Evolution or Creationism

[The Black Forrest]

Oh excellent.

I'm starting the Church of the Fonz. Who wants to come with me? Fonzie was a real person I tell you what.

YOUR RELIGION'S STUPID!!! .....................................................but I can't prove it wrong. BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE IT RIGHT! HA!

See how dumb this sounds guys.... (Being a hypocrite, yes)

[Johz]

Lol, BUT THE MOVIE, uh, I mean.... my ANCIENT BOOK said I was!

What evidence do you have that we're NOT in the matrix? HUH? HUH?!!

That's RIGHT.

Your sarcasm has the right idea. It sounds stupid but you just can't prove it wrong or right, whether you believe it or not.

Actually, you would be able to find evidence. For a start, in the Matrix, de ja vu occurs when the Matrix is modified. Equally, if you see some weirdo who calls himself Neo, you'd be able to guess.

A more detailed argument might be to use Descarte's demon, a 'malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning [that] has employed all his energies in order to decieve me'. Basically, this demon has created a world of delusions that occupies your mind, so that what you think you see is not real.

Yes this is the Matrix. But this is the original.

[Tashmar]

I believe that God created the world and the rules it runs on, including evolution. In a thousand years, people will have new scientific theories and laugh that we ever believed in evolution (just like we think laugh at spontaneous generation).

Just remember Galileo!

[DaWoad]

I believe that God created the world and the rules it runs on, including evolution. In a thousand years, people will have new scientific theories and laugh that we ever believed in evolution (just like we think laugh at spontaneous generation).

Just remember Galileo!

what?

[West Stankonia]

Creationism vs Evolution is stupid for one main reason. Creationism is based on a mistranslation of ancient Hebrew texts. The actual translation of the first three words is in "A" beginning, not in "THE" beginning. This shatters the 6,000 year span Creationists try to cram everything into. Also, in studying texts from the Levant, it is apparent that B'raysheet (Genesis) was addressing the origin of certain patterns and their function. Adam and Eve were groups of people, not individuals forcing their children into lives of incest. So you Creationists sound dumb as hell because you are arguing the wrong premise.

Evolution makes sense in certain areas, in others it does not. Evolutionists are not honest in the sense that they "color the choices" to make it seem like if you don't concede to the "supremacy" of Western science and the empirical data generally trusted as true, then you are by default a Christian fundamentalist half-wit. In actuality, either position requires faith. I seriously doubt anyone on this board digs up fossils, does carbon dating or has the resources to test every piece of so-called empirical data that passes their way. You take somebody's word for it just like religious people do. The truth about modern Western science is that, yeah, it makes certain stuff more convenient but it definitely is a major factor behind the unprecedented destruction wrought
against nature in the past few hundred years.Plenty wars and human rights violation in the name of religion ( but not done directly or in tune with the Most High)- but shit like the ozone, industrial pollution, nuclear warfare etc is squarely on the shoulders of science.


Neither side has a point. Nothing about this debate is relative to practical application to provide rescue from the mire the world is sinking into. Therefore all of you are crazy.

[Nexus Corp]

I believe that God created the world and the rules it runs on, including evolution. In a thousand years, people will have new scientific theories and laugh that we ever believed in evolution (just like we think laugh at spontaneous generation).

The problem with that argument is you could say the same about a belief in god or special creation.

[Myrth]

In actuality, either position requires faith. I seriously doubt anyone on this board digs up fossils, does carbon dating or has the resources to test every piece of so-called empirical data that passes their way. You take somebody's word for it just like religious people do. The truth about modern Western science is that, yeah, it makes certain stuff more convenient but it definitely is a major factor behind the unprecedented destruction wrought
against nature in the past few hundred years.Plenty wars and human rights violation in the name of religion ( but not done directly or in tune with the Most High)- but shit like the ozone, industrial pollution, nuclear warfare etc is squarely on the shoulders of science.

You can't compare trusting a general scientific consensus of hundreds of thousands/millions of scientists across the world and throughout history with trusting the word of a dusty, thousand+ year old text. I'm not a geneticist with a detailed understanding of the mechanics of inheritance, but I am an intelligent individual who can look at the overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection and see how it makes sense. Neither can I claim to be an expert on the bible, however I do know bullshit when I smell it.

[Altimaea]

Snip

How could it be mistranslated that many times? Unless your talking about it was copied wrong as it was handed down? The NIV Bible is translated directly from the Hebrew text and it also says the "The". I to see where the mistranslation comes in.

[Apollonesia]

As in Poe's Law?

Oh, I'm quite serious about what I've said...

Sorry, I do apologise for that. It was so far out there I thought it was satire... My bad.

No worries... I actually was exaggerating a tad.

In all seriousness, though, I believe in G-d and that we are His creations...

And you're all still a bunch of heathens.

[Cathonum]

Sorry, I do apologise for that. It was so far out there I thought it was satire... My bad.

No worries... I actually was exaggerating a tad.

In all seriousness, though, I believe in G-d and that we are His creations...

And you're all still a bunch of heathens.

I do hope you'll excuse those of us rational enough to reject your unsupported assertions.

Edit: fixing typo.

[Apollonesia]

No worries... I actually was exaggerating a tad.

In all seriousness, though, I believe in G-d and that we are His creations...

And you're all still a bunch of heathens.

I do hope you'll excuse those of us rational enough to reject your unsupportes assertions.

You're excused.

And I don't have any proof that you'll accept, so bleh.

[DaWoad]

Creationism vs Evolution is stupid for one main reason. Creationism is based on a mistranslation of ancient Hebrew texts. The actual translation of the first three words is in "A" beginning, not in "THE" beginning. This shatters the 6,000 year span Creationists try to cram everything into. Also, in studying texts from the Levant, it is apparent that B'raysheet (Genesis) was addressing the origin of certain patterns and their function. Adam and Eve were groups of people, not individuals forcing their children into lives of incest. So you Creationists sound dumb as hell because you are arguing the wrong premise.

there's a little thing called evidence, do you have any?

Evolution makes sense in certain areas, in others it does not.

name one

Evolutionists are not honest in the sense that they "color the choices" to make it seem like if you don't concede to the "supremacy" of Western science and the empirical data generally trusted as true, then you are by default a Christian fundamentalist half-wit.

evidence of that ever having happened?

In actuality, either position requires faith.

you're misusing the word "faith". Trusting someone on the basis of evidence and "Faith" are not the same thing.

I seriously doubt anyone on this board digs up fossils, does carbon dating or has the resources to test every piece of so-called empirical data that passes their way.

of course not, that would be absurd. What we all have access to is pappers done, and peer reviewed, by those who do have the ability, equipment and resources.

You take somebody's word for it just like religious people do.

Not true, unless you can't see a world of difference between a bunch of scientists who produce papers that are studied and reviewed in detail before they are published by people with no incentive to falsify data and the "word" of a church whose power is dependant on it's existence.

The truth about modern Western science is that, yeah, it makes certain stuff more convenient but it definitely is a major factor behind the unprecedented destruction wrought
against nature in the past few hundred years.

bulll shit.

Plenty wars and human rights violation in the name of religion ( but not done directly or in tune with the Most High)- but shit like the ozone, industrial pollution, nuclear warfare etc is squarely on the shoulders of science.


Neither side has a point. Nothing about this debate is relative to practical application to provide rescue from the mire the world is sinking into. Therefore all of you are crazy.

no. No one screams "for science" as they launch nuclear weapons, pollution is due to industry and has been around alot longer than anything anyone would recognize as a modern scientific mechanism and ozone is a rather important substance that's generally confined to the so called "ozone layer". Not sure what ozone has to do with modern science at all really . . .

[DaWoad]

I do hope you'll excuse those of us rational enough to reject your unsupportes assertions.

You're excused.

And I don't have any proof that you'll accept, so bleh.

do you have any proof at all?

[Cathonum]

I do hope you'll excuse those of us rational enough to reject your unsupportes assertions.

You're excused.

And I don't have any proof that you'll accept, so bleh.

I'll consider any that is falsifiable, repeatable, testable, and/or logically coherent. I will not consider personal anecdotes, appeals to emotion, or any others based on logical fallacies.

Surely you have something at least marginally convincing, or else surely you wouldn't believe it... Right?

[Moogs World]

I do hope you'll excuse those of us rational enough to reject your unsupportes assertions.

You're excused.

And I don't have any proof that you'll accept, so bleh.

What proof do you have that you accept?

[Altimaea]

bulll shit.

no. No one screams "for science" as they launch nuclear weapons, pollution is due to industry and has been around alot longer than anything anyone would recognize as a modern scientific mechanism and ozone is a rather important substance that's generally confined to the so called "ozone layer". Not sure what ozone has to do with modern science at all really . . .

Science created nuclear weapons though. I think what he means is that science has created lots of stuff that harms the environment but not on purpose in most cases. I think the world was much more "eco friendly" during the medieval period. Ozone is being depleted, I believe, due to the use of fossil fuels or something like that.

But your telling me that science didn't discover the power of splitting an atom, or harnessed the power of fossil fuels? That sir, is bullshit.

[West Stankonia]

In actuality, either position requires faith. I seriously doubt anyone on this board digs up fossils, does carbon dating or has the resources to test every piece of so-called empirical data that passes their way. You take somebody's word for it just like religious people do. The truth about modern Western science is that, yeah, it makes certain stuff more convenient but it definitely is a major factor behind the unprecedented destruction wrought
against nature in the past few hundred years.Plenty wars and human rights violation in the name of religion ( but not done directly or in tune with the Most High)- but shit like the ozone, industrial pollution, nuclear warfare etc is squarely on the shoulders of science.

You can't compare trusting a general scientific consensus of hundreds of thousands/millions of scientists across the world and throughout history with trusting the word of a dusty, thousand+ year old text. I'm not a geneticist with a detailed understanding of the mechanics of inheritance, but I am an intelligent individual who can look at the overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection and see how it makes sense. Neither can I claim to be an expert on the bible, however I do know bullshit when I smell it.

LOL. Exactly my point of how stupid both sides are. You're hitting me with the same old arguments reserved for creationists when I have stated clearly that I am not one. Evidence does not equal fact. Evidence is subject to interpretation. You weren't around billions of years ago much less thousands of years ago so you have to take someones word for it. The fact remains, neither religion or science has the answers. You're not a biblical scholar nor are you a geneticist (by your admission) so your views are just opinions based on the information made available to you and what your predispositions allows you to believe is truth in the midst of all that information. But I'm over your head. You're arguing science vs spirituality and I'm arguing about the epistemology of the dichotomy from an unbiased standpoint.

[Tokos]

Nice that you admit it's a dichotomy, which sort of skewers the point you were trying to make.

[Cathonum]

Science created nuclear weapons though. I think what he means is that science has created lots of stuff that harms the environment but not on purpose in most cases. I think the world was much more "eco friendly" during the medieval period. Ozone is being depleted, I believe, due to the use of fossil fuels or something like that.

But your telling me that science didn't discover the power of splitting an atom, or harnessed the power of fossil fuels? That sir, is bullshit.

Science is neutral. It's how people use it that's good or bad.

[West Stankonia]

Creationism vs Evolution is stupid for one main reason. Creationism is based on a mistranslation of ancient Hebrew texts. The actual translation of the first three words is in "A" beginning, not in "THE" beginning. This shatters the 6,000 year span Creationists try to cram everything into. Also, in studying texts from the Levant, it is apparent that B'raysheet (Genesis) was addressing the origin of certain patterns and their function. Adam and Eve were groups of people, not individuals forcing their children into lives of incest. So you Creationists sound dumb as hell because you are arguing the wrong premise.

there's a little thing called evidence, do you have any?

YEAH LEARN HEBREW SYNTAX AND GRAMMAR AND GET BACK WITH ME. THE TEXT IS EVIDENCE IN AND OF ITSELF THAT IT IS MISTRANSLATED.

Evolution makes sense in certain areas, in others it does not.

name one
NO OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR THE HUGE TRANSITIONS SUGGESTED. EVERY TIME I'VE SEEN THE EVOLUTIONIST REBUTTAL THAT THERE ARE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IT ALWAYS REQUIRES CONJECTURE TO "FILL IN THE BLANKS".

Evolutionists are not honest in the sense that they "color the choices" to make it seem like if you don't concede to the "supremacy" of Western science and the empirical data generally trusted as true, then you are by default a Christian fundamentalist half-wit.

evidence of that ever having happened?
EVIDENCE OF WHAT? WHATS WRONG WITH YOUR READING COMPREHENSION?

In actuality, either position requires faith.

you're misusing the word "faith". Trusting someone on the basis of evidence and "Faith" are not the same thing.
SPIRITUAL PEOPLE BASE THEIR FAITH ON DATA WHICH THEY INTERPRET TOWARDS A CERTAIN END THEY ARE PREDISPOSED TO BELIEVE. EVIDENCE IS A TRICKY WORD AND A HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE CONCEPT. E.G. I HAVE A PILE OF CRUMBS IN MY COOKIE JAR. COOKIES WERE THERE YESTERDAY. ALL I KNOW FOR A FACT IS THE COOKIES ARE GONE. THE PILE OF CRUMBS COULD BE EVIDENCE OF RATS OR A HUMAN COOKIE THIEF. TO UTILIZE THE EVIDENCE OF MISSING COOKIES I HAVE TO ASSUME ONE OR THE OTHER. UNLESS I WITNESSED IT FIRSTHAND OR CAUGHT THE CULPRIT WITH THE SMOKING GUN ALL I HAVE IS EDUCATED GUESSES WHICH ARE STILL IN FACT- GUESSES!

I seriously doubt anyone on this board digs up fossils, does carbon dating or has the resources to test every piece of so-called empirical data that passes their way.

of course not, that would be absurd. What we all have access to is pappers done, and peer reviewed, by those who do have the ability, equipment and resources.
AND NOT EVERY SINGLE PAPER WRITTEN OR SCIENTIST OF STATURE AGREES WITH YOU. WHAT ABOUT THEM?

You take somebody's word for it just like religious people do.

Not true, unless you can't see a world of difference between a bunch of scientists who produce papers that are studied and reviewed in detail before they are published by people with no incentive to falsify data and the "word" of a church whose power is dependant on it's existence.

ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE DIRECTING THE WRONG ARGUMENT AT ME. I DONT DO CHURCH. IM NOT A CHRISTIAN. I DONT HAVE A RELIGION. NOW TO ADDRESS YOUR IDIOCY DIRECTLY...THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN THOSE PARISHIONERS AND SCIENTISTS IS THAT THEY ARE MEN. FALLIBLE MEN WHO YOU DONT KNOW AND ALL HAVE AMBITIONS AND ALLEGIANCES BEYOND THE INTEGRITY OF THEIR CHOSEN FIELDS. YOU ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO SAY WHO DOES OR DOES NOT HAVE THE INCENTIVE TO FALSIFY DATA. THE POWER OF WESTERN CULTURE IS DEPENDENT ON WESTERN SCIENCE AND RELIGION FOR ITS EXISTENCE. THE RELATIVE RESULTS SHOW US THAT THESE DISCIPLINES HAVE MAJOR FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS.

The truth about modern Western science is that, yeah, it makes certain stuff more convenient but it definitely is a major factor behind the unprecedented destruction wrought
against nature in the past few hundred years.

bulll shit.

PROVE ME WRONG. LOOK AT HOW BLIND YOUR BIAS MAKES YOU.

Plenty wars and human rights violation in the name of religion ( but not done directly or in tune with the Most High)- but shit like the ozone, industrial pollution, nuclear warfare etc is squarely on the shoulders of science.


Neither side has a point. Nothing about this debate is relative to practical application to provide rescue from the mire the world is sinking into. Therefore all of you are crazy.

no. No one screams "for science" as they launch nuclear weapons, pollution is due to industry and has been around alot longer than anything anyone would recognize as a modern scientific mechanism and ozone is a rather important substance that's generally confined to the so called "ozone layer". Not sure what ozone has to do with modern science at all really . . .

UMMM...HOW ABOUT CARBON EMISSIONS? YEAH THATS THE BIBLE FAULT TOO RIGHT? FOH YOU BRAINWASHED SHEEP. YOUR GOD SCIENCE CAN CREATE A SIX HOUR ERECTION BUT CANT CURE CANCER. SCIENCE CAN FLY YOU TO THE MOON BUT CANT EVEN REACH THE BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN WHERE WE STAY. WESTERN SCIENCE ( THE IDEA OF NATURAL SELECTION SPECIFICALLY) JUSTIFIED MURDEROUS EUROPEAN COLONIAL AMBITIONS AND NORTH AMERICAN CHATTEL SLAVERY. IM NOT PROPOSING THE BABY BE THROWN OUT WITH THE BATHWATER BUT THAT WHICH YOU TRUST BLINDLY IS IN NEED OF SERIOUS REVIEW AND REPAIR.

[Tokos]

CLEARLY TYPING NORMALLY IS FOR GODLESS HEATHENS

[West Stankonia]

Snip

How could it be mistranslated that many times? Unless your talking about it was copied wrong as it was handed down? The NIV Bible is translated directly from the Hebrew text and it also says the "The". I to see where the mistranslation comes in.

I READ AND SPEAK HEBREW AT A UNIVERSITY LEVEL. IN "THE" BEGINNING IS WRONG. THE IS "HA" IN HEBREW. "B'" MEANS IN. B'RAYSHEET = IN A BEGINNING. WHY DO YOU THINK THERES MORE THAN ONE CREATION ACCOUNT IN GENESIS. THE COSMOGONY OF MOSES HAS MORE IN COOMON WITH TAOIST DOCTRINE THAN CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION.

[St George of England]

CLEARLY TYPING NORMALLY IS FOR GODLESS HEATHENS

Nah, we prefer to type like this, in an annoying colour in a size slightly larger than normal.

Because the evidence says we're cool.

[Rolamec]

How could it be mistranslated that many times? Unless your talking about it was copied wrong as it was handed down? The NIV Bible is translated directly from the Hebrew text and it also says the "The". I to see where the mistranslation comes in.

I READ AND SPEAK HEBREW AT A UNIVERSITY LEVEL. IN "THE" BEGINNING IS WRONG. THE IS "HA" IN HEBREW. "B'" MEANS IN. B'RAYSHEET = IN A BEGINNING. WHY DO YOU THINK THERES MORE THAN ONE CREATION ACCOUNT IN GENESIS. THE COSMOGONY OF MOSES HAS MORE IN COOMON WITH TAOIST DOCTRINE THAN CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION.

Hey me too! My name is "David Haaaaaaaaakaaaaaath" *wipes my saliva off your face*

[Coccygia]

How could it be mistranslated that many times? Unless your talking about it was copied wrong as it was handed down? The NIV Bible is translated directly from the Hebrew text and it also says the "The". I to see where the mistranslation comes in.

I READ AND SPEAK HEBREW AT A UNIVERSITY LEVEL. IN "THE" BEGINNING IS WRONG. THE IS "HA" IN HEBREW. "B'" MEANS IN. B'RAYSHEET = IN A BEGINNING.

Actually if you want to nitpick Hebrew has no indefinite article so it should be "In beginning". More to the point is that this is an even more vapid notion than the idea that the "days" mentioned in ch. 1 could equal millions of years.

WHY DO YOU THINK THERES MORE THAN ONE CREATION ACCOUNT IN GENESIS.

Because there are 2 accounts, one in ch.1 and the other in ch. 2, probably originally written by different authors as they use different terms for "God" (JHVH and Elohim).

THE COSMOGONY OF MOSES HAS MORE IN COOMON WITH TAOIST DOCTRINE THAN CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION.

Wut?? Moses is a Taoist?? Lucy, you wanna 'splain?

And please turn off your caps lock. Posting in CAPITALS (ESPECIALLY BRIGHT RED ONES), LIKE YELLING AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS, DOES NOT MAKE YOU ANY MORE PERSUASIVE, IF ANYTHING IT MAKES YOU EVEN LESS SO. You might also improve on your spelling and punctuation. It wouldn't hurt, and there's an automatic spell checker for the posts.