Science vs. Evolution

[Cabal]

Because you have a time-machine right?

Give me: The age of the earth, by exact date, including the hour and second it was created. Good luck

I'll ask again (3rd time you've been asked, let it be noted): So you believe we should release all criminals convicted by forensic evidence until time machines become standard issue police equipment?

By the way, you do realise even the Bible can't give that level of accuracy either?

 

[tanzanos]

Because you have a time-machine right?

Give me: The age of the earth, by exact date, including the hour and second it was created. Good luck

Give me an exact date and time including the second you were conceived (you joined with the egg). Otherwise I insist that you were not born of your mother but came down to earth on a meteor!

 

[Cassiterides]

I find it amusing that you guys haven't figured out why Cassiterides is really here. If you just stop feeding him, he will likely leave.

This is my created thread.

The only people trolling it are you atheists and evolutionists.

I asked for evidence for evolution, you guys never presented any and have resorted to nothing but personal attacks, or going off topic. That is what trolling is...

So if you want to stay on topic, and not troll, where is your evidence for evolution?

 

[tanzanos]

This is my created thread.

The only people trolling it are you atheists and evolutionists.

I asked for evidence for evolution, you guys never presented any and have resorted to nothing but personal attacks, or going off topic. That is what trolling is...

So if you want to stay on topic, and not troll, where is your evidence for evolution?

You are the evidence of evolution: You started off a troll then evolved into a cave troll and now are a mountain troll!

Case closed!

 

[Hespera]

likewise the thread, i hope

 

[sandwiches]

Because you have a time-machine right?

Give me: The age of the earth, by exact date, including the hour and second it was created. Good luck

So, how do you know that the Bible was really inspired by God? Oh you must have a time machine! Amiright?!

 

[AV1611VET]

There were no "scientists" as we know them back then.

No kidding.

I think you guys have an official starting point that you call the Scientific Method?

But I think you are missing the point, AV. The point is that Christians let extrabiblical evidence tell them that their interpretation of parts of scripture were wrong.

Our interpretation is either right or wrong.

Those who allow extrabiblical evidence dictate the veracity of an interpretation are treading on thin ice.

As Frumious Bandersnatch (yea Niven) pointed out, Christians did use a literal reading of several Biblical verses to conclude that the Bible said that the earth was flat, and wrote Christian Topography from that.

I have a thread I started some time ago about -- would the earth be still considered flat, even if the Bible had never been written.

If I remember the thread correctly, I could not for the life of me keep even atheists from bringing the Bible into the conversation -- so I gave up.

But I'll reiterate my point here:

Flat earth topography did not come from the Bible, it came from scientific observation.

However, later Christians let evidence from outside the Bible -- science if you will -- override that interpretation of those verses. They dropped that interpretation.

I've argued this point before. The scientists taught flat earth, and I'm sure some clergymen used various passages of Scripture to solidify that teaching; but when science pwned itself and changed paradigms, the church did not automatically (like Pluto) follow suit.

It was much slower in changing -- and I don't blame them.

The church shouldn't be led around on a leash by scientists.

Anyway, this period of time where scientists changed their stance -- but the churches didn't -- constitutes a transition period that Bible-bashers like to refer to.

They like to claim that the church continued to believe in a flat earth, even when science said otherwise -- when in reality, it was only a transition period.

I'm sure that even some atheists back then were still clinging to flat earth topography.

It happened again with several verses that say, in plain Hebrew, that the earth does not move.

Hebrew schmebrew -- let's talk English.

Copernicus hypothesized that the earth did move in an orbit around the sun. Much of the opposition came from Christians unwilling to change the interpretation of those verses.

Because they were in a transition period.

Just because they didn't automatically accept what some scientists were saying, doesn't mean they were unwilling to change.

I'm in that period right now with Pluto.

I am not going to accept the Pluto vote automatically -- like everyone else here did.

And as far as I being a Homo sapiens?

No way, no how, not even.

I'm not even in a transition period on that.

 

[Cabal]

Our interpretation is either right or wrong.

Those who allow extrabiblical evidence dictate the veracity of an interpretation are treading on thin ice.

Like embedded age?

Watch your step, AV.

 

[Cassiterides]

I don't know why this flat earth debate always gets brought up on creation vs. evolution debates, but most modern 'flat earther's are atheists.

Daniel Shenton president of the 'Flat Earth Society' is an atheist who believes in the theory of evolution.

It seems modern flat earth belief seems mostly to be a front for atheism.

 

[AV1611VET]

So now we come to Genesis 1-3.

Sticking to Genesis 1 would be nice, if we're going to limit our conversation to the creation event; but suit yourself.

Again we have extrabiblical evidence contradicting an interpretation of scripture.

What you have is a theory attempting to contradict a literal interpretation of Truth.

There are other theories out there, and I'm not going to cater to just yours.

You don't like my embedded age, and I don't like your evolution.

Only this time you insist science is wrong, not the interpretation. WHY?

You know perfectly-well why: I interpret Genesis 1 literally.

Why are these verses so different from the flat earth or immovable earth verses?

For one thing, you're attempting to override a literal interpretation with theory

I'll agree that the [theory of] evolution of man from chimpanzees contradicts Genesis 1; but what I won't do is place my faith in it.

Why cannot you change the interpretation of Genesis 1-3?

To be perfectly blunt with you -- it's blasphemy, in my opinion.

That's our belief. It's not a fact. I correct Hespera when she makes statements of faith as tho they are fact.

Then you'd better get started on me, too.

Let's start with a real doosey: an empty tomb.

Is that worthy of your correction?

The same applies here. Christian belief is that God sustains all those laws of physics; they only operate because God wills them to operate each and every time.

Not necessarily -- I believe God gave them the green-light one time.

I don't think He micromanages every quantum superposition at once.

But that is a belief. There's nothing in science to contradict such a belief, or to support the opposing belief that the laws of physics operate on their own. That is a major reason why science is agnostic.

Science is agnostic because science is myopic.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I don't know why this flat earth debate always gets brought up on creation vs. evolution debates, but most modern 'flat earther's are atheists.

Daniel Shenton president of the 'Flat Earth Society' is an atheist who believes in the theory of evolution.

It seems modern flat earth belief seems mostly to be a front for atheism.

Proof please.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What you have is a theory attempting to contradict a literal interpretation of Truth.

Actually, it's a pretty well-supported theory contradicting what an insignificant population consider to be truth.

There are other theories out there, and I'm not going to cater to just yours.

You're not the caterer -- or if you are, why not bring along a blue-plate special of evidence?

You don't like my embedded age, and I don't like your evolution.

You mean you don't like the evidence associated with evolution, so you concoected somethign out of your own pride which produces (and accord to you, requires) no evidence whatsoever.

"Embedded Age" hangs on nothing but your own say-so. I imagine that makes you feel all sorts of important.

You know perfectly-well why: I interpret Genesis 1 literally.

And what, besides ego, precludes you from thinking that this interpretation might not be the correct one?

For one thing, you're attempting to override a literal interpretation with theory

And doing a darn good job at it -- proving how intellectually hollow a literal interpretation is.

I'll agree that the [theory of] evolution of man from chimpanzees contradicts Genesis 1; but what I won't do is place my faith in it.

You won't bother to learn much about it, either.

To be perfectly blunt with you -- it's blasphemy, in my opinion.

Opinion noted.

Then you'd better get started on me, too.

Let's start with a real doosey: an empty tomb.

Is that worthy of your correction?

What empty tomb?

Not necessarily -- I believe God gave them the green-light one time.

I don't think He micromanages every quantum superposition at once.

Opinion noted.

Science is agnostic because science is myopic.

Literalism is hallucinogenic because literalism is egomaniacal.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, it's a pretty well-supported theory...

I don't care how well-supported it is.

Almost every nation on earth except the United States thought Thalidomide was a wonder drug and it wasn't.

Phlogiston theory was a pretty well-supported theory at one time.

Flat earth was a pretty well-supported theory at one time.

Alchemy...

Air having no mass ...

Etc...

 

[Cassiterides]

Proof please.

The Earth is flat? What planet is he on? | Science | The Guardian

''In fact, Shenton turns out to have resolutely mainstream views on most issues. The 33-year-old American, ­originally from Virginia but now living and working in London, is happy with the work of Charles Darwin.''

 

[Cabal]

The Earth is flat? What planet is he on? | Science | The Guardian

''In fact, Shenton turns out to have resolutely mainstream views on most issues. The 33-year-old American, [wash my mouth]originally from Virginia but now living and working in London, is happy with the work of Charles Darwin.''

Where does that article show he is an atheist?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I don't care how well-supported it is.

Of course not -- why let evidence trump your ego?

Almost every nation on earth except the United States thought Thalidomide was a wonder drug and it wasn't.

Phlogiston theory was a pretty well-supported theory at one time.

Flat earth was a pretty well-supported theory at one time.

Alchemy...

Air having no mass ...

Etc...

And what was it that fixed these errors?

I can understand your anxiety -- every time you admit to a mistake, you lose a bit of self-esteem.

 

[SithDoughnut]

The Earth is flat? What planet is he on? | Science | The Guardian

''In fact, Shenton turns out to have resolutely mainstream views on most issues. The 33-year-old American, [wash my mouth]originally from Virginia but now living and working in London, is happy with the work of Charles Darwin.''

So you can only prove part of what you said. In that case, don't make such claims in future, or actually prove the rest of it.

I'm still waiting for you to give evidence that:

- Most 'flat-earthers' are atheists

- Shenton is an atheist

- Flat-Earthism is a front for atheism

 

[AV1611VET]

And what was it that fixed these errors?

Who cares -- we're talking about supporting evidence.

Finding out they were wrong came later -- oftentimes, after the damage was done.

 

[Cassiterides]

Most 'flat-earthers' are atheists

If we are talking about the internet community of 'flat earth' believers, then most, if not all are atheists. Modern flat earthers on the internet preach an extreme form of solipsism, strongly tied to atheism with a dose of parody. Most know Daniel Shenton doesn't himself actually believe the earth is flat, he's just using it as a front for solipsism.

Shenton is an atheist

Shenton and the whole modern Flat Earth Society is atheist. You can easily check this out by checking the FES forum, check the posts.

Flat-Earthism is a front for atheism

The modern internet based flat-earthism is, it's a parody movement based though with a deeper objective of solipsism. However i know for a fact there are real genuine flat earth believers not tied to Shenton's parody still in existence. You won't find these real flat earth believers on the internet though, since they are extreme traditionalist neo-luddites (technophobes) who even reject to use electricity. Charles K. Johnson the original leader of the FES, had no electricity or running water in his home.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is my created thread.

The only people trolling it are you atheists and evolutionists.

I asked for evidence for evolution, you guys never presented any and have resorted to nothing but personal attacks, or going off topic. That is what trolling is...

So if you want to stay on topic, and not troll, where is your evidence for evolution?

The evidence for ToE has been presented to you numerous times already, and to no avail. You either ignore it, misconstrue it, or out-right reject it. So why bother? You've encased your mind in concrete so that no glimmer of light can pierce through.