evolution: The greatest conspiracy

reply to post by John Matrix

The Creator says to follow His Son

Then why cant you prove that a god said that? All you have is a book and hearsay. You cant prove there are any gods at all.

All you have is those jummy jummy goood feelings you get, and the occational voice in your head that tells presidents to go to war etc.



You keep posting these IRRELEVANT videos, and are realy saying; wheather or not evolution is true, but we SHOULDNT believe in it, because look what those people did!

Thats willingly beeing ignorant and foolish, and one of the main reasons you're kind should be stopped. You're trying to retard humans to a primitive mindstate, because you're brought up ignorant. Well that bolony only works on others that are equally foolish, so GROW up! Evolution happens REGARDLESS of what anyones beliefs are.

I could tell you the VERY same thing.. wheather or not god exists we SHOULDNT believe in him, because people will do horrible things, and just say that god told them to do it.. and people like you will accept it, as history shows.



To acctually think that if evolution is true we will all do evil things, as in your videos, is ROTTEN of you to imply.

You're brainwashed.
You have an agenda.
You're misrepresenting.
You're MISINFORMING.

You making a fool of yourself to the more intelligent and educated rational people here. You are against what this very site is for, to find the truth, to deny ignorance, NOT IMBRACE IT.

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by debunky

 

No one that believes in the God of Love, mercy, compassion, goodness, kindness, empathy, humility, patience, forgiveness or any of the expressions of divine virtue made manifest in the flesh through the Son of God would EVER consider murder as an option.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Those two picked the wrong one too i guess?

But i hate to break it to you John Matrix, you got it backwards.
If you say that man can not distinguish between good and evil without god telling him, you take all responsibility away from the individual. Commited a sin/crime? Go to the confession booth, pay the fine (they abolished that part in the 15th century) and you are good again.

And i actually think the guys who wrote the bible were perfectly aware of that and added the apple bit for that reason.

No responsibility = no free will = no reason for morals

reply to post by Daniem



i'm with jphish on this one, so i'm gonna borrow his translation technique to translate your words below.

You making a fool of yourself to the more intelligent and educated rational people here.

Translation: You are making a fool of yourself to the more righteous and biblically correct, holy people here.

Holy Roman Empire Part Deux! Welcome to the New Age! Where we know-it-all and you don't!



[edit on 4-10-2009 by undo]

reply to post by Daniem

You're trying to retard humans to a primitive mindstate

no, i'm sorry but people of faith have been instrumental in developing science. they just don't expect it to answer moral questions for them, which is their prerogative.

i understand your frustration, believe me, i do. but unfortunately, it's not nearly as cut and dry as it appears on the surface. there are geologists, egyptologists, archaeologists, chemists, physicists, doctors, mathematicians and so on, that are people of faith.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
carbon dating sucketh.


according to their own data, all geological strata have already been pre-dated and named. when a dig takes place, the strata are identified and the appropriate dates assumed. as a result, no new dates are collected with carbon-dating unless the artifact or fossil is important enough to do so. if the item visually does not appear to belong to the already pre-dated layer, it is tossed out as contamination. the reason given is because they can't afford to date each item retrieved in a dig, and there's no reason to date something that obviously is out of place in the pre-dated strata. it is clearly then contamination and is removed from consideration.


with that process, how can you ever arrive at any answer other than the one you want?

convenient!

Actually Carbon dating works just fine. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
www.actionbioscience.org...

reply to post by Pauligirl


i actually found that information while researching the topic. i found it on a site specifically designed to explain the various kinds of dating methods and the procedures they follow, and it wasn't against it at all. it was just stating it like it was fact. if the object is out of place, it's not dated, it's removed as contamination.

Oh wow, Undo, it's removed as contamination?

So, something of quite significance could be removed and garbaged just because it doesn't fit in?

reply to post by idle_rocker


precisely. because it isn't a theory, it's a fact. it's a fact. you hear me, it's a fact! and if you don't know if it's a fact, you are trying to retard humanity and are not intellectual or rational.

/end of my horrible attempt at sarcasm!

i beg the apologies of all and sundry for stooping to bitter sarcasm, as it cheapens my intellectual offering with negative emotions and that ain't where i want to go with this. let me rephrase.......

it appears that they must approach the topic as if it were fact, so that the science may continue. the problem with that is, in the world of empirical process it springs a leak

The sheer volume of ignorance in this thread is enough to pop my head open. However I will try and argue logically with you guys.

For starters anyone who has taken a single intro course in biology or anthropology or any other related science in course knows the following info. How do I know? I'm currently enrolled in an introduction anthropology course.

1) "Evolution is just a theory, its even called the THEORY of evolution."
Theory in the colloquial meaning and scientific meaning mean two different things. In science nothing can be absolutly proven, but everything can be disproven. Theories are simply regarded as the ideas that best explain our current situation, and can be subject to revision or thrown out if another group of ideas come out.

2) "We couldn't have evolved from apes because apes are still with us"
The word "Ape" is a very broad term. It can be used to refer to a number of different species that currently exist. For example, chimpanzees and gorillas are both considered to be part of the Great Ape family. Rather, science calls members of Apes as Hominoids. The last known common ancestor between us and chimpanzees, our closest relatives, was the Sahelanthropus tchadensis, around 7 million years ago. That species in fact does not look like either a chimpanzee or a human because both species have evolved since then. Needless to say, the Sahelanthropus tchadensis is extinct.

3) "evolution can't happen because you can't have half a spider or half an organ to survive"

You are right in that you can't have half an organ and survive. However, no where in evolution is there considered half a lung or half an eye. All of our organs slowly evolve, with each inch towards our modern eye or lung being advantagous in an of itself. For example, early animals did not have eyes. The eye is a very complex organ and one would think that it would not be possible to just leap to an eye. However, here is a hypothetical scenerio that illustrates how something like the eye can evolve:

lets say an animal is born with an indentation on its body. There is nothing disadvantageous so it continues to live. One of its ancestors has a mutation in which light-sensitive neurons cluster around the indentation. This proves advantageous because now the animal can sense light. Lets say one of its ancestors has a mutation in which the indentation becomes deeper and filled with more neurons. Now we can start to see a distinct organ in place, albeit not as complex or advantageous as the modern eye. However the animal can now see moving objects, which proves massively advantageous in avoding predators. This process goes on for millions of years, slowly adding complexity to the eye with each addition making the eye slightly more effective, until we reach the modern eye.

The same can pretty much be said for any other organ. It might take a while to create an organ because maybe it requires a bigger leap than the eye, but considering how most animals generations are a lot shorter than ones we are familiar with, in a couple hundred thousand years the chance of making a small leap is still good.

4) "We don't have complete fossil records showing all of this gradual evolution, so it couldn't have happened"

Fossil records tend to be millions of years in between. It is true that we do not have a complete fossil record to record all of the changes that have happened, however this does not disprove the theory of evolution nor prove the theory of god. It simply means we have to continue looking. An example is the recent discovery of an even older relative of humans. We didn't know about it before, but because we continued searching, we filled in another piece of the puzzle that is human evolution.


In any case, most of you talk about macroevolution. We have seen microevolution in practice. microevolution is like the dept of a finch's beak, macro evolution is a complete evolution from one species to another

Newton and Einstein and many other great scientists believed in a creator. And still they did great things.

Newton for one studied religion more then he did math and Gravity. But that's just not thought our kids in school to day. Because that would raise questions.

To days kids are taught that scientists dont believe in a creation. And today's scientists reject a creation more or less. And that sets marks in most of our believes or our kids believes.

But still NO scientist can prove that everything always was. Their problem is TIME.
Time is a very import factor when it comes to science and geology. Why?

To determine when, how and why things started. The Bible tells the story but our ignorance makes us take to long way to knowledge. We have chosen the try and fail course or just to be ignorant for the sake of being ignorant. Its cool to be a rebel.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

evolutionist: "it's called the THEORY of evolution!"

student: "oh. but what about _________ (insert one of many arguments)?"

evolutionist: "the FACT is __________ (insert one of many "facts" about the "theory")

student: "wait. didn't you say it was a THEORY? why are you saying it's a FACT now?"

evolutionist: "because we all know it's a fact, but we can't prove it's a fact."

student: (scratching head) "hey, isn't that like religion?"

evolutionist: "get out of my class!"

reply to post by undo


*slams head against wall* Did you NOT read my post? I explained the whole damn thing in there! If you are not willing to listen and learn, rather just make the same arguement after I just countered it, what are you here for?

As for Newton studying religion, you have absolutly no evidence that Newton studied religion more than science. You simply make a claim. You should actually back up that claim with, um, evidence.

time, how the irony how you say time is one the bible's side. Scientists have proven that the world is much, much older than a couple thousand years old. If anything the geology you talk about disproves that the Earth is a couple thousand years old. A river can't make a grand canyon in a couple thousand years, it takes 40 million years (en.wikipedia.org...)

[edit on 4-10-2009 by cynic121]

reply to post by cynic121


I realize you are in college and all but I'll be the first to fill you in..... God created science, biology, archaeology, and you.
The "justifications" you cited have been used, and over used, so often in the past.

To listen to you, one would think that for thousands of years, the earth and it's origin, .... well, it's just all been wrong, thus far. BUT, thank goodness *you* came along and set us straight on the truth.

Sigh.

reply to post by nomorecruelty

Right, I make a long and detailed arguement and you counter with no facts, no arguement, no logic, just sarcasm.

Originally posted by cynic121
reply to post by undo

 

*slams head against wall* Did you NOT read my post? I explained the whole damn thing in there! If you are not willing to listen and learn, rather just make the same arguement after I just countered it, what are you here for?

As for Newton studying religion, you have absolutly no evidence that Newton studied religion more than science. You simply make a claim. You should actually back up that claim with, um, evidence.

And in turn, *you* should be held to the same requirement(s) - back up your "theory of evolution" with facts that can't be discredited.

Hint:
All evolution theories have been debunked, and will continue to be debunked.

The Bible, however, can be proven by hundreds of prophecies that have already been fulfilled, and hundreds that will be fulfilled.

In fact, the very notion that you are on this forum right now, trying to debunk God, is a prophecy itself being fulfilled.

reply to post by undo

Oh I absolutely agree with you. I was just astounded to hear they could discard something so irrationally!

reply to post by nomorecruelty


Gee sorry I can't send fossils to you over the internet. All we can do here is make logical arguement. I made one, and if you expect to win the debate then I expect you to make the same effort.

reply to post by cynic121


Your 'argument' can be as lengthy as you want to make it - it still doesn't sway a believer's mind.

I lay the Holy Bible down in front of you for proof. I won't even ask you to debunk it b/c you can't. People have tried, you aren't the first, my friend.

Originally posted by cynic121
reply to post by nomorecruelty

 

Gee sorry I can't send fossils to you over the internet. All we can do here is make logical arguement. I made one, and if you expect to win the debate then I expect you to make the same effort.

Again, I lay the Holy Bible down in front of you as my proof.

Now........... prove to me that every word in there isn't true.

I'll wait.

Originally posted by cynic121
reply to post by undo

 

*slams head against wall* Did you NOT read my post? I explained the whole damn thing in there! If you are not willing to listen and learn, rather just make the same arguement after I just countered it, what are you here for?

As for Newton studying religion, you have absolutly no evidence that Newton studied religion more than science. You simply make a claim. You should actually back up that claim with, um, evidence.

time, how the irony how you say time is one the bible's side. Scientists have proven that the world is much, much older than a couple thousand years old. If anything the geology you talk about disproves that the Earth is a couple thousand years old. A river can't make a grand canyon in a couple thousand years, it takes 40 million years (en.wikipedia.org...)

[edit on 4-10-2009 by cynic121]

I believe it was/is the scientists who first claimed the earth was only a couple of thousand years old.

As a follower of the almighty God, I have never said nor thought that.

And an added note - scientists have also proved that the Grand Canyon was created by a massive amount of water flowing through - at one time. The fossils prove that.