Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on September 15, 2006, 08:49:15 PM
-
Is anyone surprised by muslim sensitivity anymore?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1873914,00.html
Why cant muslims simply let people who arent muslim express themselves without fear of being threatened, harmed or killed?
-
thats just not how they roll
-
I think they're watching you now Yeager.
:noid
-
What's the Dali Lama think?
I can't wait to get all the Buddhists on our side too!
-
There's a saying "****e don't stink if you don't touch it".
Well....stop touching it.....
-
their gonna have to sneak up on me. Oh wait.........:O
-
I think the list of what they do like and/or tolerate is the much shorter list
-
It's a shame they caqn't get all upset about muslims killing other muslims over differing sects of the same religion. I'd love to see muslim protests in anger over being offended by other muslims killing folkls in the name of their religion.
That would impress me way more than this little diatribe over some imagined insult.
-
A quote attributed to the "...spokesman for the Musharraf dispensation in Pakistan..." about the Pope's comments on Muhammad...
"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion of intolerant encourages violence".
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
A quote attributed to the "...spokesman for the Musharraf dispensation in Pakistan..." about the Pope's comments on Muhammad...
"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion of intolerant encourages violence".
:rofl
:rofl
-
Originally posted by soda72
:rofl
You can't even make that stuff up! The above quote was in the Wallstreet Journal.:lol
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v365/bdfaith/BeheadThoseW180.jpg)
(http://aussie_news_views.typepad.com/aussie_news_views/images/hell002.jpg)
(http://aussie_news_views.typepad.com/aussie_news_views/images/holo_1.jpg)
[img]
-
Distressingly even Turkey has complained about the remarks and Turkey is considered one of the more moderate Muslim nations. I wish there was concrete evidence to tell what percentage of Muslims are seething over incidents like this and what percentage are shrugging it off. Sentences like "Muslims are terrorists" make as much sense as "Catholics are child molesters". See only some Muslims are terrorists and only some Catholic (priests) child molesters...:( The troubling difference is while several in the Catholic religion would get HUGELY upset over a statement like that, they aren't gonna start blowing things up.
Don't forget however that even in America we have our share of home grown religious terrorists. Don't forget the nutjobs that have been protesting at the funerals of those who have fallen in Iraq or the tard that was bombing abortion clinics.
Ironically the remarks by the Pope are essentially a condemnation of using violence to further your religion and these words should be given some consideration by EVERYONE. Here is the offensive part of the speech:
In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".
While the quote "ONLY things that are evil and inhuman..." is a bit excessive (imagine if you will a rabbi saying ALL the later teachings of Jesus were evil and inhuman), the problem is the focus on one word in one sentence and completely missing the point of the speech.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You can't even make that stuff up! The above quote was in the Wallstreet Journal.:lol
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v365/bdfaith/BeheadThoseW180.jpg)
(http://aussie_news_views.typepad.com/aussie_news_views/images/hell002.jpg)
(http://aussie_news_views.typepad.com/aussie_news_views/images/holo_1.jpg)
(http:// [/B][/QUOTE]
Come now Ripsnort, if we believe the press only about 10% of Muslims or roughly 150 Million would actually be willing to behead blasphemous infidels who believe that Islam is violent, and only uh... 40% of Muslims openly approve of their actions, so that's uh... 600 Million. And then there's the 40% who won't openly say anything either way unless there's a really good riot going over Cartoons or the Pope reading quotes from the 15th century, and finally the 10% of Muslims who will say, that people probably shouldn't be calling for decapitations quite so much. And then of course there's the 0.000001% of Muslims like Salman Rushdie, who wish they'd never said anything about Islam at all.
So you add all of them together, and you have The Religion of Peace, or at least The Religion of Rest in Peace.
[Ok, its probably time to remind me about either the Crusades circa 1095-1271 AD or how Pat Robertson says nutty things and that this is easily the moral equivalent of an ongoing worldwide Jihad to establish a universal Islamic Caliphate by violence and oppression, and that therefore only people who believe in philosophies that brought us things like the Terror (18th century) the age of Revolution (19th century), the Gulags (20th), the Killing Fields (20th), Abortion on Demand (billions served) etc., are allowed to judge whether an ideology might promote violence. In other words:
[IMG]http://newsbusters.org/media/2006-09-12-ABCViewOdonnell.jpg)]
-
I want to know when we are going to stop worrying about what the Muslims think about what we say, they sure don't bother to restrict themselves when it comes to speaking ill of Christians and Jews. They dont hesitate to insult, degrade and threaten us, but we spend too much of our time worrying that we might have offended them.
Screw that. Grow a spine all those apologists.
-
In retrospect, yes - catholics are child molesters...:rolleyes:
-
That one sign might as well read......
If you say we are violent, we are going to prove you right by becoming violent and cutting off your head.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Dago
I want to know when we are going to stop worrying about what the Muslims think about what we say, they sure don't bother to restrict themselves when it comes to speaking ill of Christians and Jews. They dont hesitate to insult, degrade and threaten us, but we spend too much of our time worrying that we might have offended them.
Screw that. Grow a spine all those apologists.
Muslims can do/say whatever they want to Infidels such as......you and me.....because the Koran says it's ok. Otoh, you and I are not allowed to say anything that can be construed as bad about Muslims or Islam itself.....even if it's the truth.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Muslims can do/say whatever they want to Infidels such as......you and me.....because the Koran says it's ok. Otoh, you and I are not allowed to say anything that can be construed as bad about Muslims or Islam itself.....even if it's the truth.
Exactly, and it pisses me off. All that holds us back in the touchy-feely crowd that lives in fear of offending someone who insults and attacks us regularly. (I call them Democrats).
-
z0MG u r offendeded
luke come 2 teh dark side lolololo
u----> :furious
-
Originally posted by Dago
Exactly, and it pisses me off. All that holds us back in the touchy-feely crowd that lives in fear of offending someone who insults and attacks us regularly. (I call them Democrats).
When it comes to their take on the Islamic world, Democrats remind me of that mother with the bratty little kid in "A League Of Their Own..."
"Ohhhh he's really such a sweetheart" :rolleyes:
-
(http://www.ibiblio.org/samneill/pictures/omen3/standingwithboy.jpg)
-
Now because they feel disrepected and they are burning down Churches?
Level every frikkin Mosque, Bomb Mecca when it's full of these Islamic Bastages...
Let's NOW play by their game..
The Monkey Master in Iran needs a bullet in his head... Who in the right mind would let these people into America to the UN to talk chit?
They're not Soldiers protected under the Geneva Convention... read the chit. Read the Consistution! Read Jeffersons letter to the Baptist and then reread the Consistution and tell me where in the Consititution it mentions "Seperation of Church and State" You Liberals make me sick.
It's time you Americans to raise up and make it a Free Amerircan Nation.
In GOD we Trust, One Nation under GOD, time for prayer in school and sports. Are you so Blind?
Mac
You Liberals... eat it... there was never a kind WAR... most of you liberals never served. Tell me about Jimmy Carters term in the Navy..Lame, tell me about Bill or Hillery in the Service, John Howard..Ohhhh and let's not forget John Kerry's service.."I have a Plan" Well WTF was it Kerry?
If The Democrats win the Presidential Election then we are all screwed!
Mac
US Army Ret
1975 ~ 1995
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Is anyone surprised by muslim sensitivity anymore?
Why cant muslims simply let people who arent muslim express themselves without fear of being threatened, harmed or killed?
Originally posted by Ripsnort
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v365/bdfaith/BeheadThoseW180.jpg)
(http://aussie_news_views.typepad.com/aussie_news_views/images/hell002.jpg)
(http://aussie_news_views.typepad.com/aussie_news_views/images/holo_1.jpg)
Gimme some gasoline, I'd have a field day. I'll even bang the virgins before they get a chance too and shove the charred diapers up their as*.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
It's time you Americans to raise up and make it a Free Amerircan Nation.
In GOD we Trust, One Nation under GOD, time for prayer in school and sports. Are you so Blind?
Yeah, Mac, that should solve it. Let's put GOD in school so the one edge we really have over the Muslims (science) goes the way of the dodo too.
-
(http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg)
-
Am I the only one that thinks it's time for another Crusade?
-
what do you think is in the making? by my count two down so far. those poor poor moslems, they have great cause for fear and concern. the bad kharma they have brought upon themselves for seven hundred or so years is here.
if they are upset now wait until we pump out all their natural resources. the heck with 85 million bbls a day. I say buy more SUVs and drive man drive. we should consider it as doing our bit in the war. the inevitability is that the chickens will come home to roost. it's funny that they don't get it but then again most of them aren't farmers are they. you reap what you sow, it's an axiom they are begining to see being played out before their very eyes.
not that this is any great surprise to me, read genesis chapter 16. here is how God describes ishmael and by extension his entire progeny even today.
"you shall name him ishmael for the Lord has heard of your misery. he will be a wild donkey of a man, his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility towards all his brothers".
food for thought, just saying.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Yeah, Mac, that should solve it. Let's put GOD in school so the one edge we really have over the Muslims (science) goes the way of the dodo too.
Pfffft pick and choose. Typical remark from an Atheist.
Mac
-
Ok we have muslims vs:
1: Catholics
2: other christians
3: Hindus
4: Buddists
5: other "atheists"
6: Jews. Yep JEWS.
Somehow I think they might be heading for trouble.
-
I agree but do you mean here in this bbs or in the world at large? :D
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Pfffft pick and choose. Typical remark from an Atheist.
Mac
Just because I haven't given up thinking for myself, instead deciding to trust in one source written thousands of years ago and contaminated by man ever since then, to dictate my life and tell me what is "true" and "untrue"... Doesn't make me an Atheist.
I believe in the same God you do. I don't believe in the Bible word for word and I don't see how doing so and bringing it in the classroom is going to be helpful whatsoever in this situation.
-
Mac, religion is no substitute for reason.
It's not even a slippery slope, it's the edge of the cliff that lands you directly to the same level as those towelheads you want nuked and stuffed.
-
Vudak, are you a biblical scholar as well?
-
Yep. Americans label Islam as backward and then 40% or so proceed to say... No, insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and that man and dinosaur frolicked together in peace and harmony until a great world-wide flood that no scientist can find any trace of destroyed the latter.
Although they're obviously both backward, thankfully, Christians are generally much nicer (at least now - the point in time that matters).
-
Originally posted by storch
Vudak, are you a biblical scholar as well?
No... But I've heard the fish tales.
Have you ever written a term paper and gotten away with using only one source?
-
so you are not a biblical scholar but you dismiss it's teachings "because you have heard the fish tales" brilliant.
-
Originally posted by storch
so you are not a biblical scholar but you dismiss it's teachings "because you have heard the fish tales" brilliant.
So it takes a doctorate to be able to deduce that the world was not created in 7 days (well, 6), that all the creatures of this earth were not around in the same exact form as present since the beginning of time, and that there was no great world-wide flood during man's time?
Of course, it doesn't take a doctorate to "prove" all these statements i've made are false. All it takes is one book, which is the be all end all authority on all subjects pertinent to man. Period. End of discussion, have a nice day.
:rolleyes:
-
LOL
who's talking about fixing an exact age on the earth or the universe?
show me one single transitional fossil of any species of plant or animal.
yes sir you are well on your way to becoming a balding pony tailed elbow patched cardigan wearing member of educated but useless elite. enjoy the journey. try to remember to pack some asbestos underware, it will come in handy just after the transition.
-
Three strangers at the Great Falls airport are awaiting their flights.
One is a Native American on his way to Helena for a statewide Indian Pow-Wow.
Another a ranch hand on his way to Billings Montana for a stock show.
The third passenger is a fundamentalist Arab student, newly arrived, and on his way to study engineering at Montana Tech.
To pass the time they strike up a conversation on recent events, and the discussion drifts to their diverse cultures.
Soon the westerners learn that the Arab is a devout radical Muslim, and believes his people are justified in their 'holy' war.
The conversation falls into an uneasy lull. The cowpoke leans back in his chair, crosses his boots on a magazine table and tips his big sweat-stained hat forward over his face.
The wind outside blows and blows and the old windsock flaps but no plane comes.
Finally, the Native American clears his throat and softly he speaks:" Once, my people were many, now we are few."
The radical Muslim raises an eyebrow and leans forward, "Once my people were few," he sneers, "and now we are many. Why do you suppose that is?"
The Cowboy shifts the toothpick to one side of his mouth and from the darkness beneath his Stetson Cowboy Hat says, "That's 'cause we ain't played Cowboys and Muslims yet boy."
-
Wasn't it a Stinson hat? :D
Anyway, just read the newest news.
Apparently the Muslims (well some of them) are so angry that the Pope quoted an old manuscript stating that Islam was an agressive religion (thereby possibly implying it himself) that they must run shouting to the streets and burn pope puppies.
"I am not aggressive, arrghh, you bastige, I will kill you for saying so" :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by storch
LOL
who's talking about fixing an exact age on the earth or the universe?
show me one single transitional fossil of any species of plant or animal.
yes sir you are well on your way to becoming a balding pony tailed elbow patched cardigan wearing member of educated but useless elite. enjoy the journey. try to remember to pack some asbestos underware, it will come in handy just after the transition.
You obviously don't understand the concept of evolution. I could point you to plenty of fossils suggesting human evolution, yet since each one is not the "exact fossil where the change occured," you'd dismiss it. Nevermind the fact that many of the evolutionary changes wouldn't even be expressed by the phenotype.
I don't believe in your book word for word, so I'll be going to hell with asbestos underwear. I don't believe in the Muslim's book, so I'll be going to hell express lane from decapitation. There's a difference there in method, for sure, but the end desired result is the same.
If you really think the educated are "useless," it's only because you view them as glasses, Caecus.
-
Originally posted by storch
LOL
who's talking about fixing an exact age on the earth or the universe?
show me one single transitional fossil of any species of plant or animal.
yes sir you are well on your way to becoming a balding pony tailed elbow patched cardigan wearing member of educated but useless elite. enjoy the journey. try to remember to pack some asbestos underware, it will come in handy just after the transition.
When i was in teh colij i lurnd about this vatican dude in the 1700's who determined the age of teh universe to the exact day. The 6000th aniversary of this day was in October 1996, iirc & nobody cared :noid :furious (except me), not even the proffesor from the vatican observatory (their 1.8 meter Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope OWNS!!) who taught the history of astonomy & looked like g0d (actually more like santa, but a lot more like g0d than any recent pope). I was disapointed, cause i thought there might be a big party with a lot of that catholic monk (http://brasilienfreunde.net/images/smiles/god.gif)(http://www.goldenweb.it/software/immagini/icone/cartoons/far_side/FS2%20God.gif) booze.
:mad: :mad:
-
Vudak,
please bear with me. I am clearly not as well educated as you and others who post here are.
here are some points I would like to bring up and possibly discuss. these are matters which interest me greatly but that I understand only from a layman's perspective.
reportedly darwinian evolution has been going through an internal revolt though to the outside world they put up a unified front.
science does not know nor can it conclusively prove the age of the earth or of the universe. be it ten thousand years or ten thousand million years.
evolutionary biology has no answer for the "cambrian explosion" in the fossil record.
there is no evidence that all life on the planet evolved from a single common ancestor.
there is no evidence of a single example of evolution from one species into an entirely new one (descent with modification).
according to linus pauling "science is the search for truth"
bruce alberts, president of the U.S. national academy of sciences states "science and lies cannot coexist"
I think that the testing of a theory should never end. all scientific knowledge should in principle be subject to revision as new evidence becomes available. as an example we have seen a recent revision in astrology and how planets are now categorized as such.
it should not matter how long a theory has been held or how many scientists hold a particular view. should contradictory evidence come to light the theory must be reevaluated, maybe even abandoned if warranted.
an average person of reasonable education with access to evidence should be able to understand and possibly evaluate many, if not all scientific claims.
would you agree with me on these points? if you wish to continue the debate I have other points I'll bring up for discussion and further observation and concerns.
-
Beware of the dark side.
Anger...fear...aggression. The dark side of the Force are they.
Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. The dark side.
-
Storch, you're not one of those "Jehova" guys are you?
Anyway, Darwin works fast and nice, - speak from experience as a breeder ;)
-
Stay away from those sheep Angus.:D ;)
-
Originally posted by AWMac
It's time you Americans to raise up and make it a Free Amerircan Nation.
In GOD we Trust, One Nation under GOD, time for prayer in school and sports. Are you so Blind?
And how is this gonna help? And what if somebody happens to be, say, Jewish or Budhist? Does he get kicked out of your school, or just re-indoctrinated. Where are personal rights? Where's seperation of church and state? Out the in window because a horde of mental midgets is using suicide bombings to prove a point?
Sorry pal, but the 'if you can't beat them, join them' plan won't work. The only way to defeat them is with reason and logic, superior weapons and superior organization, not our own brand of bible-thumping idiocy. Put prayer in schools and they've already won.
-
no angus I'm not an "anything". so in your experience as a breeder you have been able to take a goat and breed an angus from it?
-
I was gonna respond to Vudak's assertion, but Storch summed it up well. You certainly don't have to believe in Creationism, but evolution, as described by Darwin, is refuted by SCIENCE, not the Bible. (Fossil records to support evolution didn't yet exist in Darwin's day, but he assumed it was just a matter of time---it's now been a century and change, still great unexplained holes)
-
A few points and observations of the above:
----------------
Muslin religion is the new communism... or rather radical, islamic fundamentalism is the new communism. You live in a mud hut, eat once a week, got an ugly wife to beat...... or a goat...... then these folks come along, maybe get you stonned high, and say strap on this bomb and go kill those infidels over there and you will go to heaven and be rewarded with comfort and perpetual virgins.
Good recruiters will get you high and toss youy into a tent with prostitutes.....(asian prositutes not uncommon in Iraq for example) you come around and get sober again.... they tell you that was heaven.
You look at your mud hut. Your 2 ounces of rice for dinner. Your ugly wife. The goat....
Then you strap on the bomb. What do you have to lose?
------------------
Organized religion is all bad. The stories and writings get skewed and changed to meet the needs, wants, and will of those leading any religion. How much war, pain, suffering, and atrocities have been committed in God's name over history? Um...nearly all of it?
Three major world religions all worship the same one true God, but kill each other over dissagreements in interpreting the stories, which day the Sabbath should fall on, and which prophets are the best prophets. And this one true God allows it to happen. Sounds like Conan's Crom to me.....
Christians are at fault here too. How many swear by the Bible and believe it should be followed word for word? Hipocrites since the Bible allows slavery and selling one's children into slavery to pay off a debt, public stoning for what we would consider stupid crimes (planting two crops side by side, working on the Sabbath....). Most of the "laws" found in the Bible are not followed.
Then there is the laws concerning idolatry. Muslims have this too... which is one of the things many of them don't like about Christians.... idolatry is very commonplace among christian houses of worship in violation of their religion's own laws.
Christianity did not start out in it's earliest times as monotheism. The very earliest writings and idols (probalby a source of idolatry laws to begin with...) go into the existence of a consort or concubine in addition to God. The earliest Chirstian "mother" figure. But...as Christianity was partiarchial in nature, most of the references to the female companion were destroyed, and we end up with a monotherism judeochristian religion.... at least until the time of Christ.
About Muslims not speaking out against the fundamentalists.... as I understand it, it is considered rude to question another Muslim's expression of his faith.... so there is not much of it. All other religions do not matter, since Islam is supposed to conquor all. As to islamic nations? Heck, why would Jordan, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or any other islamic nation stop their radicals from fighting the western nations? They go to cause trouble elsewhere, so they won't be causing trouble at home... Win-win situation for them.
-------------------
The last time a lasting multigenerational peace came over the middle east, that I can think of, was the Pax Mongolia. Might be a more recent one, but I can't think of it. Of course that was largely the peace of the grave... but Temüjin, Subutai, and Tolui did bring a peace....of sorts... to those lands. THEY knew how to fight and win a war against the Muslims!
That is what it took to defeat them last time. Any time I hear about"winning the war on terror", I know I'm listening to an uninformed idiot. Never have I heard anyone declare or define what "winning" that war entails? We kill terrorists, insurgents, and plenty of others as collateral damage. Every day. And their sons and daughters learn to hate us in the madras, play with toy explosive belts, and learn to become future terrorists. Violent Islamic fundamentalism is a renewable resource.
We do not chase terrorist, taliban, or insurgents across borders into Jordan, Syria, or Pakistan. We did not chase Al Qaida from Afghanistan to Indonesia, SE Asia, or the Phillapeans where many of them fled..... we went to Iraq instead which had ONE terrorist training camp in the NE of the country to train Iranian seperatists ---- Sunni Saddam messing with Shia Iran. We turned Afghanistan over to NATO, and allowed it to become a narco-state.
------------------------
The Flood? The story of the flood shows up in many cultures around the world. That's more than likely a memory from pre-history as the last ice age ended. The Black Sea was once fresh water sea below (rising) sea level.... until rising oceans breached Marmara Denizi and a flood swamped the Black Sea and it's early human fishing villages. A flood that would have lasted months if not years. Similar floods would have been experienced around the world, --- the Black Sea was one of the most spectacular --- and in sight of Mount Ararat in Turkey --- and that is something that probably remained in our primative human subconscience minds for many many generations, until finally it could be written about. Lot's of primitive stuff still rattling around in our minds to this day.
---------------------------
True believers in the world being 5 or 6 thousand years old never look into the night sky. Or believe in carbon dating. Or science. Or evolution. Bacteria isn't in the Bible is it? Then they must not exist. Math is probably a tough one too. None too much imaginition either.....
Even the most brief consideration of astronomy, or how long it takes light to reach us from the furthest reaches of the universe. Or that there are more galaxies in our night time sky than stars in our own galaxy.
Or that the oldest rocks dated on the planet come from Greenland, and that they have evidence of life going back about 3.85 billion years.
---------------------------
Denial of being the hairless monkey-boy decendents of apes. Go to a Wal Mart... or a County Fair.... there are a lot of folks somehow walking upright that are none too far from the tree, bub.
Besides... the scientific history of man is FAR more interesting and entertaining and romantic than that story found in Genesis.
Early man begins to walk upright to see threats in the savanna grass while crossing between the longer distances of disapperaring trees in a Africa facing desertification. This frees up his hands for tool making... he learns to throw things to kill... again the brain grows to develop the skills of aiming and targeting other objects. Fire allows him to cook food (more protein for a growing brain), and staring into the flames at night, man pushes back the darkness, imagination follows the firelight. Weapons and tools become more sophisticated. Language. Clothing. Hunting and gathering progresses toward fishing, domesticated animals, and finally the First Great Revolution: Agriculture. The length of time and climatic changes going on around him during this time is staggering to consider. The distances man covers compared to any other animal is vast. He has moved to inhabit the entire planet.
Takes a properly imaginiative brain fed by the best cuts of beef to really appreciate the scope and scale of it all.
--- tedrbr
Devout Agnostic ("swear to God"). Omnivoire. Renaissance Man.
Flame away! :p
-
If it comes to an "everyone versus muslims", can we get then to take the French? :rofl
-
Originally posted by Dago
If it comes to an "everyone versus muslims", can we get then to take the French? :rofl
BREAKING NEWS: THIS JUST IN........
..... the French have surrendered.
Now back to your regular programing......
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
...The last time a lasting multigenerational peace came over the middle east, that I can think of, was the Pax Mongolia. Might be a more recent one, but I can't think of it. Of course that was largely the peace of the grave... but Temüjin, Subutai, and Tolui did bring a peace....of sorts... to those lands. THEY knew how to fight and win a war against the Muslims!...
Temüjin Subutai, and Tolui were all dead before anything that far west was taken.
Hulugu & Kitbuqa are the names you're looking for
pwnerer =----> (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Hulagu_1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by bj229r
I was gonna respond to Vudak's assertion, but Storch summed it up well. You certainly don't have to believe in Creationism, but evolution, as described by Darwin, is refuted by SCIENCE, not the Bible. (Fossil records to support evolution didn't yet exist in Darwin's day, but he assumed it was just a matter of time---it's now been a century and change, still great unexplained holes)
I would add that the "theory" was almost immediately accepted as the only possible answer. people who have wanted to provide postive proof thereof have spared no expense and dedicated countless millions of man hours to that end.
"to know that you don't know is best.
to think you know when you do not know is an infirmity"
Lao Tzu
-
Originally posted by bj229r
I was gonna respond to Vudak's assertion, but Storch summed it up well. You certainly don't have to believe in Creationism, but evolution, as described by Darwin, is refuted by SCIENCE, not the Bible. (Fossil records to support evolution didn't yet exist in Darwin's day, but he assumed it was just a matter of time---it's now been a century and change, still great unexplained holes)
There will always be holes in evolutionary theory.... this planet is dynamic. It changes over time. Volcanos, geologic plates, erosion, glaciers, soil deposits, climatic change, the fact that fossilization is, in relation to the number of species over the time considered, a very very rare thing in the first place. Most of the species that ever existed have yet to be found.
Darwin put forth the general theory at a time where it could be given serious thought....rather than getting him burned at the stake as a witch. Science does not so much as refute Darwins theory, but refines it, takes it down alternative paths, looks for evidence to support the theory, looks to correct ideas that did not originally have merit. But, in a broad sense, Darwins theory still holds up well enough against the evidence gathered.
And I will put my "faith" in the geological record, physical evidence, and scientific study rather than a book written by men in a time where religion and politics were the same thing, the world was flat, the Earth was the center of the universe, stars were pinholes in the curtain of night, and a big day included a public stoning at the city gates.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
I was gonna respond to Vudak's assertion, but Storch summed it up well. You certainly don't have to believe in Creationism, but evolution, as described by Darwin, is refuted by SCIENCE, not the Bible. (Fossil records to support evolution didn't yet exist in Darwin's day, but he assumed it was just a matter of time---it's now been a century and change, still great unexplained holes)
Please provide specific and detailed examples with sources on each case where science refutes Evolution. Please cite legitimate science research.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by storch
Vudak,
please bear with me. I am clearly not as well educated as you and others who post here are.
here are some points I would like to bring up and possibly discuss. these are matters which interest me greatly but that I understand only from a layman's perspective.
[/b]
reportedly darwinian evolution has been going through an internal revolt though to the outside world they put up a unified front.
Funny, the only ones that have been reporting this have been the ID/Creationists. What proof do you have?
science does not know nor can it conclusively prove the age of the earth or of the universe. be it ten thousand years or ten thousand million years.[/b]
Not with current technology but with Carbon Dating and other techniques, we can come up with a pretty damn good idea how old something is and so far it shows that the world is a lot older than 6,000 years...
evolutionary biology has no answer for the "cambrian explosion" in the fossil record.
So the ID/Creationists would like to have you believe.
(http://pharyngula.org/images/cambrian_timeline.gif)
Look at this from bottom to top, from oldest to youngest. There are two lessons here: one is that the Cambrian was a real transition event, but the other is that it looks remarkably natural and progressive—something best explained by material phenomena and not unsupported speculation about mysterious and invisible Designers.
Roughly 570-600 million years ago, fossils are sparse, but they include the phosphatized embryos of the Doushantuo formation in China and a scattering of trace fossils. Trace fossils are the remains of trackways and burrows, not the animals themselves, and tell us that there were small soft-bodied and multicellular animals living on the substrate; we even have a few fossils of more elaborate, bilaterally-symmetric animals, comparable to flatworms.
Here are some of these early trace fossils; they are small squiggles in the sediment, the faintest signs of living creatures once having crawled there.
(http://pharyngula.org/images/neoproterozoic_trace.gif)
Near the end of the Neoproterozoic, the larger and more complex and enigmatic Vendian and Ediacaran fossils turn up. There are also more and more complicated trace fossils. Animals are getting larger and making more substantial trackways; in addition, they're beginning to burrow down into the sediment. We begin to see signs of a phenomenon called bioturbation, where the substrate is stirred and turned over by animal activity, which was absent before.
(http://pharyngula.org/images/cambrian_trace.gif)
Another important feature begins to make its appearance: the small shelly fossils. These are little guys, only about 1 or 2mm across. The kings of creation at this time were scattered beasties the size of a baby's toenail, but still, it was a step upward in size and durability from what had come before.
(http://pharyngula.org/images/small_shelly.gif)
The Cambrian itself begins 543 million years ago, and is broken up into periods several millions of years in length with their own distribution of fossils. The oldest, the Manykaian, is marked by more trace fossils, and a greater diversity of the small shelly fossils; the diagnostic fossil whose appearance is used to mark the beginning of the period is a trace fossil, the relatively large burrows of Treptichnus pedum. In the Tommotian, 530 million years ago, the first recognizable brachiopods and molluscs are found, and there are trace fossils that indicate something with many legs scurried by—the first arthropods. The first actual fossils of arthropods and echinoderms are found millions of years later.
It's more than ten million years later that the spectacular and strange animals of the Burgess Shale make their appearance. It's during the Middle Cambrian that we can say most of the modern phyla are present, although of course the representatives of those phyla don't look much at all like their modern members.
One message from these data is that the Cambrian 'explosion' was real. It isn't an artifact of poor sampling of ancient rocks—we have a range of good fossils from the period before, and it's clear that the pre-Cambrian world was a different place than the post-Cambrian.
But another important lesson, and one that creationists like to hide, is that while this was a sudden event in a geological sense, it wasn't actually all that rapid in human terms. The evolution of the canonical Cambrian forms was drawn out over tens of millions of years. They didn't just come out of nowhere, either; while individual lineages are cryptic, we see a slow aggregate increase in the complexity of multicellular animals in the fossil record that culminated in the flowering of large-animal diversity in the Cambrian.
I've had many creationists try to use the Argument from the Cambrian Explosion as a fait accompli against evolution (most recently, just this week). It's actually an argument from ignorance, though, since the data certainly does not fit a sudden creation by divine or alien fiat. It does fit with the idea of the appearance of these animals as a product of prior history, though…even though there are many mysteries about the details, the big picture does not require miracles or the supernatural.
Source (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/the_cambrian_as_an_evolutionary_exemplar/)
there is no evidence that all life on the planet evolved from a single common ancestor.
[/b]
There is ample evidence that Homo-sapiens evolved from primates like Homonids as the skeletol evidence of Lucy has shown.
there is no evidence of a single example of evolution from one species into an entirely new one (descent with modification).
[/b]
Yes there is, just look at whales. Whales have pelvic bones from the time they lived on both land and in the water. There are some species of birds, such as Raptors, that have the same bone structure found in fossils of certain dinosaur species, such as Velociraptors.
according to linus pauling "science is the search for truth"
bruce alberts, president of the U.S. national academy of sciences states "science and lies cannot coexist"
[/b]
True and which is why most educated people scoff at the notion of Creationism.
I think that the testing of a theory should never end. all scientific knowledge should in principle be subject to revision as new evidence becomes available. as an example we have seen a recent revision in astrology and how planets are now categorized as such.
[/b]
The research into Evolution has hardly stopped since Darwin proposed his theory.
Your other points weren't points at all so I've refrained from commenting on them.
ack-ack
-
I've got a pile of fossils somewhere. All leaves of trees we have no more.
Not sure of their age, but they rank from the time where the N-hemisphere is quite warm and cosy. Way before the Ice-age.
-
Who's to blame for the global cooling anyway?
-
Gaya :D
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Not with current technology but with Carbon Dating and other techniques, we can come up with a pretty damn good idea how old something is and so far it shows that the world is a lot older than 6,000 years...
ack-ack [/B]
ack thanks for your response. I have time to answer this one from memory. I'll answer the other points you bring up later as I hve little time for research today.
radio carbon dating is accurate up to about 50,000 years in the past and then only in once living samples. beyond 50,000 years any quoted result is really speculation.
within the 50,000 year period there is a probability of error that is brought about the introduction of contaminants. these may be atmospheric, in the form of industrial pollutants since the beginning of the industrial revoltuion and also from fallout due to atmospheric nuclear testing.
additionally microbes and fungi penetrating porous matter will give false readings.
radio carbon dating may be the most effective way of providing a good guesstimate but it is hardly conclusive.
-
How about other methods, not omitting common sense?
-
Hi Storch,
It seems to me we've been around this particular Mulberry bush on the board about a hundred times with little or nothing to show for it. At the end of the day, the Darwinians simply discount any evidence one produces that shows that Darwinian evolution isn't just a theory full of holes, but holes expertly sewn together. They do this based on the presupposition that Darwinianism is true and logical, and that theism is false and irrational. Therefore, if you are opposing Darwinian evolution, you must be an ignorant, uneducated religious fanatic, and that any evidence you produce must be religious mumbo-jumbo. After all, if the evidence you were presenting were true, then it would support Darwinian evolution, and you wouldn't believe in Creation. This is the presumption even if the evidence you present happens to be generated by an Atheist or Agnostic scholar, or even a life-long opponent of religion and Creationism like Stephen J. Gould.
That you may once have been an advocate of Darwinianism yourself, also doesn't matter, because if you aren't any longer, the only explanation that makes any sense for your changing your mind is that you drank the stupid juice. In what Stephen J. Gould called Darwinian Fundamentalism (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1151) you are dealing with an faith that will not tolerate dissent and which uses anathematization as a weapon. You simply may not question this dogma if you wish to continue to teach, have tenure, or any academic credibility. In a recent case the EEOC found that the Smithsonian used almost medieval tactics to run out a man simply for allowing a peer-reviewed article to be published which questioned whether Darwin's theory does in fact explain the bio-chemical information explosion in Cambrian explosion (and bio-chemists know that Darwinianism - which preceeded biochemistry - simply cannot account for a host of facts about the nature of DNA).
Ultimately it's not a new argument though, and its not really even about Science, its about God. For millennia, men have been searching for a way to be rid of his "pernicious" oversight and influence on their affairs. He is like a parent who embarrasses and enrages his children so much that they'd much rather tell people "I'm an orphan actually". But for centuries, that was as far as they could go, they might maintain with Nietzche that their Father was dead, but they always had the embarrassing fact of their creation to deal with. Their own existence was continuing evidence of their First parent. It wasn't until Darwin came on the scene that they could do away even with that fact as well, and simply smugly answer the question, "Actually, I didn't have parents at all. Once there was nothing, but now there is me, and if you have me, why would you want a Creator anyway?"
I was reading Josephus (a first century Jewish Historian) the other day, and was reminded that he dealt with the same kind of attitude from the Epicureans and Stoics of his day, men who refused to acknowledge Divine providence in governing the world (yeah, we haven't blown ourselves up only because we are all such nice, good, rational, self-created slime descendents - not to mention "lucky") and pointed out how the prophecies of men like Daniel showed that there was in fact a God ordering the affairs of men and were life really the mechanical process or driverless car they imagined we would long since have been destroyed -
And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel; and may thence discover how the Epicureans are in an error, who cast Providence out of human life, and do not believe that God takes care of the affairs of the world, nor that the universe is governed and continued in being by that blessed and immortal nature, but say that the world is carried along of its own accord, without a ruler and a curator; which, were it destitute of a guide to conduct it, as they imagine, it would be like ships without pilots, which we see drowned by the winds, or like chariots without drivers, which are overturned; so would the world be dashed to pieces by its being carried without a Providence, and so perish, and come to nought. So that, by the forementioned predictions of Daniel, those men seem to me very much to err from the truth, who determine that God exercises no providence over human affairs; for if that were the case, that the world went on by mechanical necessity, we should not see that all things would come to pass according to his prophecy. (From Antiquities of the Jews By Flavius Josephus)
Nothing New Under the Sun, Storch. Same argument, different day.
- SEAGOON
-
indeed seagoon but it can be entertaining and does add additional folds and wrinkles to an otherwise almost completely smooth brain.
-
Originally posted by Angus
How about other methods, not omitting common sense?
indeed there are other methods, there are radioisotopes and other radiometric data which are also reasonably accurate but there is plenty of evidence proving they are far from infallable and in many instances wildly inaccurate.
the bottom line though is that fallen man loathes accountability and as seagoon explains in his excellent post above, we will hold dear any theory that places a wall between ourselves and our creator. even if it means being intellectually dishonest.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Storch,
It seems to me we've been around this particular Mulberry bush on the board about a hundred times with little or nothing to show for it. At the end of the day, the Darwinians simply discount any evidence one produces that shows that Darwinian evolution isn't just a theory full of holes, but holes expertly sewn together.
- SEAGOON
Please tell us what concrete scientific data have any of the ID/Creationist provided that show that man and the universe was created by some omnipotent being?
While all the evidence of Evolution hasn't been discovered yet, what has been discovered has shown evolution happening. Again, to cite an exampe again...whales. Why do whales have a pelvic bone? Is it because they were at one time mammals that lived both on land and in the ocean until eventually the evolved into pure marine mammals or did God just make a mistake and add an extra bone?
ack-ack
-
You're asking for scientific data representative of supernatural magic?
-
there should be some heated debating on this topc soon. in the latest edition of national geographic in their fossils blurb there is a paragraph entitled "from fins to feet?" naturally they are claiming the age of this find to be 370 million years old never mind that there is no possible way to prove that age using the scientific method. an educated guess would be that they have discovered a crocodillian.
this reminds me of a story.
a couple attended an art exhibition at the national art gallery that completely confused them. the painting depicted three black men, completely naked sitting on a park bench. the man in the middle had a pink noodle the other two were normal, they were black.
the curator of the gallery realized that they were having trouble interpreting the work of art offered up his assessment. he went on for half an hour explaining how the paintaing depicted the sexual emasculation of african americans in a predominaantly white, patriarchal society. "In fact" he pointed out "some serious critics believe the pink noodle also reflects the cultural and sociological oppression experienced by gay men in contemporary society".
after the curator left, a young man in a kentucky t-shirt approached the couple and said "would you like to know what the painting is really about?"
"now why would you claim to be more of an expert than the curator of the gallery?" asked the couple.
"because I'm the guy who painted it" he replied. "in fact there are no african americans depicted at all. they're just three kentucky coal miners, the guy in the middle went home for lunch."
:D
-
So Storch, how old is our earth?
Sticking to those 6000 years (I belive our oldest cities are thought to be 7000 years old), or something more?
Was there an Ice age?
Are there fossils? How long does it take for them to build?
The dinoes, were they there?
And finally, - how do you breed stock and make severe changes to lifestock form in short time?
-
So...Someone tell the Pontiff welcome to the wild wonderful world of the Infidel. No biggie
-
Originally posted by RELIC
In retrospect, yes - catholics are child molesters...:rolleyes:
Just the priests :)
-
Originally posted by storch
I would add that the "theory" was almost immediately accepted as the only possible answer. people who have wanted to provide postive proof thereof have spared no expense and dedicated countless millions of man hours to that end.
"to know that you don't know is best.
to think you know when you do not know is an infirmity"
Lao Tzu
I didnt say it refuted evolution, it refutes DARwin's version of evolution
-
darwinism is what I was referrring to.
-
chit sorry, clicked on wrong quote--
heck with it, ya spend 20 min looking up sources, refuting allegations, noone reads it or acknowledges it anyhow---life too short
-
but you learn, and you broaden your horizon. that in and of it's self makes it worthwhile.
-
So how old is the Earth? I'm curious to see how old storchita, Seagoon and other Creationists believe it is. And please back your assertion up with evidence other than religious writings.
Thanks. I'm really just curious. This isn't meant to be a troll in any way.
-
Something for creationists:
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/togt/frett.html?nid=1224750
Press "spila"
Enjoy
-
Originally posted by Angus
Something for creationists:
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/togt/frett.html?nid=1224750
Press "spila"
Enjoy
again we have multi million year old estimate of the age of the remains quoted in the same breath in which they tell you this simian was drowned and covered in a flood. bones sitting in moisture get covered with microbes that penetrate. these microbes are known to generate unreliable readings in C14 dating. that is of course aside from the fact that any date beyond 50,000 years is all but a guess as there is no C14 present in anything beyond that.
another very good example of sloppy science, at best. follow the story as it goes through the peer review process.
generally speaking with just about every new piece of "evidence" this is the process it undergoes. a fanatastic find is made. initially spectacularly wild claims are publicized which catch the general publics imagination. the results turn out to prove the wild claims as just such but nothing is ever said again publically. in the interim the layman is left with precisely the impression these disingenous members of the scientific community wanted us to have.
if you are really interested and have the time follow up on the 1974 "lucy" find. read what was said and what the opinions regarding lucy are today.
-
I don't have to wander far to see something old, - really old.
Layers on top of layers of earth and lava, each layer of earth mounting to thousands of years of vegetation.
I dig a kanal, I see layers and layers from volcanic eruptions, - but a mere meter down I am already thousands of years back. I go further to find remains of floodings older than man's history, then I am down to an old seabed. Looking uphill I will see mountains that once were seacliffs.
Geology has always been a thorn in the side of the 6000 years belivers. I even read a book about it, - published by the jehova witness movement..
-
I'm not saying the earth is only 6,000 years old. I'm saying that nothing proves that it is millions of years old conclusively.
-
So starting what period?
-
forgive me but I don't understand the question.
-
I've read the little pamphlets ( and years ago they used comic books for awhile) attempting to debunk carbon dating and the previous existence of dinosaurs. What struck me was how thin these books were debunking so much science. Volumes of astronomy, physics, geology, and anthropology neatly explained away in a 75 page pamphlet.
I think only a fool uses the Bible to educate himself in science. I don't believe that's its purpose. I also don't think the purpose of the Bible is to debunk science.
-
what is there to debunk about carbon darting? there are physical, verifiable limitions to this method. the facts are there using mathematics and science, not the bible.
the practitoners of the darwininan religion would have you think otherwise. their high priests are quick to attack with ad hominem and banishment at any all who don't march in lockstep. they are rabid defenders of their faith and their methods of dealing with detractors are reminiscent of the tactics first employed during the spanish inquistion.
look up carbon 14 dating and learn of it's uses and limitations.
-
Originally posted by storch
look up carbon 14 dating and learn of it's uses and limitations.
I'd suggest you do this. Then look up other ways scientists date things. Then look up why they date things and what they expect to find. Then look up what they do when they find something unexpected. If you aren't careful, you might run head on into the *scientific method*
-
Originally posted by BTW
I'd suggest you do this. Then look up other ways scientists date things. Then look up why they date things and what they expect to find. Then look up what they do when they find something unexpected. If you aren't careful, you might run head on into the *scientific method*
God forbid!
-
ok
here's what I'm familiar with if you know of others please supply me info that I might read up on. I'm always ready to learn.
anyways these are the dating methods that I have a layman's understanding of.
counting tree rings
carbon 14
radioisotope
K-Ar
isochron
which would you like to discuss first?
-
wtf does Creationism, Darwinism, the scientific method, carbon 14, and fossils have to do with Muslims rioting about the Pope's comments to prove they're non-violent?
Just cuz we're flying off-topic though...
Originally posted by AWMac
It's time you Americans to raise up and make it a Free Amerircan Nation.
In GOD we Trust, One Nation under GOD, time for prayer in school and sports. Are you so Blind?
Who gets to pick what God we're one nation under? Can't be Christian. I did a search through the Constitution. Didn't find one mention of Jesus or Christ. For that matter, I didn't find Allah, Ra, Peko, Aplu, Ukko, Zeus, Tupa, Tia, Brahman, Prithivi, Parvati, Mama Cocha, Pele, Cupid, Julius Caesar (yes, he was deified), Mot, O-Wata-Tsu-Mi, Waheguru, Great Mother, or Oya either.
Can we go with this one?
(http://www.venganza.org/him2.jpg)
-
I find a god that looks like a crab unappealing. the darwinists are in need of an icon for their god, pitch it to them.
-
If there’s one thing I just can’t stand its intolerant people; I’d like to kill them all.
-
Hello Ack,
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Please tell us what concrete scientific data have any of the ID/Creationist provided that show that man and the universe was created by some omnipotent being?
While all the evidence of Evolution hasn't been discovered yet, what has been discovered has shown evolution happening. Again, to cite an exampe again...whales. Why do whales have a pelvic bone? Is it because they were at one time mammals that lived both on land and in the ocean until eventually the evolved into pure marine mammals or did God just make a mistake and add an extra bone?
ack-ack
You present me with a hill and ask me to roll the "evidence" boulder, Sisyphus like, up it. We both know that when it reaches the top it will roll down the other side and I'll have to choose to give up the endeavor or begin again without any real hope of reaching a goal. I think we both know that there are no evidences I could provide that would change your mind on this. If I can try to make some distant tenuous connection to the original subject of this thread there are many people in the world who will never believe that Islam actually promotes violence, no matter how much evidence of that fact accumulates in the news media. One can even point to the history of the origins of Islam and its fundamental doctrines, and yet get nowhere because of an unshakeable presupposition that "Islam is peaceful." If Islam is peaceful then the only evidence that will be admitted is evidence buttressing that claim.
Anyway, if you want an answer with ironic origins to your "Whale Pelvis" homologous structure question here is a refutation from a Muslim scholar -
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp
Or for other responses on this subject, try -
http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp
But what I personally find more interesting, is how in your question you actually make not a scientific but a theological argument, asserting that the existence of the extra bone would be "a mistake" if Creation was true. This assumes a lot about the nature of the Creator as well as the value of the bone itself (I haven't heard whales complaining about it, have you? ;) )
Anyway, not that it will make a whit of difference, but this is the same kind of argument that Darwin made throughout the Origin. As Dr. Paul Nelson pointed out:
While current evolutionists may not share (or in fact may be opposed to) Darwin's theological motivations, their use of the imperfection and homology arguments for descent presupposes the intelligibility of notions rooted in Darwin's theological metaphysics. The notion of perfection as an observable quality of organic design, and the intuition lying at the heart of Darwin's metaphysics--that a rational and benevolent God would have created an organic world different from the one we observe--continue to inform the philosophical foundations of evolutionary theory (as should be evident from the passages I have cited from Gould above).
So what Nelson exposes in his paper, entitled "Jettison the Arguments, or the Rule? (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=104) The Place of Darwinian Theological Themata in Evolutionary Reasoning" is that from the very beginning Darwinianism has followed a line of argumentation less well adapted to establishing Darwinian evolution, than it is for attempting to debunk the idea that the God of the Bible created the world. Which isn't exactly following the scientific ideal.
Anyway, having been converted away from an early adherence to Darwinianism as my chosen (and more than a little inherited) myth of origins myself, I can see from past experience the uncomfortable truth that Nelson is getting at. As the British author and poet Kingsley Amis responded to a question about his Atheism in an interview - "It's more than that. You see I hate Him." It seems like a contradiction, but at heart it makes a lot of sense. It's why a Pastor friend of mine, starts apologetical conversations with Atheists by asking in an amiable way, "so tell me, why do you personally hate God?"
-
"Because current scientific evidence clearly contradicts beliefs held by Christian fundamentalists, there have been ongoing efforts, particularly amongst proponents of Dominionism, to support Young Earth creationism using selective reading of religious texts and argument via creation science. Proponents Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb built on fundamentalist Christian work done by George McCready Price in the United States to contend that radiometric dating is not reliable enough to accurately measure long time spans. They provide alternative explanations through flood geology, which is a theory based on biblical inerrancy that ignores evidence from meteorites, the Moon and Mars and has been rejected by scientists. The scientific community characterises such efforts as pseudoscience."
-
Hi Stang,
Originally posted by Stang
So how old is the Earth? I'm curious to see how old storchita, Seagoon and other Creationists believe it is. And please back your assertion up with evidence other than religious writings.
Thanks. I'm really just curious. This isn't meant to be a troll in any way.
I don't know, I have yet to find a place in the Bible that tells me exactly how many years ago the earth was created. Ussher and Lightfoot did attempt to work out an exact age based on chronologies, but unfortunately there are some gaps in those.
I do know however, that scripture tells us that just as man was created with the appearance of age (we are not told Adam was created as an Embryo, he was created a full-grown man), so too, the universe was created with the appearance of age. The trees and plants were grown, the dirt and stones were already there, as were the rivers, streams, mountains and valleys. The stars were already visible in the night sky, and we believe that it takes in some cases many millennia for their light to reach us and become visible, and yet we are told they were always visible from earth after their creation. Therefore, if I do believe in creation, and I do, then I know for certain that physical phenomena simply cannot guide me to an exact age for the earth any more than an observation of Adam immediately after his creation would have led me to conclude "he's a few minutes old."
Frankly, I also don't worry that Socrates might not actually have existed simply because we have no direct evidence that he did. I didn't wait with baited breath to find out if there was really a King David, and then breathe a sigh of relief when archeological evidence for his existence was discovered. Most people don't live lives operating under a similar hermeneutic of suspicion, even people who demand "evidence" in order to believe the Gospel. Neither have I ever met an individual genuinely converted by physical evidence to a Christian worldview - the only thing that accomplishes that is not persuasion but rather a change of heart accomplished by the Holy Spirit.
Anyway, personally my conviction mirrors that of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, and yes, I know that this is the kind of thing people sneer at especially when they don't recognize the existence of similar opposing (and sadly often less coherent or successful) faith commitments in themselves:
"At one time I might have needed evidence to make me believe in the Lord Jesus, but now I know Him so well by proving Him that I would need a very great deal of evidence to make me doubt Him. It is now more natural for me to trust than to disbelieve. This is the new nature triumphing. It was not so at the first. The novelty of faith is, in the beginning, a source of weakness, but act after act of trusting turns faith into a habit. Experience brings to faith strong confirmation.
I am not perplexed with doubt, because the truth which I believe has worked a miracle in me. By its means, I have received and still retain a new life, to which I was once a stranger. This is confirmation of the strongest sort.
I am like the good man and his wife who had kept a lighthouse for years. A visitor, who came to see the lighthouse, looking out from the window over the waste of waters, asked the good woman, Are you not afraid at night, when the storm is out, and the big waves dash right over the lantern? Do you not fear that the lighthouse, and all that is in it, will be carried away? I am sure I would be afraid to trust myself in a slender tower in the midst of the great billows. The woman remarked that the idea never occurred to her now. She had lived there so long that she felt as safe on the lone rock as she did when on the mainland.
As for her husband, when asked if he did not feel anxious when the wind blew a hurricane, he answered, Yes, I feel anxious to keep the lamps well trimmed, and the light burning, lest any vessel should be wrecked. As to anxiety about the safety of the lighthouse or his own personal security in it, he had out-lived all that.
Even so it is with the full-grown believer. He can humbly say:
I know whom I have believed,
And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which Ive committed
Unto Him against that day.
From henceforth let no man trouble me with doubts and questions. I bear in my soul the proofs of the Spirits truth and power, and I will have none of your artful reasonings. The Gospel to me is truth. I am content to perish if it is not true. I risk my souls eternal fate upon the truth of the Gospel, and I know that there is no risk in it. My one concern is to keep the lights burning, that I may thereby benefit others. Only let the Lord give me oil enough to feed my lamp, so that I may cast a ray across the dark and treacherous sea of life, and I am well content.
Now, troubled seeker, if it is so that your minister and many others in whom you confide have found perfect peace and rest in the Gospel, why should you not? Is the Spirit of the Lord straitened?...Do not [His] words do good to them that walk uprightly?& (Micah 2:7). Will you not also try their saving virtue?
-
thank you for posting that seagoon it has been a while since I last read it.
-
Why are people so hell-bent on the opinion that Religion and Darwinism are mutually exclusive?
There COULD be a God and STILL evolution could still happen. I don't think the point of evolution is to say that God doesn't exist. The point is that it provides an explanation of WHY species evolve on the planet. It explains a system of events.
Saying that evolution can't exist because God made all of the creatures on the planet is like saying Engineering can't exist because God makes your car go, not science.
Science and religion are NOT mutually exclusive.
Personally, I'm an agnostic. The way I figure it, if there is a supreme being somewhere, he created the universe and has left it on autopilot for the last bajillion years or so. With all of the unjust BS that happens on our world, it's hard to believe that there's an all-powerful being who watches over us and takes care of us.
One particularly annoying trait of the human race that I loathe is the inability for people to accept that other people might not have the same believes or desires as they do. Sometimes to the point that they'll KILL the other person just because they don't believe in what they do. Intolerance is based on fear, which is based, for the most part, on ignorance.
As for the original post, I think the Pope was out of line. A lot of people take what he says to hart, and he probably shouldn't be spouting off about other religions being "evil." Particularly since religions themselves aren't "evil," but the people who follow them (ANY of them) sure as hell can be.
Don't get me wrong, the intolerances of the Muslim Exremests are unacceptable. I'm just not a "fight idiots with idiocy" kind of guy.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello Ack,
It's why a Pastor friend of mine, starts apologetical conversations with Atheists by asking in an amiable way, "so tell me, why do you personally hate God?"
I don't because you can't hate something that never existed.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello Ack,
You present me with a hill and ask me to roll the "evidence" boulder, Sisyphus like, up it. We both know that when it reaches the top it will roll down the other side and I'll have to choose to give up the endeavor or begin again without any real hope of reaching a goal. I think we both know that there are no evidences I could provide that would change your mind on this. If I can try to make some distant tenuous connection to the original subject of this thread there are many people in the world who will never believe that Islam actually promotes violence, no matter how much evidence of that fact accumulates in the news media. One can even point to the history of the origins of Islam and its fundamental doctrines, and yet get nowhere because of an unshakeable presupposition that "Islam is peaceful." If Islam is peaceful then the only evidence that will be admitted is evidence buttressing that claim.
Anyway, if you want an answer with ironic origins to your "Whale Pelvis" homologous structure question here is a refutation from a Muslim scholar -
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp
Or for other responses on this subject, try -
http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp
Ah...more links to religious scientific studies.
Well, here is another Islamic website that has an article of P. D. Gingerich's discovery which had details that were curiously left out of the articles you linked. But then I'm not surprised since you and other ID/Creationists only include things that try to show ID/Creationism as valid science.
Whale Valley: A Journey Through Time (http://www.islamonline.net/English/Science/2006/03/article07.shtml)
Here is another article from The Zoology Museum.
Historic blue whale limbs (http://www.abdn.ac.uk/zoologymuseum/treasures/bluewhale.php)
Here is an excerpt of an article written by Sir John Struthers.
Nothing can be imagined more useless to the animal than rudiments of hind legs entirely buried beneath the skin of a whale, so that one is inclined to suspect that these structures must admit of some other interpretation. Yet, approaching the inquiry with the most skeptical determination, one cannot help being convinced, as the dissection goes on, that these rudiments [in the Right Whale] really are femur and tibia. The synovial capsule representing the knee-joint was too evident to be overlooked. An acetabular cartilage, synovial cavity, and head of femur, together represent the hip-joint. Attached to this femur is an apparatus of constant and strong ligaments, permitting and restraining movements in certain directions; and muscles are present, some passing to the femur from distant parts, some proceeding immediately from the pelvic bone to the femur, by which movements of the thigh-bone are performed; and these ligaments and muscles present abundant instances of exact and interesting adaptation. But the movements of the femur are extremely limited, and in two of these whales the hip-joint as firmly anchylosed, in one of them on one side, in the other on both sides, without trace of disease, showing that these movements may be dispensed with. The function point of view fails to account for the presence of a femur in addition to processes from the pelvic bone. Altogether, these hind legs in this whale present for contemplation a most interesting instance of those significant parts in an animal -- rudimentary structures..
And yet another one....
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence (http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/)
Another excerpt of the article.
How do you convince a creationist that a fossil is a transitional fossil? Give up? It is a trick question. You cannot do it. There is no convincing someone who has his mind made up already. But sometimes, it is even worse. Sometimes, when you point out a fossil that falls into the middle of a gap and is a superb morphological and chronological intermediate, you are met with the response: "Well, now you have two gaps where you only had one before! You are losing ground!"
One of the favorite anti-evolutionist challenges to the existence of transitional fossils is the supposed lack of transitional forms in the evolution of the whales. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regularly trots out the "bossie-to-blowhole" transition to ridicule the idea that whales could have evolved from terrestrial, hooved ancestors.
Just like there is substantial and overwhelming fossil evidece of the "Cambrian Explosion" there is substantial and overwhelming evidence that at one time whales lived on land. But then as the above article states, you can't convince a Creationist that a fossil is a transitional fossil. I'd probably have better luck squeezing blood out of a turnip.
ack-ack
-
"Muslims dont like the Pope"
Neither does NUKE!
Therefore....
NUKE must be a terrorist.
-
Hey watch this!
http://www2.chuckvilla.org:8080/Misc/Penn_and_Teller_Bull****_Creationism.wmv
-
Speak of the devil. Look whats on the front page of yahoo today.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060920/sc_nm/ethiopia_fossil_dc_1
-
Does the 3.3 million year old dead guy hate the pope too?
-
Originally posted by dmf
Does the 3.3 million year old dead guy hate the pope too?
Girl.
-
I guess all those that have to prove the Bible *scientifically* are a little short on faith. If it could be proven scientifically ( which I don't for a second think it can be), it wouldn't require faith- it would have evidence.
I wonder about those who relish in the scientific evidence of some Biblical figure, almost as a redemption. Where was their faith?
My faith tells me the Bible is metaphor. No I don't have evidence. It requires faith. I have evidence of Pangea. I have evidence of ice ages. I have evidence of neanderthals. I have faith the Bible is metaphor. I also have faith that those who try to use the Bible as a scientific text are perverting it as much as those who use it as oppressive law.