54,559,615

Pages

498 posts / 0 new
Last post
espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Plainsman.... With the lottery, its the law of probability that guarantees their will be a winner eventually. That is why they often times end up with such huge jackpots... Cause they may have to have x number of draws and end up selling x number of tickets before one is sold that ends up matching the draw.... Completely by chance. Not because of any "guarantee" in the sense u keep describing it. When the jackpot gets huge, it is almost certain there will be a winner because they know they are gonna sell 200,000,000 (for example) tickets and even with odds as great as ! In 175,000,000, u will likely (although not 100% on this particular draw) have a winner. Regarding payout... They have a guaranteed payout.. its a certain % of tickets sold.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

And its completely different than pch... Pch draws a ticket from a batch of existing tickets. Under that scenario, its impossible not to have a winner. So, yes.... The guarantee a winner on their draws.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Plainsman Said:

guywhofishes Said:
That's like saying you'll build a car by assembling it slowly, one part every 1000 years. What keeps the elements from destroying the car while it waits for each new part?

A perfect example and that's how they developed the idea of irreversible complexity.    Lets pretend the car is a human.  Evolution tells us if it develops something advantageous to the species the species retains it in it's genetic code.  So the car develops a steering wheel.  It has no wheels to run on, no motor, no transmission, no frame etc.  Why would the steering wheel be retained? A human cell is a hundred times more complex than a car.  What's the chance of a cell spontaneously generating with all of it's parts at once? Maybe one in ten trillion or more?  I don't know, but it's beyond our comprehension. Whatever the chances are it is far beyond the statistic chances of it happening.

wow, you really don't understand evolution at all.  Looking at lots of evidence and fossils does help. I recommend you try it. 

you really think that one day a species was born with 2 fully functional wings (a steering wheel)?

example, there are a handfull of species of tree dwelling snakes within a certain group that like to launch themselves from the branches of a tree when disturbed or just to get to the next tree.  Some of them have no ability to glide at all, some have the ability to compress their body to glide a little, and a few others have developed the muscle and bone structure to completly flatten and expand their bodies to glide from tree to tree.  now thats not wings, but it has to at least give you an idea of the early stages of how wing development starts to take place.

Feathers (steering wheels) didn't come because a flying creature needed them, feathers slowly evolved from scales on raptor like dinosaurs and that group of animals didn't learn to glide for quite some time after.  Ever look at a turkey and a deinonychus skeleton side by side?  take away the skull, & tail and you have virtualy the same skeletal structure, even with hollow bones, but hollow bones came way before feathers and birds, not because of feathers and birds.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs

You have to remember evolution doesn't evolve something because it's needed, it randomly evolves something, and it either gets used as a tool to survive and to pass on that genetic trait or it doesn't and it never develops any further.  either way it takes lots of tiny steps to get that steering wheel.

Now there is a specie in nearly every group of vertebrates that has taken to the sky in some way or another.  mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and even fish.  They have all evolved these abilities differently and independently from one another and many of them have very close relatives that are less able to fly or glide but those relatives show us great examples of the flight tool's in development.  Evolution is many many many series of random accidents, some get used, some don't

Mutations do not form because they are required, requirement uses mutations.

Evolution is not improvement, it is change.  Snakes and whales lost their legs, the ostrich lost its wings, but you can look at snakes, whales, and an ostrich, and see the leftovers.  whales have leg bones, snakes have leg bones, flightless birds have small nearly useless limbs that used to be wings.  So why would a steering wheel be retained....I don't know, why are legs and wings retained?

Back to the, "why are there no species in between humans and that ape we came from?"  There was, and there were lots of them, some of which existed along with us, but are now extinct.  these are a few examples, they aren't fabricated, the bones and fossils exist.  When religious people tell the folks that unearthed these clues to our history that they are fabricated fossils to test faith, they laugh and go about their day because they aren't trying to prove anything to you, they are out to discover. 
 

We were on the way to evolve into a half dozen or so new species until we learned to cross continents and break down the walls of our genetic separations reuniting our species only after we made some drastic visual changes.

All the different races of people didn't come from adam and eve 2,000 years ago.  A sample of anyone's DNA can trace their lineage right back to one of 5 groups that left central africa.  There are also way too many genetic diseases today (over 6,000) which disproves Adam and Eve and the 2,000 year timeline.

The fact is any one or any group of people that argues against earth's timelines and the evolution of the life here doesn't have the evidence to contadict it, just hypothesis, a hypothesis cannot become a theory without evidence and tests, and then more evidence and tests by other people over and over and over again.  Hypothesis is just and idea, and so far the hypothesis of irreducible complexity, creationism, great floods, and shorter timelines can not be called theories because they have virtually no evidence, no tests, and no peer reviews that allows them to stand any where close to the evidence we have for evolution and the formation of the earth and our solar system 4.56 billion years ago.  So remember that when you say evolution is "just a theory"  because religion doesn't have any theories of its own.

some of you equate science as a religion.  science is not a religion, it is a method.  

some of you say science and religion are equally bad or evil.  No!  Not true.  No one kills in the name of science, no one kills because of science, no one kills because science told them to.  yes, the scientific method was used to make bullets, to make bombs, and to make the paper your bibles were written on.  science is a tool and a method humans used to discover and figure things out.  science is not a reason, and is no more responsible for bad things than a gun is.

some of you say you have to have faith in evolution to believe evolution.  Wrong!  the puzzle pieces (evidence) is put together to show us a picture.  We form a hypothesis about the picture. we have others test the picture, we gather more puzzle pieces to the picture. that picture is what we call evolution today and we are still gathering evidence and piecing each part together to give us a clearer look and definition of that picture.

Pickerel Tamer's picture
Pickerel Tamer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 10/1/10

Alright, I'm back for just a bit. Let's get away from the grand canyon, the lottery odds, and all of the other random side topics for a second and let me ask a few questions for Mr. multi-species-angler. I debated as to whether or not this was PM-worthy, but I decided to post this because others may be thinking the same thing and I also have every intention of keeping this civil (and I hope anybody that comments on it does as well).

Getting back to the original side topic, religion. Multi, from what I gather you were apparently raised Catholic and were married in a Catholic church (the one I attend and just came from 15 minutes ago). Here arises my questions. Below is the Catholic wedding vows.

Catholic wedding vows are usually preceded by three questions from the priest:

"(Name) and (name), have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?"

 

"Will you honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?"

 

"Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?"

The bride and groom respond "I will" or "yes".

 

 

Priest (or deacon): Since it is your intention to enter into marriage, join your right hands, and declare your consent before God and his Church.

 

Groom: I, (name), take you, (name), to be my wife. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.

 

Bride: I, (name), take you, (name), to be my husband. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.

It's ideal if you memorize the words of consent; doing so emphasizes that your consent to be married is truly heart-felt. Memorizing the words of consent in the weeks and months leading up to the wedding is also a good spiritual practice that will help you to focus on the deeper meaning of your marriage.

 

If you're worried about forgetting the words, or being too emotional to say them clearly, many priests and deacons will have you repeat the words of consent after them, phrase by phrase. The Rite of Marriage doesn't actually suggest this, though; instead, it offers this simple alternative:

Priest: (Name), do you take (name) to be your wife? Do you promise to be true to her in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love her and honor her all the days of your life?

 

Groom: I do.

 

Priest: (Name), do you take (name) to be your husband? Do you promise to be true to him in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love him and honor him all the days of your life?

 

Bride: I do.

In the United States, Catholic wedding vows may also take the following form:

Groom: I, (name), take you, (name), for my lawful wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

 

Bride: I, (name), take you, (name), for my lawful husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

Again, you can also simply respond to the priest’s question:

Priest: (Name), do you take (name) for your lawful wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do you part?

 

Groom: I do.

 

Priest: (Name), do you take (name) for your lawful husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do you part?

 

Bride: I do.

The priest acknowledges that the couple have declared their consent to be married, prays for God's blessing on the couple, and declares, "What God has joined, men must not divide". This is the point at which, sacramentally, the bride and groom become wife and husband.

 

The Blessing of Rings follows the declaration of consent. (Again, it is ideal for the bride and groom to memorize these lines.) The priest says a blessing over the wedding rings and then the couple exchange wedding rings:

Groom (placing the wedding ring on his wife's ring finger): (Name), take this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

 

Bride (placing the wedding ring on her husband's ring finger): (Name), take this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

The General Intercessions (sometimes called Prayers of the Faithful or Bidding Prayers) follow, and then, if the sacrament of marriage is being celebrated within Mass, the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
 
You may be wondering whether you can write your own Catholic wedding vows. Because the Rite of Marriage does not provide an option for couples to write their own vows, however, it is unlikely that the priest or deacon who assists at your wedding will allow you to do so. One option for couples who want to publicly express their love in their own words would be to include a personal statement in the printed wedding program. Another possibility: exchange a profession of love during the reception.

Having read all of this and being familiar with it, here are my questions:

1. Since you have denounced your individual faith, has your wife done the same as well?
2. Do your children believe in God? If not, why? Were they ever given a chance to believe in God, or were they to be chastised by you if they chose to believe?
3. Denouncing your faith and choosing not to raise your children in the image and likeness of God is a direct rejection of  your marriage vows. Why is that less important than cheating on your wife? You follow some of your vows I am certain (such as planning to love and honor your wife for as long as you live). This doesn't always happen with everybody obviously, and the most common ways that people knowingly reject their wedding vows is through adultery and divorce. Why are you now picking and choosing which vows to follow? Why follow any vows at all? These are, after all, Catholic wedding vows that you're semi-following.

 



guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

You evolution folks are hopeless. I asked how the simplest life forms came into existance and all I get is "you give something enough time and it randomly gets into the incredibly complex form of being able to reproduce and start evolving.".
Really? That's all you got? Is there a shred of evidence how evolution was able to get from inanimate non-reproducing chemicals to a living cell with complex code guiding the trillions of reactions/functions necessary for its continued existance and its reproducing another copy of itself?

Even a theory as to how the billions of reactions happened without genetic code guiding them? Any theory at all? (Beyond" it was a one in a million billion trillion chance but enough time goes by it HAD to happen"?

If that's your only answer then explain why there aren't other life forms on the moon, mars, etc. using other elements instead of carbon as the base? Surely enough time has passed, not?

 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

1. Since you have denounced your individual faith, has your wife done the same as well?

She doesn't really take a stance, she doesn't claim a religion, she isn't interested in practicing a religion, she doesn't believe in it, but also hasn't completely written off the possibility of a higher power.  I don't recall standing on a mountain top and "denouncing my faith"  I never really had any in the religious sense.

2. Do your children believe in God? If not, why? Were they ever given a chance to believe in God, or were they to be chastised by you if they chose to believe?

We have no religious teachings in our family, and there is hardly ever a mention of a god or religion (not on purpose).  I have never told them things like "there is no god"  but I have told them a few times that theres no such thing as ghosts at bedtime.  We don't ban religion in our home, we just don't subscribe to it.  Like a magazine, it just doesn't come to our door.  We don't purposely avoid religion as something to be avoided, we just don't practice it.  My kids can choose a religion anytime they want.  However, I don't see it happening since my 9 year old son has personally dug up and studied more fossils than most average people even knew existed.  we don't hunt fossils as father and son to disprove religion, we have never talked about how something contradicts someone elses belief.  He has genuine interest in science, dinosaurs, fossils, geology etc. because he loves it, he doesn't care about religion, or if its real, right or wrong, he only cares about whats under the next rock and figuring out how it got there.  I'm not about to toss the religion monkey wrench into his gears of fun.  The 4 year old has had some seriously critical questions about santa claus and I think this was her last year believing what we told her. 

3. Denouncing your faith and choosing not to raise your children in the image and likeness of God is a direct rejection of  your marriage vows. Why is that less important than cheating on your wife? You follow some of your vows I am certain (such as planning to love and honor your wife for as long as you live). This doesn't always happen with everybody obviously, and the most common ways that people knowingly reject their wedding vows is through adultery and divorce. Why are you now picking and choosing which vows to follow? Why follow any vows at all? These are, after all, Catholic wedding vows that you're semi-following.

I agreed to mary catholic as more of a tradition than I did to accept the catholic rule book.  if you call that cheating on my wife, its fine with me and my wife is ok with it too.  In the catholic classes they taught us birth control was a sin and we had to promise to use planned parenting (pull & pray) We never followed that rule either.  Have you ever wore a condom?  ever been with a girl on birth control? if you say I rejected my marriage vows, than I rejected my marriage vows.  the four of us can live with that....happily.  But show me one person that has followed a religious books rules 100% and doesn't pick and choose which rules to follow.

Contrary to most of your views, we don't have atheist study hour at the kitchen table.  we just don't have religion, we don't pray, we don't go to church.  many of you have mentioned several times that an atheist turns to god on their death beds or in scary moments.  not true, not true at all.  You wouldn't pray that a unicorn will swoop down and rescue you from a car crash because you don't believe in unicorns.  I don't reject religion, I just don't believe it.  I've been on a death bed, I have had scary medical problems, and never once turned to a prayer, but not because I held back the urge, I just don't believe it.

You don't believe scientology, and you don't practice it.  Do you sit down with your kids at night and teach them its bad and why it's not real.

Believe it or not, you only disbelieve one less religion than I do.  understand why you don't pray to buddha or go to the church of scientology, and you'll kinda see why I don't either.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

guywhofishes Said:
You evolution folks are hopeless. I asked how the simplest life forms came into existance and all I get is "you give something enough time and it randomly gets into the incredibly complex form of being able to reproduce and start evolving.".
Really? That's all you got? Is there a shred of evidence how evolution was able to get from inanimate non-reproducing chemicals to a living cell with complex code guiding the trillions of reactions/functions necessary for its continued existance and its reproducing another copy of itself?

Even a theory as to how the billions of reactions happened without genetic code guiding them? Any theory at all? (Beyond" it was a one in a million billion trillion chance but enough time goes by it HAD to happen"?

If that's your only answer then explain why there aren't other life forms on the moon, mars, etc. using other elements instead of carbon as the base? Surely enough time has passed, not?

Evolution is how existing life changes into different life forms, not how life was started.

No one has the exact answer for that yet,  a handfull of hypothesis, and a few theories but we are still gathering evidence, running tests and experiments, and using the scientific method to figure it out.  Heres a little insight on some of the evidence and what we've figured out so far.  and judging by the tract these researchers are on, its only a matter of time before they have an answer for you.

scroll to 15:30 and begin watching there.

DirtyMike's picture
DirtyMike
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 10/26/11

You're right, and believing that some bearded guy created sections of this world for six days and propped his feet up in the seventh is so easy to digest mentally.  

guywhofishes Said:
You evolution folks are hopeless. I asked how the simplest life forms came into existance and all I get is "you give something enough time and it randomly gets into the incredibly complex form of being able to reproduce and start evolving.".
Really? That's all you got? Is there a shred of evidence how evolution was able to get from inanimate non-reproducing chemicals to a living cell with complex code guiding the trillions of reactions/functions necessary for its continued existance and its reproducing another copy of itself?

Even a theory as to how the billions of reactions happened without genetic code guiding them? Any theory at all? (Beyond" it was a one in a million billion trillion chance but enough time goes by it HAD to happen"?

If that's your only answer then explain why there aren't other life forms on the moon, mars, etc. using other elements instead of carbon as the base? Surely enough time has passed, not?


multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09
guywhofishes Said:
Really? That's all you got? Is there a shred of evidence how evolution was able to get from inanimate non-reproducing chemicals to a living cell with complex code guiding the trillions of reactions/functions necessary for its continued existance and its reproducing another copy of itself?

 

just watch the video guy

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

An anology that may help pickeral tamer understand my household.  Lets say you and your whole family plays basketball and every one you know plays basketball.  Then you meet my family, and we don't play basketball.  we don't hate basketball, we just don't play it.  we've went to a few basket ball games, but just don't play.  and really can't give you much of a reason why we don't play.  we just occupy our time with other things.

Pickerel Tamer's picture
Pickerel Tamer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 10/1/10

I'm not picking on you multi, and your explanations mostly make sense. Except for why you chose to get married in the Catholic church in the first place? If you knew that it was for nothing else but "tradition", why bother? Why not go to a courthouse? Why not have an outdoor wedding? You CHOSE to get married in a Catholic church, you CHOSE to stand up in front of your family and friends and your wife's family and friends, the priest, and the entire Catholic religion and you VOICED and AGREED that your marriage would include doing the things that I pointed out. I didn't say that you cheated on your wife, I said that violating the vows that I highlighted is no different than cheating on your wife, since that too is breaking a vow.

Are your family and your wife's family and all of your friends aware that you have gone away from the church and your marriage vows? How do they feel about that? Has anybody ever spoken out about it to you?

What do you do for Christmas? Easter? These are religious holidays, celebrating the birth and death and resurrection of Christ. Do you not recognize Christmas now? I know that you do, since you made a mention of your younger child having serious questions about Santa Claus now. Do your children know that Christmas isn't about trees and presents, but that the real meaning is that it's the celebration of the birth of Christ?

If I didn't like basketball, I wouldn't pay any attention to it, and I don't. Why do you pay partial attention to Christmas?

This fascinates me, and please don't take this as a personal attack. I've just never come across a case like this before. I know plenty of people that don't do diddly about their faith, but they either weren't catholic or they didn't voice openly by throwing out theory after theory on evolution, massive biological data, etc like you have. Would you now feel comfortable going back in time and standing on the alter of the church on your wedding day giving a powerpoint presentation with all that you've written on this thread to all in attendance about why you're not going to follow the religion that you're getting married under?



guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

15:30 of the show is the memory scientist. I don't get the connection with origin of life.

 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

This fascinates me, and please don't take this as a personal attack. I've just never come across a case like this before. I know plenty of people that don't do diddly about their faith, but they either weren't catholic or they didn't voice openly by throwing out theory after theory on evolution, massive biological data, etc like you have. Would you now feel comfortable going back in time and standing on the alter of the church on your wedding day giving a powerpoint presentation with all that you've written on this thread to all in attendance about why you're not going to follow the religion that you're getting married under?

for the 5th time, I havn't presented all the previous evidence to disprove or attack religion, I presented it to address the religious folks initial questions and mostly the rediculous comments like "fossils are fabricated" "evolution is not real science" "formation of the grand canyon is a fabricated lie" and it all started on this thread from the original statement that non believers have no morals and can't tell right from wrong.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

guywhofishes Said:
15:30 of the show is the memory scientist. I don't get the connection with origin of life.

Push play, then scroll and start watching at 15:30

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

If I didn't like basketball, I wouldn't pay any attention to it, and I don't. Why do you pay partial attention to Christmas?



just because I don't play doesn't mean I don't like to watch a game or "make a basket" when throwing a crumpled piece of paper in the garbage. 

December 25 is not just the birth of christ, it's the birth of dozens of worshiped figures through out history.  why is this date so signifigant.  probably because it is the first visual day of the new year.  its the first day we can see and physically notice the days hetting longer, even though this actually takes place a few days earlier on dec 21st, dec 25th is the day humans can notice it.

Christmas for us really is more about trees, family get togethers and gift giving/recieving.  call us blasphemous hethens, but thats really all it is to us.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09
I'm not picking on you multi, and your explanations mostly make sense. Except for why you chose to get married in the Catholic church in the first place? If you knew that it was for nothing else but "tradition", why bother? Why not go to a courthouse? Why not have an outdoor wedding? You CHOSE to get married in a Catholic church, you CHOSE to stand up in front of your family and friends and your wife's family and friends, the priest, and the entire Catholic religion and you VOICED and AGREED that your marriage would include doing the things that I pointed out. I didn't say that you cheated on your wife, I said that violating the vows that I highlighted is no different than cheating on your wife, since that too is breaking a vow.
 

according to you I have broken the vows and will go to hell for it and so on...  acording to me, I got married in a big pretty church.  Besides, the courthous smelled funny and father walter was a pretty cool guy.  Look man, my wife picked the church and when a wife is planning a wedding you don't question anything she says, plans, or picks.  Thats her day, and if she told me to wear a pink bunny suit, then I would have worn a pink bunny suit.  Not because I'm ______ whipped, but in the words of Ron White, because this_____ain't gonna_____itself.

some of my family is Lutheran, why didn't we get married in a Lutheran church?  10 years later we just don't really address or care about questions like that.  we're more concerned about what we're doing this weekend or what to cook for supper.

I don't believe, therefore I am not conflicted or worried about any vows I broke, just the current and future happiness of my wife.

Like I said before, show me anyone who adheres 100% to the rules of their religion.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:
some of you equate science as a religion.  science is not a religion, it is a method.  

some of you say science and religion are equally bad or evil.  No!  Not true.  No one kills in the name of science, no one kills because of science, no one kills because science told them to.  yes, the scientific method was used to make bullets, to make bombs, and to make the paper your bibles were written on.  science is a tool and a method humans used to discover and figure things out.  science is not a reason, and is no more responsible for bad things than a gun is.

I missed where anyone equated science as a religion.

I missed where anyone said science and religion were "equally" bad.

People HAVE killed in the name of science, do a little research into what occured in the concentration camps of WWII and why it was done.
 

And multi where did you get the idea the bible is limited to a 2000 year time line???

The Mantis's picture
The Mantis
Offline
Joined: 12/7/12

  What a great video Multi!   I had to skip to 15:00 minutes like you recommended cause I simply couldn't take the cheesiness any longer.     I couldn't help but laugh when they started talking about planets bumping together,  and suddenly our planets magically were just there.   

Now they're going to deal with how certain chemicals combined to make something.  So we get a bald guy on there and he starts making cream puffs.   We knew these things were there,  we just didn't know how to combine them!     

Hold on a second..  I have a question.     

1.   How did the chemical compounds get there?
Evolutionists like to pretend like they are going to start at the very beginning,  but they never really make it that far.   Instead they have to speed up the process.   They have to start with something,  in this case some chemical compounds that just happened to be there already.    :)  

What an interesting fairy tale though.  

My view starts with a VERY beginning.  
"IN THE BEGINNING God created the heaven and the earth.  
Done deal.   

I am at peace with my beliefs.   If you are at peace with yours why is there something to argue about?   You're trying to prove that I'm an idiot,  and I'm trying to prove that you're an idiot.     

I disagree with your argument.   But that doesn't mean that I have to dislike you as a person.    And I truly don't think you are an idiot.  You're a smart guy,  and I respect that.  But I also choose to believe in something I believe is much bigger and smarter than either of us could ever be.  

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

OK.I watched it. Thanks. I was aware of these discoveries.

I'm still of the opinion these experiments fall very short of demonstrating life could start "on its own". I guess we agree to disagree. To suppose they did start on their own takes extreme faith in my opinion. But I can't fault those who rely on faith. :)

Reminder: I have a formal education in Chemistry (MS).

 

Candiru's picture
Candiru
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/2/06

 "Christmas for us really is more about trees, family get togethers and gift giving/recieving.  call us blasphemous hethens, but thats really all it is to us."

also late season roosters and ice fishing.

Pickerel Tamer's picture
Pickerel Tamer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 10/1/10

So you want to partially participate in a religious holiday for certain benefits and yet stay atheist? Makes sense.



multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Pickeral Tamer Said:
So you want to partially participate in a religious holiday for certain benefits and yet stay atheist? Makes sense.

yeah thats pretty much it.  we celebrate halloween but don't believe in ghosts and goblins.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

guywhofishes Said:
OK.I watched it. Thanks. I was aware of these discoveries.

I'm still of the opinion these experiments fall very short of demonstrating life could start "on its own". I guess we agree to disagree. To suppose they did start on their own takes extreme faith in my opinion. But I can't fault those who rely on faith. :)

Reminder: I have a formal education in Chemistry (MS).

pretty cool huh?  they've come quit a bit further in the last 5 years or so, but I can't find a detailed video or news article on the new stuff sutherland and his team have put together.

You can't tell me you have no excitement over discoveries like that?  You just, "meh, no big deal"?

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

The Mantis Said:
  What a great video Multi!   I had to skip to 15:00 minutes like you recommended cause I simply couldn't take the cheesiness any longer.     I couldn't help but laugh when they started talking about planets bumping together,  and suddenly our planets magically were just there.   

Now they're going to deal with how certain chemicals combined to make something.  So we get a bald guy on there and he starts making cream puffs.   We knew these things were there,  we just didn't know how to combine them!     

Hold on a second..  I have a question.     

1.   How did the chemical compounds get there?
Evolutionists like to pretend like they are going to start at the very beginning,  but they never really make it that far.   Instead they have to speed up the process.   They have to start with something,  in this case some chemical compounds that just happened to be there already.    :)  

What an interesting fairy tale though.  

My view starts with a VERY beginning.  
"IN THE BEGINNING God created the heaven and the earth.  
Done deal.   

lets go back to the comments you made about the grand canyon and fabricated fossils. 

please review the evidence and explanations I provided, explain to us how the grand canyon was really formed, and then we'll bring you back into the current discussion and adress your new comments and questions

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

I missed where anyone equated science as a religion.
youre right you did miss it

I missed where anyone said science and religion were "equally" bad.
Correct again, you did miss it

People HAVE killed in the name of science, do a little research into what occured in the concentration camps of WWII and why it was done.
Those horrible things weren't done in the name of science, those crazy bastards used science, but didn't kill all those people because of science.


And multi where did you get the idea the bible is limited to a 2000 year time line???
 
My bad, typing too fast, I meant to say 6,000 year timeline. 


Pickerel Tamer's picture
Pickerel Tamer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 10/1/10

I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny either, but I celebrate the holidays associated with them. They weren't made up by the church. 

multi-species-angler Said:

Pickeral Tamer Said:
So you want to partially participate in a religious holiday for certain benefits and yet stay atheist? Makes sense.

yeah thats pretty much it.  we celebrate halloween but don't believe in ghosts and goblins.



The Mantis's picture
The Mantis
Offline
Joined: 12/7/12

I believe the grand canyon was cut out by the flood receding,  not slowly over time by a river flowing the wrong direction.  

Concerning fabricated fossils,  you misquoted me;  I said fabricated fossil evidence,  not fabricated fossils.  

By fabricated fossil evidence I mean there is no scientifically accurate way to prove that any fossil is as old or young as they say it is.  

Quote--

The “geologic column” does not exist as portrayed in textbooks. Although index fossils have been found in the supposed order in twenty-six places (way less than 1% of the earth), no actual single example of the entire standard geological column exists in nature. Rocks are dated by the fossils they contain and fossils are dated by the rock layers they are found in! This is circular reasoning.

Next, consider the index fossils used to date the layers. Trilobites are often said to identify layers as being so many millions of years old. However, see what evolutionists themselves say about these “simple” creatures. Trilobite eyes have “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature. “The eyes of early trilobites…have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity…”.

Lastly, there is no “fossil record.” There are trillions of fossils, but they are not found with a date or tag on them. Someone with a preconceived idea of evolution puts his interpretation on them.


multi-species-angler Said:

The Mantis Said:
  What a great video Multi!   I had to skip to 15:00 minutes like you recommended cause I simply couldn't take the cheesiness any longer.     I couldn't help but laugh when they started talking about planets bumping together,  and suddenly our planets magically were just there.   

Now they're going to deal with how certain chemicals combined to make something.  So we get a bald guy on there and he starts making cream puffs.   We knew these things were there,  we just didn't know how to combine them!     

Hold on a second..  I have a question.     

1.   How did the chemical compounds get there?
Evolutionists like to pretend like they are going to start at the very beginning,  but they never really make it that far.   Instead they have to speed up the process.   They have to start with something,  in this case some chemical compounds that just happened to be there already.    :)  

What an interesting fairy tale though.  

My view starts with a VERY beginning.  
"IN THE BEGINNING God created the heaven and the earth.  
Done deal.   

lets go back to the comments you made about the grand canyon and fabricated fossils. 

please review the evidence and explanations I provided, explain to us how the grand canyon was really formed, and then we'll bring you back into the current discussion and adress your new comments and questions

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09
I believe the grand canyon was cut out by the flood receding,  not slowly over time by a river flowing the wrong direction.  

Concerning fabricated fossils,  you misquoted me;  I said fabricated fossil evidence,  not fabricated fossils.  

By fabricated fossil evidence I mean there is no scientifically accurate way to prove that any fossil is as old or young as they say it is.  

Quote--

The “geologic column” does not exist as portrayed in textbooks. Although index fossils have been found in the supposed order in twenty-six places (way less than 1% of the earth), no actual single example of the entire standard geological column exists in nature. Rocks are dated by the fossils they contain and fossils are dated by the rock layers they are found in! This is circular reasoning.

Next, consider the index fossils used to date the layers. Trilobites are often said to identify layers as being so many millions of years old. However, see what evolutionists themselves say about these “simple” creatures. Trilobite eyes have “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature. “The eyes of early trilobites…have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity…”.

Lastly, there is no “fossil record.” There are trillions of fossils, but they are not found with a date or tag on them. Someone with a preconceived idea of evolution puts his interpretation on them.

This is all completely wrong, no one hides the evidence from you. you just choose not to look at it.  The evidence, multiple dating techniques, and data has been found and is there waiting for anyone who wishes to look at it.

so the two videos I posted on the grand canyon formation is all fake and all those researchers and scientists have some agenda or something to hide?

where is your evidence?  your not even supplying a half assed hypothesis.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Pickeral Tamer Said:
I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny either, but I celebrate the holidays associated with them. They weren't made up by the church. 

multi-species-angler Said:

Pickeral Tamer Said:
So you want to partially participate in a religious holiday for certain benefits and yet stay atheist? Makes sense.

yeah thats pretty much it.  we celebrate halloween but don't believe in ghosts and goblins.

same here

The Mantis's picture
The Mantis
Offline
Joined: 12/7/12

Your mistake is thinking you can prove and back up the things you are saying.  All the so called "evidence" you've compiled is one-sided.   You accuse me of not being able to back up anything I'm saying I BELIEVE MAY HAVE HAPPENED.   And yet you talk about these dating methods,  how the grand canyon was formed.. LIKE YOU WERE THERE,  like there isn't a shred of possibility it may not have happened that way.   You are simply taking information from other evolutionists and calling it fact.  The truth is you don't have anymore evidence than I do.  

At least I can admit that,  though I have opinions about what MAY have happened,  I'm not hiding behind bad "science" and pretending I know something I don't.

Do you want me to start posting some famous hoaxes that evolutionary "scientists" have 'proved' in the past that are now known to be false?  Give me a break.  I don't have eight hours a day to sit on here and spoon feed you why I believe you are full of crap.  I just don't have that kind of time.  Sorry.  

So again I'll just say that we disagree.   And I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.   I know what I believe and trying to relay that to you would take more time and effort than I'm willing to commit to you. 

Do you know what the definition of science is?  

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

Science is things we can study,  test,  and PROVE without a shred of doubt!  And that is something you simply cannot give me.   Just as I can't give you an exact scientific explanation of what has happened since day one.  


multi-species-angler Said:

I believe the grand canyon was cut out by the flood receding,  not slowly over time by a river flowing the wrong direction.  

Concerning fabricated fossils,  you misquoted me;  I said fabricated fossil evidence,  not fabricated fossils.  

By fabricated fossil evidence I mean there is no scientifically accurate way to prove that any fossil is as old or young as they say it is.  

Quote--

The “geologic column” does not exist as portrayed in textbooks. Although index fossils have been found in the supposed order in twenty-six places (way less than 1% of the earth), no actual single example of the entire standard geological column exists in nature. Rocks are dated by the fossils they contain and fossils are dated by the rock layers they are found in! This is circular reasoning.

Next, consider the index fossils used to date the layers. Trilobites are often said to identify layers as being so many millions of years old. However, see what evolutionists themselves say about these “simple” creatures. Trilobite eyes have “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature. “The eyes of early trilobites…have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity…”.

Lastly, there is no “fossil record.” There are trillions of fossils, but they are not found with a date or tag on them. Someone with a preconceived idea of evolution puts his interpretation on them.

This is all completely wrong, no one hides the evidence from you. you just choose not to look at it.  The evidence, multiple dating techniques, and data has been found and is there waiting for anyone who wishes to look at it.

so the two videos I posted on the grand canyon formation is all fake and all those researchers and scientists have some agenda or something to hide?

where is your evidence?  your not even supplying a half assed hypothesis.

HomeSlice's picture
HomeSlice
Offline
Joined: 9/9/12

Can someone tell me why i have a tail bone?

 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Your mistake is thinking you can prove and back up the things you are saying.  All the so called "evidence" you've compiled is one-sided.   to the side of all the different scientists, geologists, paleontologists etc. that have studied that area for the last 100 years?  You accuse me of not being able to back up anything I'm saying I BELIEVE MAY HAVE HAPPENED.   And yet you talk about these dating methods,  how the grand canyon was formed.. LIKE YOU WERE THERE,  like there isn't a shred of possibility it may not have happened that way.   You are simply taking information from other evolutionists and calling it fact and chemists, and geologists, and anthropoligists, and ... and ... and ... and of course EVIDENCE! The truth is you don't have anymore evidence than I do.   False! 100% false

At least I can admit that,  though I have opinions about what MAY have happened,  I'm not hiding behind bad "science" and pretending I know something I don't.  so all those people in the field every day digging in the dirt and the rocks, analyzing every little piece of evidence to be used as clues to the formation of the grand canyon, and then testing the theories and hypothesis over and over and over again, are practicing bad science, as opposed to what other methods? just reading the bible?

Do you want me to start posting some famous hoaxes that evolutionary "scientists" have 'proved' in the past that are now known to be false? Like brontosaurus? not every discovery is deemed fact or proven, thats why we call the idea a hypothesis before we gather and test the evidence, then call them theories after the evidence is gathered, tested, and tested again, and more evidence is gathered over and over again, and then if new evidence is discovered to show otherwise, the theory is changed, thats how science works.  Give me a break.  I don't have eight hours a day to sit on here and spoon feed you why I believe you are full of crap.  I just don't have that kind of time.  Sorry.   there are many examples of researchers that have intentionally misrepresented their published data, this only proves those researches had bad morals or other agendas.  It does not discredit the global scientific community 

So again I'll just say that we disagree.   And I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.   I know what I believe and trying to relay that to you would take more time and effort than I'm willing to commit to you. 

Do you know what the definition of science is?  
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

Science is things we can study,  test,  and PROVE without a shred of doubt!  WRONG scientists and researchers always have doubt, this is what keeps them testing and looking for new evidence all the time And that is something you simply cannot give me.   Just as I can't give you an exact scientific explanation of what has happened since day one.

I didn't ask for day one, I asked for you to supply us with some evidence of how you say the grand canyon was formed.  No need to jump around or even confuse yourself with evolution.  just the grand canyon, show us some contradicting evidence.  I really want to see it, not because I don't believe you, but because I'm interested in knowing how it was really formed and I'm always skeptical and looking for new evidence, but if you want me to change my picture of the way it happened you have to at least provide some evidence that contradicts what has been put together so far.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

HomeSlice Said:
Can someone tell me why i have a tail bone?

Just a left over steering wheel that helped guide our ferraris through the trees.

The Mantis's picture
The Mantis
Offline
Joined: 12/7/12

 Hahaha..  You sir,  are hilarious.  

Science is things we can study,  test,  and PROVE without a shred of doubt!  WRONG scientists and researchers always have doubt, this is what keeps them testing and looking for new evidence all the time A.....

.....And teaching children all the while that what they've found is FACT while still not being able to prove it?    You just proved my point!   Don't question the dictionary please,   it was written a long time ago by a Christian gentleman much wiser than you or I.   Don't try to change the meaning of science.    I love science.   Things that can be studied and proven,  facts.   You provide only useless trash.  

Let me tell you something about my religion.   If I tell someone else about it,  I make it very clear that it is a belief.   I don't try to tell them it's right for them or wrong for them.  I just tell them that it's a personal choice.   I don't have control of the textbooks and I don't teach millions of children every day that what I believe is right for them,  or the only available religion.  

You would do well to someday admit that you are believing in things you can't prove,  just as I am.    And perhaps learning the difference between science and a faint belief that something may be true without proving it.  

Good day sir.  






Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
 Looking at lots of evidence and fossils does help. I recommend you try it.

I will read the post beyond this when I have time, but for  now I'll just answer the sarcasm.

Multi, I have looked at fossils myself.  I looked at wetland fossils from ten foot deep cores that go beyond the six feet of sediment since agriculture came to North Dakota.  Not just the cladoceran fossils, which work very well for determining wetlands thousands of years ago, but the phytolith that show plant life even longer.

Sorry have to go.  No time for spell check either.

It's All Good's picture
It's All Good
Offline
Joined: 10/14/09

Very interesting thread.  Multi- you're a patient person.   Researched-based (i.e. evidenced-based) decision making is becoming more and more prevalent in our society.  It is the standard in many professions, including the medical field.  When a person goes to the doctor for an ailment, the physcian does not refer to an antiquated book written hundreds of years prior for diagnosis and treatment.  The most recent, scientifically tested, methods and treatment are utilized.   Can you imagine if pharmaceutical companies were not forced to repeatedly test medications to provide a standard of EVIDENCE of their effectiveness?

I would be curious to know how many of you that have been arguing with Multi (Mantis?)  trust your physician and hope he/she relies upon science and research-based treatment  versus how many of you still rely upon other interventions (faith-based healing?)?  If you do rely on modern medicine, do you question or argue with your doctor as to validity and reliability of the research behind the treatment they intend to administer? 
 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Plainsman Said:

 Looking at lots of evidence and fossils does help. I recommend you try it.

I will read the post beyond this when I have time, but for  now I'll just answer the sarcasm.

Multi, I have looked at fossils myself.  I looked at wetland fossils from ten foot deep cores that go beyond the six feet of sediment since agriculture came to North Dakota.  Not just the cladoceran fossils, which work very well for determining wetlands thousands of years ago, but the phytolith that show plant life even longer.

Sorry have to go.  No time for spell check either.

Thats awesome.  I have a couple friends that work in the oil fields that tell me about different sea shells and fossils that turn up in core samples from tens of thousands of feet down.  makes a guy wonder when you're in the black hills touring a cave in a mountain thousands of feet above sea level, hundreds of feet deep, and right there in front of you is a pile of sea shells frozen in time layered in the cave walls.

you first think, great flood? but then realize there isn't enough water on earth to cover that elevation, and then you see that the sedimentary layer those shells are in are flipped vertical,  and then things like plate tectonics, geological heaving, erosion, etc etc. start to make some sense

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

It's All Good Said:

Very interesting thread.  Multi- you're a patient person.   Researched-based (i.e. evidenced-based) decision making is becoming more and more prevalent in our society.  It is the standard in many professions, including the medical field.  When a person goes to the doctor for an ailment, the physcian does not refer to an antiquated book written hundreds of years prior for diagnosis and treatment.  The most recent, scientifically tested, methods and treatment are utilized.   Can you imagine if pharmaceutical companies were not forced to repeatedly test medications to provide a standard of EVIDENCE of their effectiveness?

I would be curious to know how many of you that have been arguing with Multi (Mantis?)  trust your physician and hope he/she relies upon science and research-based treatment  versus how many of you still rely upon other interventions (faith-based healing?)?  If you do rely on modern medicine, do you question or argue with your doctor as to validity and reliability of the research behind the treatment they intend to administer? 
 

I wouldn't be alive today if it wasn't for that.  People often use that as an argument against science, by pointing out the examples in history where science was wrong.  When science is wrong, we use evidence, review, and testing to make it right, we work it out.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:.   
lets go back to the comments you made about the grand canyon and fabricated fossils. 

please review the evidence and explanations I provided, explain to us how the grand canyon was really formed, and then we'll bring you back into the current discussion and adress your new comments and questions

Multi, perhaps people are waitng for the evidence of morals in aligators!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:

I missed where anyone equated science as a religion.
youre right you did miss it

I missed where anyone said science and religion were "equally" bad.
Correct again, you did miss it

People HAVE killed in the name of science, do a little research into what occured in the concentration camps of WWII and why it was done.
Those horrible things weren't done in the name of science, those crazy bastards used science, but didn't kill all those people because of science.


And multi where did you get the idea the bible is limited to a 2000 year time line???
 
My bad, typing too fast, I meant to say 6,000 year timeline. 



Multi, so you are saying that Nazi scientists that experimented on Jews for various things did not do it for science??? 

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005168 

So if people are missing things, would you mind posting them again so we can all stay "informed".

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

no, they did it to further their agenda.  science was the tool, not the reason.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:
 WRONG scientists and researchers always have doubt, this is what keeps them testing and looking for new evidence all the time.

And I think that is what people ar sugesting here multi is that you condemn others for their "faith" yet you can not provide absolute "evidence" that mankind eveloved from a single cell organism that crawled out of the slime pit without having just as much "faith" in the scientific "theories" that claim it.

I must admit you have gotten noticably less condescending and arrogant in your comments about religion and that is appreciated.

But still there seems to be an over powering need to condemn those who's faith allows them to beleive something different than you.

 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

gst Said:

multi-species-angler Said:.   
lets go back to the comments you made about the grand canyon and fabricated fossils. 

please review the evidence and explanations I provided, explain to us how the grand canyon was really formed, and then we'll bring you back into the current discussion and adress your new comments and questions

Multi, perhaps people are waitng for the evidence of morals in aligators!

tell ya what, you bring some actual evidence to the table to compete with as I have on the last 10 topics of this thread and we'll talk about social species discerning right from wrong on various levels, but if you're looking for a video of an alligator helping an old lady accross the street, or an alligator that goes to church every sunday.  you win alligators do not have morals.

SHORTHAIRSRUS's picture
SHORTHAIRSRUS
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/24/04

I cant read all of your pages --- but to the evolution bangers ------

your missing one thing --- GOD GAVE MAN  A SOUL

I dont know when it happened or how --- but he blessed a creature and it became man .  My dog is very smart but it doenst have what i have.

END OF STORY

Stay thirsty my friends

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

It's All Good Said:

Very interesting thread.  Multi- you're a patient person.   Researched-based (i.e. evidenced-based) decision making is becoming more and more prevalent in our society.  It is the standard in many professions, including the medical field.  When a person goes to the doctor for an ailment, the physcian does not refer to an antiquated book written hundreds of years prior for diagnosis and treatment.  The most recent, scientifically tested, methods and treatment are utilized.   Can you imagine if pharmaceutical companies were not forced to repeatedly test medications to provide a standard of EVIDENCE of their effectiveness?

I would be curious to know how many of you that have been arguing with Multi (Mantis?)  trust your physician and hope he/she relies upon science and research-based treatment  versus how many of you still rely upon other interventions (faith-based healing?)?  If you do rely on modern medicine, do you question or argue with your doctor as to validity and reliability of the research behind the treatment they intend to administer? 
 

Can you point to one person that is in this discussion that has claimed science is not a valuable thing or effective in finding answers to complex problems that make peoples lives much better?

I can only speak for myself and my involvement in this thread in that there are things even science can not explain. Perhaps eons from now science will know the answer, perhaps it never will simply because there is not a scientific answer that exists.

And therein lies my basis for faith. My life is better because I have faith that something more awaits me than rotting into a peice of organic matter when I die.  I beleive that it is this something that helps me guide my life to make choices at the end of the day I can look in the mirror and be content I made. I do not beleive anyone else has to have this faith to bea good person, it si simply a choice I make. Choose to do something similar or choose that path multi takes in matters little to me unti someone condemns why someone has faith as baseless, black magic void of evidence.

But I am curious about the alligator morals claim.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

gst Said:

multi-species-angler Said:
 WRONG scientists and researchers always have doubt, this is what keeps them testing and looking for new evidence all the time.

And I think that is what people ar sugesting here multi is that you condemn others for their "faith" yet you can not provide absolute "evidence" that mankind eveloved from a single cell organism that crawled out of the slime pit without having just as much "faith" in the scientific "theories" that claim it.

I must admit you have gotten noticably less condescending and arrogant in your comments about religion and that is appreciated.

But still there seems to be an over powering need to condemn those who's faith allows them to beleive something different than you.

 

who did I condemn?  I saw some comments that I though were rediculous so I brought forth evidence to show otherwise and no one stepped up to the plate with any, not one bit of evidence to contradict what I have said.

never once did I say religion is fake and god does not exist.

I chose to atempt to disprove the following examples of comments made earlier in this thread

1. atheists have no morals
2. the grand canyon was not formed by the colorado river over 5.5 million years
3. fabricated fossils
4. evolution is not science

a few of you kept bringing up religion because you know I'm a non believer, and I was more than happy to answer questions about not believing.  never once did I say anything condemning for being religious.

I would continue on with 10 more pages on the alligators and carbon dating and so on, but I feel the evidence and information I have posted so far hasn't even been looked at, and it definetly hasn't been challenged.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:
no, they did it to further their agenda.  science was the tool, not the reason.

Multi you do realize I am not talking about the ethnic cleansing but rather medical experiments on Jews to test various scientific theories.

There really is quite a bit of information out there if you wish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation

Plase do not so blindly defend the basis of your "faith" so not to admit that just as religion, science can be used by man for evil in evil ways.  

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:

Blaming religion  is like blaming guns, and we all know how we feel about that.  Science?  I suppose the folks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would agree with us gst.  Maybe the tens of thousands of Kurds Hussein killed, and lets not forget that great gas at Auschwitz. 

No. I'd say you have that backwords. Like guns, man has used science for evil. Religion causes people to act certain ways. Science is a tool.

Come on bringin how does religion without man cause evil?  

Those that wish to do evil use religion as a tool to accomplish it just as they use any other tool.

What you are claiming is that religion in itself is evil and that it uses man to commit it.

Without the "science" of mustard gas would man act to use it?  Man "uses" science to develope "evil" just as man "uses" religion to develope evil. 

To be fair, you can't really compare the two I don't think.  

Why?

Because it does not help your beleif religion is evil?

You really do not have a clue about religion.

Evil is in us all. It is not religion, science,evolution or purple elephants that create it or force or entice us to use it, it is ourselves that allow it, it is morals and conscience that prevent it.

Because science and religion are different things. I also never said religion is evil. I like how you think you know everything about religion just because you believe it. haha. We basically owe everything to science. Religion not so much.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:

gst Said:

multi-species-angler Said:
 WRONG scientists and researchers always have doubt, this is what keeps them testing and looking for new evidence all the time.

And I think that is what people ar sugesting here multi is that you condemn others for their "faith" yet you can not provide absolute "evidence" that mankind eveloved from a single cell organism that crawled out of the slime pit without having just as much "faith" in the scientific "theories" that claim it.

I must admit you have gotten noticably less condescending and arrogant in your comments about religion and that is appreciated.

But still there seems to be an over powering need to condemn those who's faith allows them to beleive something different than you.

 

who did I condemn?  I saw some comments that I though were rediculous so I brought forth evidence to show otherwise and no one stepped up to the plate with any, not one bit of evidence to contradict what I have said.

never once did I say religion is fake and god does not exist.

I chose to atempt to disprove the following examples of comments made earlier in this thread

1. atheists have no morals
2. the grand canyon was not formed by the colorado river over 5.5 million years
3. fabricated fossils
4. evolution is not science

a few of you kept bringing up religion because you know I'm a non believer, and I was more than happy to answer questions about not believing.  never once did I say anything condemning for being religious.

I would continue on with 10 more pages on the alligators and carbon dating and so on, but I feel the evidence and information I have posted so far hasn't even been looked at, and it definetly hasn't been challenged.

Multi, perhaps your should think back to comments made outside this thread. The world is much larger than just one thread. Nice deflection on the aligator morals deal though!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:

Blaming religion  is like blaming guns, and we all know how we feel about that.  Science?  I suppose the folks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would agree with us gst.  Maybe the tens of thousands of Kurds Hussein killed, and lets not forget that great gas at Auschwitz. 

No. I'd say you have that backwords. Like guns, man has used science for evil. Religion causes people to act certain ways. Science is a tool.

Come on bringin how does religion without man cause evil?  

Those that wish to do evil use religion as a tool to accomplish it just as they use any other tool.

What you are claiming is that religion in itself is evil and that it uses man to commit it.

Without the "science" of mustard gas would man act to use it?  Man "uses" science to develope "evil" just as man "uses" religion to develope evil. 

To be fair, you can't really compare the two I don't think.  

Why?

Because it does not help your beleif religion is evil?

You really do not have a clue about religion.

Evil is in us all. It is not religion, science,evolution or purple elephants that create it or force or entice us to use it, it is ourselves that allow it, it is morals and conscience that prevent it.

Because science and religion are different things. I also never said religion is evil. I like how you think you know everything about religion just because you believe it. haha. We basically owe everything to science. Religion not so much.

Science and religion are two diferent things??? Say it aint so Joe.

Bringin I will be the first one to admit I know far less about religion than many others. If you have followed along, many times I have spoke to faith rather than religion.

There is a big difference you do not seem to realize in your hatred of religion.

Man uses many tools to commit evil science or religion the outcome is the same.

Pages