evolution: The greatest conspiracy

reply to post by nomorecruelty


Wrong, the burden of proof lays on the person making the arguement. If you make the claim that the bible is right the burden of proof lays on you to prove that it is correct, not I have the burden of proof to prove it wrong.

After all, by your logic, after I make my claim of evolution the burden of proof lays on you to prove evolution wrong, not the other way around. So far you seem to think the burden of proof is on me to prove evolution correct and the burden of proof is on me to prove the bible wrong. Don't use a double standard.

I made a claim about the grand canyon and gave a link to back me up. You made a claim about the grand canyon and offered no proof to back up your claim.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by cynic121]

If you need "scientific" proof that the Bible is accurate, you can also view this video -

Again, I would ask you to debunk it, but it can't be.





Link

Originally posted by cynic121
reply to post by nomorecruelty

 

Wrong, the burden of proof lays on the person making the arguement. If you make the claim that the bible is right the burden of proof lays on you to prove that it is correct, not I have the burden of proof to prove it wrong.

After all, by your logic, after I make my claim of evolution the burden of proof lays on you to prove evolution wrong, not the other way around. So far you seem to think the burden of proof is on me to prove evolution correct and the burden of proof is on me to prove the bible wrong. Don't use a double standard.

I made a claim about the grand canyon and gave a link to back me up. You made a claim about the grand canyon and offered no proof to back up your claim.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by cynic121]

This thread is titled "Evolution: The greatest conspiracy".

I am in agreement of the thread title's implication.

You are obviously not.

Therefore, the burden of proof lies with you.

Not I.

As well, the Bible has been around for a lot longer than you
have.

I agree with every last word in the Bible.

You obviously do not.

Therefore, again - the burden of proof is on you.

I've heard that arguement before and I want to make one thing clear, I'm not an atheist. I'm a jew that believes in god, I do not, however, think that the bible should be taken word for word. Sodom and Gomorah probably did exist, and they probably were destroyed by an act of nature triggered by a god, but that does not prove that the bible is literal word for word and that does not prove that evolution is wrong.

For example, the bible mearly mentions that angels destroyed the cities, it does not specify which natural disaster meaning that angels are the metaphor for the natural disasters that were likely triggered by some sort of god. That, however, only proves that the bible is not literal word for word and thus does not prove evolution is wrong.

the title's assertion is that evolution is a conspiracy. The burden of proof lies on those who make the assertion. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on others to prove that evolution is a conspiracy.

The bible makes many assertions, you assert that the bible is right, therefore the burden of proof lies on you.



For example, if I assert that my brother is a retard, and you disagree with me, the burden of proof lies on me to prove that my brother is indeed retarded, and not on you to prove that my brother is not retarded.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by cynic121]

Grand Canyon and the Genesis Flood Links


Here

Take your pick on which video you would like to watch

reply to post by cynic121


ouch dude. stop hurting yourself.

to answer your question, "what are you here for?" i answer, that i'm here to
absorb data, lots of data, and not just what is comfortable or mainstream data, but any data. in my meanderings of absorbing data, i realized that some data was being withheld. i wondered how much data was being withheld, so i went in search of that answer. this is what i learned

religion is hiding something
science is hiding something
government is hiding something

and in almost every case it's because it is expedient for whatever reason, to do so.

allow me to give you an example:

date: late 1700s.
friedrich august wolf, a proponent of german higher criticism has just declared that the ancient greeks could not have possibly written their annals, epics and so on, because they couldn't write in the time their materials were said to be written.
archaeology as a science, hasn't been created, therefore, he is basing this belief on an attempt to prove only the biblical texts are historically accurate.
as a result, all the ancient texts, EXCEPT the bible, were eventually removed from historical consideration, as each was supported by the other, and once that foundation was removed, they fell.

with nothing left to support it in literature, the bible was also discarded. this is the beginning of the enlightenment ...founded on nothing but the invalidity of other old texts and with no purpose other than to prove the bible was the premiere and sole source of accurate historical data.

40 years later, after the advent of archaeology, it was discovered the ancient greeks could write. but alas, it was too late for ancient historical texts, because it was now considered ludicrous to believe men could fly or women could conceive outside of sexual congress..etc.. SCIENCE AT ITS FINEST!

now i'm not saying science is bad. nopers. not even. just realize that the near sacred approach they take to it in universities is borrowed from the catholic professors/priests who fomented it to begin with and they expected everyone to agree with them, period.

see how easy that was?

you asked.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by undo]

reply to post by undo


I'm hurting myself by making a logical arguement? Anyway your response had absolutly nothing to do with our debate. I don't know who that enlightenment guy was and he was obviously wrong, but just because some enlightenment philosopher who isn't even taught in school anymore was wrong about the bible doesn't mean evolution is wrong.

Again, you have yet to provide a counter-arguement.

Originally posted by cynic121
I've heard that arguement before and I want to make one thing clear, I'm not an atheist. I'm a jew that believes in god, I do not, however, think that the bible should be taken word for word. Sodom and Gomorah probably did exist, and they probably were destroyed by an act of nature triggered by a god, but that does not prove that the bible is literal word for word and that does not prove that evolution is wrong.

For example, the bible mearly mentions that angels destroyed the cities, it does not specify which natural disaster meaning that angels are the metaphor for the natural disasters that were likely triggered by some sort of god. That, however, only proves that the bible is not literal word for word and thus does not prove evolution is wrong.

So you claim to believe in God but reject His Scriptures?



As far as how the Bible is written - you can use things to argue with, sure......

For example, the "plank" in one's own eye, etc..........

Was an actual "plank" in someone's eye?
Probably not.

Does that mean anything in the Bible is a lie
or not to be taken as truth?

No.

The Bible is written LIKE THAT for a reason - if you
have read the Bible, you would know that.

It's written in parables and other ways because God wants
the true seekers to understand - not the ones who just want
to stir up strife within the "church" i.e. people.

Another good example of this is the 'wheats and tares'.
Are we weeds? No - but it's written that way as a parable,
not literally - however the meaning IS literal.

reply to post by nomorecruelty


For your information I HAVE read the bible. The old testament, that is. i'm getting tired of this. I made a very long logical arguement a page ago and none of you have yet to even try and provide a counter-arguement to mine. I have other work to do an will stay on only a bit longer in order to see if any of you can muster a counter-arguement.

Betcha didn't know that you can list out the first ten male names mentioned in the Bible, then write down their Hebrew meanings beside them - and then read the meanings under the Hebrew's column and it will give you yet another prophecy.

My point, the Bible is not your average literary publication - it has been inspired by the Creator and it doesn't follow the normal "Once upon a time" format.

reply to post by cynic121


i wasn't making a counter argument. i was answering your question about "Why i was here?"

you can see why. i don't take sides. i just get data. now the data suggests that science itself said science wasn't possible. so how am i supposed to believe they know what they are doing now, in each and every incident, especially as it regards things like dating artifacts, when the procedure is far from empirical?

[edit on 4-10-2009 by undo]

Originally posted by cynic121
reply to post by nomorecruelty

 

For your information I HAVE read the bible. The old testament, that is. i'm getting tired of this. I made a very long logical arguement a page ago and none of you have yet to even try and provide a counter-arguement to mine. I have other work to do an will stay on only a bit longer in order to see if any of you can muster a counter-arguement.

Ok, well bye then -


Sorry we didn't respond to *your* standards.




[edit on 4-10-2009 by nomorecruelty]

reply to post by undo


This is yet another example of making a claim without proof. In this case you claim science disproves itself, and yet offer up an obscure philosopher to back up your claim. If your gonna prove that science disproves itself, at least tell me how General Relativity disproves itself or how evolution disproves itself or how chemistry disproves itself.

And this has nothing to do with my standards. I have yet to read a counter-arguement, a collection of assertions backed my facts, so I'm not going to bother with this thread any longer.

reply to post by cynic121


i don't need an obscure philosopher to make my claim.
all you have to do is read history. did they believe men could fly?
did they believe women could get pregnant any other way than through intercourse? did they believe copies of new living things could be made from other living things without reproduction? did they believe people could fly out into the universe (see hindu mahabharata)? or that you could become invisible? or that you could operate a chariot with your mind? of course not. that was the rationale behind tossing out ideas like creation! it wasn't possible to create something living other than via those ways observed.

so clearly they were denying science because they didn't know about science. now that they know more about science, they like to pretend they never said that it wasn't possible in the first place, which was almost their entire foundation for denying such written data from old texts, to begin with!

You are trying to make this complicated when it really isn't.

If you believe in God, Jesus, and the Bible - then why are you even trying to debate another theory as truth?

God created us, the universe and everything else out there. He gave us a book, the Bible, as law and a guide for our lives.

Mankind has scoffed and refused to follow His laws.

Because of that, He will be sending His Son back very soon.

All evil, including evil mankind, will be removed from the
planet - and a new Heaven will be created on this new planet.



What is so hard to grasp about that?

captain pickard from the star ship enterprise speaks a cup of tea into existence


now we know there's science behind such a possibility, involving things like replication of molecules and atoms.

so if we can do this or explain how it is possible to do this, why can't the master scientist (ya know, the guy who claims he spoke things into existence) do this?

Originally posted by cynic121
reply to post by undo

 

I'm hurting myself by making a logical arguement? Anyway your response had absolutly nothing to do with our debate. I don't know who that enlightenment guy was and he was obviously wrong, but just because some enlightenment philosopher who isn't even taught in school anymore was wrong about the bible doesn't mean evolution is wrong.

Again, you have yet to provide a counter-arguement.

Evolution is not wrong. But evolution must be created so it can evolve.

Nothingness cant evolve into anything. A creation must come before evolution.

There is no proof that everything always was. The problem we have is that we cant measure from 1 and back to 0. But we can measure from 0 to 1. Isn't that quite odd?

This is, once again, a topic that ends in stalemate for both those who understand the process of evolution and those who deny it. The first two pages have enough information to make someone finally understand evolution and why it is the best way to explain the existence of life's diversity without having to take the easy way out saying "god/goddess/gods/goddesses did it."

All the evidence supporting evolution is there, and yet many of you STILL say there is no evidence, evolution theory is "immoral", it is an attack on Christianity, etc.

Those claims are simply not true. AT ALL. science has the purpose of explaining the world without taking the easy way out by saying some deity did it and that is that. Science does not speak of morality, because it does not have to. Science is only the study of the natural world, morals are the subject of philosophy and religions. Science is not an attack on religion. It can co-exist nicely with any religion, as long as people are willing to understand that not everything in a holy text is suppose to be taken literally and that there are some scientific errors in these religious texts.

However, if even after all the evidence, you people still disregard it and continue saying that evolution is a lie, then I can't do anything but think that you simply will throw evidence out the window and keep denying evolution theory just because it might conflict with some religious dogma. Today, I have lost some more respect and hope for humanity, for the chains of religion apparently still has a hold on several individuals, who are willing to deny scientific progress because it might conflict with a certain belief.

Today has been my final attempt at debating evolution theory. One, because the theory shouldn't be debated anymore, only how exactly did the process take place. The evidence already makes it clear that evolution has happened is a fact. The "theory" part comes to how. second, someone who already throws evolution out the window and is deeply religious has no hope of understanding this concept. These people will continue holding on to outdated beliefs with the fear that their beliefs are attacked by science. Debate is useless when you can't convince someone that the argument is sound.

Well then, this is my final words in an evolution debate, some people will never admit that this theory is the strongest one in science.

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by debunky

 

When you continually deny God the glory for his handiwork, all hell breaks loose.

Like it or not friends, if you teach people from the time they are children that they are a product of natural processes, survival of the fittest, mutations leading to speciations, etc. and not the result of divine creation with divine purpose to their lives......you destroy moral restraints and moral purpose.

You can act bewildered when we say evolution impacts morality all you want.....but I only need to watch CNN news for 30 minutes to see the evidence of moral decline.

When people are led to believe they are just another animal species that evolved by random processes.....they act like animals.

Hitler and Marx killed millions of people and justified it with their Darwinist beliefs.

Grab a coffee or get some pop corn and enjoy the show.

When people are led to believe they are just another animal species that evolved by random processes.....they act like animals.

Not to get off topic here, but....

You can act bewildered when we say evolution impacts morality all you want.....but I only need to watch CNN news for 30 minutes to see the evidence of moral decline.

Does CNN give a break down on the religious views of the people you see on there? How are you making this leap?


Now, back to Darwin and Hitler.. That show is extremely misleading..
Social Darwinism is not Darwinian evolution.

I suggest you read the whole piece.
dododreams.blogspot.com...

It is hardly surprising, then, that Kennedy's own "talking point" in favor of his claim that "the historical fact [is] that Adolf Hitler was an evolutionist" is a blatant bait-and-switch. Citing the ever-popular unnamed "historians" to the effect that "there’s really not much debate about whether or not Hitler was a social Darwinist," Kennedy hopes that his target audience among the scientifically and historically illiterate won't notice the difference between evolutionary theory and the various social practices that have been labeled as social Darwinism and which invariably had nothing to do with Darwin's science.

Originally posted by undo
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.

Could you please provide a link for that please?