Conquer Club

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

GabonX wrote:For someone with such a good vocabulary, Sultan seems to have a real problem conveying ideas other than how stupid the other party is...

uh i am sorry you guys are incapable of understanding but i said it pretty clearly the first dozen or so times. creationists start with a conclusion and work backwards to find evidence for their beliefs, which is not how science works. john did nothing to reconcile this fact in the half-baked mess he calls a counterpoint, so i insinuated he was a tard. now i am just straight up calling him a tard, because seriously. guy's a tard.

no i am not "out of my league." the one out of his league is the guy who thinks a rigidly defined piece of dogma is a legitimate hypothesis because the imbeciles at the creation institute call it that. that is the kind of base stupidity that only hard drinking during pregnancy or prolonged beatings about the head and neck can cause.

this is not to mention the open-mouthed credulity required of him to take every charlatan with a hate-on for darwin at face value, as if some guy arguing how the earth is only 6,000 years old MIGHT be the one real scientist, ever, with a legitimate and unified criticism of the whole of modern scientific understanding, not just another crackpot from the bible belt armed with a degree from Jerry Falwell's diploma mill

HapSmo19 wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:(of course, you're still an idiot for giving any credence whatsoever to creationists but that is not the current subject, as much)

Why? Because biological engineering is an impossibility?

PLAYER57832 wrote:John9blue is not necessarily agreeing with the Creation Institute, but when you assert that belief in God is counter to science, you have to realize you are just feeding into Creation Institute type arguments. You are as bad as them. Worse, because you claim to know better.

PLAYER57832 wrote:
You can generally tell when someone is out of their league .. they stop debating and start dropping insults.

xelabale wrote:Belief in god =/= knowledge of god's existence. We can't know. Of course we can choose to believe. Ask Descartes, it was a major counterargument to his beliefs...

xelabale wrote:oooh ooh, one more thing, belief in god is neither scientific or unscientific since it is not part of science - now go enjoy the long weekend and stop thinking existentially.

jonesthecurl wrote:

xelabale wrote:oooh ooh, one more thing, belief in god is neither scientific or unscientific since it is not part of science - now go enjoy the long weekend and stop thinking existentially.

This thread is not about whether there is/are god/s.
It is about evolution vs creation.

Snorri1234 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:
You can generally tell when someone is out of their league .. they stop debating and start dropping insults.

Actually, he is completely right there. Since any theory about God is not falsifiable, there is no science you can do about it. There is no scientific evidence to support god, which isn't a problem because god is as mentioned not falsifiable so there is no counterevidence either.

xelabale wrote:oooh ooh, one more thing, belief in god is neither scientific or unscientific since it is not part of science - now go enjoy the long weekend and stop thinking existentially.

MeDeFe wrote:

xelabale wrote:oooh ooh, one more thing, belief in god is neither scientific or unscientific since it is not part of science - now go enjoy the long weekend and stop thinking existentially.

Actually, I think belief in god is by definition unscientific since it is not part of science.

jonesthecurl wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

xelabale wrote:oooh ooh, one more thing, belief in god is neither scientific or unscientific since it is not part of science - now go enjoy the long weekend and stop thinking existentially.

Actually, I think belief in god is by definition unscientific since it is not part of science.

mebbe so, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's anti-scientific, whereas creationism is.

jonesthecurl wrote:Exactly: as has been pointed out numerous times it is possible to believe in the Christian god and in evolution.
The thread was started to be about the supposition that evolution is "just a point of view", not about whether there's a god or gods.
I know things wander off track sometimes, but there's an awful lots of pages on this subject, and it would be a pity to lose sight of what the debate is over now. Probably.

xelabale wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Exactly: as has been pointed out numerous times it is possible to believe in the Christian god and in evolution.
The thread was started to be about the supposition that evolution is "just a point of view", not about whether there's a god or gods.
I know things wander off track sometimes, but there's an awful lots of pages on this subject, and it would be a pity to lose sight of what the debate is over now. Probably.

Ah, ok, the easy questions. Evolution exists. It is provable, demonstrable, repeatable experiments are possible. The mechanism is known. There is no evidence against, the closest being lack of evidence for, such as gaps in the fossil record. Why the debate?

If that's the starting premise then maybe remove the creationism tag from the title as that necessarily brings in the question of God's existence, as you pointed out, a different question...

xelabale wrote:Just to be provocative would you agree that if God exists there must have been a creation event of some kind?

PLAYER57832 wrote:OK, this topic keeps coming up, so apparently people still feel its a valid discussion.

If somebody has something other than "read the Bible" ,(to which I say "I do!") .. and then the response "but you cannot because you think differently than I".... I would love to hear it.

For example, someone mentioned that seashells are found on mountains. Very true, but this is part of the proof for uplift of the earth's surface (think of pushing one paper against another, or a blanket making lumps and hills).

How do we know this is true?

1. Because the layers match exactly -- not just approximately, but EXACTLY (chemically, animal fossils, etc.)
They match BOTH in other sections in what would be a smooth sheet (think of a layer cake that a child rams a truck into. Parts of it buckle up -- like mountains. AND they match across valleys, sometimes areas of quite a distance (to get back to the cake, think of the kid taking out handfuls of cake, making "valleys" or someone splitting it into two pieces and pulling them to separate parts of a table)

2. AND, because in some instances we have actually seen these processes occur within human lifetimes.

3. Because the exact same things occur over and over and over all around the Earth in ways not explained by other means.