Hmmmmm.....Interesting!

“Just another attempt of those silly religious freaks trying to hide the truth.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20061203/sc_livescience/scientistfightschurchefforttohidemuseumsprehumanfossils”

“I can't resist. There has been NO full skeletal remains ever found to support evoloution! EVER! The most complete remains found are only approximatley 15% complete. That means the rest is built by the team as an "impression" of what they believe it should be. I believe in creation but don't rule out some "adaptation" over time but if we really evolved from apes, what stopped the process? How come there isn't cro-magnum man/woman today, oh yea there are three and they work for Gieco.
I know I just opened the preverbial can of worms but IF there was more substantial proof, i.e. more complete remains like the "bog man of Scotland", Pompei, or like SOME of the dinosaurs I could understand. This is like saying that the crumbs I saw as a child PROVES that Santa is real.
Ok, there it is, hack it up.”

“We shouldn't be filling our children's heads with what could have been our past. Those bones shouldn't be put in a back room. Them bones should be destroyed.
Christ is the way man. It's all printed in that one book. Well, several books at the back of that one big book. Well, Ok, so that one big book has over 50 English versions. I prefer the "New International Wycliffe Amplified Standard Virtual King James version, as translated by Darby himself.

Now, If I had been the first white guy with a cross to find them bones, I'd not have named them after a lake. They'd have been named after me. Them bones would be known as Goat Boy. As as soon as I'd found them bones to be even 15% humanoid, I'd have crushed em. Dug a hole and sent em back to the hell they came from.
But, I wasn't the first white guy with a cross to find em now, was I?”

“There has been NO full skeletal remains ever found to support evoloution! EVER

and theres jacksht to support creation

for chrissakes, its called deductive reasoning and drawing the most logical conclusion. look it up. its a hellava lot better than POOF! here we are. just because you cant follow the reasoning, doesnt mean its incorrect. i cant follow it either, but i give a helluva lot more credit to the thousands of men and women who have dedicated massive amounts of time and resources over decades and centuries, than i do a beautifully crafted but ALLEGORICAL piece of pseudo-history”

“According to Norse lore, before there was Earth (Midgard), there was Muspell, a fiery land guarded by the fire sword-wielding Surt; Ginnungagap, a great void, and Niflheim, a frozen ice-covered land. When the cold of Niflheim touched the fires of Muspell, the giant Ymir and a behemothic cow, Auðhumla, emerged from the thaw. Then, the cow licked the god Bor and his wife into being. The couple gave birth to Buri, who fathered three sons, Odin, Vili, and Vé. The sons rose up and killed Ymir and from his corpse created from his flesh, the Earth; the mountains from his bones, trees with his hair and rivers, and the seas and lakes with his blood. Within Ymir’s hollowed-out skull, the gods created the starry heavens.”

“The Bundahishn of the Middle Persian era tells of the world created by the deity Ahura Mazda. The great mountain, Alburz, grew for 800 years until it touched the sky. From that point, rain fell, forming the Vourukasha sea and two great rivers. The first animal, the white bull, lived on the bank of the river Veh Rod. However, the evil spirit, Angra Mainyu, killed it. Its seed was carried to the moon and purified, creating many animals and plants. Across the river lived the first man, Gayomard, bright as the sun. Angra Mainyu also killed him. Ouch! The sun purified his seed for forty years, which then sprouted a rhubarb plant. This plant grew into Mashya and Mashyanag, the first mortals. Instead of killing them, Angra Mainyu deceived them into worshipping him. After 50 years they bore twins, but they ate the twins, owing to their sin. After a very long time, two more twins were born, and from them came all humans (but specifically Persians).”

“The Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish, begins with the gods of water, Apsu (fresh), and Tiamat (salt), spawning several generations of gods, leading to Ea and his many brothers. However, these younger gods made so much noise that Apsu and Tiamat could not sleep (a complaint still common today amongst apartment-dwellers). Apsu plotted to kill them, but Ea killed him first. Tiamat vowed revenge and created many monsters, including the Mad Dog and Scorpion Man. Ea and the goddess Damkina created Marduk, a giant god with four eyes and four ears, as their protector. In tangling with Tiamat, Marduk, bearing the winds as weapons, hurled an evil wind down her gullet, incapacitating her, and then killed her with a single arrow to her heart. He then split her body in half and used it to create the heavens and the earth. Later he created man to do the drudge work that the gods refused to do, like farming, telemarketing and accounting.”

“The ancient Egyptians had several creation myths. All begin with the swirling, chaotic waters of Nu (or Nun). Atum willed himself into being, and then created a hill, otherwise there'd be no place for him to stand. Atum was genderless and possessed an all-seeing eye. He/she spat out a son, Shu, god of the air. Atum then vomited up a daughter, Tefnut, goddess of moisture. These two were charged with the task of creating order out of chaos. Shu and Tefnut generated Geb, the earth, and Nut, the sky. First they were entwined, but Geb lifted Nut above him. Gradually the world's order formed, but Shu and Tefnut became lost in the remaining darkness. Atum removed his/her all-seeing eye and sent it in search of them. (Just how all-seeing it was, and what did Atum do without, remains a mystery.) When Shu and Tefnut returned, thanks to the eye, Atum wept with joy. (Presumably he/she re-inserted the eye first.) Where the tears struck the earth, men sprang up”

“Crash bang,
I can follow the reasoning, I had a co-worker when I was in my twenties (my zealot years) that was as ferverent about evoloution as I am about creation and we (peacefully) debated this for hours upon hours and he explained the theorys and points to an exhaustive degree.
I see how they (evoloution theorists) could come up with the theory but to not find the concrete evidence after decades and billions spent on chasing the ever so elusive proof. You say there is no proof of creation? We (the creationists) operate on faith which dosn't need "concrete" evidence, if we needed that it wouldn't be "faith." The scientific explanation of the origions of the universe demands proof which I can't understand why there are so many that subscribe to it without the cold, hard, facts.
I didn't post my prior comments to start a debate on religion, I simply wanted to make the point that both sides of the issue are opperating on faith in what they believe. The difference is the creation side dosen't falsely claim to have the "concrete evidence." My final point is that it seems that every time this issue comes up the eveolution side get's so irate and throws insults refeering to lack of intelligence or other things I won't mention, why is that? Why do some of them get so sidetracked, why must they stray from the issues and throw unfounded and childish insults instead of just enjoying the debate?”

“But then when we bring up the Kennewick Man as an example that the Pre Columbian Americans were no more NATIVE than we are....we are told to go jump in the lake.

I stand by my statement that the theories of Evolution and Creationisim are not mutually exclusive.

To believe that God would not create beings capable of adapting and evolving to meet the changing environments is saying there is something GOD would not do. What is the big deal? Does meaning we may have come from apes, or whatever make a snot load of difference to how I am going to live my life?

Yeah there are wack jobs who use it to say we are no more than animals (in one of their silly attempts to degrade the success of humans) but you know there are people who think the earth is flat.”

“And on a totally UNRELATED direction....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16064706/

If you Fly and Fart...the Terrorists win....

Dang, when I get gassy I like crop dusting the aisle.”

“XL - That's why when I debate this I spend an inordinate amout of time trying to convince the other side to talk about "origins", not evolution. The debate is origins - creation vs. something from nothing - not creation vs. evolution. Even if you believe there is no evolution, that says nothing of "creation" or "origins", so Christians should stop allowing themselves to be pulled into that debate. It's the biggest straw-man in history.”

“moonglo, I thought you rejected evolution, too.”

“Welll since you can't get Something from Nothing...unless you discuss the amazing way the Socialists claim they will create Utopia by taking everything from everyone who does anything useful.....(LOL)

but I was having a RED BALLOON moment...the little blonde hottie from the "Palace" (big bosses office) came in wanting to borrow this inspection pole we use for looking over rafters. She has found some spider webs she wanted to get off the ceiling.

But when walks in with a little ...I MEAN little outfit on and said, "Hey, you got a minute I need you to come to my office and bring that Pole Thingy you have."”

“"You say there is no proof of creation? We (the creationists) operate on faith which dosn't need "concrete" evidence, if we needed that it wouldn't be "faith." The scientific explanation of the origions of the universe demands proof which I can't understand why there are so many that subscribe to it without the cold, hard, facts."


IMHO, this is incorrect. You can have faith in science and have scientific theory. In religion, you only have faith and nothing else to present.

Example: I do not fully know everything about medical science. I feel that somebody, or entity for that matter, has more knowledge than I could ever have and this person hold my life in their hands. This person can decide if I die or not. I have faith in this person and in science at this point.

In religion, faith is the substitute for what you do not know. In religion, there is no real hard proof that this faith is even operating the way you are told it is. In science, at least some hard, physical and theoretical proof for some of the is talked about can be presented; a "one up" so far on religion.


I am a person who operates in reason. I cannot, nor will not, rely on hearsay or interpretation of another person for my guidance in life.”

“Scientist keep each other honest- Religious leaders seem to cover each others past.”

“Mutt, why did you think that? Because I'm a Christian? I've said hundreds of times on here you guys need to ask instead of assume. If people make incorrect assumptions I often let them just go without correcting them. Often they get confused and think I'm talking in circles, and that makes me laugh, but really I know they just made an incorrect assumption from the git-go.”

“laqtis - Your premise is incorrect. There are still (incomplete) concrete proofs in religion, just as there are (incomplete) concrete proofs in science. For example, most of what is in the Bible can be "proven" through archeology (a science by the way).”

“No, because I thought I remembered you arguing against macro evolution. In this case, my memory must be wrong. I'm glad you believe macro-evolution to be the scientific fact it is.

And, you recognize that abiogenesis is separate from evolution. That's far ahead of someone like eb13.”

“I did not say I believe in every type of evolution. I said I believe in evolution. (and have said that previously)”

“I am a person who operates in reason. I cannot, nor will not, rely on hearsay or interpretation of another person for my guidance in life.”

laqtis....

No you are a College Boy who operates on FEELINGS.”

“I see how they (evoloution theorists) could come up with the theory but to not find the concrete evidence after decades and billions spent on chasing the ever so elusive proof.

evolution took millions of years. the time we've been studying it is a sliver in that time. we probably wont get that "concrete" evidence youre looking for in our lifetime, or perhaps hundreds of lifetimes

The difference is the creation side dosen't falsely claim to have the "concrete evidence."

no, they just claim to have "Divine Truth"

if youre gonna need concrete proof to believe in something, i guess we're going to have to let every murderer and rapist on death row and in prison go, because unless some idiot was stupid enough to videotape himself with his victim, we dont have concrete evidence that they commited the crime.

assuming that the bible is the word of god AND also assuming evolution to be true, would it have made sense to put the theory of evolution in genesis? no. we wouldnt have understood it thousands of years ago. it would have been too much to take in. evolution is something we have to learn for ourselves, in bits and pieces.

instead of confusing our ancestors with a bunch of scientific jargon, he gave us a story to show us how powerful he is. the whole "in the beginning" is just setting the stage for the larger story. the moral of the story is that the cost for disobeying god is very very heavy.

genesis says that god created man from dust of the earth. well, if you go back far enough, science basically says the same thing. genesis says god created man. fine. im not arguing against that. unless you want to say that he magicked him out of thin air. scientists are just trying to explain how man was created. genesis worked for us when the human race was in its infancy, like the story of santa claus and the easter bunny worked for little kids. but now that our knowledge base is becoming greater, we need more than stories.

but xl is right when he says it really doesnt matter a hang when it comes to how we live our lives.”

“Thank you Crash....I watched two friends get in a dang near knock down drag out over ...creationsisim....JEEZE...okay if they find a monkey with a palm pilot whooptie doo. Will it change my faith that there is a God who actually cares about me? Or one to whom I will eventually answer? No. If I find out there is PROOF POSITIVE that we came from plankton...will that mean I will not treat a hurt hiker on the trail or go into a burning house to help someone???/NO

I think it is much more effective to debate the color of the sky (Bulldog blue by the way)”

“I have been in transit all day getting back to the States but I'll reply now.
Laqtis, If one is a person of faith that faith is THEIR own proof, it is the evidence of things not seen. I never said I was trying to present my faith to prove anything.
Mutt, what do you mean And, "you recognize that abiogenesis is separate from evolution. That's far ahead of someone like eb13?" Again, I ask why do you have to take digs at people? How do you know where I am? You could have inquired with me before making an assumption.I haven't heard the term abiogenesis but am interested in knowing what it is. I never said that I know everything, nor did I say that facts weren't facts. I do believe that spicies "adapt" to their surroundings but find it hard to believe and there is no solid proof that a species can "evolve" into a new one. It's like the dinosaur issue, decades ago some people of faith refused to accept that ther ever where dinosaurs. If they would have bothered to read a little deeper into Gods word they would have found out that there in there. I am a man of faith but not an ignorant one, I do consider all possibilities.”

“eb13, Mutt is somebody to watch for re: how he'll talk to you if you're Christian. Imagine calling black people on here n*ggers. That is the equivalent of the type of language he uses on here. Best to ignore him.”

“dinosaurs in the bible. thats cute.”

“"“laqtis - Your premise is incorrect.”"

A general dismissal? For a troll who demands that other people "be specific" a good part of the time, the least you could do is practice what you preach, or lead by example.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.”

“"Laqtis, If one is a person of faith that faith is THEIR own proof, it is the evidence of things not seen."


Incorrect. Faith cannot function as evidence of things not seen. Faith can fill in the gaps, but cannot be presented as actual evidence of things not seen. That might be your belief; however, that does not make it true, or factual.

"I never said I was trying to present my faith to prove anything."

While you might not have said that exactly, you just gave yourself an open door to say that. Your claim is shaky; I'd like to hear more of a well-rounded argument from you. All I read at present from your post are assumptions, opinion presented as fact and some basic fallacy.”

“A general dismissal? For a troll who demands that other people "be specific" a good part of the time, the least you could do is practice what you preach, or lead by example.

First off, I typed more than what you copied/pasted. I explained myself. Did you read it?

Secondly, when I say "be specific", that doesn't mean I am putting them down for not being specific in the 1st place - it means I'm asking them to be specific. Don't read into what I type. Assuming is ...

If you have a question, just ask. Don't be such a dick. What about what I DID type would you like clarification on?
last edited: 12/07/06 12:09:33 AM”

“"First off, I typed more than what you copied/pasted. I explained myself. Did you read it?"

Yes I did; no need to assume. That is why I came to the obvious conclusion that you were incorrect.


"If you have a question, just ask. Don't be such a dick. What about what I DID type would you like clarification on?
last edited: 12/07/06 1:09:33 AM”
moonglo
1:08:31 AM
12/07/06"


lmao!”

“In other words, you have no comeback for : "There are still (incomplete) concrete proofs in religion, just as there are (incomplete) concrete proofs in science. For example, most of what is in the Bible can be "proven" through archeology (a science by the way)." so you're dodging. We got it.”

“Moon, ever notice how science demands ABSOLUTE PROOF for most of their stuff (heck just bring a theory of fire cause to a scientist and they poo poo it becuase you don't have a degree in Chemistry or something)...Yet when SCIENCE says something undetermined (Global Chicken Little, etc) it is FACT DANM you...you better not question it UNLESS YOU ARE A TRAINED SCIENTIST.”

“It is apparent that when moonglo runs out of facts, they resort to fallacy, including personal attacks.

Your only purpose here is to cause trouble, troll, not to have honest and civil discourse.”

“Mutt is somebody to watch for re: how he'll talk to you if you're Christian. Imagine calling black people on here n*ggers. That is the equivalent of the type of language he uses on here. - moonglo

It's true I've called christians scumbags. But that's just directed at those bent on forcing their religion on the rest of us through such crap as intelligent design, prayer in the classroom, 10 commandments in the court, etc, etc. And it's true that I've made fun of the christian myth, but that's just because it's so obviously false. It takes an incredible suspension of intelligence to believe in Christ's divinity, miracles, christianity being the only path to God, and childish stuff like that, so I have to laugh at people who take it so seriously (e.g. make claims that all others are going to hell).

If that's the equivalent of calling a black person a ni**er, that says a whole lot more about you and your lack of confidence in your beliefs than it does me. You remind me of the muslime that will cut my head off if I offend their religion. Nice company you keep.”

“Even racists can "justify" their behavior.”

“Yep, lack of confidence. What I hold sacred is above any verbal reproach from, for example, a christian bigot who claims Jesus is the only path to God. You see, I am confident in what I believe. I offer myself as a role model to you, so that you might grow spiritually.”

“Mutt, what is it about Christians that frightens you so much?

As far as I know there haven't been any on this site demanding you BELIEVE what they say.”

“It is apparent that when moonglo runs out of facts, they resort to fallacy, including personal attacks. - laqtis


*** REALITY FLASHBACK TIMELINE ***


1. moonglo posts this argument:

"There are still (incomplete) concrete proofs in religion, just as there are (incomplete) concrete proofs in science. For example, most of what is in the Bible can be "proven" through archeology (a science by the way)."

2. laqtis comes back with this:

"For a troll who demands that other people "be specific" a good part of the time, the least you could do is practice what you preach, or lead by example.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.”

(note: not a rebuttle, but a personal attack)

3. moonglo suggests that laqtis didn't respond to the question, but instead used a personal attack:

"In other words, you have no comeback for : "There are still ..."

4. laqtis follows that by essentially saying the same thing, which makes no sense considering it was moonglo asking for the topic to be addressed instead of personal attacks:

It is apparent that when moonglo runs out of facts, they resort to fallacy, including personal attacks. ”

“Moon, I noticed that about him, he seems like a confrontationalist.
Laq, Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
I don't give myself an open door to say anything! If I have something to say I will just say it. I say what I mean and mean what I say. I have not presented anything as fact, on the contrary I adderssed the lack of "facts" to prove the theories contrary to creation. If you haven't got it yet, I am not saying anything except that neither side has any more concrete than the other, we both have what you call "theories" and I agree with you on that. Where we differ is that you claim that the theories you believe are "fact", not so. You also claim that I present my "theories" (the word of God and my faith) as fact, wrong again.
I will not throw insults, huck some digs out there, or miss quote/twist what you post and would appreciate the same respect in return.”

“eb, great quote....thanks...and as for stuff being twisted and bent...get used to it. Please don't take this site too seriously, I have been around a bit, I can tell you some of the people I have argued with the loudest turned out to be pretty good hiking pals.”

“That's something all of you will come to learn about me,I don't take too much too seriously. I love to discuss different things but when it's done, it's done. As long as people act mature and don't act blatently hateful all is good. I also look forward to hiking and backpacking with some of you guys/gals.”

“Act mature....okay...I have heard that....lets see...was it when they wanted to have CASUAL day a few years ago and I wore a Tux in defiance?...Well many of us here follow the belief that you can only be young once but you can always be immature.”

“There is NOTHING wrong with that kind of immaturety! I love cutting up like that.
I was a counselor on a church ski trip one year and all the kids wear college team sweats on the bus to and from. We lived in N.W. Florida so there was FSU, Gators, Miami, Alabama, Auburn, and so on so I bought Yale sweatpants to be smart. Everyone kept coming up to me saying "Yale?" to which I would loudly reply "Why, you can't hear me?"”