Creation vs. Intelligent Design vs. Aliens vs. Evolution vs. Atheism

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs

 

Exactly...and those ancient people believed the earth to be flat...and we have plenty of evidence of that. That's why I'm hesitant, and believe others should be too, to believe any other of their claims unless it's backed up with objective evidence. Their ways at explaining how it all started are NOT backed up by objective evidence

Not very likely when they can just look up and see two simalar objects in the sky! Sorry you can believe the bull crap that's laid out for you if you choose. I just flat don't buy it.Get it.
I can get up on the roof of my house and tell the world we're on is a sphere.



:

reply to post by randyvs


We have written claims of the world being flat, people died because they said otherwise!! It's not something you can really doubt

It's 5am over here, but if you want I can post 10+ cases of ancient civilizations believing the earth to be flat. Just read up on the Mayans

Just a bit too tired now because of that fool trying to convince people Chinese free trade zones in the US are in reality forward military spy bases in some other thread

reply to post by MrXYZ


Written claims that you believe? From then ? No way! Really?

It's 5am over here, but if you want I can post 10+ cases of ancient civilizations believing the earth to be flat. Just read up on the Mayans

We really don't have anything the Mayans wrote, next to nothing as understand it. So don't bother I can tell you're beat. As in tired , that's all I mean. Thing is I don't care what a few groups of blood thirsty, human sacrificing cannibals thought any way. Even though what you suggest is even more perposterous when you think about it. Given the celestial knowledge they're being proven to have had.







The claims of no objective evidence. that's something I have to allow you to cling to. I can definetly say in retort, that as a man of science. For you not to appreciate the work other people diid trying to ensure the scripture would endure.
As a matter of importance. Not fairytales. I feel very strongly you are showing your hipocracy unbound..
I know well and sure you wouldn't appreciate it at all. If the shoe were to the other foot.

reply to post by randyvs

The Maya believed the Earth was flat with four corners.

In early Egyptian[8] and Mesopotamian thought the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean

Many pre-Socratic philosophers considered the world to be flat, at least according to Aristotle.[17] According to Aristotle, pre-Socratic philosophers, including Leucippus (c. 440 BC) and Democritus (c. 460–370 BC) believed in a flat Earth.[18][19] Anaximander (c. 550 BC) believed the Earth to be a short cylinder with a flat, circular top that remained stable because it is the same distance from all things.[20][21] Anaximenes of Miletus believed that "the earth is flat and rides on air; in the same way the sun and the moon and the other heavenly bodies, which are all fiery, ride the air because of their flatness."[22] Xenophanes of Colophon (c. 500 BC) thought that the Earth was flat, with its upper side touching the air, and the lower side extending without limit.[23] Belief in a flat Earth continued into the 5th-century BC. Anaxagoras (c. 450 BC) agreed that the Earth was flat,[24] and his pupil Archelaus believed that the flat Earth was depressed in the middle like a saucer, to allow for the fact that the Sun does not rise and set at the same time for everyone.[25]

In ancient China, the prevailing belief was that the Earth was flat and square,

Most ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth,

Wikipedia is your friend, the only major empire that didnt really believe the earth was flat was the islamic empire.

reply to post by TheDebunkMachine


Like I said, there's really no doubt that a ton of cultures believed the earth to be flat

There's obviously a difference between the information in ancient texts. If they state a BELIEF, you know what they believed...which doesn't necessarily mean what they believed is correct. For example, we know they believed the earth to be flat, which is obviously wrong as we now know. That's why finding out about beliefs doesn't turn them into facts...

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Evolution makes no claim to how life began. How convienient.

Atheists don't even have a clue.

The truth is that nobody has a clue. Atheists are prone to admit they don't know and are okay with not knowing. The theist makes the claim that they do know, though their explanation lacks merit.

Originally posted by molonlabe33
You mis-understand some of ideas. The Ancient Astronaught theorists are, and must be, Evolutionists. The more intelligent among them believe that non-human entities came to Earth long ago and manipulated the DNA of an existing creature, cave men if you will, and thus created man as we know it. This has not been dis-proven yet.

Ancient alien hypothesis hasn't been proven. And perhaps it hasn't been dis-proven, but it's fairly easy to rule out that such a thing could even be a possibility by examining the DNA record.

Atheists are simply people that rightly believe that it is foolish to wave your hands at the sky and ask favor from some statue or another. They are wrong however, about there being an absence of God in the world. They just don't know it yet.

Atheists simply don't believe the claims of theists. If you claim that it's wrong believe there's an absence of god(s) in this world I'd say you need to provide the proof to the contrary.

reply to post by MrXYZ

That's why finding out about beliefs doesn't turn them into facts...

This isn't exactly information you know?

I'm not at all trying to say you people don't know what you've read on wiki. Where is the proof you guys are always talking about? You guys are victims of selective reading or something. Cause I know damn well if you were walking de eart back then, You gents wouldn't be that stupid. Nor I, I don't believe what you read!

The truth is that nobody has a clue. Atheists are prone to admit they don't know and are okay with not knowing. The theist makes the claim that they do know, though their explanation lacks

No that's either wrong or a lie. Theists claim that God knows and you wish you did.



Shall we agree not to butt heads on this one any longer. It's going no where and we may as well terminate early..

reply to post by randyvs


What selective reading??? They found artefacts and ancient text that clearly state what they believed...it's objective evidence of their belief. Wikipedia's convenient because it quotes several sources, but you could wast time and look for the individual sources yourself I guess.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs

 

What selective reading??? They found artefacts and ancient text that clearly state what they believed...it's objective evidence of their belief. Wikipedia's convenient because it quotes several sources, but you could wast time and look for the individual sources yourself I guess.

Well I thought you guys had an allergy to ancient text. Selective ?

Maybe "cherry picking" will ring a bell.

reply to post by randyvs


Don't you see the difference???

If people talk about their beliefs in ancient texts, it only proves one thing...what they believed in. Furthermore, it clearly doesn't mean their statements are facts given the absence of objective evidence.

It's not that I'm selectively believing stuff, I'm being objective. If they state the earth is flat on an ancient scroll, I'm gonna take it for what it is...some guy during that time claiming the earth is flat. It tells me his BELIEF.

Now, taking their belief for face value and pretend it's reality is wrong. It's clearly wrong because witness testimony or a statement of belief isn't proof or scientific evidence. So one guy saying the earth is flat is just that, a guy stating a belief...and not accurate, objective evidence that the earth is flat.

Same goes for god in various scriptures. I fully accept the fact that those people believed what they wrote about, but in the absence of objective proof, those believes are pure speculation and it would be crazy to accept them as reality.

Creationist. Completely reject reality. 99% of them were brainwashed too hard in their youth.

ID people. Pretty much the same than above.

Alien folks. Wishful thinking. Rejection of reality (like above).

Evolution. What all evidence points to and all studies confirm. The only rational stance.

Atheists. Don't believe into Santa Claus or other related imaginary beings.

Also does anyone believe that OP is a biochemist? I for one, do not. Double helix just happened to happen? Dude it forms spontaneously from matching ssDNA. As a biochemist you should have known this. You should have also known that we most likely got to dsDNA from RNA world.

Same goes for god in various scriptures. I fully accept the fact that those people believed what they wrote about, but in the absence of objective proof, those believes are pure speculation and it would be crazy to accept them as reality.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Is eyewitness testmony admissable as evidence in a court of law.? Yes. So is written and notorised evidence.
The Bible could be seen as evidence if you hard heads could just imagine a few things.

I admit, I detest the way you people ridicule any ancient text. You're supposed to be men of knowledge and common sense. Really how old are we? To ridicule something as valueble as the Bible is childish.




Sorry I could prolly use a nap.

Personal opinion: I believe we may have been "planted" here by the aliens and they have been "watching" us ever since. I mean we have never actually found the "missing link", have we??
The question is: is this an experiment? Or something else??

Originally posted by haggisbingo
I mean we have never actually found the "missing link", have we??

Link between what?

Originally posted by haggisbingo
Personal opinion: I believe we may have been "planted" here by the aliens and they have been "watching" us ever since. I mean we have never actually found the "missing link", have we??

Your hypothesis is resting on an argument from personal incredulity. In other words, we haven't found the "missing link" (though some believe we have), therefore my alien hypothesis is valid. It doesn't work that way. You need to provide positive evidence favoring your hypothesis.

Originally posted by randyvs

Same goes for god in various scriptures. I fully accept the fact that those people believed what they wrote about, but in the absence of objective proof, those believes are pure speculation and it would be crazy to accept them as reality.

reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Is eyewitness testmony admissable as evidence in a court of law.? Yes. So is written and notorised evidence.
The Bible could be seen as evidence if you hard heads could just imagine a few things.

I admit, I detest the way you people ridicule any ancient text. You're supposed to be men of knowledge and common sense. Really how old are we? To ridicule something as valueble as the Bible is childish.

edit on 7-2-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Sorry I could prolly use a nap.

edit on 7-2-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

There's a big difference between the interpretation of law, and science. The law allows for subjective evidence, science doesn't...

Also, I am not ridiculing ancient texts, they're certainly interesting and show how people lived and what they believed. However, claiming they somehow know stuff they can't possibly know...like how life started...just based on their scriptures is silly, as they state a belief and NOT facts. At least they're not valid evidence until they're backed up by OBJECTIVE evidence.

The bible shows only one thing, namely what people believed during the time those scriptures where written...nothing more, and nothing less. It most certainly isn't objective evidence of god's existence or evidence of how life started. And how could it, the people back then didn't have 1% of the knowledge we have today. Hell, a 12 year old today has on average more knowledge than the most knowledgeable person 2,000 years ago when it comes to science and math.

Originally posted by randyvs
The Bible could be seen as evidence if you hard heads could just imagine a few things.

The bible is notoriously inaccurate in its claims about the physical world. Using such an inaccurate text as a source of evidence would be a dangerous venture.

I admit, I detest the way you people ridicule any ancient text. You're supposed to be men of knowledge and common sense. Really how old are we? To ridicule something as valueble as the Bible is childish.

The bible has some things that could be useful, though, on the whole it's not inappropriate to ridicule it. After all, ridicule is just the act of demonstrating that something is ridiculous and the bible records some things that clearly are just that.

reply to post by randyvs

The Bible could be seen as evidence if you hard heads could just imagine a few things.

The "bible" (or, "buy-bull") is loaded with BS and contradictions.

Not just ME, who has noticed....but lots and lots of honest people, who look with critical eyes, and aren't swayed by the fluff....

Here rough, raunchy language...(but only one ...OK, two, of George Carlin's infamous "Seven Words"....). So, cover your childrens' ears (although, they probably know the word already, anyhow.....):

Double post...nap time