Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Was watching Neil Degrasse Tyson's Cosmos and this was mentioned.

It's definitely more then a mere 6,000 years old. I just don't like that you did a poll though because now we really won't be able to escape the fact some people here think the Earth has been around less then 10,000 years.

I don't think the Bible actually says that though.

@Surtur: Well hopefully they also comment to voice their "reasoning" why.

People here don't seem to be that shy about their views.

EDIT: Holy shit someone already voted 6,000 in the polls, LMFAO.

Yep it didn't take long. Some people think people were out there hunting dinosaurs and all that. It's super depressing anyone on the planet who isn't from some kind of extremely isolated society in the jungle that haven't had any contact with the outside world..could believe this stuff.

What's their rebuttals about light and how it would be impossible to see anything beyond the, IIRC, Crab Nebula like Neil mentioned in Cosmos?

Science is the work of Satan, done to fool mankind into sin.

How do we even know the Earth is real?

^

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Science is the work of Satan, done to fool mankind into sin.

You could replace the word science with religion and this sentence would make just as much sense.

Originally posted by Surtur
You could replace the word science with religion and this sentence would make just as much sense.

I'd personally replace "science" & "religion" with "Dat Ass".

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I'd personally replace "science" & "religion" with "Dat Ass". And it's still only 6,000 years old. That's pretty young, you sicko.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
@Surtur: Well hopefully they also comment to voice their "reasoning" why.

People here don't seem to be that shy about their views ...



Actually, I've found nearly every pro-religion person, with perhaps 3 exceptions, to be EXTREMELY reluctant to share their point of view on this forum. It is rather the atheists and agnostics that are bold to express an opinion.


In answer to the thread question, I'm made to wonder how people supposedly have so much confidence in knowing what happened centuries ago, especially given that fields like archaeology have famous hoaxes attributed to them.

Then again, I've yet to work out where people keep getting the number 6,000 from. I'd be interested in someone explaining why that number is so oft quoted.

If you're serious about this, though, I am MOST interested in how you will respond to the following. It is the work of a man who does NOT believe in God, and, indeed, considers that all major deities and mythology derive from observations of ancient peoples. He poses one of the most nagging questions I've seen: How did planets exert SO very much influence over people in the past in the eras BEFORE telescopes and magnifying lenses made them easily visible?



This is at once part of the most serious challenge I've seen both to popular conceptions of how our universe actually works in terms of actual physics AND the most serious challenge I've seen to religion in the past 2 years:


http://m.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/176247/Remembering_The_End_Of_The_WorldFull_Documentary/

3 Days old.

This earth is a mere reconstruction of the one that came before.

6000 years was derived from Archbishop Ussher's calculations of Christ's family tree. He dates creation at 4004 B.C, which was roughly 6000 years ago.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
In answer to the thread question, I'm made to wonder how people supposedly have so much confidence in knowing what happened centuries ago, especially given that fields like archaeology have famous hoaxes attributed to them.

Just to be clear you also wonder this whenever you see any religious person being sure about Jesus and God and all that shit, correct? Like when you see Star post about "irrefutable" evidence of the Red Sea crossing..surely this must cross your mind? Or whenever people insist the bible is a true story?




Thing is though..questioning if we truly 100% understand everything about the universe(we don't, scientists admit this) doesn't really equate to any kind of divine influence or deity being involved in anything.

Sorry, but Intelligent design is the ONLY thing that makes any sense whatsoever. I'm not going to rehash this whole argument over again. I've posted plenty of links to articles recently in other threads that explain why evolution is nothing but utter nonsense. Course, atheists never bother to read them because they have no interest in reading anything that might prove they've been wrong all along. So instead they just hurl insults and mock believers instead of learning the truth. Then, they make a thread like this and when someone says evolution is a lie they shout "prove it!", AGAIN. LOL. FFS, it's been proven several times over but you atheists prefer to stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes to the evidence that unequivocally proves evolution is the biggest deception ever used on mankind.



As for exactly how old the earth is, I don't think anybody can really say for sure. The so-called "fossil record" and the method used to date bones and/or fossils is a joke that relies on circular logic and the assumption that evolution is real. I'm not quite sure how old the earth is but I"m quite certain that humans as we know them today originated about 6000 years ago with Adam and Eve. The "neanderthal man" is a lie.

^^^ So again bluewaterrider I ask: the above post is INDEED making you feel all kinds of wonder about where that confidence comes from, right?

The Earth is so old she took her drivers' test on a dinosaur.

Originally posted by meep-meep
The Earth is so old she took her drivers' test on a dinosaur.

20 seconds later the dinosaur was murdered and eaten by cavemen.

Originally posted by Surtur
20 seconds later the dinosaur was murdered and eaten by cavemen. His name was 'Starsie'.

Starsie so old he got his bible signed by Jesus.

100 reasons why evolution is stupid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk


The speaker in that video is an extremely smart guy who has studied both science and religion. If you're not interested in hearing him talk about the Bible then just fast forward to about the 2:00 mark in video. He starts giving many scientific common sense reasons why macro-evolution is stupid. He starts by breaking down the six different types of evolution:

1. Cosmic evolution
2. chemical evolution
3. Stellar and planetary evolution
4. organic evolution
5. macro-evolution
6. micro-evolution

...then he destroys one-by-one the arguments for each one and explains why all of them (besides the last one)doesn't make any sense whatsoever. For the most part, he uses SCIENCE to destroy the arguments for each one. As for the last one, micro-evolution, he acknowledges that there's plenty of proof for that (as do I) but then goes on to explain why the name "micro-evolution" is not a good description of what actually takes place. Adaptation is a much better term to use for number 6.


As he points out in the video, Darwinian evolution-that is, the first 5 types above are nothing more than a religion since it is based on assumptions/beliefs and no proof whatsoever. It's a highly educational video and very entertaining as well. Highly recommended.

Originally posted by meep-meep
Starsie so old he got his bible signed by Jesus.



What a shame. You called me a childish name so now I have to put you on ignore. How unfortunate.


Have a Merry Christmas, you asswipe.

Originally posted by Star428
100 reasons why evolution is stupid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk


The speaker in that video is an extremely smart guy who has studied both science and religion. If you're not interested in hearing him talk about the Bible then just fast forward to about the 2:00 mark in video. He starts giving many scientific common sense reasons why macro-evolution is stupid. He starts by breaking down the six different types of evolution:

1. Cosmic evolution
2. chemical evolution
3. Stellar and planetary evolution
4. organic evolution
5. macro-evolution
6. micro-evolution

...then he destroys one-by-one the arguments for each one and explains why all of them (besides the last one)doesn't make any sense whatsoever. For the most part, he uses SCIENCE to destroy the arguments for each one. As for the last one, micro-evolution, he acknowledges that there's plenty of proof for that (as do I) but then goes on to explain why the name "micro-evolution" is not a good description of what actually takes place. Adaptation is a much better term to use for number 6.


As he points out in the video, Darwinian evolution-that is, the first 5 types above are nothing more than a religion since it is based on assumptions/beliefs and no proof whatsoever. It's a highly educational video and very entertaining as well. Highly recommended.



Made a slight mistake above where I said adaptation is a better term for number six. I meant to say that either adaptation or variation is a better term.

Star just gave you the best present ever meep.

I also still indeed hope bluewaterrider is full of wonder over all of Star's recent posts...I sure as shit know I am wondering about them myself.

Originally posted by Star428
100 reasons why evolution is stupid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk


The speaker in that video is an extremely smart guy who has studied both science and religion. If you're not interested in hearing him talk about the Bible then just fast forward to about the 2:00 mark in video. He starts giving many scientific common sense reasons why macro-evolution is stupid. He starts by breaking down the six different types of evolution:

1. Cosmic evolution
2. chemical evolution
3. Stellar and planetary evolution
4. organic evolution
5. macro-evolution
6. micro-evolution

...then he destroys one-by-one the arguments for each one and explains why all of them (besides the last one)doesn't make any sense whatsoever. For the most part, he uses SCIENCE to destroy the arguments for each one. As for the last one, micro-evolution, he acknowledges that there's plenty of proof for that (as do I) but then goes on to explain why the name "micro-evolution" is not a good description of what actually takes place. Adaptation is a much better term to use for number 6.


As he points out in the video, Darwinian evolution-that is, the first 5 types above are nothing more than a religion since it is based on assumptions/beliefs and no proof whatsoever. It's a highly educational video and very entertaining as well. Highly recommended. I wish someone could give me 100 reasons why you are so stupid.

Originally posted by Surtur
Star just gave you the best present ever meep.

I also still indeed hope bluewaterrider is full of wonder over all of Star's recent posts...I sure as shit know I am wondering about them myself.

All it took was a few yo mama jokes. No harm was intended. Just trying to spread some juvenile humor. meh. No foxes.

Let's ask the oldest being on earth, one that has witnessed all the events some billion years ago. BADABING!

Badabing almost sounds like "big bang". Coincidence?

Every species on earth evolved from the raptor.

Originally posted by meep-meep
Starsie so old he got his bible signed by Jesus.

Originally posted by Star428
Made a slight mistake above where I said adaptation is a better term for number six. I meant to say that either adaptation or variation is a better term.

You don't really need all of that. They can't prove abiogenesis in the origin of life theory. Too many gaps missing for them to successfully reproduce it in a controlled experiment and have it become visble enough to eventually make a life form. We have no clue what the exact conditions were like at that time that made life possible. In that point, there is not much for them to argue against intelligent design.

I love how Star thinks a "really smart guy" would be talking about how evolution is stupid.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
We have no clue what the exact conditions were like at that time that made life possible. In that point, there is not much for them to argue against intelligent design.

There is literally no actual evidence for intelligent design. That is all that needs to be said to "argue against" it. There is not a shred of concrete evidence of this.

The fact we have no clue about what certain conditions were like actually doesn't lend any credibility to intelligent design. This is a mistake I constantly see religious people making. They think the fact we don't have an explanation for something(yet) somehow equates to intelligent design. The other problem is intelligent design in itself doesn't come anywhere close to proving the existence of the biblical God. So it is strange when I see religious people using the phrase when I know deep down they don't believe in intelligent design they believe in the prick from the bible. They just try to science it up a bit because they wrongly assume it lends some kind of credibility to the entire thing.

Intelligent design could mean that whatever created us was a gay pink skinned alien named Bob. I wonder if Star would accept that though? Since he couldn't prove the entity behind intelligent design wasn't such a being.

It's also fascinating how Star can hone in on the people claiming evolution isn't a thing and say they "destroy" the arguments of it, but ALL the people of science who destroy arguments saying evolution isn't a thing? Not a peep about them, those people won't be addressed at all.

I mean I could provide videos of people who believe in evolution utterly dismantling religious people who do not. In an actual debates no less.

Originally posted by Surtur
There is literally no actual evidence for intelligent design. That is all that needs to be said to "argue against" it. There is not a shred of concrete evidence of this.

The fact we have no clue about what certain conditions were like actually doesn't lend any credibility to intelligent design. This is a mistake I constantly see religious people making. They think the fact we don't have an explanation for something(yet) somehow equates to intelligent design. The other problem is intelligent design in itself doesn't come anywhere close to proving the existence of the biblical God. So it is strange when I see religious people using the phrase when I know deep down they don't believe in intelligent design they believe in the prick from the bible. They just try to science it up a bit because they wrongly assume it lends some kind of credibility to the entire thing.

Intelligent design could mean that whatever created us was a gay pink skinned alien named Bob. I wonder if Star would accept that though? Since he couldn't prove the entity behind intelligent design wasn't such a being.

It's also fascinating how Star can hone in on the people claiming evolution isn't a thing and say they "destroy" the arguments of it, but ALL the people of science who destroy arguments saying evolution isn't a thing? Not a peep about them, those people won't be addressed at all.

I mean I could provide videos of people who believe in evolution utterly dismantling religious people who do not. In an actual debates no less.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
You don't really need all of that. They can't prove abiogenesis in the origin of life theory. Too many gaps missing for them to successfully reproduce it in a controlled experiment and have it become visble enough to eventually make a life form. We have no clue what the exact conditions were like at that time that made life possible. In that point, there is not much for them to argue against intelligent design.



Oh, I agree but just wanted to show that there's a lot more than just that one point you're referring to that proves evolution is nothing more than a religion. The speaker in that video exposes at least a hundred holes in evolutionary so-called "theory".

I like how Starsie keeps saying evolution is stupid and false but he also says it's a religion because of it...?

Originally posted by Surtur
There is literally no actual evidence for intelligent design. That is all that needs to be said to "argue against" it. There is not a shred of concrete evidence of this.

The fact we have no clue about what certain conditions were like actually doesn't lend any credibility to intelligent design. This is a mistake I constantly see religious people making. They think the fact we don't have an explanation for something(yet) somehow equates to intelligent design. The other problem is intelligent design in itself doesn't come anywhere close to proving the existence of the biblical God. So it is strange when I see religious people using the phrase when I know deep down they don't believe in intelligent design they believe in the prick from the bible. They just try to science it up a bit because they wrongly assume it lends some kind of credibility to the entire thing.

Intelligent design could mean that whatever created us was a gay pink skinned alien named Bob. I wonder if Star would accept that though? Since he couldn't prove the entity behind intelligent design wasn't such a being.

It's also fascinating how Star can hone in on the people claiming evolution isn't a thing and say they "destroy" the arguments of it, but ALL the people of science who destroy arguments saying evolution isn't a thing? Not a peep about them, those people won't be addressed at all.

I mean I could provide videos of people who believe in evolution utterly dismantling religious people who do not. In an actual debates no less.

Can you please calm down. I know we believe differently, but I don't hold anything against you. Don"t get ip in arms over what is said on here. It is just a discussion board.

Interesting

The reason why the Earth would be 6000 years old, is because Christians measure by "God Days".

Apparently, 1000 Earth Years, is a day to God.

Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
Let's ask the oldest being on earth, one that has witnessed all the events some billion years ago. BADABING! I think that'd be Raz, or UnknownBountyHunter.

nobody knows and nobody will ever know

Originally posted by Shabazz916
nobody knows and nobody will ever know Except we do, and we do.

There are *known settlements and civilizations* older than 6,000.

Predynastic ancient Egypt goes back 8,000+ years. They had ships, and drew art of said ships, that far back. It's quite impressive to be a civilization who's roots are older than the universe, don't you think?

We also have more primitive settlements, caves and such, which show much older signs of habitation.



Fun fact: Most of these have little to do with what actual evolution scientists talk about is. They're what someone who had a perception of what evolution is, but not with how people who discuss the subjects use it.

Macro vs micro? That's an arbitrary, made-up line. Stuff is supposed to just change to a certain extent and some mechanism keeps a bunch of small changes from adding up to big ones? That's silly.

We've observed new species splitting off and getting new characteristics in recent timeframes, and we have fossil chains showing very complete progressions of major transformation, as well as DNA evidence of living species showing that X split off from Y, and the related physical characteristics that'd tell us the same thing even if we didn't have DNA testing to check. I could tell you so much about orchid evolution!



'Nothing more'? You say that as if you thought religions were no big thing, which does not fit with what I know of you.

And one of the real big things about evolution- It can be independently discovered. One does not have to know about evolution from elsewhere, one can discover it through study without hearing of it- and interestingly, one can discover it coming from a variety of ways. A geneticist would discover it surely as someone who studied physical characteristics of living animals, as would a paleontologist looking at fossilized bones.

Multiple different fields will all come to the same conclusion via very different methods. That's part of the beauty of it, one field can check something and another can confirm it. It's got predictive power.

There was a species missing in a development chain at one point. Scientists said, "Hm, it should be lake dwelling, and judging from what rate it developed... around this era. Anyone know rocks of that era where there used to be lakes?" "Yep." And they found it, exactly where they predicted it'd be.


Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
You don't really need all of that. They can't prove abiogenesis in the origin of life theory. Too many gaps missing for them to successfully reproduce it in a controlled experiment and have it become visble enough to eventually make a life form. We have no clue what the exact conditions were like at that time that made life possible. In that point, there is not much for them to argue against intelligent design.

Basically, we can reproduce it in a lab by reproducing conditions that can exist in nature, and prove that abiogenesis is possible- has happened, after all- but we do not know the precise circumstances of the abiogenesis, there could be several different ways for abiogenesis to occur.

However, the existence of abiogenesis itself is a hammerblow to Intelligence Design. It shows that an intelligence is not required.

Originally posted by Star428
What a shame. You called me a childish name so now I have to put you on ignore. How unfortunate.


Have a Merry Christmas, you asswipe.

One thing's for sure.

Christians DID evolve into hypocrites.

Lol it's almost 2016 and people still believe in evolution.

when I start smelling random shit (due to my brain dying) I will know genetics, and by extension, evolution has caught up to me. but until then Merry Christmas you lucky so and sos'.

I believe in Doctor Who.

He verified Santa, the devil & dinosaurs are real.

Originally posted by Mindset
Lol it's almost 2016 and people still believe in evolution. What's the alternative?

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
What's the alternative?

Mindsettism.

Rape was first. Even before Big Bang.

Originally posted by Mindset
Lol it's almost 2016 and people still believe in god.

I came into this thread expecting not to like Star or Surtur...

Was not disappointed.

A challenge for atheists:


http://www.amazon.com/YES-GOD-EXISTS-YOU-TROUBLE/dp/0615930727/ref=pd_sim_14_1?ie=UTF8&p1D=51s4wqJL0YL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR

Star, nobody is going to pay money just to debate your dumb ass

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I came into this thread expecting not to like Star or Surtur...

Was not disappointed.



You mean "I came into this thread to troll. Yada yada yada..."

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I came into this thread expecting not to like Star or Surtur...

Was not disappointed.

Yes I know some folks hate facts. Here is some kryptonite for you dawg: 1+1 equals twoooooooooo! Does it burn? Is your blood boiling?

Sometimes there are 29 days in February! Oh shit! Oh shit, does it hurt? Aloe vera helps out with burns. By the way the capital of Illinois is Springfield..damn sorry, use some cold water on that.

I'd like a world where I can be Catholic and the dude next to me can be Athiest and we can both be fine with that, both of you are part of the reason why that can't be a reality.

Ant and Q99 on the other hand seem pretty chill.

LOL. Whatever... I'm not going to let any of you get me down on this wonderful day when we celebrate the birth of the only real God-Jesus Christ...


By all means, continue with your trolling and Merry Christmas to you all.

I like a world where religious nutjobs don't act like religious nutjobs. Where they don't pretend they are presenting facts and then act like *others* are the stupid ones.

I'm totally fine with a dude next to me being religious, as long as he can not ramble on about intelligent design being fact whilst calling evolution silly.

Since you see I know religious people who actually don't act obnoxious like that. I am quite literally sitting 15 feet away from one such person right now.

So it's only peeps like Star and TI who set you off?

Believe it or not most Christians actually don't subscribe to the whole "evolution is a fairy tale" line of thought. They also don't try to pull a fast one on people by going on about intelligent design, especially when these people *flat out* do not actually believe in intelligent design and have stated this.

Quite literally Star does not believe in intelligent design, despite his little spiel about how it's totally fact. He believes in God, the biblical God, as he has said numerous times.

I know, I am among them.

Nothing I ever say is in defense of Star LOL, but rather the non-nut job religious people. But if your attacks are against the nut jobs specifically, fair enough.

I apologize for the misunderstanding, sometimes phrasing makes it sound like attacks on all religious people.

FwVaqJnQ1Sg

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
FwVaqJnQ1Sg





Is that Q, Surtur, or Emperor in that video? I'm guessing Q since you posted right after her/him.

The teaching of evolution is linked to racism:


http://deeptruths.com/articles/big_lie_exposed.html


Hitler said in "Mein Kampf" that if you tell a lie for the purpose of propagana, tell a big one! Because the bigger the lie is, the more people are apt to believe it, because they can't possibly believe you would dare to tell such a big lie unless it was the truth!

Originally posted by Star428
Sorry, but Intelligent design is the ONLY thing that makes any sense whatsoever. I'm not going to rehash this whole argument over again. I've posted plenty of links to articles recently in other threads that explain why evolution is nothing but utter nonsense. Course, atheists never bother to read them because they have no interest in reading anything that might prove they've been wrong all along. So instead they just hurl insults and mock believers instead of learning the truth. Then, they make a thread like this and when someone says evolution is a lie they shout "prove it!", AGAIN. LOL. FFS, it's been proven several times over but you atheists prefer to stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes to the evidence that unequivocally proves evolution is the biggest deception ever used on mankind.

As for exactly how old the earth is, I don't think anybody can really say for sure. The so-called "fossil record" and the method used to date bones and/or fossils is a joke that relies on circular logic and the assumption that evolution is real. I'm not quite sure how old the earth is but I"m quite certain that humans as we know them today originated about 6000 years ago with Adam and Eve. The "neanderthal man" is a lie. Star don't wanna talk to a scientist
Ya'll mutha****ers are lyin', and gettin' him pissed

It amuses me that you two dumbasses think I'm an Athiest

*Yaaaaawwwwn*

I always find it odd when people try to pass off atheism as a religion. Atheism, by definition, is the lack of theological faith or belief; it's the opposite of religion in the mainstream sense. Of course, various atheist communities can also follow shared principles "religiously", but nothing of the sort is inherent in atheism itself. I'm not sure why so many people want to call it one, either; are they trying to say everyone's in the same boat as them? Because, frankly, we're not.

And DMB's right, it's a weak challenge being issued when the challenger is asking the opposition to put their skin (or cash) in the game without offering their own. No one is going to buy the book for such an inane reason; try putting up some of the arguments from the book yourself if you're that confident in them, seriously.

It's not that I think atheism itself is a religion but believing in Darwinian Evolution is and it's only natural to assume that people who are atheists believe everything about evolutionary "theory". I have no problem with people believing in evolution. Freedom of religion is an American right, afterall. My issue is when people, I don't care who they are frankly, claim that it's "science". It's not.


As for that book, I don't care if atheists buy it or not. I don't make any money off of it's sale so I couldn't care less. Just linked to it any case there might be anybody interested in buying it, whether they're atheists or not. I'll probably check it out myself just for laughs. It's not like it's gonna break my checkbook. It's quite cheap.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
It amuses me that you two dumbasses think I'm an Athiest

You must be calling yourself a dumbass considering we never have even spoke here, retard.

Originally posted by Star428
It's not that I think atheism itself is a religion but believing in Darwinian Evolution is and it's only natural to assume that people who are atheists believe everything about evolutionary "theory". I have no problem with people believing in evolution. Freedom of religion is an American right, afterall. My issue is when people, I don't care who they are frankly, claim that it's "science". It's not.


In a sense, I agree with your point that "evolution" and "science" aren't interchangeable words.

That being said, evolution isn't a religion either. It's an explanation of the origins of complex life based on observations and educated inferences.

For most, it doesn't involve the worship of Charles Darwin or anyone else.

And, as someone who discusses religion on the internet, I'm sure you've already heard this but: theory and hypothesis aren't synonymous, man. The fact that evolution is a scientific "theory" doesn't mean it's not legitimate or certifiable.

EDIT: Double post, sorry.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
In a sense, I agree with your point that "evolution" and "science" aren't interchangeable words.

That being said, evolution isn't a religion either. It's an explanation of the origins of complex life based on observations and educated inferences.

For most, it doesn't involve the worship of Charles Darwin or anyone else.

And, as someone who discusses religion on the internet, I'm sure you've already heard this but: theory and hypothesis aren't synonymous, man. The fact that evolution is a scientific "theory" doesn't mean it's not legitimate or certifiable.




Yes, I know "theory" and "hypothesis" are not the same thing. I don't care if you call it a theory or not. It's not provable and in fact has many many flaws in just about everything it claims. If you watch the video I posted in link back on page two, iirc, you'll see that. Sorry, but it is a religion. It's based on many absurd assumptions that require a person to believe in them without having any "proof" whatsoever. It requies great faith to believe in evolution because there's virtually no proof of any kind of it other than type six- micro-evolution. If you wanna believe in it, I don't care. Knock yourself out. Just don't expect to convert any of us who know better than to fall for that crap. It is the greatest deception ever used on mankind and Satan is laughing his ass off at those who believe we came from monkeys.

Originally posted by Star428
It's not provable

Well, that just depends on what your standards are. Obviously, we have no way of directly experiencing the past, and the overwhelming odds are that we never will. That kind of hard proof is unobtainable without a Time Machine, and to ask it of either creationists or evolutionists is absurd.

All we can do is infer based on patterns that are observable in the present day, in an attempt to learn more about our past.



Sure, evolutionary theory is imperfect. We don't have nearly all of the answers, and no educated evolutionist would claim that we do.

The Bible also has it's fair share of crazy, so pick your poison I suppose.



Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution are the exact same thing taking place over differing amounts of time.



Throwing around lines like this in a discussion is redundant. I could say the same about religion. What's the point?



Again, only someone excessively illiterate in evolutionary theory would claim that humans are descended from monkeys.

According to mainstream evolutionary theory, monkeys descended from an earlier species that humans also descended from at some point in the past, yes. But that can be said about all life forms, so I'm not sure what makes monkeys any more mentionable than any other creature.

They're very similar to us biologically, which means they're probably more closely related to us than other animals, sure. But they're still our distant cousins at best, not our fathers.

Originally posted by Star428
Yes, I know "theory" and "hypothesis" are not the same thing. I don't care if you call it a theory or not. It's not provable and in fact has many many flaws in just about everything it claims.

Actually, it is testable and is tested with regularity.

It has been tested in labs. It has been observed in nature. It can be checked via the DNA of lineages and how much they diverge and resemble each other, as well as comparing fossils.


I mean, here's the actual-scientist's reaction to the classic "We understand Evolution as well as we do Gravity," thing:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110922.gif


If on a scale of 'how well we understand stuff,' Evolution is an 8 out of 10, Gravity's, like, at 3 of 10. We have equations that at far ends simply stop making sense and contradict equations of other stuff. We know how it works in some conditions, but there's other bits that we just throw up our hands and say, "Nope, no idea how gravity works there. Not even a good guess, really."







Seriously, this is how you view Christianity too?

You seem to flip-flop on whether religion is good here. You're sounding, ironically enough, like an anti-theistic atheist.




Uh, I will note that of the 'six types,' the person names... most of them aren't actually scientific terms to begin with.

Stellar evolution? Stars don't evolve. Some people use that term, but purely in a metaphorical, non-technical term.

Stars do have a development cycle, but it's purely a case of, "Stars are fusion. Fusion produces heavier elements. Stars with different concentrations of heavier elements undergo some physical changes, like in size and temperature." This is just dumb matter going through a development cycle, which it is visibly undergoing in front of our eyes because, hey, we can *see* it fusing.

Sorta like how you might say a sponge that gets wet 'grows' but you don't literally mean it grows like a plant.


Most of those, well, there is obviously change there, quite observable in most cases, but evolution refers to a life process.


And considering we've got dinosaurs with feathers, pre-hatched chickens have dinosaur-esque teeth, we've got the common ancestor of cats and dogs, we've got land animals becoming whales, all with fossil evidence, we've got tons of evidence of all of it.

Heck, just look at amphibians, especially older more primitive ones. They're so obviously descended from fish, and reptiles so obviously came from earlier amphibians.

There's an obvious progression, fish with gills > Fish with gills and lungs in water > fish with gills and lungs that go on land sometimes (lungfish, mudskippers) > amphibians with gills and lungs that spend a lot of time in both land and water > amphibians with just lungs that spend a lot of time in both land and water > reptiles that are a whole lot like those amphibians except their skin retains water better and they lay harder eggs that can work on land > other more diverse reptiles.


Each step is smallish. The result is huge. What, supposedly, is the mechanism that prevents larger changes from simply coming from smaller changes accumulating? Which is, btw, what real evolutionary scientists say is what happens.

Originally posted by Surtur
^^^ So again bluewaterrider I ask: the above post is INDEED making you feel all kinds of wonder about where that confidence comes from, right?

Star actually doesn't seem to have all that much confidence in what he says. Or much staying power, for that matter. To be fair, however, trusting his listed birthdate to be accurate, Star has had a lot of time to have had faith shaken. And a lot of time to build a nearly soul-crushing store of sadness, bitterness, and anger. But Life in these United States causes that. And it's fairly natural for people to lash out at others as a result. Even if they proclaim Christian membership, which proscribes such behavior.

I'm glad that, after an initial lash out, Star DOES seem willing to re-examine and re-evaluate some of his positions. He used to laugh at me for my views on Catholicism, for instance. He doesn't do that now. I think it would be hard for anyone who gives that organization serious examination to do so, truthfully.
When even Christopher Hitchens is willing to admit the Catholic Church and/or many of its celebrated figures behave in a very UN-Christian manner, it warrants examination.

Originally posted by Star428
atheists ... have no interest in reading anything that might prove they've been wrong all along. So instead they just hurl insults and mock believers instead of learning the truth.


Star and I doubtless have areas of disagreement .

This section quoted from his paragraph above ISN'T one of them.


I note with sad but unsurprised interest that not one person has commented on what was contained in the link in my first post on page 1.

Perhaps re-posting will actually get one of you supposed atheists to actually examine and discuss it?


http://m.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/176247/Remembering_The_End_Of_The_WorldFull_Documentary/

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Star actually doesn't seem to have all that much confidence in what he says. Or much staying power, for that matter. To be fair, however, trusting his listed birthdate to be accurate, Star has had a lot of time to have had faith shaken. And a lot of time to build a nearly soul-crushing store of sadness, bitterness, and anger. But Life in these United States causes that. And it's fairly natural for people to lash out at others as a result. Even if they proclaim Christian membership, which proscribes such behavior.

I'm glad that, after an initial lash out, Star DOES seem willing to re-examine and re-evaluate some of his positions. He used to laugh at me for my views on Catholicism, for instance. He doesn't do that now. I think it would be hard for anyone who gives that organization serious examination to do so, truthfully.
When even Christopher Hitchens is willing to admit the Catholic Church and/or many of its celebrated figures behave in a very UN-Christian manner, it warrants examination.




LOL. I don't have much confidence in what I say? That's horeshit, dude. I guarantee you that I'm more secure in what I believe than you or any atheist in this thread. Do you just come into religious threads I post in for the express purpose of trying to deliberately piss me off? I remember you claiming you're a Christian too. No doubt a Catholic like Emperor dumb dumb. I didn't wanna believe what I heard about Catholics not really being Christians but the more I learn about what they believe and how they openly insult other Christians the more it seems to be true. My belief in God is unshakeable, dude. As is my belief in the 6 days of creation stated in the bible and the fact we all came from Adam and Eve. How dare you for suggesting I don't really believe what I say as if you really know jackshit about me. Perhaps, you're the one who is weak in what you believe.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Well, that just depends on what your standards are. Obviously, we have no way of directly experiencing the past, and the overwhelming odds are that we never will. That kind of hard proof is unobtainable without a Time Machine, and to ask it of either creationists or evolutionists is absurd.

All we can do is infer based on patterns that are observable in the present day, in an attempt to learn more about our past.



Sure, evolutionary theory is imperfect. We don't have nearly all of the answers, and no educated evolutionist would claim that we do.

The Bible also has it's fair share of crazy, so pick your poison I suppose.



Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution are the exact same thing taking place over differing amounts of time.



Throwing around lines like this in a discussion is redundant. I could say the same about religion. What's the point?



Again, only someone excessively illiterate in evolutionary theory would claim that humans are descended from monkeys.

According to mainstream evolutionary theory, monkeys descended from an earlier species that humans also descended from at some point in the past, yes. But that can be said about all life forms, so I'm not sure what makes monkeys any more mentionable than any other creature.

They're very similar to us biologically, which means they're probably more closely related to us than other animals, sure. But they're still our distant cousins at best, not our fathers.


Dude, it's obvious you're just another ignorant atheist who doesn't care about facts or real science so I'm done arguing with you. And no, sorry but monkeys are nowhere in my bloodline but I'm beginning to think they're in yours though considering your ignorance. I'm done discussing this with such an arrogant ass atheist. Enjoy your ignorant baseless religion, atheist. We're done talking in this thread. I won't read anymore of your ignorant replies.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Star and I doubtless have areas of disagreement .

This section quoted from his paragraph above ISN'T one of them.


Eh, I know lots of atheists who've read the Bible and plenty of anti-atheist things.

I mean, heck, people here payed attention to and responded to the micro/macro/4-other-kinds-of-evolution thing, which is just someone not knowing what actually is considered evolution, and the splitting of one thing into two categories for no apparent reason.





I think you're running into 'no-one wants to watch a long video just for an internet debate,'
(Or in my case, 'can't watch,' it doesn't even load for me) especially with no sum-up of what's inside and on a site with ads about giant human skeletons being found and aliens sending messages to our DNA. T-I complains about having to read more than three paragraphs in a post, and a long video takes a heck of a lot longer than reading any post.

It's more efficient if you make your own point, possibly based on what you learn in the video, and leave the link for those who want followup but don't just leave people with a cold link and tell them to do all the work.


Lesse, going back to the one line of what's inside it you actually made:

"He poses one of the most nagging questions I've seen: How did planets exert SO very much influence over people in the past in the eras BEFORE telescopes and magnifying lenses made them easily visible?"

In general? They didn't... though I will note, we totally knew about Venus and Mars and Jupiter and Saturn before telescopes. A lot of the planets are quite visible to the naked eye, just what they were was an unknown. Even Uranus is occasionally visible, though the ancients didn't notice it much despite that (says a lot that the barely-visible and not-so-visible yet clearly huge and significant objects in the solar system were only discovered with telescopes. One Greek astronomer is noted to have written down an observation that seems to corrospond to Uranus, but he thought nothing of it).

Venus is literally the brightest non-moon-or-sun in the Sky. Mars, Saturn, and Jupiter are near the top of the charts too. Top 5.

They were generally thought to be wandering stars or something, and as some of the brightest objects in the sky and following very different rules than the other stars, people thus attached significance to them.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. I don't have much confidence in what I say? That's horeshit, dude. I guarantee you that I'm more secure in what I believe than you or any atheist in this thread. Do you just come into religious threads I post in for the express purpose of trying to deliberately piss me off? I remember you claiming you're a Christian too. No doubt a Catholic like Emperor dumb dumb. I didn't wanna believe what I heard about Catholics not really being Christians but the more I learn about what they believe and how they openly insult other Christians the more it seems to be true. My belief in God is unshakeable, dude. As is my belief in the 6 days of creation stated in the bible and the fact we all came from Adam and Eve. How dare you for suggesting I don't really believe what I say as if you really know jackshit about me. Perhaps, you're the one who is weak in what you believe.


The only thing I'm unsure of is how old the earth and the universe is. But, I'm certain that human life began around 6000 years ago. I stopped reading your crap after I read your insult of me in the first sentence, Blue. Just a tip, if you're gonna insult me you should save it till near the end of your post otherwise I will stop reading as soon as I see you insulted me or are leading up to insulting me. I'm considering ignoring the rest of your replies in this thread after your insult of me.

Originally posted by Star428
The only thing I'm unsure of is how old the earth and the universe is. But, I'm certain that human life began around 6000 years ago.

Once again, Egypt is older than that.

Sorry, Q but whatever you're saying I'm not interested in it either. Someone who repeatedly insults my religion by claiming Islam has same God as Christianity is not worth my time, either. Conversing with an offensive person like that will only put me in a bad mood and increase the chance I will get banned.

Originally posted by Star428
Someone who repeatedly insults my religion by claiming Islam has same God as Christianity

That's not an insult, that's a fact for the most part. If you find that insulting or outrageous, then that just means you don't understand Islamic belief. Muslims do worship the Judeo-Christian God as he was portrayed in chapters of the Bible. That is true regardless of their differing beliefs regarding him and his teachings.

What's primarily different about their religion in regards to "God" himself is that they don't consider Jesus to legitimately be God or God's son.

EDIT: Also, if you're unwilling to discuss with the opposing end of the argument, why are you continuing to post in this thread? Debate is frankly inherent in the topic, and it's not like there's anything else going on. It seems to me right now that you're only here to deliberately flame opposition at this point tbh.

Originally posted by Q99


I think you're running into 'no-one wants to watch a long video just for an internet debate,'
(Or in my case, 'can't watch,' it doesn't even load for me) especially with no sum-up of what's inside and on a site with ads about giant human skeletons being found and aliens sending messages to our DNA. T-I complains about having to read more than three paragraphs in a post, and a long video takes a heck of a lot longer than reading any post.

It's more efficient if you make your own point, possibly based on what you learn in the video, and leave the link for those who want followup but don't just leave people with a cold link and tell them to do all the work.



Q, I thank you for taking the time to respond.

You highlight several problems and/or points worth examining and expanding on.

1. It's a mistake to think of this in debate terms. The reality of most debates is that people only think of winning and losing. Not much learning goes on if that stays the mindset. Frustrating, too, for what I linked to was a very well made and enjoyable documentary.

2. I have no means of responding to "can't load". Too many possible technical problems to guess at. SUPER annoying this last; this documentary was featured in its entirety on YouTube not very long ago and was only relatively recently made unavailable.

3. The "too long" argument is additionally provoking, though I don't think you mean it to be, because many of the proponents of atheist arguments on this forum, link to BOOKS on the subject. You're talking about a summary video being long when I've encountered "read these 500+ pages of text" as the response to me. Galling to say the least.

Any response that says "reading 3 paragraphs of reasonable length is too much", however, is completely invalid. You're not serious about understanding the other person if that's your complaint.

4. What is "efficient" is not always effective. In fact, I'm of the mind that only what is already 90% accepted and/or already known benefits from what passes for conventional summary on this forum. What is new or unconventional is more or less ignored. I need a way of slowing people down long enough for them to actually think about what is being said.

Originally posted by Q99




Lesse, going back to the one line of what's inside it you actually made:

"He poses one of the most nagging questions I've seen: How did planets exert SO very much influence over people in the past in the eras BEFORE telescopes and magnifying lenses made them easily visible?"

In general? They didn't... though I will note, we totally knew about Venus and Mars and Jupiter and Saturn before telescopes. A lot of the planets are quite visible to the naked eye, just what they were was an unknown. Even Uranus is occasionally visible, though the ancients didn't notice it much despite that (says a lot that the barely-visible and not-so-visible yet clearly huge and significant objects in the solar system were only discovered with telescopes. One Greek astronomer is noted to have written down an observation that seems to corrospond to Uranus, but he thought nothing of it).

Venus is literally the brightest non-moon-or-sun in the Sky. Mars, Saturn, and Jupiter are near the top of the charts too. Top 5.

They were generally thought to be wandering stars or something, and as some of the brightest objects in the sky and following very different rules than the other stars, people thus attached significance to them.


I understand your point of view. I heavily disagree, though.

Are you at least able to play YouTube clips that are 5 - 7 minutes long?

If you are please click and watch the following. Note that you will need roughly one minute of fortitude to get past the title and opening sequence but that immediately afterward this should start making a surprising amount of sense:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3ibU_SLHCvw

Do I really need to come in this thread and settle nonsense? Stop the trolling and bashing, everybody.

May Allah have mercy on your souls!

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Star actually doesn't seem to have all that much confidence in what he says. Or much staying power, for that matter. To be fair, however, trusting his listed birthdate to be accurate, Star has had a lot of time to have had faith shaken. And a lot of time to build a nearly soul-crushing store of sadness, bitterness, and anger. But Life in these United States causes that. And it's fairly natural for people to lash out at others as a result. Even if they proclaim Christian membership, which proscribes such behavior.

I'm glad that, after an initial lash out, Star DOES seem willing to re-examine and re-evaluate some of his positions. He used to laugh at me for my views on Catholicism, for instance. He doesn't do that now. I think it would be hard for anyone who gives that organization serious examination to do so, truthfully.
When even Christopher Hitchens is willing to admit the Catholic Church and/or many of its celebrated figures behave in a very UN-Christian manner, it warrants examination.

I'm sorry, but in this very thread he is said intelligent design is 100% a thing.

Also how is believing in intelligent design not a sin? Think about it: all that theory says is *something* created everything. But God tells us we can't believe in anyone but him. He doesn't say "believe in me or at the very least believe in something".

Originally posted by Star428
I'm certain that human life began around 6000 years ago.

The oldest anatomically modern human is nearly 200,000 years old.

Dinosaurs went extinct millions and millions of years ago. Do you think we just coexisted with them or something?

The Flintstones is fiction.

See and being certain life began around 6,000 years ago sure sounds like confidence to me.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm sorry, but in this very thread he is said intelligent design is 100% a thing.



Why are you pretending now as if you believed Star?

You just wrote the following on the previous page:

Originally posted by Surtur
Believe it or not most Christians actually don't subscribe to the whole "evolution is a fairy tale" line of thought. They also don't try to pull a fast one on people by going on about intelligent design, especially when these people *flat out* do not actually believe in intelligent design and have stated this.

Quite literally Star does not believe in intelligent design, despite his little spiel about how it's totally fact. He believes in God, the biblical God, as he has said numerous times.

Surtur, why not respond to my 2nd link, the revised summary clip I gave Q?
It only takes a few moments of viewing time, and it's presented by a man who is, to the best of my knowledge, an atheist. It should prove you a far more interesting intellectual challenge than the pointless cursefest with Star you seem to be trying to create.

Originally posted by Surtur
Also how is believing in intelligent design not a sin? Think about it: all that theory says is *something* created everything. But God tells us we can't believe in anyone but him. He doesn't say "believe in me or at the very least believe in something".

I don't understand your point. He believes God is the intelligent designer, right?

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm sorry, but in this very thread he is said intelligent design is 100% a thing. I'm not sure intelligent design is present in this thread. mmmOriginally posted by Trocity
Dinosaurs went extinct millions and millions of years ago. Oh did they really!? sneer

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j241/Badabing_2006/kmcprofile/velociraptor_zps4982e396.gif

Originally posted by NewGuy01
I don't understand your point. He believes God is the intelligent designer, right?

But the entire concept of intelligent design has nothing to do with the biblical God though. It leaves room for other possibilities.

Yes, and that doesn't leave room only for the biblical God. Intelligent design isn't the belief in a biblical God that specifically loves us and created us out of love and watches out for us and listens to our prayers and all that.

Your point being?

If you literally believe in the biblical God, you "100%" believe in intelligent design regardless of the fact that it's an umbrella term.

It's more or less the same concept as "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares".

But the biblical God isn't intelligent design. That is the problem. It goes beyond that. The theory of intelligent design specifically only has to do with the fact this stuff didn't come about by chance.

Intelligent design doesn't get specific as to what is behind the universe. But belief in God has to be specific.

So? They're still completely compatible. All people who believe God created the universe believe that an intelligent being designed the universe.

You don't support intelligent design if you have a specific deity in mind with a whole backstory. So you can't really go "I believe in intelligent design, but specifically that God did it, the biblical one".

Yes. Yes, you absolutely can. You can say "I believe the universe was designed, and I believe YHWH did it."

No you really can't, as intelligent design isn't about specifics.

So please stop acting like this isn't about specific terms. Of course you can say God designed the universe. But the specific theory of intelligent design we are talking about isn't the same thing.

With that theory, it leaves open the chance even more then one entity could be behind creation as we know it. It's about not knowing what did it, just that something did it.

Or we can keep this really simple. If you believe the biblical God created everything you certainly believe an intelligent being designed the universe. But that isn't the same as intelligent design as we are speaking of it...which talks about merely the fact something was behind this thing we call creation. Something in which we don't know and can't explain. Something for which we have no idea as to motive or desire.

At least for me that is how I interpret intelligent design.

Intelligent design is not a separate stance in of itself.

All belief systems that believe in a creator deity adhere to the concept of intelligent design. Without exception.

Intelligent design doesn't imply anything about the creator in question, it applies to every single one of them.

But that is why they use it to deceive. The theory in itself has nothing to do with anything specific.

People attempt to use it to try to apply some "science". It's not intelligent design to me if you have a specific idea in mind. Because that transforms it from "something is behind this" to "God specifically is behind this and he talks to us through angels and has kids and shit".

What in the world are you talking about? It isn't specific because it's a concept that inherently exists in multiple religions, including Judaism and Christianity.

It has nothing to do with science, it has to do with logical reasoning. What you consider it is irrelevant because that's clearly not what Star considers it, and he's the one you're discussing. His stance is clearly that he is a Christian and believes in intelligent design, which isn't contradictory in the slightest.

I guess I'll bottom line it: it's not intelligent design to me if you give a name to what is behind everything.

You are also correct it has nothing to do with science, it's pseudoscience.

Intelligent design is a common belief among people who believe in theistic evolution. Instead of the literal six days of creation, they believe that God used evolution to expand His original creation over the course of billions of years.

Some christians also subscribe to a Gap Theory. They believe a gap exists between Genesis 1:1-Genesis 1:2. This 'Gap' is used to explain billions of years of evolution.

For the record, I subscribe to neither view.

The other problem is the proponents of ID go out of their way to avoid giving a name or personality to whatever is behind it. Yet they of course believe it is the biblical God, but they go out of their way to avoid ever saying this. Why? Because putting a name on it changes it and they know it.

Again, intelligent design doesn't really imply even that much, it only dictates that the complex world couldn't have been an accident.

@Surter: Except that's clearly not the case here, with Star openly standing as a Christian that believes in intelligent design. As most Christians do.

There is actually more then one concept of ID, all of which on paper tend to avoid naming this force behind everything.

NewGuy I know very well what Star believes. Which is why I am pointing out the problems such belief could present.

Again, those are specific viewpoints people may or may not have on it. Intelligent Design itself implies no such rule. It's a very, very simple and basic concept. I believe you're overthinking what it means.

Originally posted by Surtur
The other problem is the proponents of ID go out of their way to avoid giving a name or personality to whatever is behind it. Yet they of course believe it is the biblical God, but they go out of their way to avoid ever saying this. Why? Because putting a name on it changes it and they know it.

Intelligent design could mean God or it could mean aliens seeded the Earth with life. It's too abstract. ID was really invented by some Christians that had no counter for evolution and the origin of life.

As a Christian, you must believe in the Genesis account. There is no room for ID or the common thought of evolution taught in schools today.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Intelligent design could mean God or it could mean aliens seeded the Earth with life. It's too abstract. ID was really invented by some Christians that had no counter for evolution and the origin of life.

As a Christian, you must believe in the Genesis account. There is no room for ID or the common thought of evolution taught in schools today.

So then you don't see the problem though if a Christian believes in something abstract? Since God isn't supposed to be abstract in that sense. He's a dude with a kid who has personally spoken to people and personally got involved in things and cares for us and all that.

That is why I was saying belief in ID makes no sense if you believe in a specific God.

Originally posted by Surtur
So then you don't see the problem though if a Christian believes in something abstract? Since God isn't supposed to be abstract in that sense. He's a dude with a kid who has personally spoken to people and personally got involved in things and cares for us and all that.

That is why I was saying belief in ID makes no sense if you believe in a specific God.

No. We are instructed to believe by faith.


I believe in the Genesis account, myself. I don't believe in ID, which accepts much scientific theory by default.

So then it sounds like you agree with me.

Originally posted by Surtur
So then it sounds like you agree with me.

I edited my post. I agree with you as far as a specific God creating the universe and everything in it.

WTF? Believing in intelligent design is not part of believing in Genesis account? That's nonsense. Intelligent design is the belief that an intelligent all-powerful being "intelligently designed" the universe. Doesn't matter which God you believe in. If you believe that he designed and created the universe to his own making then by definition you believe in intelligent design. Believing that the universe just happened by some random accident of absolutely nothing exploding then you don't believe in intelligent design because there was no"intelligence" used in the creation of everything. It's the exact opposite of believing in intelligent design. This is pretty common sense stuff, folks.


If you believe an intelligent being is the architect of the universe then you believe in intelligent design.

Originally posted by Star428
WTF? Believing in intelligent design is not part of believing in Genesis account? That's nonsense. Intelligent design is the belief that an intelligent all-powerful being "intelligently designed" the universe. Doesn't matter which God you believe in. If you believe that he designed and created the universe to his own making then by definition you believe in intelligent design. Believing that the universe just happened by some random accident of absolutely nothing exploding then you don't believe in intelligent design because there was no"intelligence" used in the creation of everything. It's the exact opposite of believing in intelligent design. This is pretty common sense stuff, folks.


If you believe an intelligent being is the architect of the universe then you believe in intelligent design.

ID, the way it is being discussed right now, infers billions of years of evolution. It states that God is the origin of life, not mere chance.
Neither you notlr I believe that. We believe the Genesis account.

Sasukedc entering the fray. Things have just gotten interesting.

Originally posted by Star428
WTF? Believing in intelligent design is not part of believing in Genesis account? That's nonsense. Intelligent design is the belief that an intelligent all-powerful being "intelligently designed" the universe. Doesn't matter which God you believe in. If you believe that he designed and created the universe to his own making then by definition you believe in intelligent design. Believing that the universe just happened by some random accident of absolutely nothing exploding then you don't believe in intelligent design because there was no"intelligence" used in the creation of everything. It's the exact opposite of believing in intelligent design. This is pretty common sense stuff, folks.


If you believe an intelligent being is the architect of the universe then you believe in intelligent design.

EDIT: Let me put this another way: do you believe God from the bible is the one behind everything or do you merely believe he is one possible explanation for everything?

No, you believe in both. Because one is inherent in the other.

Again, it's the same as squares and rectangles. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All Christians adhere to the concept of Intelligent Design, but not all believers of Intelligent Design are Christian.

In other words, Intelligent Design just means that the universe had to have been created by some higher form of intelligence. That is inherently true according to Christian belief; the universe was created by God. Christians believe in an intelligent designer, that's irrefutable.

On the other hand, you don't need to be Christian to believe that the universe was designed by an intelligent being. Which is why the concept of Intelligent Design can be applied to other religions or speculations. But belief in those origins or concepts isn't inherent in the belief that the universe was intelligently designed.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
ID, the way it is being discussed right now, infers billions of years of evolution. It states that God is the origin of life, not mere chance.
Neither you notlr I believe that. We believe the Genesis account.



Sorry, but that's incorrect. I've seen plenty of experts online call it ID when talking about the Genesis account. Again, believing in evolution is the opposite of intelligent design. I don't really care what Surtur or anybody else on this forum says. By simple definition, intelligent design is believing that there was an intelligent being involved in creation. Sorry we disagree but I have this nasty habit of taking words at face value as they're defined in the dictionary and not what some misinformed people on the internet mistakenly think they mean. I believe in the Genesis account of creation so going by the definition in the dictionary that means I also believe in intelligent design. I couldn't care less about atheists making up their own definitions of words. Webster's definition > atheists' opinion. That's all I'm gonna say on the subject.

Originally posted by Star428
Again, believing in evolution is the opposite of intelligent design.

...And back to nonsense.

Originally posted by Star428
WTF? Believing in intelligent design is not part of believing in Genesis account? That's nonsense. Intelligent design is the belief that an intelligent all-powerful being "intelligently designed" the universe. Doesn't matter which God you believe in. If you believe that he designed and created the universe to his own making then by definition you believe in intelligent design. Believing that the universe just happened by some random accident of absolutely nothing exploding then you don't believe in intelligent design because there was no"intelligence" used in the creation of everything. It's the exact opposite of believing in intelligent design. This is pretty common sense stuff, folks.


If you believe an intelligent being is the architect of the universe then you believe in intelligent design.


Whoa, Star.

You want to be careful in discussions like this.


"Architect of the Universe"?

YOU may not be aware that term is applied to anyone but God, but I learned who ELSE people refer to when they say or write that phrase a bit earlier.

http://www.ephesians5-11.org/gllink.htm
" Masons worship a god which they call the Great Architect of the Universe. The symbol they have chosen to represent their god is the All Seeing Eye, which the Egyptians used to represent their pagan god, Osiris. Many Masons are well aware of the pagan connection. It is clearly stated in a number of Masonic Monitors. An example is found on page 116 of the Kentucky Monitor ..."

I feel like there's some joke here I'm not getting.

Sorry, blue. Whatever it is you just said to me I've no interest in reading it after your earlier insult of me.

Originally posted by Star428
WTF? Believing in intelligent design is not part of believing in Genesis account? That's nonsense. Intelligent design is the belief that an intelligent all-powerful being "intelligently designed" the universe. Doesn't matter which God you believe in. If you believe that he designed and created the universe to his own making then by definition you believe in intelligent design. Believing that the universe just happened by some random accident of absolutely nothing exploding then you don't believe in intelligent design because there was no"intelligence" used in the creation of everything. It's the exact opposite of believing in intelligent design. This is pretty common sense stuff, folks.


If you believe an intelligent being is the architect of the universe then you believe in intelligent design.


I'd say... not exactly.

Intelligent design in common usage is specifically the idea that the biological setup of animals was intelligently made and did not go through the process of evolution.

One can believe an intelligent being is the architect of the universe, but this intelligent being merely set the rules of evolution and natural selection into place, rather than directly designing the result, and that wouldn't be ID.

Like the difference between personally micromanaging everything, and setting some loose guidelines and letting things go on their own.




Nah, I'm with Star on this one point- Intelligent Design is opposed to evolution, because it was specifically a term/idea invented as something to try and push evolution out of teaching.

Someone who believes God set Evolution into motion doesn't believe in Intelligent Design, they believe in Thiestic Evolution.

Q, you're back; were you able to get a chance to view my prior response to you today? ( it's about 2 pages back now)
I AM interested in your opinion on this ...


Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I understand your point of view. I heavily disagree, though.

Are you at least able to play YouTube clips that are 5 - 7 minutes long?

If you are please click and watch the following. Note that you will need roughly one minute of fortitude to get past the title and opening sequence but that immediately afterward this should start making a surprising amount of sense:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3ibU_SLHCvw

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I understand your point of view. I heavily disagree, though.

Disagree in what sense? In what issues, anything specific?

Saying you disagree, on it's own, doesn't tell me much. I provided a fair amount of data there. Could you be more informative in what part you disagree with and why?




What is this video is about, what point do you think it makes, and what 15-second sections (via timecode) wise do you find most interesting?


Or, better yet, put in your own words what the video is about, and simply leave the link as an optional thing if the other person happens to be interested.


In 5-7 minutes, I can read multiple multi-page discussions of full-size posts. Like I said, providing a video with no explanation is not the most effective way to do arguments. It's not that people are afraid of having their ideas challenged, it's that that is a lot of time investment for very little gain, when the same information can be conveyed much faster.


Going from the title, it's about Saturn and it's place in the world. Saturn, as mentioned, was very visible to the naked eye, and thus it was a major figure in astronomy. Much as one would expect from one of the very brightest objects in the sky and one of the only ones that followed a path.

Originally posted by Surtur
I guess I'll bottom line it: it's not intelligent design to me if you give a name to what is behind everything. That just makes you wrong.

You don't get to arbitrarily change the definitions of words.

There's a point at which saying a thing takes up valuable time is a cop out. Absolutely I would concede the point when the link was to a full documentary, no matter how well done. 5 minutes, though? That feels absolutely disingenuous.
It probably took you longer to write your response above asking me what the clip is about than to simply watch it.

I disagree heavily with your assertion that people of the past considered the planets lightly. Saturn was so influential that one of OUR days of the week even now is named for it, and at least 2 major world religions (Islam and Judaism) hold it in enough regard that work periods and worship services are scheduled around that day. In the ancient world, people went to lengths that would be unthinkable today, sacrificing human lives to the planet, in a guise that would probably shock you if the narrator can be believed -- and so far I have little reason to believe he shouldn't. It is far out of proportion to what could be expected if Saturn were merely bright and singular in its paths as you assert.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
There's a point at which saying a thing takes up valuable time is a cop out. Absolutely I would concede the point when the link was to a full documentary, no matter how well done. 5 minutes, though? That feels absolutely disingenuous.

Considering you don't even feel it's worth spending the time explaining what the subject is or directly pointing to the good parts, I kinda toss that back to you? You're spending like, no effort on this.




How long do you take you to write...?

It normally takes me maybe a minute or two to write a post (I'll check the time at this one at the end), and the longest post here by others I probably read in 15 seconds. Watching a 6 minute video is a lot more time- and we aren't exactly talking an exciting music video at that.



I never said that, I said that they viewed them as important due to them being highly visible and unusual in the sky.

Initially you said they had great influence despite not being easily visible- I was correcting that, they were always not just visible but easily so.

Meanwhile, the not-so-obvious but still visible planets, Mercury and Uranus, got ignored and not even named til far more recently, showing that even major planets would get no significance attached to them unless they were bright and pretty.



That's a bit backwards. The God Saturn was considered very important, so the planet was named for the God, and our calendar was made back when that god was big, and we kept it out of inertia.



I would say it's far more likely that they sacrificed to Saturn because they thought he was a living being who had great sway over day to day life (not that the Romans did much human sacrifice, they were more the type to sacrifice goats).

They didn't know they were planets. All they knew where they were lights in the heavens- and attached significant to that. In some cultures, latching them to things they viewed as massively important for other reasons.





Time of writing: 4 minutes. Hm, longer than I thought... still, that's with checking what you said before, and writing's more fun than watching.

Originally posted by Star428
Sorry, but that's incorrect. I've seen plenty of experts online call it ID when talking about the Genesis account. Again, believing in evolution is the opposite of intelligent design. I don't really care what Surtur or anybody else on this forum says. By simple definition, intelligent design is believing that there was an intelligent being involved in creation. Sorry we disagree but I have this nasty habit of taking words at face value as they're defined in the dictionary and not what some misinformed people on the internet mistakenly think they mean. I believe in the Genesis account of creation so going by the definition in the dictionary that means I also believe in intelligent design. I couldn't care less about atheists making up their own definitions of words. Webster's definition > atheists' opinion. That's all I'm gonna say on the subject.

I don't think you quite understood me. Yes, God did design the universe. It happened the way Genesis said it did. That I'm sure we agree on. God is the intelligence behind creation. What I disagree with is the ID theory that theistic evolutionists use. They believe God created things and let evolution take over...over the course of billions of years. I disagree with that. You see what I'm saying? I disagree with ID from the viewpoint of theistic evolution.

Originally posted by Q99


Time of writing: 4 minutes. Hm, longer than I thought... still, that's with checking what you said before, and writing's more fun than watching.

Not only did you underestimate how long it takes you to write a single post, you also failed to recognize you spent time on a previous post just before that one, separate from your original reply to me. Now with at least 6-7 minutes gone, you still have failed, if I'm reading you right, to look at a clip that would have given you a summary AND proper context and enabled you to understand my point of view. It's not like I didn't already give you a HUGE concession by knocking the submission down from a full length video to something less than 10% of the whole, a ridiculously shafted summary by almost any measure.

I understand why these kinds of discussions fail now. I could understand you rejecting someone saying "I'm going to hold to what I believe regardless of what you present to me". I could understand you reacting this way if someone cursed you out. I could even understand if you simply balked at the time the original submission would take to review.

I cannot understand why you would refuse a 5 minute clip.


I would have watched from sheer curiosity by now. Truthfully, I suspect you actually have at this point and are just being ornery.
It seems more than anything, though, that, rather than get a proper understanding of the other person's point of view, you'd rather risk having them construct a straw man of sorts, one you can argue against without ever hearing the actual idea. Maybe that's not the case, and it's simply the lateness of the hour here in Michigan at the end of a long day making me think that.
You were honest to admit the writing took longer than you thought and polite enough to respond, so I'll give you the benefit of any doubt and simply wait till I'm rested before revisiting this thread once more.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I don't think you quite understood me. Yes, God did design the universe. It happened the way Genesis said it did. That I'm sure we agree on. God is the intelligence behind creation. What I disagree with is the ID theory that theistic evolutionists use. They believe God created things and let evolution take over...over the course of billions of years. I disagree with that. You see what I'm saying? I disagree with ID from the viewpoint of theistic evolution.

And that's fine. But even if that's how it's used by theistic evolutionists, that's not what the term actually means. So it's perfectly OK for Star to use it as a creationist lol.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Not only did you underestimate how long it takes you to write a single post,


I have a clock. Estimation is not required.



If I'd watched your second video, that'd mean I'd have spent over twice that, 14 minutes.

Are you seriously trying to argue that my time management is a problem when you can't be bothered to write out your own argument?


No matter how much time I spend writing, there remains the factor that, one, I enjoy writing, and two, a 7 minute video doesn't replace any time I spend writing, it simply goes on top of anything.

You can't go into a conversation with the idea that you're entitled to have the other person do all the work in finding your argument while you avoid spending any time on it. It just doesn't work.




...

The original one was 10% as long? I.e. you were getting annoyed at people for not watching an hour long video with no summary or intel on where the best parts are?


Look, it's a discussion, people don't owe you time. You get time by posting interesting arguments.

If I tell you to watch a 3 hour movie, and then knock it down to half an hour, that doesn't make me generous nor does it mean you have a free half hour.




Because 5 minutes is a time when I can do a fair amount of stuff, and it's a one-way time commitment, you're not devoting time to your argument, you're just demanding my time.


This is a discussion, anyone can quit at any time for any reason. If I post a link and it's 10 pages, then you don't have to read through the whole thing. Heck, that's why when I post links, I also post descriptions on what's on the other side and often choice snippets, so people don't have to go through the whole thing.





Do you really watch every video linked to you? It doesn't even sound like an interesting video to me- in part, mind you, because you've said almost nothing about the contents, just asked me to watch

Again, Time-Immemorial on this forum gets annoyed at me for posting *single page* arguments and says they're too long. Which I find kinda pushing it considering it's a text based forum, but 5 minutes is a fair chunk of time for most people to sit around passively when they could be doing a lot more online.


Heck, consider Youtube ads. Do you watch every youtube ad without skipping? I almost always skip, and those are normally 30 seconds-a minute. And what you're telling me to watch is also an ad, just an ad for someone's point of view.





Whoa there, I'm repeatedly asking you for your words on what your argument is.


When you actually posted some words (on the importance of Saturn and how it's a day), I responded on-topic with information, which you, in turn, have not responded to. And I had to bug you in order to get you to say that much of your argument after you expressed nonspecific disagreement of mine.


The rest? Sure, it's guesses, but explicitly so, and still contains general information on the subject of planets and beliefs. I don't pretend to know your side, I can just lay down some knowledge and ask for usable info.

To put it another way, you're putting barriers up to me getting your argument. If you want me to argue your argument, stop trying to hide it.


And heck, on the time management front- in the time you've spent complaining about not watching a video, you could've just told me what you believe.



If you want people to listen to you, you need to speak to them, not put all the onus of research on them and then get annoyed when they don't want to spend that time. It's not that people are rejecting arguments because they disagree with them, it's that people are not even knowing about the arguments because it's rather inconvenient.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
The reason why the Earth would be 6000 years old, is because Christians measure by "God Days".

Apparently, 1000 Earth Years, is a day to God. ...This.

This answers the question guys.

Besides, Earth has been "6,000" years for a long friggen time, not just this year.

I remember back in 2005, when my religious grandmother told me the Earth was 6,000 years old. You'd think it would be at least 6,001 by now.

I mean, I don't know much, but I know what I'm talking about with the whole 6,000 years thing.

God Days = 1000 Years each. 365,000 x 6,000.

Thats how long the earth has been around biblically.

@Q99 Get Adblock. Took me a few years to decide to download it, once I did I regretted not doing it sooner. Save yourself some time on the Internet...

DEW IT!!!

Yes, Adblock is essential for any browser.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I don't think you quite understood me. Yes, God did design the universe. It happened the way Genesis said it did. That I'm sure we agree on. God is the intelligence behind creation. What I disagree with is the ID theory that theistic evolutionists use. They believe God created things and let evolution take over...over the course of billions of years. I disagree with that. You see what I'm saying? I disagree with ID from the viewpoint of theistic evolution.

Why do you think they go out of your way not to name a specific intelligence behind said ID?

Originally posted by Jmanghan
...This.

This answers the question guys.

Besides, Earth has been "6,000" years for a long friggen time, not just this year.

I remember back in 2005, when my religious grandmother told me the Earth was 6,000 years old. You'd think it would be at least 6,001 by now.

I mean, I don't know much, but I know what I'm talking about with the whole 6,000 years thing.

God Days = 1000 Years each. 365,000 x 6,000.

Thats how long the earth has been around biblically.

Prove it.

Geez so now 4 people think the Earth is 6,000 years old. I just have to ask how people apparently lived during the time of the dinosaurs and we have no actual evidence of people and dinosaurs co-existing. Nothing about pet dinosaurs. Nothing about villages being attacked by a hungry T-Rex. No mention of the dino's being hunted for food.

96% of human history is forever lost to us, but if the planet is only 6k then there should be some evidence that people and dinosaurs existing at the same time was a thing.

Also wait to those who think the planet is 6k then what do you feel happened to the dinosaurs?