborn intellectuels that refuse to consider the fact that they may be wrong. Am I right?

In the broadest terms it has to be one or the other. Either we were placed here exactly as we are now or we slowly changed to become what we are now. There could be different views of how evolution works and what caused it. I suppose there are different views on creation and how it worked too. So, there's lots of shades of grey, but the main argument can be split into diametrically opposed values represented by creationism and evolution. Change vs. Non-Change.

Shame on you. Admitting to being a dualist.. ;)

Creationism does have goals, IMO. It's goals it to affirm god's part in creation of the earth and life. And also to refute evolution. I think their main goal is to refute evolution as god's greatness is better handled through the prime religion context.

The fact that they won't allow alternative means to creation, that they believe they have the answer already, shows that it is not a science. Science doesn't work from the top down. It works from the bottom up.

Myself, even though I am prone not to believe in the god of the bible (or the q'uran or any other text) am disposed to believe that their might be a creator of some type. And that creator would work through the processes of the physical world. So, in a way, I'm a creationist. An agnostic evolutionary creationist. And, this way of thinking has the added benefit that it does not require the presence of god to explain the physical processes through which he acts. The processes may be examined by themselves. In fact, one may eventually find god by examining these processes to their fullest.


edit: Southstar, So, in a way, I'm a creationist. An agnostic evolutionary creationist.

Dualist indeed. :p

why cant it be both? has anyone ever thought that "God" could have created everything over time istead of just in a blink of an eye. For all we know he could have created everything with the intention for us to "backtrack" all of creation to him.
Just food for thought :DYes, many other people have thought that. These people use the argument that God's ways are not man's ways, and God's time is not man's time. They don't have a problem with the science behind evolution, only the philosophical conclusions reached by some scientists which are then represented as 'fact'.

The Christians that have problem with this alternate view believe in a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible - If Moses said a day - that means a day. But was Moses there when the foundation of the world was laid? (see Job). These 'strict constructionists also do not believe that Creation is God's word - even though Genesis clearly points out that God spoke the world into existence. All of Creation is the living manifestation of God's word. They study the bible, but not creation, believing that they are studying God's complete revelation when they are not.

And none of this has anything to do with the good news that the Kingdom of God is at hand, and that Jesus died so that we may live.

And none of this has anything to do with the good news that the Kingdom of God is at hand, and that Jesus died so that we may live.

I think it does in the sense that it shows the power of God

Personally, I feel god would show more power by working through the physical processes than just arbitrarily. The thing that is this universe is so complex and beautiful and the processes that formed it are even more complex and beautiful. Making it in one go makes it seem so much less than it is. Almost an afterthought. Just a negligent wave of the hand. I find that more distasteful than being an ape.

-T-
i dont know why its so hard for people to think this way? With this belief both sides would be right wouldnt they?

Almost an afterthought. Just a negligent wave of the hand. I find that more distasteful than being an ape.

that's why humans are differant from every other piece of God's creation. God made us and breathed life into us, whereas everything else come into existance through the words let there be...I find that much better than being related to an ape!

Wow, I ask for some advice about some religious nut and people start flaming each other. Righty-o.

Well, I no longer have to speak to him anymore. He's going to Uni now, I thought I'd be spending another year with him. Bo am I glad that's over.

Thank you to everyone who offered their advice :)

I don't think we're flaming each other. I think it's maintaining a cool temper. And, it's certainly an example of talking to someone who believes... Although he doesn't go as far as your friend. By the way, I was tired of bashing my head against the wall anyway. :)

The apes may not be thrilled about being related to you, either.
But we don't get to pick our relatives, do we?

Personally, I like the idea that all living things are my brothers and sisters.

-T-
i dont know why its so hard for people to think this way? With this belief both sides would be right wouldnt they?Beats me, but then I think both sides are wrong anyhow; Can we really contain All Truth in the meat between our ears? :D

that's why humans are differant from every other piece of God's creation. God made us and breathed life into us, whereas everything else come into existance through the words let there be...I find that much better than being related to an ape!
That story was made by a man thousands or years ago who probably thought the biggest diference between us and everything else in existence was the fact that we spoke and walked on two legs intead of four. Probably from his point of view it was pretty dumb for someone to think that god said let there be trees let there be rocks let there be man but now when u think of it it sounds a little dumb to think otherwise. Basically what im trying to say is what makes us so special?

I think both sides are wrong anyhow; Can we really contain All Truth in the meat between our ears?
If u think both sides are wrong then what do u think is right?

I think he's saying that the truth is far more than we can ever understand, so we'll never be right. I feel the same, but I think that it's like a limit in calculus. We may never reach the limit of absolute truth, but we can always get closer to it than we are. And that is the impetus behind science. If only it were the impetus behind religion as well. Their view seems to be that it was figured out long ago, and all we should do is believe and wait til the end.

to quote mustafhakofi. Ignorant people, dont alter their view's to fit the fact's.
Instead, they alter the fact's to fit there view's.
and you southstar certainly fit that quote .
prove beyond a doubt, the existence of a god, then explain who created him, and do this, without quoting the book written by man (the bible).
so do you also think the world is flat, and the sun and the planets go round the earth.

Chimps are disgusting. Have you ever seen them at the zoos? They stick their fingers up their asses and then suck on 'em. I don't need to remind you of that video where that chimp sticks his finger in his butt, sniffs it, and falls over lol. They throw their feces when angry. They EAT their own feces. They're canibals, they steal eachother's babies and eat them in the wild. I would NOT want to be around a chimp for an extended period of time, much less have one as a pet, it would probably try and wipe it's butt on me lol.

You may want to be related to them, but I don't!

Did you know that a common psychosis involves obsession with your own shit? Schizophrenic bums wipe it on the walls of their alleys. Little old men in nursing homes throw it at the nurses. Shit is something personal. It comes from you in a way that nothing else does. Beware, Enigma, lest you fall prey to Alzheimers and end up in a shit flinging contest with the crotchedy old fart next to you. :)

I would commit suicide before I bowed to a fatal disease.

If u think both sides are wrong then what do u think is right?I was being facetious, sort of. I maintain opinions and beliefs about what is true and right, and what is false and wrong - but I also know my knowledge isn't perfect by a long shot. It's my arrogance that makes me assume that everyone else's knowledge isn't perfect either.

Posting on this site has helped sharpen and define some of my beliefs and clarified my understandings. I have warm feelings for many of the long time posters that I don't agree with, and even a few of the newbies. Since I come from a scientific / observational background decades long, but I also became a Christian a few years back, I've felt a great deal of the tension that exists between the the 'facts' and the 'Truths' I've learned.

I've tried to walk the razors edge between skepticism and faith, and I think they can co-exist. There is space inside me for these seemingly incompatible mindsets. It's like knowing when to put on the right set of clothes. You dress up for formal logic, wear a uniform for mental discipline, and grab a pair of jeans for jamming-out.

That's why I cringe inside when I see people trying to make religous doctrine logical and scientific - it's a demonstration of faithlessness. And I'm sad, in a way, when I see rationalists make statements of skepticism as if they are proven fact: It's an assault on intellectual honesty.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton:"To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea" - Heretics, CW I, p128.

Anonymous:Too many people are willing to 'kill' for their beliefs, and not enough people are willing to 'die' for them.
So what do I think is right? Whatever builds relationships. Whatever can bring peace, love, joy and purpose.

I would commit suicide before I bowed to a fatal disease.

That's the terrible thing about Alzheimer's and other mental diseases. You don't know that you're sick. It fools you. Your mind rationalizes it all out so it makes perfect sense.

Eveyone knows of course that apes are on quite a different path to humans and that we never descended from or are related to apes, right?

Just being precise - well fussy really.

Kat

Eveyone knows of course that apes are on quite a different path to humans and that we never descended from or are related to apes, right?

Just being precise - well fussy really.

KatWe are related, but not descendant from apes. We simply have a common ancestry.

Wait, I thought we are apes. We aren't chimpanzees or gorillas (or descended from them) but we are apes. That's what I've always thought anyway.

Well, technically we are apes.
Here's a mini family tree type graphic on this page:
- http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Hominidae&contgroup=Catarrhini
As you can see, Orangutans and Gorillas split off earlier than chimps and humans, so chimps are more closely related to us.

That's the terrible thing about Alzheimer's and other mental diseases. You don't know that you're sick. It fools you. Your mind rationalizes it all out so it makes perfect sense.

I think that sometime speople really do know it with some stuff, they just don't want to admit it

so chimps are more closely related to us

Where do bonobos fit in? How closely are we related to them?

Hmm, well saying we are related is problematical since we are genetically related to all life; the differences are just a matter of degree.

But here is a more substantial chart of homo-sapien ancestry.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

And here is a link explaining our origins as “human”.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/primate.html

Enjoy
Kat