Impreccable proof for the Biblical Flood

[DrkSdBls]

This is one of the main problems with religions. They are all divergent, allowing anyone to believe what they want to,

Oh yeah. Heaven Forbid We let people have Freedom of Thought

 

[rjc34]

Oh yeah. Heaven Forbid We let people have Freedom of Thought

Freedom of thought is all well and good until people decide that have to get other people to believe the same way they do, or get the government to pass laws in line with their narrow worldview.

 

[AV1611VET]

Freedom of thought is all well and good until people decide that have to get other people to believe the same way they do, or get the government to pass laws in line with their narrow worldview.

In the meantime, you'll push to have churches taxed, won't you?

Should we check with you guys first before we ask that they pass a law banning abortion?

 

[Nathan Poe]

In the meantime, you'll push to have churches taxed, won't you?

Should we check with you guys first before we ask that they pass a law banning abortion?

Government's like World of Warcraft -- not just that it's a time-consuming, soul-devouring grind, but in that if you want to play, you need to pay your fees.

 

[rjc34]

In the meantime, you'll push to have churches taxed, won't you?

Should we check with you guys first before we ask that they pass a law banning abortion?

For megachurches in the states which are making millions of dollars a year? Yes. The requirement to become tax exempt should be exactly the same as any other charity. And should also ensure it isn't charity with the catch of 'you have to let us evangelize first'. Charity should be for the sake of charity, not for the sake of spreading your religion.


And I know it's against the rules to talk of abortion here, so I will refrain from rebutting your rude accusation.

 

[rjc34]

Government's like World of Warcraft -- not just that it's a time-consuming, soul-devouring grind, but in that if you want to play, you need to pay your fees.

Well, and you have to follow the rules of the game, in this case, the constitution...

 

[AV1611VET]

For megachurches in the states which are making millions of dollars a year? Yes. The requirement to become tax exempt should be exactly the same as any other charity. And should also ensure it isn't charity with the catch of 'you have to let us evangelize first'. Charity should be for the sake of charity, not for the sake of spreading your religion.

In that case, I'll take your post 204 with a grain of salt.

 

[gaara4158]

In that case, I'll take your post 204 with a grain of salt.

Would it hurt to just say what you mean?
...Or does it look silly even to you when you write it out?

 

[rjc34]

In that case, I'll take your post 204 with a grain of salt.

At this rate you're going to bring the price of salt back to renaissance levels!

Also, what's wrong with taxing churches that are making millions in profit and paying exorbitant salaries to their preachers?

 

[AV1611VET]

Would it hurt to just say what you mean?
...Or does it look silly even to you when you write it out?

He knows what I mean.

 

[Gracchus]

In the meantime, you'll push to have churches taxed, won't you?

A church is a business, and pushes a product that is very cheap to produce, in a gaudy package, and makes a good profit on which it doesn't have to pay taxes.

Should we check with you guys first before we ask that they pass a law banning abortion?

You certainly don't have to check beforehand, but we may have something to say about it, like: It is not really about banning abortion, it is about controlling other people. The "right-to-life" crowd are unwilling to let God judge, they are unwilling to let God punish, they want to return to the good old days when they could humiliate and shame the unwed mother and her "illegitimate" child, and by concentrating on her "sin" distract attention from the fact that they are a bunch of vicious, self-righteous hypocrites.

Jesus couldn't stand people like that, publicly parading their piety, and they nailed him up for it. In their hearts, they hate him to this day.

Of course, I am not pointing a finger at anyone posting on this forum. Every Christian posting on this forum is like the honeysuckle, which "smells so sweet it almost makes ya sick". That must be the reason so many Christians make me want to puke.

 

[Matthijs]

Who 'infers' evolution from the evidence? There are thousands of scientists who look at the same stuff and don't believe in evolution.

The consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution - about 98% at last count, I believe. There are also scientists that do not believe the holocaust happened, and even a few scientists who theorize the earth is hollow. the "thousands" you claim are actually not there - as far as I know, a creationist think-tank got a little over 1000 scientists to say they believed in creationism. In the meantime the vast, vast majority feel that the theory of evolution is valid.

Who infers evolution from evidence? Biologists. Paleontologists. You know, experts.

I notice you are ignoring my point entirely. Do you or do you not believe in geology, or to name a specific theory in geology, erosion?

 

[rjc34]

] the "thousands" you claim are actually not there - as far as I know, a creationist think-tank got a little over 1000 scientists to say they believed in creationism. ]

That would be the Dissent From Darwin thing the Discovery Institute tried to get scientists to sign. I think only like 25% of the scientists who signed actually have a degree in biology, while the rest are in barely related scientific fields, and even engineers.

Then the NCSE started project Steve. They found 1100 scientists named Steve who believed in evolution to sign.

 

[Greg1234]

I'm going to trust the well-referenced Wikipedia article over a obviously biased site called 'creationhistory.com'...

Of course you are.

Most if not all of their 'evidence' is essentially from studies and observations taken over a century ago.

And still un-refuted.

The conclusion from the 1992 paper was the it was clearly less than a 1000 years old, and it's even included in the article. (Of course with unnecessary emphasis added in a weak attempt to discredit the conclusion...)

This is inaccurate. Read the study again.

 

[rjc34]

Of course you are.

Would you trust a man who majored in Geology for the oil industry to diagnose your cancer? Then why would you trust him to tell you about evolutionary biology.

And still un-refuted.

Only in the mind of you and Robert E. Gentet. (The man even referenced his own non-peer-reviewed and non-scientifically supported creationist book in that page to support his points... doesn't that scream bias?)

This is inaccurate. Read the study again.

It 1) wasn't a study, and 2) is biased an not peer-reviewed. Do you know what that means? It gets a grade F on the science scale.

Here's 3 links that should debunk most of that article:

1. Simple response to the claims made.
2. Thorough refutation of the mortar and pestle 'evidence'.
3. Showing that it was clearly a hoax through multiple cited studies and works.

 

[AV1611VET]

A church is a business, and pushes a product that is very cheap to produce, in a gaudy package, and makes a good profit on which it doesn't have to pay taxes.

Since you can't seem to quite bring yourself around to answering directly, I'm assuming you want me to answer it for you -- thus I assume that's a YES.

If it is, then I'll take rjc's post with a grain of salt.

 

[Research1]

The consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution - about 98% at last count, I believe. There are also scientists that do not believe the holocaust happened, and even a few scientists who theorize the earth is hollow. the "thousands" you claim are actually not there - as far as I know, a creationist think-tank got a little over 1000 scientists to say they believed in creationism. In the meantime the vast, vast majority feel that the theory of evolution is valid.

Who infers evolution from evidence? Biologists. Paleontologists. You know, experts.

I notice you are ignoring my point entirely. Do you or do you not believe in geology, or to name a specific theory in geology, erosion?

Argumentum ad populum.

In others words you have no evidence for evolution.

 

[Matthijs]

Argumentum ad populum.

In others words you have no evidence for evolution.

No, it isn't. You asked a question, I supplied an answer. You said there were thousands of creationist scientists, and I am showing you that you are in fact mistaken about that, and that the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution.

Meanwhile you have still not answered my question or dealt with the implicit objection to what you are saying:

You say (at least I think it was you?) that we observed mountains form. This is not strictly true. We have seen mountains grow - ie change slowly over time. We have inferred that this in time has created the mountain. No-one has observed a mountain-range coming into existence - it takes too long. Same with the hills you mentioned - we observe the slow, slow working of a glacier, and infer that this is where erratic boulders and drumlins come from. No-one has ever observed boulders being picked up during a cold period of earths history and deposited miles away from a mountain. No-one has ever observed an expanding glacier pushing dirt into a hill of relatively soft material that quickly erodes into one of those nice rounded hills that England is so famous for.

Does this mean you don't believe in geology either?

Finally, there is a lot of evidence for evolution. Which particular bit would you like to start with? The fossil record? DNA research? The adaptations we can see happening?Atavisms in modern species? Extant species that are clearly developing from one method of movement into another?

 

[chris4243]

Research1, if God designed us then why is there so much retroviral DNA inserted into our genome? And why does it match the retroviral DNA in related species?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Argumentum ad populum.

In others words you have no evidence for evolution.

Funny how you were all "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] thousands of scientists reject evolution so evolution must be wrong!" then when someone else said "hey man, 98% of scientists accept evoltion" you said "AD POPULUM!!!"

Which is it? Are we allowed to argue numbers or not? Or do fallacies not count when you do them?