This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Shtal on 18 May 2013 - 04:05
I was watching this debate - it is actually about 2 hours...For me it was great discussional debate, for some it may be boring show, but I will share this anyway maybe someone here might find it interesting.
by Carlin on 18 May 2013 - 13:05
Just watched a few minutes here shtal, I don't have a couple of hours. Though I obviously disagree with Brahe (the atheist), I have a lot of respect for his method and the respect he exhibits. Hovind (the creationist), doesn't do so well, IMO. There is no reason for those of faith to fear scientific fact. Evolution, is a fact, backed by empirical evidence. The atheist (a scientist) admits that science cannot disprove the existence of God, while the creationist ignorantly claims that he "can prove the existence of God", and creationism. I did not come to believe what I do because someone could convince me with evidence. In fact, my original faith (Catholicism) was chosen for me, and I rejected it for atheism on the basis of the scientific facts I had available. That I now believe, is purely a function of a faith based on personal revelation, a faith that accepts and embraces science, as part of the wisdom with which God created the cosmos. It would seem to be a complete waste of time to argue matters of faith and revelation from a scientific perspective. Humans are unique within the animal kingdom, and I have no problem with idea that my ancestor may have been an ape, if God so chose that platform upon which to breathe spirit, for example. Many Chistians who are capable of little more than simply parroting their pastor or the last show on TBN may be appalled at this, but the truth is, a lot of the controversy is formed over interepreting the Bible, wherein for some reason, Christians think they "need" to have every answer to all things "God". If that were the case, there would be no need for faith. I haven't read it yet, but the title of a book comes to mind regarding this problem of interpretation; it's called : "Hermeneutics Are Like Belly Buttons" (everybody's got one).
by Shtal on 18 May 2013 - 19:05
Carlin wrote: It would seem to be a complete waste of time to argue matters of faith and revelation from a scientific perspective. Humans are unique within the animal kingdom, and I have no problem with idea that my ancestor may have been an ape,
In regarding what you said...One of the problems you have is the news-media, textbooks and the teachers always try to assume evolution is part of science.
There was an article in El Paso Texas called El Paso-Times. The headline was Religious and scientific leaders debate evolution. Just think about the headline, what are they are trying to imply just by the headline?…That evolution is part of science, and I always try to stop every time when I can, wait – wait a minute, no, no. Science deals with things that we can observe, study and test, we don’t observed any evolutions claims, you can believe that if you like but that is not observed. It’s NOT religious and scientific leaders debating evolution, it is two religions debating. Evolution is a religion, atheists get very angry with me when I say that, they say this is NOT a religion and I always say, yes it is. In every sense of the word something you have to believe in, there is no observation, no testing and no experimentation, it is simply a religious believe. And I see this over and over in the text books and in the video debates you know. They keep saying, well, you know according to science, we know science is different than religion. I would say wait, wait a second, are you implying evolution out to be with science? Right there is your mistake. I would agree that science and religion are different but I would not agree that evolution should be included with science. And you would have to stop them in debate every five minutes. There you go you are trying to include evolution is part of science, they want to sneak it in. Here is a good illustration that can be used. Beer is sold in football games quite often, beer has nothing to do with football and beer does not become athletic by association with football; Okay. And evolution has nothing to do with science, and it does not become scientific by associate with, you know, science. It is true it is mix with textbooks, and it is true that beer is mix with football games, so what? And it doesn’t mean there is a connection between the two. (Religious and scientific community debates evolution, that is simply baloney.)
In regarding what you said...One of the problems you have is the news-media, textbooks and the teachers always try to assume evolution is part of science.
There was an article in El Paso Texas called El Paso-Times. The headline was Religious and scientific leaders debate evolution. Just think about the headline, what are they are trying to imply just by the headline?…That evolution is part of science, and I always try to stop every time when I can, wait – wait a minute, no, no. Science deals with things that we can observe, study and test, we don’t observed any evolutions claims, you can believe that if you like but that is not observed. It’s NOT religious and scientific leaders debating evolution, it is two religions debating. Evolution is a religion, atheists get very angry with me when I say that, they say this is NOT a religion and I always say, yes it is. In every sense of the word something you have to believe in, there is no observation, no testing and no experimentation, it is simply a religious believe. And I see this over and over in the text books and in the video debates you know. They keep saying, well, you know according to science, we know science is different than religion. I would say wait, wait a second, are you implying evolution out to be with science? Right there is your mistake. I would agree that science and religion are different but I would not agree that evolution should be included with science. And you would have to stop them in debate every five minutes. There you go you are trying to include evolution is part of science, they want to sneak it in. Here is a good illustration that can be used. Beer is sold in football games quite often, beer has nothing to do with football and beer does not become athletic by association with football; Okay. And evolution has nothing to do with science, and it does not become scientific by associate with, you know, science. It is true it is mix with textbooks, and it is true that beer is mix with football games, so what? And it doesn’t mean there is a connection between the two. (Religious and scientific community debates evolution, that is simply baloney.)
by Felloffher on 18 May 2013 - 21:05
Carlin,
Don't waste your time talking to Mr. Science, he's all knowing.
Don't waste your time talking to Mr. Science, he's all knowing.
by Shtal on 18 May 2013 - 23:05
Felloffher,
You got the theory; you know it is true, now you just need evidence: that is how the most atheists think about it. You see the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages is a persistent and nagging problem to evolution.
You got the theory; you know it is true, now you just need evidence: that is how the most atheists think about it. You see the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages is a persistent and nagging problem to evolution.
by Felloffher on 19 May 2013 - 01:05
You got the theory; you know it is true, now you just need evidence: that is how the most atheists think about it. You see the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages is a persistent and nagging problem to evolution.
Yawn. There is no problem with the evidence, the problem is with your sources. The debate is over and you lose.
Yawn. There is no problem with the evidence, the problem is with your sources. The debate is over and you lose.
by Shtal on 19 May 2013 - 01:05
Oh Okay, if you say so it is over, but I like Carlin post:
Carlin wrote: Yes, I can see where this one would be tough for you. You appear to play dumb when the answer doesn't fit the cookie cutter box you are accustomed to dealing with, and are prone to hastily dismissing anything you lack command of, inhibiting growth. I'm confident that when I have addressed you directly, you have gotten the point. What amuses me about many atheists, is the comfort they generally take once having convinced themselves of their superior awareness and intelligence. I've lived in both camps, and can attest to the fact that ignorance is indiscriminate.
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/forum.read?mnr=723516-happy-mothers-day-to-all-to--you-moms-out-there-you-are-special&pagen=2
Carlin wrote: Yes, I can see where this one would be tough for you. You appear to play dumb when the answer doesn't fit the cookie cutter box you are accustomed to dealing with, and are prone to hastily dismissing anything you lack command of, inhibiting growth. I'm confident that when I have addressed you directly, you have gotten the point. What amuses me about many atheists, is the comfort they generally take once having convinced themselves of their superior awareness and intelligence. I've lived in both camps, and can attest to the fact that ignorance is indiscriminate.
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/forum.read?mnr=723516-happy-mothers-day-to-all-to--you-moms-out-there-you-are-special&pagen=2
by Felloffher on 19 May 2013 - 02:05
Shtal,
You choose to ignore anything that contradicts the bible, so there is no debate. You never provide creditable evidence that substantiates your pseudo scientific claims and every time these claims are shown to be wrong you vanish from the forum without a rebuttal. If you want to see transitional fossils go to a museum. All the information you need is out there, but first you must open your eyes.
You choose to ignore anything that contradicts the bible, so there is no debate. You never provide creditable evidence that substantiates your pseudo scientific claims and every time these claims are shown to be wrong you vanish from the forum without a rebuttal. If you want to see transitional fossils go to a museum. All the information you need is out there, but first you must open your eyes.
by Shtal on 19 May 2013 - 02:05
Felloffher,
I am not going to waste my time with you, because you talk a lot but don't say much.
Here is my very old post: I will refresh your memory regarding what is in museum; creature by the name Lucy.
The full proper name is Australopithecus Africanus Lucy… Donald Hudson found Lucy in 1974. (Ethiopia) He had gone there with a grant to look for missing links, somebody gave him some money - said here, go find missing link if you don’t find one – no more money. Two weeks before his grant money expired he discovered Lucy. (Highly motivated I suspect) that would be suspect by the way in the court of law. Lucy was three feet tall; it is obviously chimpanzee of some kind, the bones of the scull was crushed thoroughly, could not tell anything about the scull, but when they put it together for your kids text book, they make it half human and half ape, they name it Lucy because they were listening to a song, Lucy in the sky with Diamonds, great popular back then, which by the way have initials LSD which must be on when they found this thing.
The knee joint that was labeled Lucy knee in national geographic was actually found mile in half away (1.5m) and 200 hundred feet deeper. The national geographic labeled Lucy’s knee, it’s not Lucy knee, its mile and half away (1.5m) for heaven sake okay. There is quite quarterversary about that knee joint still, but the knee joint is the best evidence they have Lucy was becoming a human; because an ape has a lower and upper leg in the straight line with each other, the human leg goes up to your knee and angles off to the side because your hips are wider than your knees. Lucy knee is angle off to the side (the Femur angled) and Donald said see that proves she is becoming a human. No, any monkey climbs trees has an angled femur, what he found is tree climbing monkey, its not proof its becoming a human. He said well the bones are slightly bigger than a regular ape, well that is true, but that doesn’t proof it becoming a human. The bones of a Clydesdale are slightly bigger than a regular horse; it doesn’t proof it becoming a truck for heaven sake okay. What he found was a heavy duty chimpanzee and probably pre-flood chimpanzee and everything was probably more heavy duty, if they are living longer and much healthier, that’s all they found. We have big horses and little horses today by the way.
St. Louis Zoo put human feet on their Lucy display, not one feet bone or hand bone was found, not one... Every other Australopithecus has been found has curl toes. Professor David Menton in Washington University said the statue is a complete misrepresentation, it’s a big fancy word for lie, I prefer smaller words – it’s a lie. The Zoo director said; Zoo officials have no plans to knuckle under. We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. We look at the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct. So you would lie to kids coming to your zoo just to get an impression across to them that the evolution is true, you mean your theory is more important than the facts; that is exactly correct, they will lie to the kids going through science and zoo just to make them believe this evolution theory.
I am not going to waste my time with you, because you talk a lot but don't say much.
Here is my very old post: I will refresh your memory regarding what is in museum; creature by the name Lucy.
The full proper name is Australopithecus Africanus Lucy… Donald Hudson found Lucy in 1974. (Ethiopia) He had gone there with a grant to look for missing links, somebody gave him some money - said here, go find missing link if you don’t find one – no more money. Two weeks before his grant money expired he discovered Lucy. (Highly motivated I suspect) that would be suspect by the way in the court of law. Lucy was three feet tall; it is obviously chimpanzee of some kind, the bones of the scull was crushed thoroughly, could not tell anything about the scull, but when they put it together for your kids text book, they make it half human and half ape, they name it Lucy because they were listening to a song, Lucy in the sky with Diamonds, great popular back then, which by the way have initials LSD which must be on when they found this thing.
The knee joint that was labeled Lucy knee in national geographic was actually found mile in half away (1.5m) and 200 hundred feet deeper. The national geographic labeled Lucy’s knee, it’s not Lucy knee, its mile and half away (1.5m) for heaven sake okay. There is quite quarterversary about that knee joint still, but the knee joint is the best evidence they have Lucy was becoming a human; because an ape has a lower and upper leg in the straight line with each other, the human leg goes up to your knee and angles off to the side because your hips are wider than your knees. Lucy knee is angle off to the side (the Femur angled) and Donald said see that proves she is becoming a human. No, any monkey climbs trees has an angled femur, what he found is tree climbing monkey, its not proof its becoming a human. He said well the bones are slightly bigger than a regular ape, well that is true, but that doesn’t proof it becoming a human. The bones of a Clydesdale are slightly bigger than a regular horse; it doesn’t proof it becoming a truck for heaven sake okay. What he found was a heavy duty chimpanzee and probably pre-flood chimpanzee and everything was probably more heavy duty, if they are living longer and much healthier, that’s all they found. We have big horses and little horses today by the way.
St. Louis Zoo put human feet on their Lucy display, not one feet bone or hand bone was found, not one... Every other Australopithecus has been found has curl toes. Professor David Menton in Washington University said the statue is a complete misrepresentation, it’s a big fancy word for lie, I prefer smaller words – it’s a lie. The Zoo director said; Zoo officials have no plans to knuckle under. We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. We look at the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct. So you would lie to kids coming to your zoo just to get an impression across to them that the evolution is true, you mean your theory is more important than the facts; that is exactly correct, they will lie to the kids going through science and zoo just to make them believe this evolution theory.
by Felloffher on 19 May 2013 - 02:05
Keep looking.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top