Creationists Take Another Called Strike - and run to dugout


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 21 - 40 of total 4794 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 1, 2009 - 08:31pm PT
//Well, some 92% of the members of the American Society of Scientists
do not believe in the traditional concept of a "god".//

WTF does that mean??? Traditional concept????

You, who are irreligious, constantly use the Bible as a source when many religious people don't take it literally.

World created in 7 (6) days???

The more you try to dispute this and find a non-answer, the crazier you sound.

I don't believe that and I am religious. It's almost as if you seek justification in your atheistic life by constantly examining the Bible for discrepecies that don't make sense to us.

Keep on keeping on, live in your little pathetic world. The time will come when you'll know if you were right or not. I don't dwell on it myself.

Trad climber
fresno, ca
Oct 1, 2009 - 09:00pm PT
I'm not sure why guys like Norton, Weschrist and dr F seem to think this kind of finding somehow disproves/invalidates or affects Christianity in some negative way. It is quite possible to simultaneously have a "scientific" and Christian worldview. I am compelled by Christianity and inspired by science and findings like this at the same time. I consider myself a scientist(dual doctorates...DMD and a masters in bone physiology) and a Christian. The two are not mutually exclusive in my opinion.

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 1, 2009 - 09:04pm PT
The two are not mutually exclusive in my opinion.

I guess that was my point too. It's disingenuous to suggest they are. Kinda like, "you're either a Repub or Dem, pick one!!!".

Trad climber
fresno, ca
Oct 1, 2009 - 09:15pm PT
Just watched the video on
amazing stuff. I like how they point to the "fork" between chimps and humans in the tree concept rather than links in a chain. This falls somewhere closer to the fork, but isn't claiming to be "The Link."

Social climber
the Wastelands
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 1, 2009 - 09:16pm PT
Bluering asks what is the traditional concept of a god.

Anyone care to help him out on what this might mean to most people?

Social climber
the Wastelands
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 1, 2009 - 10:11pm PT
Good evening Howard.
You are mistaken.

When asked if anyone "believed in evolution", NOT ONE raised their hand.


Flash forward to the Democratic Primary Debate:

This time, the question was: Does anyone NOT believe in evolution?

Not one raised their hand.

(The moderator pretty much knew in advance that democrats do NOT deny science)

How nice if EVEN ONE REPUB had said he believed in evolution.

But none would say so, because either they feared losing the "Christian" vote, OR they secretly DID believe in evolution but were too GUTLESS
to tell the truth, for fear of losing some vote. VOTES meant everything.

The Democrats were HONEST, they did not give a sh#t about losing any
votes by saying they believed in evolution. HONESTY, NOT votes, meant everything.

And who won the election by an Electoral Landslide? HONESTY over vote pandering morons.

Social climber
the Wastelands
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 1, 2009 - 10:35pm PT
Remarkable, we happen to totally agree that the evangelical Christian
vote going virtually 100% GOP had NO effect on the election.

WHY? Because with abortion and evolution, the Dems wrote that vote off long ago.

Buyer's remorse? Those on the political right would like to think that,
because that would tend to validate their own opposite the winner vote.

ALL President's approval polls drop off after the election, no body
stays at inauguration patriotism polling high. Nothing new or telling here.

Election held again right now, again Obama kicks McCain's ass.

Think Obama will not win a second term? Feel real sure of yourself?

How sure? Like sure enough to bet me real money he won't be re elected?

Money that we could put up now and mutually agree who would hold it?

Social climber
Oct 1, 2009 - 10:37pm PT
The earth isn't as young as some would think. The role that the skeleton played in the big picture of things will be pretty speculative, but I don't doubt its as old as its claimed to be.

Trad climber
Los Angeles
Oct 2, 2009 - 12:30am PT
And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually

Build Your House on the Rock
“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ

Oct 2, 2009 - 01:25am PT
"If the scientists are correct" and that's what it's all based on, that simple speculative statement.

You all seemed to be so sure about your selves by guessing,

Real good scientists ya all are ......

Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
Oct 2, 2009 - 01:30am PT
Now Werner, you know the scientifically based "Evolutionists" aren't guessing. Creationsists?guessing is all they have! and all they need, apparently.

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Oct 2, 2009 - 01:40am PT
A purely mechanistic view of creation and existence seems to me just as unlikely as stock creationism (and not the kind of dynamic creationism put forth by Nobel winner Henri Berson or Teilhard de Chardinn).

If you truly understood how mechanically personalities and ego-structures worked, you'd realize that you don't "need" consciousness to explain most human behavior. "Free choice" is simply action vectored off past conditioning playing out in the present moment.

So you can say we don't "need" consciousness to explain evolution, that we can concoct a model, based on repeatable experiments, using a purely mechanical model. But that still does not mean consciousness was not present all along.

But this is a tricky one, and I'm tired . . .


Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
Oct 2, 2009 - 01:42am PT
and yer ramblin'....

Trad climber
A trailer park in the Sierras
Oct 2, 2009 - 02:24am PT
A friend of a friend's parents believed that there are members of the scientific community who travel around the world and "plant" fake bones of animals (like dinosaurs and strange apes) just to disprove the creationism theory. That's pushing it if you ask me.

Oct 2, 2009 - 02:30am PT
"It's almost as if you seek justification in your atheistic life by constantly examining the Bible for discrepecies that don't make sense to us."

To be sure, there are a some 'irreligious' types (to use your word) that hold strong agendas, and seek to invalidate any aspect of Christianity (or religion in general) that they can find. My guess is that these people make up a relatively small, yet very vocal, percentage of the number of people who do not hold any traditional religious beliefs (agnostic or atheist). For myself, I simply become inflamed when I see or reflect on the myriad of ways that religion (esp. Christianity) has permeated this country, society and politics, driven by a relatively small group of fundamentalist believers who are really not much different from the Taliban in their persistence and intolerance.

"In general, Dems/libs believe in evolution and in general GOP/conservatives support creationism (idiotic though it is)."

I would agree that a (vast?) majority of Dems/Libs are confident of the reality of evolution (as opposed to a 'belief'), but I doubt that a similar percentage of Repubs have strict creationism beliefs. My interactions with Repubs has usually demonstrated that their beliefs are somewhere along the spectrum, and accept/embrace the science and facts of evolution. As usual, the characterization of the GOP as being entirely comprised of Creationists is created by a relatively small, yet persistently vocal, minority.

Oct 2, 2009 - 11:34am PT
A conditioned soul in the material world has the disqualification of cheating. He has four disqualifications: he is sure to commit mistakes, he is sure to be illusioned, he is prone to cheat others, and his senses are imperfect.

Modern science is incomplete.

Modern theories take on another strike and run to the dugout ......

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Oct 2, 2009 - 12:30pm PT
"I wish also that other wise very smart people wouldn't confuse this hard science with the many other philosophies and psychologies that we use to understand ourselves and our world."

Paraphrased, this purports that "hard science" has an exclusive on the "truth" by virtue or measurements (hard science IS measurement of some THING or THINGS), whereas "philosophies and psychologies" are sort of guessing or hoping for the truth via speculation,"faith" and nebulous (false = unverifiable) Godspeak.

In fact, hard science has an exclusive on measurements, which witout fail will render a mechanistic, materialistic, and reductionistic model of all.

Porblem here is that reductionism has been junked as untenable, especially by those studying consciousness (neuroscientists and psychobiologists, mainly).


Oct 2, 2009 - 12:47pm PT
From the polls I have followed, and from my interactions with a wide range of Repubs, it seems quite clear that while there is certainly a percentage that have strict "7-day creation"-style beliefs (with no room for any other possibility- essentially, the strict fundamentalists), there are far more who believe that somehow both creationism and evolution exist together.

Obviously, this is a reflection of the melding of 'belief' and science, and I'm not making a case that this is or is not the 'correct' view of the world. In many of those people, there is at least an open-mindedness to another view, which is a much more positive attribute than the closed-minded fundamentalists. Those with strict science-based views of the world (I tend to place myself amongst them) tend to view and regard anyone with any level of creationist belief as fundamentalist loonies- and this just isn't the case (most of the time).

Whatever one's beliefs, they deserve to be respected as fellow human beings, and not have others views forced upon them and their lives. Productive, interesting conversations and learning can occur when a baseline of respect exists amongst persons of differing views. The vitriole and divisiveness that exists in our society and country is a sad reflection of the lack of basic respect for others.

Trad climber
June Lake, CA
Oct 2, 2009 - 01:09pm PT

In the 150 yrs. since Darwin wrote his Origin of Species the fossil record is not only lacking
in the transitional forms he said would be needed to complete his theory, it is COMPLETELY
DEVOID of any transitional forms. As such the evolutionary "scientists" keep guessing and
changing their best guesses. The newest line of B.S. is called "Punctuated Equalibrium", it
proposes that things stayed the same for a very long time, then in the twinkling of an
eye, poof, a dramatic changed occurred. Wow.... pay no attention to that man behind the


Trad climber
Golden, CO
Oct 2, 2009 - 01:14pm PT
It's interesting that the Catholic church has made a stance that belief in evolution can coexist with religious doctrine. Just a little digging, however, turns up a lot of problems with any God-guided evolution. For instance, if you believe that humans have souls (and animals don't), at what juncture in human evolution did this occur? Was it at the ape/hominid juncture, the hominid/homo juncture, or perhaps the homo/homo sapien juncture? Maybe it wasn't until just before recorded history, after homo sapiens had already been around for a quarter of a million years or so. It would seem so arbitrary. Largo mentions de Chardinn, who thought about this subject, but who did not have the knowledge we now have of all of the competing species in the genus homo, all except us who have gone extinct.

Based on evidence from mutiple disciplines, evolution is entirely self-consistent, requiring no meddling by a supernatural being all of the way back to the beginning of life. Scientists are even making some pretty decent strides into explaining what may have happened at the no life/life juncture as well.
edit - Flanders, what you just posted is absolute untruth.
Messages 21 - 40 of total 4794 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo Videos

Recent Route Beta