Products of Creation Science

Originally Posted by LordsSword

As long as there is doubt in the hearts of men.
I know people get angry with me and the supporters of this subject because deep down there is something unsettled that points to a God.

Are you seriously trying to uh, allay the doubt of God in the hearts of us heathens or something?

Because, sir, if that's the case - you are an UTTER FAILURE.

You haven't convinced anyone here. In fact, I'm willing to bet that when you spout off your Bible-laced gibberish, you're too busy thinking about YOU to understand that your message is not getting across AT ALL. I'll bet that you're all like, Ohhh, lookit me, I'm striking a blow for God, ohhh, I'm showing these people how unassailable creationism is.. in other words, I I I ME ME ME ME ME ME.

You really don't get it. Preaching the word of God is about how the other person feels about his life in context to Jesus, not HAR HAR I'm WINNING THE ARGUMENT GOD RULES. That's why you've utterly failed in talking about God - you do not actually look outside yourself when you're doing it. That's why people like you are very bad missionaries - in fact, more people get turned AWAY from Christianity because of you. Your efforts are turning people away from God.

Look. You said that I understand Christian values. This is because I converted to Christianity myself, 12 or so years ago, and read widely about Christianity. I have a uncle who is a doctor and a missionary in China, whom I joined for a couple of weeks to see what his work was like. He doesn't beat people over the head with God. He doesn't rant and rave about evolution. He lives the life of a Christian, and without having to beat his chest about God, people come to him.

Compared to that, you are nothing but an embarrassment. You have shown nothing but a superficial, shallow understanding of theology. Go away, read more of the Bible, and actually think about it before you abuse it by pasting it all over your "arguments" like self-help slogans. Then maybe we can have a talk about Christianity.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

What I want to know if LordSword understands that if there is a God, he's an athiest.

That means I'm either right that there isn't a God - or God understands why I don't believe in him. Means I have a better shot at an afterlife than some blowhard cumbag who thinks that acting anonymously on the internet for his idiot religious morals is the new way to pull bedsheets over your head and burn black people's houses.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

deep down there is something unsettled that points to a God.

Right now, the only thing thats pointing is my ass in the toilet. Duchess double cheeseburgers go through you like a buffalo stampede.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Stop Sign

You really don't get it. Preaching the word of God is about how the other person feels about his life in context to Jesus, not HAR HAR I'm WINNING THE ARGUMENT GOD RULES. That's why you've utterly failed in talking about God - you do not actually look outside yourself when you're doing it. That's why people like you are very bad missionaries - in fact, more people get turned AWAY from Christianity because of you. Your efforts are turning people away from God.

I tried to get this across to him on so many occasions. I tried to explain that when he acts this way, he will naturally elicit hostility. He prefers to believe that the hostility is because non-Christians have too much anger and no self control. I tried to explain that it's because he provokes people deliberately.

When he still didn't understand, I gave examples. When he then explained his behaviour by saying that anything may be justified in the name of God, I lost all interest in talking to him. He's either completely blind to other perspectives or he's deliberately trolling. I have never been entirely certain which of those two possibilities is the most likely. If he is putting on a show for the internet, then the illusion is almost complete.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

If he is putting on a show for the internet, then the illusion is almost complete.

Funny thing is, he PMed me afterwards asking me to stop arguing with him in public because it would threaten the show of peace and harmony among Christians. That's the word he used: "show".

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Stop Sign

Funny thing is, he PMed me afterwards asking me to stop arguing with him in public because it would threaten the show of peace and harmony among Christians. That's the word he used: "show".

This guy just gets better and better.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Colossians 3: 18-21 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.

See, because of this, we know that God made the universe and didn't just make physical laws and whatever you're trying to make me see.



I swear, the quote's entirely relevant.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word."

"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

FELIPE NO

Interesting. I wonder if this will actually sway anyone's opinion, but interesting nevertheless. Though the arguments on both sides seem flawed to me it's still good food for thought.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

To me, that story just illustrates that people on both sides of this argument are arrogant dicks.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

And that neither actually knows the fundamentals of their own arguments.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

And that neither actually knows the fundamentals of their own arguments.

Can you quickly elaborate ? :3

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Temperature is defined arbitrarily. Not just the scale of it, but if we choose to measure it as it goes to zero (as we have chosen) or as it goes to infinity. Hence, cold could be measured as the distance our temperature is from infinity. Hell, heat doesn't exist either. It's just a construct we use to give ourselves a simplified description of the universe. In reality it's just energy in a certain form. It's like asking if the color blue exists. Not really, we just use it as a method of describing something we perceive.

The asking of if humans evolved from monkeys is also a bit flawed, since I'm sure any science professor looking for a fight on religion would do the standard dance around how we didn't evolve from monkeys but had a common ancestor (minor issue).

Quote:

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

This also smacks of current day Creation Science definitions of what science is, and not what is not actually representative of what it truly is.

Quote:

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

Of course, there is a testable hypothesis here which can readily be verified using any sort of modern day or ancient techniques, and with the help of induction, we can make the fairly safe assumption (on the faith that our perception of the rest of the world is real) that the professor's brain exists.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Yeah I was kinda disappointed that it started to sound like the usual anti-evolution tract at the end. Still, I found it amusing. =j

I was speaking idiomatically.

That's a pretty bad professor. I wondered why he didn't answer the student's question about "evolving from monkeys" with a sound no, too. Although both sides were pretty arrogant, there's a huge difference between induction and blind faith, as was said.

The other part was when the professor said "What is night if it isn't darkness?" This doesn't sound like a professor to me. Besides being wrong, it also smacks of biblical language.

What bothers me is that stories like this serve two purposes to two different groups: to believers it's a way for them to feel comfortable that SOMEHOW science and faith can exist on top of each other, and for non-believers it's a way to say "Let's be apathetic and agnostic because no one knows!"

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

Interesting.

Not really. Theres dozens of quotes that logically dismiss the idea of God; the only thing that keeps him perpetuating is self-willed ignorance or the naturally vapid.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by LeHah

Not really.

Fits in the thread ~

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

My question for this thread is the following:

When will Christianity, and all other forms of religion going to go out like the greek myths and roman myths of their time? Because, if I'm not mistaken, isn't religion based upon myths? Myths, in this case, are stories to explain things that the comman man does not know how to explain factually?

I mean, shit...according to the native americans, wasn't the earth placed on a turtle's back, a gigantic turtle that would encircle the sun while the earth rolled around on it's back?

Shit son, Noah's Arc was probably based off some myth involving poseiden being extremely pissed off, with his trident stuck up his ass. Speaking of Noah's Ark, where the hell is the bitch that road with Noah's testimony? I mean fuck, the woman he fornicated with SHOULD have at least given props or something.

All and all, the Bible was plagerized

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Believers do not consider the events of the bible to be myths. There is some evidence in the historical records of a massive flood that seems to coincide with events of Noah's arc. But it's not much more than a little peace of mind to a believer, and I assume not terribly convincing to everyone else.

I doubt very much that Judaism is going anywhere since the practitioners of that faith have been documented for at least 3000 years. Christians and Moslems, who also believe in the God of Jacob and Abraham, probably aren't going anywhere either. The importance of the bible is not about historical or scientific accuracy. Those who believe understand that the bible is the word of God to tell us how to get to heaven.

I understand that a lot of what's in the bible is hard to swallow. It's even hard for many devout Christians to accept all of it. Was Jonah really living inside a fish's stomach for three days? That can be a tough sell, I know. What is more important to me though is what I can learn from the choices Jonah made and God's response to those choices.

The Christian faith differs from Romans, Native Americans, and the like because Christianity isn't a culture nor is it confined to a geographic area. And the myths associated with certain culture, like the Romans, are oftentimes not believed by its people. China, Scandinavia, Central America, Africa...these areas today all have rich mythologies tied to their cultures that are clearly not embraced as truth by most of their inhabitants.

Going back to this thread...many Christians get offended when people question their literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. And then other people get offended right back. These issues don't really affect my faith because I'm more focused on the getting-into-heaven thing. To me that takes precedence over whether or not the Old Testament is 100% factual.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

The Christian faith differs from Romans, Native Americans, and the like because Christianity isn't a culture nor is it confined to a geographic area. And the myths associated with certain culture, like the Romans, are oftentimes not believed by its people. China, Scandinavia, Central America, Africa...these areas today all have rich mythologies tied to their cultures that are clearly not embraced as truth by most of their inhabitants.

Um...not to burst your bubble, but in all actuallity Christianity started out like that. It was confined to one area, and well, it spread like a plague of sorts.

Think of it this way. What if instead of Europeons landing on American soil, the native americans would have been the first to become more sophisticated, and went to spread their beliefs among the many other lands? Safe to say if that happened, you might be looking at your corn right now and praying to it.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Grail

Um...not to burst your bubble, but in all actuallity Christianity started out like that. It was confined to one area

As you point out, Christianity wasn't confined very long. Probably not even for a year. That hardly fits the definition of confined considering that Christianity is almost 2000 years old.

Originally Posted by Grail

What if instead of Europeons landing on American soil, the native americans would have been the first to become more sophisticated, and went to spread their beliefs among the many other lands? Safe to say if that happened, you might be looking at your corn right now and praying to it.

It's not safe to say that. A person doesn't automatically grow up to become their environment. I wasn't raised as a Christian. I went to public school. Growing up in Los Angeles certainly didn't persuade me to believe in Jesus. Sure, there are a number of people undoubtably who may be 'forced' to adopt a religious view by simple fact of where and to whom they were born. But that's a far cry from being a 'safe' bet. The Romans didn't inflict their mythology onto the Jews, the Egyptians, or even Christians. There are unfortunate times in history where some so called Christians spat in the face of Jesus and tried to convert people by force. But the people who committed those grievous sins were not following the teachings of Jesus.

The United States was founded by Christian deists. You see it in the constitution, our currency, the pledge of allegiance, the justice system, etc. Is it safe to say that every American grows up to be a devout Christian? Not really.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

It's not safe to say that. A person doesn't automatically grow up to become their environment. I wasn't raised as a Christian. I went to public school. Growing up in Los Angeles certainly didn't persuade me to believe in Jesus. Sure, there are a number of people undoubtably who may be 'forced' to adopt a religious view by simple fact of where and to whom they were born. But that's a far cry from being a 'safe' bet. The Romans didn't inflict their mythology onto the Jews, the Egyptians, or even Christians. There are unfortunate times in history where some so called Christians spat in the face of Jesus and tried to convert people by force. But the people who committed those grievous sins were not following the teachings of Jesus.

The United States was founded by Christian deists. You see it in the constitution, our currency, the pledge of allegiance, the justice system, etc. Is it safe to say that every American grows up to be a devout Christian? Not really.

Er no, but it would have been kind of a bit less likely that you would have become a christian if the Native Americans would have conquered and slaughtered most of the european/african christian population.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

As you point out, Christianity wasn't confined very long. Probably not even for a year.

Bullshit. Christianity was fairly confined until Constantine I effectively made it Rome's state religion in the early 4th century. That's 300 years, not less than a year. It's quite a bit longer than that if you include the Zoroastrian mythology that the Christian mythos seems to have been based on.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

You're trying to draw parallels between now and thousands of years ago. It don't work quite like that. Nowadays, we've got tons of choices. We're inundated with different sets of religious beliefs.

Back then, I do not believe that was the case. Your choices tended to be more along the lines of conformity or death. Also, christianity was only confined for a year, before dwhat, it suddenly encompassed the world? Pretty sure Christianity didn't take off until Constantine converted back when. Would have been a few hundred years after inception.

Also, I think historically, the religion did spread through conquest. 100 years' war as a relatively recent example, every time some poor german province got seized by another prince, the official religion of the province changed. You had Catholic mothers with a son raised protestant, who may have then had a catholic daughter. It's not like people had a choice to opt out back then.

One could argue that the prevalence of Christianity today is a result of it being the religion of a bunch of empires, in which case Grail's got a point that if the Hope's had spread out from Arizona to conquer all of North America, and then discovered the new world of Spain, we might think naughty women were impregnated by coyotes or something.

FELIPE NO

You know what Noah's Ark/the Babylonian Flood story/Ys/Mu/Lemuria/Atlantis/R'yleh says to me?

Somewhere some city/island/"the world" was flooded. It fucking happened. Note that "the world" was in quotes. I don't believe that Noah saved all the animals in the world. I believe that if Noah happened, it was confined to a region. YAY LOGIC.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Possibly nitpicky, but for further edification etc, R'yleh at least is part of an artificial mythos created by Lovecraft and then reinforced by other authors of the time. I don't know that it has the same significance as other mythologies with similar references. Basically an oshit you lost a data point.

Jam it back in, in the dark.