Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 316

Thread: Creationism in School?

  1. #176
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,021
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by footballjds View Post
    I'm pretty sure your toes would be significantly more sensitive. Fingernails definitely protect my fingers. They're also extremely useful.

    Yakman, just because you do not know the use if it does not mean it's useless. People said the EXACT same thing about tonsils. Tonsils are removed in a similar manner and for similar reasons(infected).

    I can control my ear muscles and my nostrils as well :P
    Yakman, again, just because something doesn't make sense to YOU does not make it an auxiliary useless thing... You can only say something is useless if you created it!

    Not everyone needs their wisdom teeth removed. I know plenty people whose still have their wisdom teeth.
    This is getting a little beside the point. How on earth can you possibly think that your own ability to control your ear muscles means that my point is invalid?

    The fact is there are hundreds of vestigial organs. Evolution explains them simply by saying they were once useful in our biological history, but are no longer useful.
    Creationism lacks an explanation.


    Quote Originally Posted by footballjds View Post
    If by "God" you're referring to God as portrayed in the Bible then saying Doctor's fix God's mistakes is erroneous. The Bible very clearly says that the earth was created perfectly until the fall of man. This is all in Genesis and should be a familiar story even to you. Therefore any imperfections would be the result of man's fall(sinning). If you're referring to another god please explain how you came to this conclusion.

    I'm not saying one thing is right or wrong. All i'm saying you people need to be WAY more open minded and at least think when they say things. ALL these FULLY inclusive statements are sickening... :/
    People can't be so open-minded that their brains fall out.
    You gotta always ask for evidence.

    Fully inclusive statements eh?
    All electrons have a charge of -1.6 x 10^-19 Coulombs. Does this fully inclusive statement about every electron in the universe make you sick? Of course it doesn't, what makes you sick is realising your worldview has been demonstrated wrong by the evidence.
    Join the Official SRL IRC channel. Learn how to Here.

  2. #177
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    3,880
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quoted
    152 Post(s)

    Default

    The Quaran is saying that the world is already flat. Not that it will be flattened out.
    No it doesn't. See your making statements without a formal base. Nowhere in the Quran does Allah say the Earth is flat. Go ahead and prove it to me.


    Also, i feel sorry that you claim to be able to read and write and understand Arabic, yet you still aren't able to understand your own book correctly. Maybe you should study it more.

    Yes they do. I proved it with those quotes right there.
    You didn't prove anything. You can't prove anything because all your claims are without basis. You just say a couple of lines "no obviously allah meant this" when you admitted that you don't have much knowledge about Islam. Clearly you can't understand Arabic, Google is your only source. You know nothing of Arabic grammar, or the language. So for you to tell me I don't understand my book is because you are in obvious denial.


    No you don't? There are millions of muslims all over the world who cannot read Arabic, yet they believe in Islam and read the Quaran. You just denounced millions of your own followers and stated that they don't understand their own holy book. Not only that, but you just discredited all translated versions of the quran because what they actually say doesn't agree with what you want them to say.
    You can't read the Quran if you don't know Arabic. I'm not dissing them, but its obvious the knowledge of an African American who can READ the Quran is obviously inferior to an Arab who can READ the Quran. Why? Because Arabs understand the FULL Arabic grammar. We know what each word means and how to break it down accordingly. I'm not discrediting any Muslim. Your just making false statements.









    It clearly doesn't. So far all you've shown is that as soon as the Quran even attempts to go into detail about anything scientific (smoke, shape of the earth, or orbits) it instantly gets it horribly wrong, and all other times it attempts to be as vague as possible to cover nearly any kind of scenario.

    Smoke? False.
    Flat earth? False
    Geocentric model? False
    "Roof"? Incredibly vague.
    Smoke has gaseous origins. There is no question that before the universe came to be, there was hot gas. Put 1 and 1 together and you will understand. But you also take the literal meaning. In Arabic "dukhan" can be also used to say gas.
    Flat earth - don't get me started again. No where in the Quran does Allah say the world is flat. Absolutely not. You have not proven anything.
    Geocentric model - That verse CLEARLY says the Earth orbits around the Sun.
    Roof - I consider the sky as a roof to me, and so do other billions of people. The roof under your house provides you protection, no? Well so does the sky (atmosphere).

    So now you are saying everything else is vague. Congratulations you are stepping closer to denial. You also say "it doesn't" "it doesn't mean that" "he didn't mean it that way".

    If this were baseball you'd have been out a while ago. Luckily for you I'll let you have all the strikes you want.
    Vice-versa.


    Nope, post some evidence of this. Also, scientists have no idea if the universe will at some point shrink back again. It's a theory, one that hasn't been doing so well since we found out the universe is expanding faster.
    Alright thank you. So Mohammad had this "theory" 1400 years ago? How? He must have guessed this. Oh and it's a "theory" right? Well it is a theory that humans evolved form apes. I can play this game really well.

    Nope, post some evidence of this.

    Also, how is this even impressive? A 5 year old can tell you that water gets darker as it goes down. Layers in waves is also easily observable.
    Again you say "nope". Oh it's not impressive? Well considering Mohammad lived in the middle of the desert he some how knew that the Ocean is very dark on the bottom floor.

    Don't even need evidence for this. Because it's wrong. The earth is not egg shaped. It's very far from. The earth is more of a squished ball, whereas an egg is absolutely nothing like that.

    I can post proof to support myself tho: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth
    Yep, but it's not a round ball. You took the literal meaning. A dawha in Arabic has two meanings.
    1. An egg.
    2. A round figure, but not in perfect round form.

    The Earth is round, but not in a perfectly round form.
    The earth with a bulge. This picture is pretty similar to the one in your wikipedia link.

    An Ostrich egg.





    Nope, post some evidence of this.
    Also post some evidence of where scientists said that mountains "stabilize the earth and prevent it from constantly shaking while it is rotating around its own axle". Sounds interesting.
    Mountains have pegs that extend deep beneath the Earth's crust. These pegs stabilize the earth.
    Scientists say that the mountains contribute significantly in fixing the earth crust it has a shape like a peg, so they work on balancing the earth. Their roots are deep in the ground. Geologists discovered that for every curved object' height that is above the earth's surface (such as mountains and hills) it is expanded 10 to 15 times more inside earth.

    Nope, post some evidence of this.

    Also, the earth doesn't have "atmospheric layers". The atmosphere is a gradient, not a layer. How many "atmospheres" the earth has depends on how detailed you want to be defining this gradient, and some atmospheres are considered to be "part" or "extensions" of other atmospheres. Nowhere does science actually recognize the earth having "7" atmospheres, and depending on how closely you need to look the earth can have anywhere from 5-15 "atmospheres", if not more.

    Same thing for the earths layers. Even similar layers depending on their depth can behave differently, and thus be considered (and usually are) different layers. There is no scientific declaration that there are 7 layers, simply depends on how you want to count them and how specific you want to be.
    That fact that Mohammad even knew there were 7 layers of the atmosphere and that the land beneath him has layers is astonishing. 1400 years ago.

    [quote]
    Also, "region" is a very broad term. And there is no single part of the brain responsible for movements. Contraction of muscles is actually controlled by multiple parts of your brain working together.

    Funny how easy it is to disprove parts of the quran without any evidence of anything you claimed to be in the quran of actually being there, never mind the fact that you're probably just interpreting it the way you want to. I can't wait to see how easy it will be once you actually post some verses to support all of this.
    You need to stop contradicting yourself. I translate these verses from the full Arabic meaning. You on the other hand CLEARLY have been interpreting each verse with the way you want to. You are here trying to tell me what each verse really means. Remember how you brought up that adding two numbers together analogy? Well clearly thats what your doing now. The way you tell me what these verses mean is comparable to you telling a math teacher that 1+1 is not 2.
    I hope so because so far you haven't scored a single point, and i would hate for you to come out of this entire ordeal without one. (and we're not even counting negative points you have for how many errors in the quran you've already pointed out).
    C'mon man, points? Really? When scholars debate they go "YUP +1 FOR ME, HAHA TAKE THAT"? I am proving my side, and you are on the defensive side, trying to disapprove them desperately.

    I have proven the fact that the Quran says the world is not flat, but round.
    The Quran has already factually stated that the Earth orbits. That the Earth is not perfectly round. That the Earth is round. The Quran has also said about how mountains help to stabilize the Earth. It talks about the darkness on the Ocean floor. 1400 years ago.


    Please break them down.
    I will. I also am dedicating my time to debate with you. If you choose to begin insulting me by calling the Quran, "Qauran" then you are letting all your feelings and emotions out. I don't have time to deal with your emotions and feelings. I am willing to even record myself and explaining every single verse with precise translations. But right now, I have some papers to write, so I will reply tomorrow.
    Faith is an oasis in the heart which will never be reached by the caravan of thinking.

  3. #178
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    So when you .include SRL, every bit of code is useful and used in every script?

    Wouldn't it be better to go through the SRL include and remove all the "vestigial code" for every script you write? Wouldn't that demonstrate how intelligent you were as the designer of the scripts? Or does the fact that you don't do this suggest that having flawless code isn't the purpose of writing a script in the first place?

    This argument assumes that everything must have a physical purpose (that we understand right now with our limited knowledge), or God made a "mistake". But I don't recall anyone suggesting that "perfection" was the purpose of creation. It's pretty arrogant to tell God how things should be if you don't even understand the why behind it.

    There are many examples where two or more completely unrelated organisms have nearly identical anatomy or behavior. This is hand-waved away as "convergent evolution", which is a nonsensical term when you realize that evolution can't work toward a goal.

    Another problem for Abiogenesis is the idea of quasi-species. The key tenet of "natural selection" assumes that any new trait that gives an individual a selective advantage is likely to grow in prevalence within a population. This is also called "survival of the fittest". But the abiogenesis fairy tale suggests that during the very early stages of life, genetic replication must have been highly error-prone. In this case, even if a new mutation confers a selective advantage, it is unlikely to be propagated forward without itself being mutated. So, for any such population of organisms, it's not the individual characteristics that "natural selection" works on, it's the population as a whole.

    This concept is most readily observed in RNA viruses, because they experience more rapid mutations than most other organisms. In that case, the population of individual viruses is diverse, and more fit that a uniform population. But in this scenario, a core set of characteristics must be maintained in the population, or the population undergoes "error catastrophe" and its fitness collapses.

    This acts like a leash on a population that prevents individual and their progeny from evolving away into something new and exciting. It's a much more complicated view than some would have us believe.


  4. #179
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Which sounds more correct?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHex9GDQ2S0

  5. #180
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    8,876
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Quoted
    327 Post(s)

  6. #181
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,240
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    11 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingarabian View Post
    No it doesn't. See your making statements without a formal base. Nowhere in the Quran does Allah say the Earth is flat. Go ahead and prove it to me.
    Even if it did, who cares? The book is fiction, same with the bible. Everything written in the Quran and the Bible are made up of events and people that were made up themselves so PLEASE do not use anything from either of those books as "evidence"
    Click here to find out how to get full screen without members! | Click here to check out my Ultimate Bitmap Tutorial! Edited to work with Simba! |

  7. #182
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingarabian View Post
    No it doesn't. See your making statements without a formal base. Nowhere in the Quran does Allah say the Earth is flat. Go ahead and prove it to me.
    I just did. I posted those verses above that proves that the quran says that the earth is flat. Try to keep up.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingarabian View Post
    You didn't prove anything. You can't prove anything because all your claims are without basis. You just say a couple of lines "no obviously allah meant this" when you admitted that you don't have much knowledge about Islam. Clearly you can't understand Arabic, Google is your only source. You know nothing of Arabic grammar, or the language. So for you to tell me I don't understand my book is because you are in obvious denial.
    Yes I did. All my claims have basis, unlike yours. And best of all, i find the basis for most of my claims from your own book. I'm arguing from your side assuming that quran has at least some credibility (it doesn't) and i still am able to prove you wrong.

    Also, i never "admitted that i don't have much knowledge about Islam". I've show that what knowledge i have is correct, while what knowledge you claim to have so far has been completely wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by kingarabian View Post
    You can't read the Quran if you don't know Arabic. I'm not dissing them, but its obvious the knowledge of an African American who can READ the Quran is obviously inferior to an Arab who can READ the Quran. Why? Because Arabs understand the FULL Arabic grammar. We know what each word means and how to break it down accordingly. I'm not discrediting any Muslim. Your just making false statements.
    Yes you can. Millions of people do. Millions of Muslims can't read Arabic and still read the quran, and you're calling them all "inferior" because they don't speak the language you want them to speak.

    Translations of books aren't done verbatim, they're done so that the ideas and meanings are carried over accurately. You either have to discredit ALL Muslims who cannot speak arabic, or you have to admit that you're trying very hard to twist the words of your own book to support your ideas.

    Take your pick.

    Smoke has gaseous origins. There is no question that before the universe came to be, there was hot gas.
    Wrong. Smoke doesn't have "gaseous" origins as smoke can be composed of solid particles. And whatever hot gas there is, can only be considered "smoke" after certain conditions are met that aren't possible either before, or during the very beginning of the universe.

    Also, there was no "hot gas" of any sort before the universe. You clearly don't understand what "universe" is and means. I told you to at least make an attempt to figure out the meanings of words before you throw them around. You seem to want to skip the part where you have to learn the meanings of words before you use them.

    Again we've been over all of this, keep up.

    Put 1 and 1 together and you will understand. But you also take the literal meaning. In Arabic "dukhan" can be also used to say gas.
    And now that you're proven wrong, you immediately go on to attempt to change the meaning of the the word. Gas and smoke are not synonyms, and mean completely different things. When you try to force one meaning of the word and figure out that it makes no sense, then you just keep trying other meanings ad nauseam until you find one that makes more sense than the others.

    Not that it matters anyway. The universe didn't "emerge" from gas either. You don't seem to understand that gas is part of the universe, do you someone to draw a venn diagram for you?




    Flat earth - don't get me started again. No where in the Quran does Allah say the world is flat. Absolutely not. You have not proven anything.
    Yes it does, and it says it in multiple parts, clear as day. No language-twisting and blaming translations necessary like you have to constantly rely on.

    Geocentric model - That verse CLEARLY says the Earth orbits around the Sun.
    Nope. Clearly says the opposite. Please consider studying your own book more if someone like me understands it better than you.

    Roof - I consider the sky as a roof to me, and so do other billions of people. The roof under your house provides you protection, no? Well so does the sky (atmosphere).
    Sure. But the roof under my house doesn't pour water on the floor every once in a while. There are clear differences between physical roofs and the sky.

    The "sky" is composed of many things. Had the quran mentioned specifically what it was talking about, there would be no need for any of this. But unfortunately it's as vague as it always is in these kinds of matters. Luckily though it's clearly obvious that it's talking about the sun, the rain, the moon, and the clouds. And mentions absolutely nothing about any atmosphere, sun rays, or meteors.

    So now you are saying everything else is vague. Congratulations you are stepping closer to denial. You also say "it doesn't" "it doesn't mean that" "he didn't mean it that way".
    Because it is incredibly vague. You just won't admit it because the quran having accurate scientific knowledge thousands of years ago is an integral part of your belief system.

    Unfortunately for you, even if you went back in time and rewrote the quran to actually say the things you want it to say, and removed all the parts about the flat earth and the geocentric model, that still would mean absolutely nothing as it doesn't prove that the rest of the quran is true

    If it write a book where i make thousands of random baseless claims, and one or two of them turn out to be true, that doesn't mean that the rest of my claims are true. If the quran somehow got it right and the earth actually was flat and actually was the unmovable center of the universe, allah still wouldn't exist.

    Alright thank you. So Mohammad had this "theory" 1400 years ago? How? He must have guessed this.
    He didn't. You still haven't shown me the part where he said this. And if he did actually somehow specifically describe how the universe would be unable to grow and eventually collapse in in itself due to its mass, then yeah I'd say he got a lucky guess. Or maybe aliens told him. Who knows.

    Oh and it's a "theory" right? Well it is a theory that humans evolved form apes. I can play this game really well.
    Yes. Those are both theories. Good job.

    Again you say "nope". Oh it's not impressive? Well considering Mohammad lived in the middle of the desert he some how knew that the Ocean is very dark on the bottom floor.
    No he didn't. You seem to know as little about Mohammad as you know about the quran. Mecca is about ~50 miles away from the red sea. Hardly the "middle of the desert", making it more than easy for him to have observed how water gets darker as it goes deeper.

    I don't understand why you're even arguing this. Even if he was far away from any large body of water, you can literally just stick your face in a pond and make this observation.

    Yep, but it's not a round ball. You took the literal meaning. A dawha in Arabic has two meanings.
    1. An egg.
    2. A round figure, but not in perfect round form.
    Here you go again changing your interpretation of your own book. First you used the word "egg", something that can only mean one thing. Then it turns out that that's completely wrong and you change your interpretation to now being "a round figure, but not in perfect round form".

    Anyway, like i said, most people believed the earth to be a flat round disk, never had to be perfectly round. So regardless of which interpretation of the word you want to pick, you're still wrong.

    But you're just going to go and change the meaning of the word again. And you still refuse to post any part of the quran that actually says this.

    Mountains have pegs that extend deep beneath the Earth's crust. These pegs stabilize the earth.
    You still haven't posted the part of the quran that actually says this, nor have you cited any scientific source that says that "Science today did indeed confirm that mountains stabilize the earth and prevent it from constantly shaking while it is rotating around its own axle."

    Still waiting on both of those.

    That fact that Mohammad even knew there were 7 layers of the atmosphere and that the land beneath him has layers is astonishing. 1400 years ago.
    That's the thing, there aren't. If he said this he was wrong.

    And you still haven't posted the part of the quran that says this. Still waiting on this.

    You need to stop contradicting yourself. I translate these verses from the full Arabic meaning. You on the other hand CLEARLY have been interpreting each verse with the way you want to. You are here trying to tell me what each verse really means. Remember how you brought up that adding two numbers together analogy? Well clearly thats what your doing now. The way you tell me what these verses mean is comparable to you telling a math teacher that 1+1 is not 2.
    No I'm not. I'm simply correcting your misinterpretations of your own book. It's funny really how in one part you claim to have studied the book so well, yet you're still getting everything wrong. I'm going to make the assumption that you're not deliberately lying and making things up due to your bias. So I'm just here to correct your mistakes. Consider it a service.

    C'mon man, points? Really? When scholars debate they go "YUP +1 FOR ME, HAHA TAKE THAT"? I am proving my side, and you are on the defensive side, trying to disapprove them desperately.
    Yup. Really really. Since you seem to want to rely on rhetoric instead of practical evidence to support your position, for your sake we need a more primitive way to gauge your failure. So points it is.

    I have proven the fact that the Quran says the world is not flat, but round.
    The Quran has already factually stated that the Earth orbits. That the Earth is not perfectly round. That the Earth is round. The Quran has also said about how mountains help to stabilize the Earth. It talks about the darkness on the Ocean floor. 1400 years ago.
    Where have you proved that? Bold the parts where you previously showed me each verse supporting the things you just claimed to prove. I already asked you to do this and you didn't. Again. Post them.

    You've simply made a bunch of claims about things that are either self-evident or simply wrong. And refused to post any evidence for half of that. Then you claim that science said "so and so" without providing any evidence to support any of that either. You seem to be determined to not only rewrite the entire quran to match your ideas, but to rewrite all of science as well.

    I will. I also am dedicating my time to debate with you. If you choose to begin insulting me by calling the Quran, "Qauran" then you are letting all your feelings and emotions out. I don't have time to deal with your emotions and feelings. I am willing to even record myself and explaining every single verse with precise translations. But right now, I have some papers to write, so I will reply tomorrow.
    Go for it. You keep claiming that "you will" and so far you haven't. If you think I'm misspelling Quran as "Qauran" deliberately to insult Islam then again you are mistaken. I simply can't remember all this religious terminology. Sometimes i get it right, sometimes i don't.

    Again, i asked you last time and gave you the opportunity to post the verses from the quran making all the claims you says it makes, as well as post scientific evidence supporting all the scientific claims you made. I gave you no time limit, i never said you had to do it today, and you still failed to do, and instead choose to rely on ad hominem and rhetoric about my "emotions".

    I'm waiting.

  8. #183
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    3,880
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quoted
    152 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cycrosism View Post
    Even if it did, who cares? The book is fiction, same with the bible. Everything written in the Quran and the Bible are made up of events and people that were made up themselves so PLEASE do not use anything from either of those books as "evidence"
    No I can. See that's the miracle that proves a divine being. If Mohammad, 1400 years ago, knew all these facts that only recently science discovered, then the case for a divine higher being is just getting stronger and stronger.

    As for the Bible, I agree. No longer is the Bible god's words. It's all man made. Over 150 Bibles have been made up to this date. But, the Bible that Jesus had was god's words. Unfortunately it's long gone now.
    Faith is an oasis in the heart which will never be reached by the caravan of thinking.

  9. #184
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    3,880
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quoted
    152 Post(s)

    Default

    Mativy do you have skype? I'll prove everything to you, through sound, because obviously every word I write you say "NOPE", god meant this, "nope", Kingarabian you meant this.

    We will record our conversation and post it on here.

    But I do concede, my intellectuality is not as high as yours when writing posts so I'm willing to debate over microphone. I do understand the way you debate however. You do your best in flipping words around and taking them to your advantage. The fact that you keep saying "Nope", "he didn't mean this", "he clearly meant this", proves that you willingly are in denial and you don't want to understand a thing. If you said "I don't agree", then I would take you more seriously. But obviously your choosing to agitate me. So if you wish to continue, i'll be on skype or MSN and we will do a live chat. Then will post it on here.
    Last edited by kingarabian; 12-08-2011 at 09:50 AM.
    Faith is an oasis in the heart which will never be reached by the caravan of thinking.

  10. #185
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    8,876
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Quoted
    327 Post(s)

    Default

    Kingabrian: Do you believe in evolution?

  11. #186
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    13,692
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Quoted
    130 Post(s)

    Default




    The best way to contact me is by email, which you can find on my website: http://wizzup.org
    I also get email notifications of private messages, though.

    Simba (on Twitter | Group on Villavu | Website | Stable/Unstable releases
    Documentation | Source | Simba Bug Tracker on Github and Villavu )


    My (Blog | Website)

  12. #187
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingarabian View Post
    No I can. See that's the miracle that proves a divine being. If Mohammad, 1400 years ago, knew all these facts that only recently science discovered, then the case for a divine higher being is just getting stronger and stronger.
    Except he didn't. So far you haven't demonstrated a single thing that the quran said that has only recently been discovered by science.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingarabian View Post
    Mativy do you have skype? I'll prove everything to you, through sound, because obviously every word I write you say "NOPE", god meant this, "nope", Kingarabian you meant this.
    I have skype, but i will not use it to debate with you. There is absolutely no need.

    A text-based medium of communication allows both parties to maximize the amount of thought put into each response, as well as quote and cite various sources more accurately (not that you do it anyway). On top of that both parties are able to write their responses during their own time, whenever they wish, and as long as they wish. Text-based debates are neater, and can be done in a orderly civilized manner which avoid the many pitfalls of verbal debates.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingarabian View Post
    But I do concede, my intellectuality is not as high as yours when writing posts so I'm willing to debate over microphone. I do understand the way you debate however. You do your best in flipping words around and taking them to your advantage. The fact that you keep saying "Nope", "he didn't mean this", "he clearly meant this", proves that you willingly are in denial...
    So far the only person who's done all the word flipping is you. You want everything to be defined and interpreted the way you want it to, so that it supports your views. To accomplish this you even go as far as claiming that nobody can possibly understand the Quran as well as you do if they don't speak arabic, even Muslims themselves.

    Even after i give you the advantage by assuming that your interpretation of certain claims is correct, those claims still end up being completely not true (see the egg). But you hop over that obstacle easily by changing the definition of a word. "oh well that word can also mean this and that" until it means what you need it to mean.

    But it doesn't end there, at some points you were just making up your own definitions for scientific terms, such as "smoke".

    Must end there right? Nooope. So far I've been pretty quiet about the fact that you've practically been copy&pasting all your arguments from external sources, mostly pro-Islamic websites. From someone who claims to "study" the quran and have such a superior understanding of it, you've embarrassingly enough not been able to come up with a single original argument for your own religion in this thread. I've been able to find all your arguments already neatly laid out on other sites. And you still failed.

    And then, even after this horrendous track record of inconsistencies, you come out to claim that it is ME who is "flipping words" and that I'm in denial or whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingarabian View Post
    and you don't want to understand a thing. If you said "I don't agree", then I would take you more seriously. But obviously your choosing to agitate me. So if you wish to continue, i'll be on skype or MSN and we will do a live chat. Then will post it on here.
    There's nothing to understand. So far Islam does the same thing Christianity and Judaism do: Make an enormous load of baseless claims, and then try to back them up by pointing out a small handful that, even if true, would be nothing more than "lucky guesses" that are actually statistically probable considering the monstrous amounts of claims about our world religions tend to make.

    But we haven't even gotten that far. So far you don't even have a handful. As of this moment you have none. Even with your made up definitions and scientific studies that I've asked you to cite sources for not once, but TWICE, which you have STILL failed to do.

    So far you've been fighting tooth and nail for some bread crumbs, you're not even remotely close to having the whole loaf.

  13. #188
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,240
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Quoted
    496 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cycrosism View Post
    Even if it did, who cares? The book is fiction, same with the bible. Everything written in the Quran and the Bible are made up of events and people that were made up themselves so PLEASE do not use anything from either of those books as "evidence"
    Please, explain to me the predictions/prophecies in the old testament that 100's even thousand years later came true. (need a hint? i'm talking about wars/sieges on cities or similar) If you don't know what any of these were then you obviously have absolutely NO GROUNDS to make ANY statements involving the Bible. If you can tell me what they are, also try to disprove them. Ever heard of the "dead sea scrolls"? It was hundreds of copies of different books from the Bible in scrolls, hidden away for centuries.

    You don't have to be Christian to read the Bible. But you do have to read the Bible to make statements like, "the book is fiction", or "Everything written in the Quran and the Bible are made up of events and people that were made up themselves".

    Unless you're saying the Bible was written recently which that would be foolish as there's tons of evidence proving otherwise(dead sea scrolls for instance).
    You seem to have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
    Granted, the Bible and the Quran are religious books. So if you have no knowledge about them admit you are not into religion and stop talking about them. Your nonsensical "the book is fiction same with the bible", makes you look immature. Even the most secular scientist would admit that the bible is one of the most scientifically sound historical books.

    What does it take for a book to "gain" this?
    Here are but a few factors:
    How old the book is
    How many copies of the book
    How many times the book contradicts itself
    How many OTHER historical books back it up

    I'm not a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or a Rastafarian(even though i smoke weed ALL DAY LONG). But you'll never find me talking about shit when i have NO FUCKING CLUE what i'm talking about.

    <3 you cycrosism

  14. #189
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wednesday
    Posts
    2,446
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Just a little titbit from me. The age of books and things like that is estimated using the same technique that is used for dating the age of the planet to much older than the Bible implies through its creation story - the analysing of proportions of isotopes in conjunction with their half-lives - for books, specifically comparing against the expected content upon "formation" (the time when the tree is killed to make the book.)

    As far as the bible being scientifically sound is concerned, I think very few secular scientists agree that the world was made in a day some five thousand or so years ago or that an intelligent designer made all life. It is also the case that the scientific method involves forming a hypothesis and performing experiments with the aim to then explain it using current theories or to form a new theory to do so; one cannot simply state something about the physical laws and hope it turns out to be true. It is also important to not mistake knowledge placed in a holy book for knowledge of the community at large at the time rather than supernatural knowledge given by a non-terrestrial being. There were major and advanced civilisations before Christianity and their Gods were dismissed as false when the people progressed.
    By reading this signature you agree that mixster is superior to you in each and every way except the bad ways but including the really bad ways.

  15. #190
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,240
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Quoted
    496 Post(s)

    Default

    Mixter, I'm sorry. I did not mean that scientist's would agree with what the Bible says. But rather that it is a historical book and that using what scientist's use to determine the validity of a book one would be able to say it's significantly more then "complete fiction".

    I realize i did a terrible job at saying that. sorry, i'm sick and i'm at work :/

  16. #191
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,021
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tarajunky View Post
    So when you .include SRL, every bit of code is useful and used in every script?

    Wouldn't it be better to go through the SRL include and remove all the "vestigial code" for every script you write? Wouldn't that demonstrate how intelligent you were as the designer of the scripts? Or does the fact that you don't do this suggest that having flawless code isn't the purpose of writing a script in the first place?
    Yes but scripters are not all-powerful all-knowing.
    Scripters are human and thus we can expect slight mistakes and inefficiencies. Our computers have enough resources so that using SRL to cheat on Runescape works fine. Its not perfect but good enough, but that's okay because scripters never claimed to be perfect in every possible way. Religious people claim exactly that for their God.
    The analogy is false.


    Quote Originally Posted by tarajunky View Post
    This argument assumes that everything must have a physical purpose (that we understand right now with our limited knowledge), or God made a "mistake". But I don't recall anyone suggesting that "perfection" was the purpose of creation. It's pretty arrogant to tell God how things should be if you don't even understand the why behind it.
    The assumption that everything must have a purpose is not flawed. Organs, even useless ones, cost food and energy to create.
    In many examples we see evolution reducing the size and cost of vestigial organs until the benefits of reduced cost aren't large enough to make enough selection pressure. There's that great example of what appears to be a nerve in the human leg, but turns out is actually a muscle that evolution made small because we stand upright now.

    I don't know what theists claim the purpose of creation is. But I do know they perfection for their God, which means we can expect perfect creations, not pointless organs that cost us precious resources. (Food is plentiful now of course, but that's because of science and the agricultural revolution, not anything that God supposedly did)


    So far we've not seen any explanation for why a perfect designer might create imperfect bodies in such a way that seems to provide such good evidence for evolution.


    Quote Originally Posted by tarajunky View Post
    There are many examples where two or more completely unrelated organisms have nearly identical anatomy or behavior. This is hand-waved away as "convergent evolution", which is a nonsensical term when you realize that evolution can't work toward a goal.
    Not exactly, evolution can work towards a goal provided there's a gradual improvement between every step.

    An example of convergent evolution is wings. We can see insects, birds and certain kinds of mammals (bats) can fly. However if you look at these wings you'll find they are fundamentally different enough in a way that supports evolution.
    Bird wings have flesh covered in feathers. Bat wings are made by skin stretched between digits with no feathers. Insect wings are membranes grown from their thorax.
    Bird have their equivalent of fingers at the end at the wing, we know them as talons. Bats have stretched long webbed fingers. Insects wings are not made from arms or legs.

    All are called wings and are superficially the same, but in detail they are quite different and actually provide evidence for evolution because you never see the wrong wing design in another family. All the hundreds of thousands of bird species have the same basic design and all the roughly thousand bat species have the same basic design.


    Quote Originally Posted by tarajunky View Post
    Another problem for Abiogenesis is the idea of quasi-species. The key tenet of "natural selection" assumes that any new trait that gives an individual a selective advantage is likely to grow in prevalence within a population. This is also called "survival of the fittest". But the abiogenesis fairy tale suggests that during the very early stages of life, genetic replication must have been highly error-prone. In this case, even if a new mutation confers a selective advantage, it is unlikely to be propagated forward without itself being mutated. So, for any such population of organisms, it's not the individual characteristics that "natural selection" works on, it's the population as a whole.

    This concept is most readily observed in RNA viruses, because they experience more rapid mutations than most other organisms. In that case, the population of individual viruses is diverse, and more fit that a uniform population. But in this scenario, a core set of characteristics must be maintained in the population, or the population undergoes "error catastrophe" and its fitness collapses.

    This acts like a leash on a population that prevents individual and their progeny from evolving away into something new and exciting. It's a much more complicated view than some would have us believe.
    This thread is about evolution not abiogenesis. There are plenty of theistic evolutionists who believe God started life and let evolution go on from there. These theistic evolutionists would also react with horror at the thought of someone preaching creationist lies to children.
    Join the Official SRL IRC channel. Learn how to Here.

  17. #192
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,240
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Quoted
    496 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakman View Post

    Bird have their equivalent of fingers at the end at the wing, we know them as talons.
    Talon's are not at the end of the wing...


    I believe you should research slightly more, i thought this was common knowledge. If you didn't mean at the end of the wing, idk what you meant...

  18. #193
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I think you guys are missing the point that the existence of God and the existence of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

    The debate from the OP is not whether or not Creationism is real, it is about whether it should be taught in schools.

  19. #194
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdug View Post
    I think you guys are missing the point that the existence of God and the existence of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

    The debate from the OP is not whether or not Creationism is real, it is about whether it should be taught in schools.
    The problem is you can't set a "right or wrong" judgement on this without being biased on creationism's authenticity.

    Though:
    Suppose God is All Powerful, All Knowing, and Good.
    How does God let innocent/pure infants burn to death in house fires. Supposing that every single act of his has to be good. Not supposing some Story Arc where his doing causes good(Ex. infant burns to death and Mommy gets off cocaine.) AND supposing heaven just isn't because there is no proof either way.
    So if our God is All Knowing would we consider him to be bad for willingly let an infant suffer when he had the power to save the infant So He could not be Good.
    OR is God not All Knowing and if so how can he judge our worth when we die.
    Otherwise God is Not all Powerful, If this is the case how could he create the universe and all matter in it.


    Another Argument:
    Suppose everything that has a purpose has a Creator. Ex. Shovels have a purpose to Dig. Ex. Trees have a purpose, for wood, for shade, and possibly food. We have a purpose to thrive and submit to Gods will. So what is the purpose of God? To rule over man or to guide man? If so than God too has a purpose and must have been created, but if this is the case God is no longer the most powerful being, and we should worship this other being. If this is the case this being now has a purpose, and thus also must have a creator. And So on.

  20. #195
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,240
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    11 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by footballjds View Post
    Please, explain to me the predictions/prophecies in the old testament that 100's even thousand years later came true. (need a hint? i'm talking about wars/sieges on cities or similar) If you don't know what any of these were then you obviously have absolutely NO GROUNDS to make ANY statements involving the Bible.
    This is when I stop reading what a religious person writes. "You cannot disprove that something is there, so therefore it is there." That logic is aweful and I dont feel smart while trying to argue with someone to show them that it is wrong.

    This picture has been posted a few times I believe.



    If you can tell me what they are, also try to disprove them. Ever heard of the "dead sea scrolls"? It was hundreds of copies of different books from the Bible in scrolls, hidden away for centuries.
    Once again, "You cannot disprove that something is there, so therefore it is there."

    You don't have to be Christian to read the Bible. But you do have to read the Bible to make statements like, "the book is fiction", or "Everything written in the Quran and the Bible are made up of events and people that were made up themselves".
    The book itself is fiction and not non fiction. The definition of fiction is: "Fiction is the form of any narrative or informative work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary—that is, invented by the author."

    That is the only reason I am saying the Bible and Quran are "made up of events and people that were made up themselves""

    You seem to have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
    Granted, the Bible and the Quran are religious books. So if you have no knowledge about them admit you are not into religion and stop talking about them.
    Actually I was forced to learn about Christianity and the bible for 10 years at school, so I do know about it, and have read parts of it. I was cease talking about them from now on.

    <3 you cycrosism
    I love you too <3
    Click here to find out how to get full screen without members! | Click here to check out my Ultimate Bitmap Tutorial! Edited to work with Simba! |

  21. #196
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,240
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Quoted
    496 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cycrosism View Post
    This is when I stop reading what a religious person writes. "You cannot disprove that something is there, so therefore it is there." That logic is aweful and I dont feel smart while trying to argue with someone to show them that it is wrong.
    I'd like to say if you cannot disprove something and you cannot prove it, it MIGHT be there. Agnostic...
    And for the record, although i may argue the devil's advocate i am in no way a religious person...


    The book itself is fiction and not non fiction. The definition of fiction is: "Fiction is the form of any narrative or informative work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary—that is, invented by the author."
    There are hundreds of historical events that the bible speaks of that can be lined up with other histories we have from the same time period. I wouldn't say it's complete fiction. As far as the supernatural encounters the bible speaks of. You definitely need faith to believe in them... haha

    That is the only reason I am saying the Bible and Quran are "made up of events and people that were made up themselves""
    again, many things narrated in the bible are factual and can be backed up with other history.


    Actually I was forced to learn about Christianity and the bible for 10 years at school, so I do know about it, and have read parts of it. I was cease talking about them from now on.
    I'm sorry you were forced. I think that's the worst thing anyone can do. Force religion down your throat. I also was forced until i turned about 12 at which point i just refused to read the bible. I had read it at least 5-7 time front to back by then and memorized entire books of the bible. When i was 14 i regained some interest and read many books concerning atheism, Christianity, agnosticism, and "other".

    One of my favorite books although it's not secular was "Evidence that demands a verdict". It's a 800 page book that is written with as little bias as a Christian author could possibly muster... haha. It presents a ton of evidence.
    I try to remain open minded and read past peoples religious talk and look at the evidence.

    I love you too <3
    <3

  22. #197
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Michigan -.-
    Posts
    1,357
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quoted
    4 Post(s)

    Default

    There are hundreds of historical events that the bible speaks of that can be lined up with other histories we have from the same time period. I wouldn't say it's complete fiction.
    Can you cite sources? I would be interested to know what actually lines up.
    METAL HEAD FOR LIFE!!!

  23. #198
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Northern Kentuckeh
    Posts
    759
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mixster View Post
    As far as the bible being scientifically sound is concerned, I think very few secular scientists agree that the world was made in a day some five thousand or so years ago or that an intelligent designer made all life.
    Besides the intelligent designer part at the end, very few Christians believe in the Young Earth Theory, at least the ones I meet don't. It really depends on how you interpret the Bible. The Bible is the most reliable historic reference for the history of Israel, so if you take out parables and focus on historical events then a lot of it lines up. Although, I have been reading more about the King David debate as no evidence of his existence would be a huge blow to the historical relevance of the Bible.
    Quote Originally Posted by h_king1998 View Post
    how come it does not bank in al-kharid when i do mine 1 drop 1

  24. #199
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,240
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Quoted
    496 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gerauchert View Post
    Can you cite sources? I would be interested to know what actually lines up.
    can you torrent an 800 page book?

  25. #200
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Here are examples of arguments against the "How can a good God allow bad things X/Y to happen?".

    1. The "Puppeteer" theory as I will call it. If you had to continuously prove yourself to your friends/lovers that you are as you say, would you consider them your friends/lovers? If your spouse is not perfect, do you make a big deal out of it? What if God simply wants his creations to love him out of choice, and out of faith? It is no longer faith if it is based on science.

    2. I never stated evidence that God was necessarily "All" Powerful. I personally believe it is true, but it is not an argument that I have a basis to defend in the terms of science. However, I will say there must have been some sort of higher power to create the universe, or at least to create the aforementioned "smoke" that some people people the universe came from. Matter cannot spawn from nothing, and science has shown that. There had to be some quantifiable amount of matter when the universe was created that was unequal to the amount (zero) an instant before.
    Last edited by tdug; 12-11-2011 at 12:50 AM. Reason: Grammar Fix.

Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •