Discussion on the FSM- keep it clean/respectful

Fascinating....since I was winning this little debate I don't see how this is relevant.

Funny.  Easily the funniest thing you've said recently!

Its too bad we couldn't put it to a vote.  I know we have alot of dedicated readers of this thread that just hang in the shadows...its too bad there isn't a way to get their vote on who is actually "winning" this debate.

You enjoy these exchanges as do I. 

Sadly...yes...I really do!

This message has been removed by the administrator.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

 Nothing quantifiable has been demonstrated to prove this flawed theory, nor can it be.

This is my absolute favorite quote from you, STO.  This is exactly what is wrong with the creationist argument.  You have already made your decision, there is no possible other explanation. 

Its that close-minded attitude that makes you impossible to respect in this debate.  No matter how much evidence is provided to you for evolution or the age of the earth, you WILL NOT accept it as possible because it flies against your religious beliefs.

Its the same devotion that your quasi-scientists adhere to and that makes them the laughing stock of the scientific community.

There is no debate amongst scientists that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.  There is no debate amongst scientists that evolution is an accurate description of how life on this planet developed.

No debate!  Period.

Science is resoundingly decided on these issues.

The only debate being waged is within government and school board circles.  Or, as in this case, within the general population.









I'll tell you what, STO.  To prove my open-mindedness about all of this, provide me with ONE documented and verified piece of SCIENTIFIC evidence that shows either the age of the earth to be between 6-10000 years old OR that all life on earth was deposited here during that timeframe in its current form.

Just one, that's all I ask.

So I am clear...I am NOT asking for long, opinionated articles that try to use scientific jargon to disprove the generally accepted age of the planet or how life developed on the planet.  So far, that is all you have done.  Attempting to disprove something is not proving your argument.  I'd like some proof of concept from you.  Let's pretend that the Theory of Evolution was never a consideration and that radiometric dating has never been discovered.

Show me some evidence FOR your understanding of the creation of the planet and all life on it.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

I've shown you as much or more evidence for my position (just go read back through the thread).  Unfortunately, you THROW IT ALL OUT b/c it isn't documented and verified by those who hate the position and have every reason to suppress data against evolution (again, similarly to how it's been proven the global scientific community suppressed data against global warming and had some investigators not blown the cover off of that issue, then it would have never seen the light of day).

So, why hasn't anybody "blown the cover off" of this issue?

I mean, Christianity is the largest single organization on the planet with over 1.2 BILLION followers!  Isn't it rather convenient that the single largest organization on the planet...not to mention the Jews who would also benefit...can't find someone...ANYONE...in the land of academia to blow the lid off this thing?

You talk about all the money that these "evolution scientists" are making from their theories, yet wouldn't it be a huge boon to an organization like the RCC if they could get scientists pointed in this general direction?  The Church, after all, certainly has the resources and the inroads in the scientific community to make it happen if they were so inclined, so what is stopping them?

Don't try to tell me that they wouldn't benefit from it.  Providing proof to the world that the earth is 6-10000 years old and that all life here was placed here in its current form would absolutely benefit The Church!  It would spike their declining church-goer numbers dramatically!  Not to mention they could certainly use some good press right about now!



The reality, STO, for as much as you don't want to (or refuse to) believe it, is that you just can't hide from science forever.  Your precious global warming scandal couldn't hide from it, the hoaxes of the past (including some pretty good evolution ones!) couldn't hide from it, and a 6000 year old planet couldn't hide from it either if it were true!

If any of the evidence FOR creation were valid, it would be verified by scientists outside of their own little clique.  It would have to be.  The global community is just too wide open and the level of communication is just too immense for things to get brushed under a rug like you are suggesting.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

Imo, there is a deliberate agenda to suppress truth in this area b/c it is protecting the incomes of those who make their living in this area.

I think that is very naive of you, STO.  Not to mention self-serving to your own agenda.

While I am sure that a group of scientists could be found to collude together to further their own careers...as was seen in your now infamous dead-horse beating of the global warming scandal.  However, to think that hundreds of thousands of scientists across various fields, countries and religious affiliations would maintain such a widespread falsity just to suppress the religious (And Christian only) right is a bit ludicrous!

As for money, the scientists that brought out the "truth" about such a conspiracy would be famous and wealthy beyond their wildest dreams, so I don't see the financial aspect as realistic at all.

Also, it is a lot easier to control population and push eugenics when you have religion out of the way

I don't buy this one either.  Evolution has not hindered religion in any way, shape or form.  The percentage of religious faithful that actually believe the creation story is miniscule when compared to the general population, STO.  You are in the extreme minority even within your own faith community.

I grew up a Christian and have only met, in my lifetime, a couple of people who believed the creation story as literal truth.  I currently work with one, actually, which is a long story for another day.

Evolution or the earth being billions of years old does not need to infringe upon your faith.

{Mano climbs to the top of Mt. Sinai to get close enough to talk to God.}



Looking up, he asks the Lord. "God, what does a million years mean to you?"

The Lord replies, "A minute."

Mano asks, "And what does a million dollars mean to you?"

The Lord replies, "A penny."

Mano asks, "Can I have a penny?"

The Lord replies, "In a minute."

{Mano climbs to the top of Mt. Sinai to get close enough to talk to God.}



Looking up, he asks the Lord. "God, what does a million years mean to you?"

The Lord replies, "A minute."

Mano asks, "And what does a million dollars mean to you?"

The Lord replies, "A penny."

Mano asks, "Can I have a penny?"

The Lord replies, "In a minute."

And you wonder why I have issues with religion!!

I'm pretty sure that I have linked this site before in this thread, but I thought now would be a good time to do it again.

LINK

This FAQ and all the corresponding links they provide within their answers can pretty much make this entire argument a slam dunk.  They footnote everything they cite, they provide actual scientific data WITH the source material.  This site has been mentioned by the National Center for Science Education as a great resource for science's answers to the questions raised by the creationist moevement.

I urge STO, LTS and any of the other regulars in this thread that have argued for a young earth and the 6 day creation to spend some time browsing this site.  Read the arguments and try to understand them.  PLEASE do so with a mind that is open to the concept that at least the very early portion of the Bible was not meant to be taken as literal.  Some of the articles can get pretty "sciency" and they aren't really my cup of tea in that sense, but they answer ALL of the question thoroughly and honestly.  They completely debunk all of the common myths propagated by the creationists without trying to get anyone to abandon their faith.


Once again, I want to reiterate something I said to STO just a couple of posts ago...Evolution and a 4.5 billion year old planet does NOT NEED TO INFRINGE UPON YOUR FAITH!


It is possible to believe in the Abrahamic God, Jesus as the Saviour, and all of the other doctrine of the Christian faiths and reconcile the fact that the creation story is just that...a story told by ancient man to try and impress upon the faithful how God had his hand in our beginnings when man couldn't have possibly understood the true nature of the world he lived in.

It is possible to believe in the Abrahamic God, Jesus as the Saviour, and all of the other doctrine of the Christian faiths and reconcile the fact that the creation story is just that...a story told by ancient man to try and impress upon the faithful how God had his hand in our beginnings when man couldn't have possibly understood the true nature of the world he lived in.

The topic, from the very begining has it's roots in exactly this.  Not so much Creationsism but Creation vs Chance.  It was not about God vs Science but always about did we get our start vis a vis pure scientifical chance, or is there a Creator involved.

I am of the mind we have pretty much found "creation" as that which leads all roads to todays present.  

If you wish to exchange thoughts on just whose creation this is... then I say have at it.  But, let's not travel any more roads pertaining to any religious zealotry from either the believers or non believers camps. 

The discussion is meant for our entertainment, enlightenment, not simple haranguing for the sake of "self said" personal empowerment.

Believe in what you will .... think more... speak less... compassion counts ...

and the truth will out ...



MoS

The topic, from the very begining has it's roots in exactly this.  Not so much Creationsism but Creation vs Chance.  It was not about God vs Science but always about did we get our start vis a vis pure scientifical chance, or is there a Creator involved.

MoS...if this was the argument, then it would be a purely philosophical one and I'd be open to all avenues.  I have said all along that I have no idea how the universe formed or life got its start on this planet.  I hesitate to accept the concept that it was all set in motion by some omnipotent being because man has a propensity for assigning unknowns to the supernatural.

Its a product of our own arrogance.

"If we can't explain it, it must be unexplainable...therefore 'God' did it!"

It seems unlikely to me that we as a species will ever fully understand our beginnings or that of the universe around us.  Every step closer we take, we seem to get further and further from the answers.  At the end of the day, it all had to originate somehow...but how?  Its a puzzler, no doubt.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

The thing I love most about some of these copy and paste jobs you do is when they quote guys like Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge...both of whom were prominent in your recent articles.  Innevitably, they are mining small parts of quotes that are taken out of context and used to support their ridiculous ideas.

This concept that secular science is falling away from Evolution has been floating around for decades and is completely false.

Here, read THIS.

These creationist articles are laughable when you understand the entirety of the context with which these quotes come from.  All of these scientists they quote mine are no less convinced of evolution and its concepts than any other real scientist on the planet.  I'm sure, STO, that if you looked back through this thread at every post I have made, you could take small parts of my posts and twist them to make it look like I was actually agreeing with your worldview. 

Does that mean that I do agree with you?

Of course not.  It just means you are being completely dishonest and deceiptful in your quest to win the argument.  Welcome to the world of the Creationist Movement!!

This message has been removed by the administrator.

Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins

For the 18 millionth time...nobody is claiming to know anything about man's origins except Y O U!!!

Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.

Who are these "honest scientists"?  Provide me with some names and credentials please.  This is a pretty serious accusation, I sure hope you have some backup, my convoluted friend.

 All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart.

Link

Link

Link

Link

Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that Piltdown Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig, not an ape man!

Doesn't this exact thing fly against your assertion that science, in general, is just trying to promote an erroneous theory?  If there was some kind of collusion amongst scientists to push evolution on people, wouldn't they have just continued to say these two fossils were evidence for evolution?  It seems to me that these two cases are exactly what proves science is working just fine!

In both cases, a conclusion was made by one, or a group of, scientists and then analyzed further by more scientists and corrected.  Science at work, my friend.  So much for your idea that there is some big conspiracy, huh?

Oh wait...I see...when its good for your argument, there's a conspiracy.  When its bad for your argument, the scientists are getting it right!!  You really are good at this creationist stuff, aren't you!!??

Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse, considered the greatest living scientist in France, wrote a book to "launch a frontal assault on all forms of Darwinism." Grasse is not a religious fanatic, yet he called evolution a "pseudo-science."

Oh my dear LORD!!  Do you even bother to do ANY research about this stuff you post???

Here's a bit of homework for you, STO.  Go google Dr. Pierre Grasse and read about him a bit.  Then come back and tell me if he doesn't believe in evolution.

I'll give you a hint...Grasse has also been quoted as saying that he "...agreed with the nearly unanimous scientific consensus that evolution was an historical scientific fact."

Funny how THAT quote didn't make it into your article.

I won't bother to go into the rest of your quotes, but its safe to say that Dr. Luvtrup is also an "evolutionist" by your definition, regardless of the quote you provided.  "Dr." Wilder-Smith is a noted YEC whose writings have been widely criticized as being completely ignorant of the current concept of evolutionary process.

In fact, over a thousand scientists with advanced degrees belong to one group that takes a stand for scientific creationism and against the guess of evolution.

And in 2005 there was an estimated 5.8 MILLION certified scientists on the planet.  How many of that ONE THOUSAND actually have "advanced degrees" in a related field?  Or, are they mostly engineers and computer scientists?