Evolution vs. Creationism

AmbianceMan wrote:   So far all you have done is argued AGAINST creationism...how about arguing FOR your point instead of saying "look in a museum".

In fact I've been arguing for evolution, which is the theory supported by the evidence that's there, for you to see, in museums. At the risk of arousing ever more anger from you, let's have a look at yet another clip from the RDF TV Channel:

p0mt3 wrote: First of all, you assume falsely that I am an Atheist. I consider myself Agnostic, since I still cannot say for sure if I believe in a creator or not. See, this is what I'm talking about. You speak to non-believers as if we flock in packs, when in fact we make up the most diverse collection of people you are ever likely to meet. ''You Atheists'' isn't too for from saying ''You people'' as far as I am concerned. Such bland and general opinions of the unbeliever clearly shows your bias for what it really is.

Geez. How defensive can you be?!

I wasn't even directly referring to you when I said "you atheists" and I say "you so and sos" all the time. It's an expression here in Scotland - or 'youse'. So sorry if you got offended.

Half my family are atheists, I'm hardly 'biased'.

As for what Dawkins said . . . I'm glad that you admit you exaggerated his speech. But you didn't just exaggerate a little . . . you exaggerated a LOT. Dawkins has never and will never call someone an idiot for believing in God. That's Christopher Hitchens' job. He simply states his opinion just as strongly as you would. Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can tell.

Have you watched this program? If no, how can you tell I'm lying? It's been a while sinec I saw it but from what I remember, he basically insulted the intelligence of those in the room that were theists. He didn't use the word 'idiots', thus I said he exaggerated, but he implied it very much so. And many times he has made statements akin to saying that atheists are just "intellectually superior" or enlightened you might say.

Furthermore, if he spoke to a child, it would not have been to call his family 'stupid' as you claim. He probably just wanted to wake the kid up to reality. How would a non-believer do that? Well . . . tell them there is no God, of course. How is that 'ridiculous' or out of character for a non-believer anyway? It's not like he randomly walks up to people on the street, gets in their face and proclaims that their belief system is wrong. Whoever he has discussions with obviously wants to debate with him. He speaks on God and such at his lectures and debates. The people who attend there obviously know what to expect before they even enter. The way you've twisted it, you make Dawkins out to be a madman on a rampage, trying to destroy people's lives. He simply states things as he sees them. Don't agree with it? Don't go to his lectures.

Unfortunately I had to watch this video as part of a philosophy lecture. To be honest, we don't really get the arguments against Dawkins, just Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins, so forgive me for making him out as a bit of a madman. I've read a good part of the God Delusion and found his debate with Dr Collins very interesting as well.

I just found that particular video very unfair on those kids - I say kids, they were about 15. He's not made a good impression on me, I'll put it that way.

Negoba wrote: Dawkins has taken ProgFreak's account.

Don't get so obsessed with Dawkins ... he's simply very active in the promotion of clear thinking, he has published several books. Plus nobody's complaining about religious people referring to their favorite authors all the time ...

I admit it. I only go by things I have read here and there. I have never claimed to be an expert on past wrtings. However, I have read articles written by men who HAVE done the research, and I have no reason to distrust them, since, unlike Christianity, they don't have any agenda or need to convert. They simply state their findings as they see them.

Just an observation, but only the evolutionists are trying to "convert" on here.

The whole agenda thing doesn't work for me. Christianity doesn't = the church. Of course we want other people to have our views - that's the same in EVERY point of view/belief. I'm Christian but I don't shove it down people's throats.

Just felt the need to post that cos its such a tiring argument.

I wouldn't know how to begin to answer this ... one sentence is more nonsensical than the next. Well, if you can't grasp the concept of science and rational thinking then please don't blame Dawkins, Grover or me.

(And I really don't enjoy reading incoherent mixes of pseudo scientific babble mixed with misunderstood philosophical concepts, let alone gracing them with an answer.)

p0mt3 wrote: jampa17 wrote:   Ok then... I have seen a lot of research in that matter and I don't know still which are your sources or what your'e checking, I admit it. I only go by things I have read here and there. I have never claimed to be an expert on past wrtings. However, I have read articles written by men who HAVE done the research, and I have no reason to distrust them, since, unlike Christianity, they don't have any agenda or need to convert. They simply state their findings as they see them. but I have been studying it as well and there's a lot of historic writers from the Jesus era that mention the same things, maybe with different names of the places or the cities in which it takes place... Oh, so there are contradictions all over the place, with names and locations being different, but it's in the Bible, so it must be true! but mostly of the New testament has been proof... If any part of the Bible were proven to be 100% correct, we wouldn't be having this debate right now. Confirming that the locations in which the biblical events took place are real does not prove the bible itself to be true! Hell, do you not realize how many fictional stories are written to take place in real locations? Read Dean Koonts or Stephen King to see what I mean. Maine and New York are real places, yet the events in those stories sure as hell didn't actually happen. of course, there are other resources which said things in the opposite, but my point as a Journalist is that you have to be very carefull to know your resources... Exactly. Which is why I cannot go by the bible alone or any of the subequent scriptures that were written for the same purposes. I have to take into account all of the writings from that time, and only in biblical writings is there any mention of Jesus' apparent abilities. there's have been a lot of lies or fictions all around the so called parallell scriptures and sometimes changing intentionally the translation of the scriptures to makes them less probable... but I can assure that if you dedicate your self at least one semester to the study of these old texts you surely change your mind... I have an friend who is actually doing just that. He's writing a book on it, actually. He's also an Atheist. His mind sure hasn't been changed yet. I can assure you that... the problem with a person as famous and important as Jesus is that there are a lot of missunderstanding, manipulation -in every direction- and prejudge... Exactly. Those misunderstandings would include people believing him to be the son of God. but my advise is that you take a course of investigation and resources... I can bet that you surely change you mind... there are a lot of information about it... I've already addressed that. I have already informed my author friend to give me an advanced copy of his book once all the research is complete. That's the best I can do, as I have a life outside of doing all the research myself.

Citizen Erased wrote: I admit it. I only go by things I have read here and there. I have never claimed to be an expert on past wrtings. However, I have read articles written by men who HAVE done the research, and I have no reason to distrust them, since, unlike Christianity, they don't have any agenda or need to convert. They simply state their findings as they see them. Just an observation, but only the evolutionists are trying to "convert" on here. The whole agenda thing doesn't work for me. Christianity doesn't = the church. Of course we want other people to have our views - that's the same in EVERY point of view/belief. I'm Christian but I don't shove it down people's throats. Just felt the need to post that cos its such a tiring argument.

You're operating under the assumption that the Bible is true. Let's look at things my way for a bit, shall we?

Let's just say that the Bible isn't true. Now . . . it clearly isn't truly spreading any good news about anything real, and instead is giving false hope. So if not to spread truth, what other purpose would there be for the Bible to be written?

Well . . . the Bible states that you yourself are not worthy of saving from a horrible, eternal demise, but if you admit that you are worth nothing and throw your entire life over to a higher being, you will be saved. You must believe that Jesus in the son of God, and that he died for your sins. Now, rather than God doing the loving thing and welcoming us all into heaven, he only accepts those who aknowledge him as supreme and powerful and real. In order to believe this, you must also believe that it is okay to mutilate little boy's genitals, that homosexuals are evil sinners and will not inherit the kingdom of heave, that you should follow God's orders regardless of what they ask of you, etc.

Now, Imagine that the Church is just another component to this hoax. Wouldn't it be very convenient for people to believe that they are doing God's will by paying the church money, following the church leader's guidance, and so forth? Modern day churches don't typically operate under the concept of tithing and such nowadays, and only accept money as an 'offering'. Still, churches don't have to pay taxes, and are allowed to get away with a lot of dangerous, harmful actions all under the banner of 'freedom of religion'. Ever heard of The Family?

Now, obviously not all churches these days are like that, as in modern times most of them have had to adapt to what is considered acceptible these days, but basically what I'm saying is that if Christianity is false, wouldn't control be the next obvious reason for the Bible to be written? Control is a good reason for anything to be made up. More recent 'religions' such as Scientology prove that people will follow just about any doctrine if they personally believe it to be true. The only reason Scientology or Mormonism are more widely known to be false is because the people who made them up are well-known and can be read up on. Christianity escaped that scrutiny because whoever made it up did so in a time when not everything was on record.

So Christianity may not equal the church to you, but the agendas may have once been the same.


Edited by p0mt3 - December 02 2009 at 16:40

For the people who have asked for evidence of evolution, here's a good resource:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

This is the evidence for common descent.

Citizen Erased wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Citizen Erased wrote: Just an observation, but only the evolutionists are trying to "convert" on here. The whole agenda thing doesn't work for me. Christianity doesn't = the church. Of course we want other people to have our views - that's the same in EVERY point of view/belief. I'm Christian but I don't shove it down people's throats. Just felt the need to post that cos its such a tiring argument. Come on ... there are plenty of people advertising creationism and intelligent design here. As far as I'm concerned ... I don't want to persuade anyone of my point of view. Can you quote one example of when I tried to shove anything down people's throats? Again, I'm not directly addressing you in that aspect (not sure if I even quoted you! ).

Well, again, you're referring to us non-believers as if we are all of one mind. ''The evolutuonists'' covers such a broad range of people on this thread, and since Mike has been the most vocal poster on this topic, I can clearly understand why he would think you were referring to him. Not just him, but anybody who believes in evolution.

Citizen Erased wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Citizen Erased wrote: I admit it. I only go by things I have read here and there. I have never claimed to be an expert on past wrtings. However, I have read articles written by men who HAVE done the research, and I have no reason to distrust them, since, unlike Christianity, they don't have any agenda or need to convert. They simply state their findings as they see them. Just an observation, but only the evolutionists are trying to "convert" on here. The whole agenda thing doesn't work for me. Christianity doesn't = the church. Of course we want other people to have our views - that's the same in EVERY point of view/belief. I'm Christian but I don't shove it down people's throats. Just felt the need to post that cos its such a tiring argument. You're operating under the assumption that the Bible is true. Let's look at things my way for a bit, shall we? Let's just say that the Bible isn't true. Now . . . it clearly isn't truly spreading any good news about anything real, and instead is giving false hope. So if not to spread truth, what other purpose would there be for the Bible to be written? Well . . . the Bible states that you yourself are not worthy of saving from a horrible, eternal demise, but if you admit that you are worth nothing and throw your entire life over to a higher being, you will be saved. You must believe that Jesus in the son of God, and that he died for your sins. Now, rather than God doing the loving thing and welcoming us all into heaven, he only accepts those who aknowledge him as supreme and powerful and real. In order to believe this, you must also believe that it is okay to mutilate little boy's genitals, that homosexuals are evil sinners and will not inherit the kingdom of heave, that you should follow God's orders regardless of what they ask of you, etc. Now, Imagine that the Church is just another component to this hoax. Wouldn't it be very conveniant for people to believe that they are doing God's will by paying the church money, following the church leader's guidance, and so forth? Basically what I'm saying is that if Christianity is false, wouldn't control be the next obvious reason for the Bile to be written? Control is a good reason for anything to be made up. MOre recent 'religions' such as Scientology prove that people will follow just about any doctrine if they personally believe it to be true. The only reason Scientology or Mormonism are more widely known to be false is because the people who made them up are well-known and can be read up on. Christianity escaped that scrutiny because whoever made it up did so in a time when not everything was on record. So Christianity may not equal the church to you, but the agendas may have once been the same. When I said my Christian belief was a personal thing, I meant it. A few years ago I had a prophecy at a random meeting (I wasn't really Christian beforehand), spoke on tongues, was deeply touched, it was a moment I'll remember forever. This will never convince anyone of his existence, but it was enough to touch me and so that's the main reason for my faith. Indeed, the years I've had since have been directly in line with the prophecy I had (which again, is personal so won't go into). I don't feel under control by anything because that moment was between just me and God. There was nobody else influencing me at the time and I know that in my heart.

Oh, dear. So you're one of those people who actually believes the holy spirit can possess people and speak through them?

I suppose it would be a waste of time to point out that nothing outside of those types of churches can prove that the language is anything other than babble, right?