27-05-2002 11:25									#31
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Combat Ingrid In other words, what scientists refer to as "evolution" is really animal instinct and the real meaning of the word "evolution" would be the popping out of men from monkeys?

quote: Its hard to disprove something that doesn't exist. There is no science involved in creationism. However the world is billions of years old and that is more enough evidence that the ICR is wrong as they insist the world is only around 6000 years old.

Im not gonna go into it as I am not a preacher or a profound believer in common creationism. But read the damn bible and you'll find the answer.

quote: No species has split for fun. Its from enviromental pressure and isolation.

Is that like peer pressure?

quote: Only if you believe they are telling you the truth

I never said they were, i simply said they could prove it..

	27-05-2002 11:27									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ethelred No species has split for fun. Its from enviromental pressure and isolation.

really, can you prove that any such "pressure and isolation" ever happened?

quote: However the world is billions of years old

Is it really? prove it.

quote: Why indeed? Most likely they weren't lying just ignorant. Now the ICR is big on lies. They lie frequently. The Bible has many innaccuracies as well. The Flood never happened. The world is not 6000 years old. There was no Tower of Bable.

How can you disprove any of those things? btw, you sound like a coverup agent is there something you don't want us to know?

	27-05-2002 11:36									#33
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The problem with creationism is that it cannot be disproved, you already know for certain it is true, no matter what science tells you.

I can always go back to my "moon is made of cheese" argument to show you how silly this becomes. There is nothing you can tell me that for certain disproves the moon is made of cheese, thus the moon is made of cheese! The same can be applied to creationism.

	27-05-2002 11:37									#34
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The Flood has been disproven in many ways. Many times.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

	27-05-2002 11:39									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

wow boris, that's your third reference to talkorigins.com, a little shameless advertising I suppose.

And i've read that, and it in no way takes in account the details of the flood or disproves it. Keep in mind, I've been to the site and read it all, and still it sounds to circumstantial even when it tries to make a point to convince me...

	27-05-2002 11:45									#36
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I read somewhere that the black sea area was flooded some 6-7000 years ago. Sounds like a good real-life inspiration for the flood story

	27-05-2002 11:48									#37
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ wow boris, that's your third reference to talkorigins.com, a little shameless advertising I suppose.

It's a site that has pretty much every answer to Creationist arguments, or lack thereof. Why shop elsewhere when it's all collected into a convenient (and well-documented and researched) place.

quote: .And i've read that, and it in no way takes in account the details of the flood or disproves it. Keep in mind, I've been to the site and read it all, and still it sounds to circumstantial even when it tries to make a point to convince me...

You're lying, as you haven't read it all, nobody has. Creationists shouldn't lie, it's a sin.

And there is nothing circumstantial about the fossil record. Nor the fact that several civilizations lived through it unscathed without even noticing it. Nor that the very act of fitting 25,000+ species of mammals into a 450 foot long wooden ship for 40 days and nights is a physical impossibility. Nor that the Bible explicitly says all living creatures not inside the Ark were killed, which doesn't explain why we still have fish and whales and other aquatic life, now does it?

If you think the geologic evidence is circumstantial, then we'll have to had geology to evolution on the list of things you have no idea what you're talking about.

	27-05-2002 11:50									#38
	Tired of ads?

quote: The problem with creationism is that it cannot be disproved, you already know for certain it is true, no matter what science tells you.

The problem with evolutionism is that it cannot be disproved, you already know for certain it is true, no matter what science tells you.

quote: I accept that you are a distortionist. I never said anything remotely cult like and only the active ignorance that is needed by creationists could possibly have generated that ridiculous statement of yours.

alright then what does this mean? Active ignorance eh? i could say the same of you.

quote: quote: quote: maybe a cult then, a vast cult dedicated to chance? Not chance. Environment. Evolution is not merely by chance. It is directed by the environment every bit as much as breeding dogs is directed by the breeders.

you did not say it wasn't a cult, only that it's focus was "Enviroment" as opposed to "chance"

	27-05-2002 11:52									#39
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

"And there is nothing circumstantial about the fossil record. Nor the fact that several civilizations lived through it unscathed without even noticing it. Nor that the very act of fitting 25,000+ species of mammals into a 450 foot long wooden ship for 40 days and nights is a physical impossibility. Nor that the Bible explicitly says all living creatures not inside the Ark were killed, which doesn't explain why we still have fish and whales and other aquatic life, now does it? "

Wrong, it said all land animals, even in that document.


"You're lying, as you haven't read it all, nobody has. Creationists shouldn't lie, it's a sin. "

How...mature....and false, i think plenty of people have read it all.


"If you think the geologic evidence is circumstantial, then we'll have to had geology to evolution on the list of things you have no idea what you're talking about."

All right! Topic change number 400,000!! And how can geological methods be proven? I suppose your an expert on this of course.

	27-05-2002 11:54									#40
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD The problem with evolutionism is that it cannot be disproved, you already know for certain it is true, no matter what science tells you.

This is a bullshit bit of illogical catchphrasing. Evolution can indeed be disproved, as it is a scientific theory. Any scientific theory can be tested by scientific means and observation. So far, evolution has not been disproven. In fact, the plethora of fossil evidence has show it to be a truth.

Creationism is not scientific, and ergo cannot be tested scientifically, and thus cannot be disproved by science.

Herein we see Creationists still haven't learned the definition of 1) Theory or 2) Science.

	27-05-2002 11:56									#41
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov It's a site that has pretty much every answer to Creationist arguments, or lack thereof. Why shop elsewhere when it's all collected into a convenient (and well-documented and researched) place.

if not just a little biased.

quote: And there is nothing circumstantial about the fossil record.

The fossil record of which you speak was gained through a process proven time and again to be inaaccurate: unless of course you have something other than carbon dating backing it up. perhaps you were there?ldman:

quote: If you think the geologic evidence is circumstantial, then we'll have to had geology to evolution on the list of things you have no idea what you're talking about.

geologic evidence may not be. but lets say that evidence was gathered by evlutionists. people who would take their own beleifs into account as they pretty much guessed at the date.

	27-05-2002 11:57									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ Im not gonna go into it as I am not a preacher or a profound believer in common creationism. But read the damn bible and you'll find the answer.

I read Genesis and Exodus. That was more than enough evidence to show the Bible is wrong on many things. There was no flood but its in the Bible. There was no Tower of Babel but its there as well. Nothing in the Bible can make those fantasies true.

quote: Is that like peer pressure?

Its like environmental pressure. Peers are part of the enviroment. So with humans it is possible that actual peer pressure resulted in isolation for some groups of humans.

Don't play LOL instead of thinking with me. I can use to help my postition. Try thinking a bit.

quote: I never said they were, i simply said they could prove it..

Creationists can't prove anything. Thats why they make up nonsense.

	27-05-2002 11:57									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD The problem with evolutionism is that it cannot be disproved, you already know for certain it is true, no matter what science tells you.

No, it can certainly be disproved! The reason I think evolution is correct is because the scientific evidence supports it. If there was strong scientific evidence against it, I would conclude it is wrong.

	27-05-2002 11:59									#44
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Interesting post Skilord, I think that the some of the rigid evolutionists have a certain zeal for defending it that make it seemto resemble religion in everything but name. And of course, the fact that it requires a degree of faith also makes it very religion-esque.
My stance on evolution you ask? Micro Evolution: certainly, macro evolution: possibly, in some form or another. Evolution, the final answer to everything in biology? Most certainly not.

	27-05-2002 12:00									#45
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

"Creationism is not scientific, and ergo cannot be tested scientifically, and thus cannot be disproved by science. "

Your little neato site there sure tries...

"Herein we see Creationists still haven't learned the definition of 1) Theory or 2) Science."

Theory = A belief, but not called that by anti-creationist scientists. Assumed because it seems likely.

Science = The practice of questioning everything until you become so blind you can't see the answer staring you in the face.

	27-05-2002 12:02									#46
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by monkspider Interesting post Skilord, I think that the some of the rigid evolutionists have a certain zeal for defending it that make it seemto resemble religion in everything but name. And of course, the fact that it requires a degree of faith also makes it very religion-esque. My stance on evolution you ask? Micro Evolution: certainly, macro evolution: possibly, in some form or another. Evolution, the final answer to everything in biology? Most certainly not.

Wow! A post ON-TOPIC!! Thanks for being mature in the posting of your views, monk.


" If there was strong scientific evidence against it, I would conclude it is wrong."

Yeah, have you ever looked for one?

	27-05-2002 12:03									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

And don't worry Skilord, though many in this thread may be hostile to God, and many may try to disuade you to lose faith through their brute-force attacks. Be strong.

	27-05-2002 12:04									#48
	Got spare money?

By the way, thanks for your kind words Gonzo.

	27-05-2002 12:05									#49
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD really, can you prove that any such "pressure and isolation" ever happened?

I don't need to prove it happened to show that it can happen. Neither do I have to prove humans evolved from apes to show that evolution occurs.

quote: Is it really? prove it.

Its been proved many times and in many ways. I can not help you if you insist on remaining ignorant about the obvious.

quote: How can you disprove any of those things? btw, you sound like a coverup agent is there something you don't want us to know?

What the heck are you talking about now. I am not even remotely covering up anything. That you would say such blatant nonsense is a sign you have a thinking problem.

There is NO evidence for the FLood yet it should be nearly everywhere. The Flood is supposed to have occured 4400 years ago give or take 100 years. The Tower of Bable comes after that. Since the Egyptians have existed as a culture for over 5000 years and were in the middle of building the Pyramids 4400 years ago it is clear they were never drowned and gone for for hundreds of years as would be the case if the Flood and the Tower were real things. That alone is ample proof that flood is a fairy story.

	27-05-2002 12:05									#50
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ethelred I read Genesis and Exodus. That was more than enough evidence to show the Bible is wrong on many things. There was no flood but its in the Bible. There was no Tower of Babel but its there as well. Nothing in the Bible can make those fantasies true. Prove it Its like environmental pressure. Peers are part of the enviroment. So with humans it is possible that actual peer pressure resulted in isolation for some groups of humans. Don't play LOL instead of thinking with me. I can use to help my postition. Try thinking a bit. I'm "playing" LOL with you because you will not concede your points no matter how hopeless your arguement gets. You still haven't explained how "environmental pressure caused evolution. Creationists can't prove anything. Thats why they make up nonsense.

Hey genius, try reading what I was replying to.

	27-05-2002 12:06									#51
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov This is a bullshit bit of illogical catchphrasing.

and herin we see that we cannot all be adults here

quote: Evolution can indeed be disproved, as it is a scientific theory. Any scientific theory can be tested by scientific means and observation.

but evolution cannot be

quote: So far, evolution has not been disproven. In fact, the plethora of fossil evidence has show it to be a truth.

doesn't this contradict your above statement?

quote: Creationism is not scientific, and ergo cannot be tested scientifically, and thus cannot be disproved by science. Herein we see Creationists still haven't learned the definition of 1) Theory or 2) Science.

you MAKE NO SENsE! you contradict yourself several times.

quote: No, it can certainly be disproved!

and so you beleive something you know can be proven false?

quote: Don't play LOL instead of thinking with me. I can use to help my postition. Try thinking a bit.

a frustrated coverup agent!

	27-05-2002 12:07									#52
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Combat Ingrid I read somewhere that the black sea area was flooded some 6-7000 years ago. Sounds like a good real-life inspiration for the flood story

I agree that it was likely the inspiration. However its not the Flood as it is described in the Bible. The world isn't even supposed to have existed then by Fundamentalist Creationist standards.

	27-05-2002 12:08									#53
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ " If there was strong scientific evidence against it, I would conclude it is wrong." Yeah, have you ever looked for one?

I read the scientific journals and find evidence supporting evolution quite often even though I admit I don't actively look for it. It's just so much it's hard to ignore

	27-05-2002 12:10									#54
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Hmm, you and I have discussed this before Ethel? I once considered the theory of Noah's ark merely being allegory, as you may recall. I now think it was a localized flood, that flooded the world as Noah knew it. I think you ought to look into that theory Ethel before so quickly dismissing it.

	27-05-2002 12:10									#55
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD if not just a little biased.

Biased...no, just factual. But Creationists don't have facts, just the Bible.

quote: The fossil record of which you speak was gained through a process proven time and again to be inaaccurate: unless of course you have something other than carbon dating backing it up. perhaps you were there?ldman:

Which, pray tell, dating method are you saying is proven inaccurate?

Here's one that isn't--counting layers of a glacier. We know through observation precisely how thick the layers of a glacier are and can count how old a glacier is similarly to counting rings on a tree. We have counted glacial layers that go back well over the 10,000 years the most liberal Biblical interpreters give for Genesis. No carbon dating. Simple...counting...proving Creationism...wrong.

quote: geologic evidence may not be. but lets say that evidence was gathered by evlutionists. people who would take their own beleifs into account as they pretty much guessed at the date.

This is why Creationists will always be blind. Even when confronted with the evidence, they will merely say "Oh it was put up by an EVOLUTIONIST, so I can't trust it." This is akin to covering your ears and singing Mary Had a Little Lamb loudly.

	27-05-2002 12:13									#56
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Combat Ingrid I read the scientific journals and find evidence supporting evolution quite often even though I admit I don't actively look for it. It's just so much it's hard to ignore

ok so: here's the point you guys have tried to make so far:
Ecolutionist printed documents=OK factual thumbs up would never ever lie uh-uh no way siree bob.
Creationist printed documents=EVIL all lies! where do they get this stuff? honestly?!

Now back to carbon dating. without it can evolution be proven? Is it factual in the slightest bit? i haven't heard dissention on that.

	27-05-2002 12:14									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Skilord: yes I "believe" in something I know can be proven to be false, just as I "believe" that the earth is more or less spherical, that can also (at least theoretically) be proven to be false you know

	27-05-2002 12:15									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD The problem with evolutionism is that it cannot be disproved, you already know for certain it is true, no matter what science tells you.

Actually it could be disproved if it wasn't real. It has been proved though so it would be darn hard to disprove it.

quote: alright then what does this mean? Active ignorance eh? i could say the same of you.

You could say it but you couldn't show it since I have looked at the creationist stuff and I don't have to make things up about it to show it false. Its the Creationists that must at all costs remain stubbornly ignorant about reality and that is what makes it active rather than passive ignorance.

You may by passivly ignorant. Depend how much you have learned of science. However many members of the ICR have had good educations. They simply went to great lengths to ignore all that they had learned. Hence they are actively and intentionaly and deliberatly ignorant.

quote: you did not say it wasn't a cult, only that it's focus was "Enviroment" as opposed to "chance"

I said nothing that even remotely hinted at a cult. You made it up. This is not a responce by you its a refusal to respond at all to what I actually said.

	27-05-2002 12:17									#59
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD and herin we see that we cannot all be adults here but evolution cannot be doesn't this contradict your above statement?

You're playing stupid word games. Even you should know the difference between "CAN BE PROVEN FALSE" and "HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE." The notion that man evolved from lower species was scientifically testable, and therefore, like all science, capable of being proven false. But it has not been. It has been proven to be true, through scientific tests/observation.

The initial postulation was testable. The test came back positive.

Creationism is not testable whatsoever. Ergo, not science.

quote: you MAKE NO SENsE! you contradict yourself several times.

It wouldn't make sense to someone who has no concept of how scientific hypothesis works. There was nothing contradictory about it.

quote: and so you beleive something you know can be proven false?

More specious word games. ABILITY to be proven false vs. ACTUALLY PROVEN false.

That the earth revolves around the sun can be proven false. It is a theory one is capable of testing. However, when one tests it, one will soon easily see it is not false.

Not a hard concept, people...

	27-05-2002 12:17									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Biased...no, just factual. But Creationists don't have facts, just the Bible.

see above post

quote: Here's one that isn't--counting layers of a glacier. We know through observation precisely how thick the layers of a glacier are and can count how old a glacier is similarly to counting rings on a tree. We have counted glacial layers that go back well over the 10,000 years the most liberal Biblical interpreters give for Genesis. No carbon dating. Simple...counting...proving Creationism...wrong.

God created an adult world... sorry to rain on your parade but that therefore disproves nothing.

quote: This is why Creationists will always be blind. Even when confronted with the evidence, they will merely say "Oh it was put up by an EVOLUTIONIST, so I can't trust it." This is akin to covering your ears and singing Mary Had a Little Lamb loudly.

This is why Evolutionists will always be blind. Even when confronted with the evidence, they will merely say "Oh it was put up by an CREATIONIST, so I can't trust it." This is akin to covering your ears and singing Mary Had a Little Lamb loudly.