Evolution based on cult religion?

[Abiyoyo]

I found this interesting article, in which it seems to have a great deal of references for most claims made.

 

Fact or Fiction?

 

http://www.fixedearth.com/Evol.is%20Religious%20Doctrine.htm

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[MrSpooky]

Here's a tip... if a website is made with a pasty plain background, all the font is in bold, and there's twenty changes in font color, type, size, and format every time you scroll down, the site is probably bullcrap.

[MrSpooky]

Oh yeah...

 

http://www.timecube.com/

 

Time Cube me up, babay.

[Thurisaz]

1. That site indeed hurts the eyes.

 

2. So there are some kabbalistic claims that happen to be compatible with science (if these claims aren't lies indeed - fundies always favor the easy lie over hard facts). Wow, big deal.

 

Wanna bet we don't have to search for long until we find some proven cases of Jews having committed crimes? Yep, we'll find such cases. By the "reasoning" used on that site, that proves that Hitler was right with his message of hatred and bigotry. Fire up those gas chambers again buddy!

[Thurisaz]

By the way, just for fun while we're at it, here's proof of the sad fact that you don't need ten different fonts and colors to make a site near-unreadable.

 

And this site by some weird kind of UFO religionists also proves that the less worthy content there is on a site, the more weird its layout will generally be. Try to read it all through, with at least 50 % of links in it.

[Abiyoyo]

Here's a tip... if a website is made with a pasty plain background, all the font is in bold, and there's twenty changes in font color, type, size, and format every time you scroll down, the site is probably bullcrap.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He may not be "internet" inclined. LOL

 

 

Oh yeah...

 

http://www.timecube.com/

 

Time Cube me up, babay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now, this sit has not one reference to his claim other than his dvd and link, oh yeah, and the santa clause one. LOL

[Abiyoyo]

In general, I just dont understand why people base their "disputes" upon a site they came across, or information of the web. I would bet that anyone that has a topic or claim for one belief, there will be a cliam in contrast to that claim somewhere else. I guess that just makes me uneasy about all the "proof" type veiws about creationalism or evolution. I mean, I stand by my beliefs, but I just dont want to base my relationship, or eternal destiny, Biblically, on some information on the net, or anywhere else for that matter. I reason this because whats to say that everything hasnt been tampered and "fit" to popular demand or validity og ones belief. I just question, Is it really about facts or something else?

[Thurisaz]

Oh please, come on Yoyo. "Fixed earh" based on facts?!

 

We can observe, with our advanced telescopes, how all the planets in the solar system orbit the sun. We can observe how all moons orbit their planets. We understand what powers this orbital movement (gravity and centripetal force), we can calculate the orbital motions and speeds - that's how Neptune and Pluto were found, i. e. it has been proven that these formulas are correct.

 

We can just as well observe and calculate how stars move within their galaxies, and we can observe and calculate the movements of the galaxies (inasmuch as our observations are sufficiently accurate). All that stuff has been shown much more than once to work.

How ludicrous is it to assume that despite all this the earth is "fixed"?

 

Compare modern science, for a laugh, with the theories the geocentrists of old had to come up with to combine the known orbital motions of the planets with the assumption of a fixed, immovable earth. Ever saw a diagram of that? Back then, people needed to introduce fictional "epicycles", circles the planets moved in while moving on their supposed orbits around the earth, without anything that could explain the existence of these epicycles. Guess why heliocentrism was embraced very fast once the religious dogma that cried for geocentrism was thrown out? Because heliocentrism works. Because it makes sense. Because it is good science.

[Mr. Neil]

Yoyo.... Why are you here? Seriously. Could you answer that for me?

 

 

You obviously have had very little education in biological science. I clicked several screen lengths and couldn't find anything about biology. This site that you mined is loaded with misinformation that, quite frankly, isn't worth our time.

 

Your problem is that you don't understand what evolution is. If you did, you wouldn't be trying to waste our time with websites written by assholes.

 

Here. Why don't you listen to the evidence for evolution from someone who actually works in the field of microbiology. One of our mods, Zach Moore, was recently on the Hellbound Alleee show discussing the topic.

 

Here's the link: www.hellboundalleee.com/archives.html

 

 

Find show #51: The Molecular Proof of Evolution. Download it or stream it, depending on what kind of connection you have. And please, please do not post any more topics about evolution until you actually know something about it, because you're just going to get torn to shreds the more you do it.

[MrSpooky]

I could go straight to the source of scientific knowldege and dig up peer-reviewed articles for you, but you'd need to have some scientific training to understand them.

[MrSpooky]

In general, I just dont understand why people base their "disputes" upon a site they came across, or information of the web.

 

It's a tragic fact of life that much of our knowledge has to depend on another person's word. However, there are GOOD AND RATIONAL ways to trust someone's word, and BAD AND IRRATIONAL ways to trust someone's word.

 

The scientific community, on the other hand, understands this problem, and they know that good communication is critical to human endeavors. The scientific community is a large group of scientists all across the world that work independantly, and when one scientist discovers something, he writes a very in-depth paper about it. He submits this paper to a scientific journal (a high-caliber magazine, kinda... with very very rigid standards). In his paper he HAS to include:

 

1. What his experiment was about.

2. What he did EXACTLY... he has to show every chemical he used, every measurement in as exact quantity as possible, everything. Hell, over half of the paper could be him going on about how he did his experiment!

3. What his results were.

4. HOW HE INTERPRETED THOSE RESULTS. Scientists realize that sometimes a single result can have many interpretations. The scientist also lists what other possible good interpretations exist.

 

When the paper is published, other scientists read up on it. The first scientist's experiments then go through a process of PEER REVIEW:

 

1. The scientist who is double-checking the first scientist's work does the experiment outlined by the first scientist.

2. This scientist may try certain variations to try to tease out which interpretations of the data make sense and which ones don't. This helps to arrive at a single solid answer.

3. Sometimes this scientist will debunk the first scientist, saying, "aha! You made a huge mistake here! I didn't get the results you stated!" Since several scientists all across the nation are doing this experiment, this is a really really good method of double-checking.

4. If many scientists who repeated the experiment agree that it passes the test, we have a new scientific fact.

 

This is a very powerful process. Imagine you're doing your math homework, spending excruciating amounts of time making sure it's as correct as possible. Then you put it up online for thousands of people to double-check. While most simply glance over it, a hundred or so people will still be interested enough to do the problems themselves and see if their answers match up with yours.

 

Very very few mistakes slip by in the Scientific Community. If it's in a peer-reviewed science journal, it's one of the most solid new facts of science you can come across, especially since it tells you exactly how to do the experiment yourself.

 

Evolutionary biology has been under peer review for 150 YEARS. It's stood up countless times in peer review in thousands of different ways. If you think we scientists are wrong about Evolution, you must think that either millions of scientists, who have trained for years in this field, are utterly incompetent, or that there's some sort of wild conspiracy that's trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Honestly, if you pick up either of these ideas ("I am smarter than any scientist even though I never had any formal training," or "All the scientists of the world are just trying to fool us with some evil agenda"), I can't say you have much intellectual integrity.

 

On the other hand, one of the BAD AND IRRATIONAL ways of trusting someone's word is, say, listening to Kent Hovind. He doesn't try to substantiate his claims AT ALL. He just riddles you with a bunch of rapid-fire facts, and when you examine his work in greater depth, it all just falls apart. Most of the time you have to dig pretty hard to examine his work, because he DOESN'T CITE HIS SOURCES.

[MrSpooky]

Anyways, my final point is that, yes, ALL information you recieve is going to be just a bunch of floating words. However, the floating words of the Scientific Community can be traced back DIRECTLY to pure, empirical results. Most of the time, Creationist floating words are just hearsay.

[crazy-tiger]

I stand by my beliefs, but I just dont want to base my relationship, or eternal destiny, Biblically, on some information on the net, or anywhere else for that matter.

Which means that you don't want to base you belief on the information in the Bible either.

 

 

 

Don't you just love it when people decide to dig a great hole for themselves?

[SerpentIntheMidst]

[SmallStone]

I mean, I stand by my beliefs, but I just dont want to base my relationship, or eternal destiny, Biblically, on some information on the net, or anywhere else for that matter. I reason this because whats to say that everything hasnt been tampered and "fit" to popular demand or validity og ones belief. I just question, Is it really about facts or something else?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is one of the things you can use your brain for YoYo. When presented with a wild theory such as a fixed earth, why not just think about it and work it out for yourself? This question might be a good place for you to start thinking about this issue.

[♦ ficino ♦]

YoYo, the site you quote claims pretty blatantly that modern physics and astronomy are evil concoctions of the Jews. Why didn't it go back to Democritus, Epicurus and Lucretius and claim that modern science comes from ancient Greek atomism? Is it because the creators of that website think more American Protestants will get upset, even give money, if they think Jews are taking over education and science?

 

Mr. Spooky and Mr. Neil are marvels of lucidity as they distinguish what is and what is not scientific methodology and discourse. You can't take something from a random website (like Ex-Christians.com, for example) and accord it the status of a paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

 

YoYo, in another message, you said you don't preach. You do quote strings of Bible verses a lot, and you throw questions out there without responding seriously to people's answers to them. You say you will not change your beliefs, you and your house will serve the lord, etc. So why are you on here? I think you are preaching. If you want to hang around here, get serious with what people reply to you. Instead, you tend to throw Bible verses back or start another topic.

[Abiyoyo]

YoYo, in another message, you said you don't preach.  You do quote strings of Bible verses a lot, and you throw questions out there without responding seriously to people's answers to them.  You say you will not change your beliefs, you and your house will serve the lord, etc.  So why are you on here?  I think you are preaching.  If you want to hang around here, get serious with what people reply to you.  Instead, you tend to throw Bible verses back or start another topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, I quoted some scripture to BigToe in direct response to her "claims" as a fellow Christian. I used the other scripture in direct reference to the comments rgarding fundamentalists and creationists from Mr. Neil, in which the context of the comments in result of the reply was accordingly, personally, for the POV that was being demonstrated. Anyhow, I apologize if anyone has become offended by the scripture used in reference. I have not "thrown" back any types of scripture into any thread without reverance to the topic. Please review my posts and to confirm a clear picture of the context or subject in which the scripturre was used. To proclaim that the scripture thrown out to any exchristian.net memeber was not used in context for the topic or comment in example or relevance is completely irrational and absurd.

[Guest JP1283]

To proclaim that the scripture thrown out to any exchristian.net memeber was not used in context for the topic or comment in example or relevance is completely irrational and absurd.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kinda like believing that Earth is fixed.

[Valgeir]

When someone quotes a site arguing for a flat, fixed, six thousand year old earth in the center of the universe, you know that person has no idea what they're talking about.

[MrSpooky]

I found this interesting article, in which it seems to have a great deal of references for most claims made.

 

Yes. It DOES have a great deal of references for its claims. However, it's REFERENCING ITSELF. Sweet god, it's like a labyrinth of self-referencing links in there!

 

God, no wonder you're so fond of this. It reads just like the Bible in its circularity.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Actually, I quoted some scripture to BigToe in direct response to her "claims" as a fellow Christian. I used the other scripture in direct reference to the comments rgarding fundamentalists and creationists from Mr. Neil, in which the context of the comments in result of the reply was accordingly, personally, for the POV that was being demonstrated. Anyhow, I apologize if anyone has become offended by the scripture used in reference. I have not "thrown" back any types of scripture into any thread without reverance to the topic. Please review my posts and to confirm a clear picture of the context or subject in which the scripturre was used. To proclaim that the scripture thrown out to any exchristian.net memeber was not used in context for the topic or comment in example or relevance is completely irrational and absurd.

 

Dear YoYo, I have reviewed a number of the threads you began and your subsequent posts. I stand by what I said. Not that this is a big deal, I sort of go stream of consciousness on this site at times, but I don't see the relevance to the topic of a number of your scriptural quotations. I guess people can differ in what they find relevant. In reply to questions about Ezekiel's reference to dung on your Real Debate thread, you answered this:

 

You know, thats good. That statement really doesnt mind me as long as you can answer the original questions, and hope that the rest of the story around the "dung" was read in the right context. Since we are on that teaching thing, that crazy Bible tells us something else too!Look. They say this man Jesus WAS before a man that lived many, many years ago was even there. Thats something else, Huh.

John 8:58

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.(KJV)

 

In my book, this quotation from John out of context amounts to throwing back a Bible verse. You don't really address the point about Ezekiel except just to say, read it in context, which is not a refutation, since you offer no analysis of that context - at least in that response. I apologize if I missed your analysis in another message.

 

I don't see how your long list of bible verses in response to Big Toe amounted to an answer to her point either, but OK.

 

Now you've begun yet another thread on Dan Barker's Easter Challenge, calling it a joke. I hope in your replies to people that you represent their arguments accurately and, if you offer rebuttals, that you provide evidence that refutes their conclusions or falsifies their premises. I also hope that if you intend to preach to us on here, that you acknowledge your intent explicitly.

[Abiyoyo]

Dear YoYo, I have reviewed a number of the threads you began and your subsequent posts.  I stand by what I said.  Not that this is a big deal, I sort of go stream of consciousness on this site at times, but I don't see the relevance to the topic of a number of your scriptural quotations.  I guess people can differ in what they find relevant.  In reply to questions about Ezekiel's reference to dung on your Real Debate thread, you answered this: 

In my book, this quotation from John out of context amounts to throwing back a Bible verse.  You don't really address the point about Ezekiel except just to say, read it in context, which is not a refutation, since you offer no analysis of that context - at least in that response.  I apologize if I missed your analysis in another message.

 

I don't see how your long list of bible verses in response to Big Toe amounted to an answer to her point either, but OK.

 

Now you've begun yet another thread on Dan Barker's Easter Challenge, calling it a joke.  I hope in your replies to people that you represent their arguments accurately and, if you offer rebuttals, that you provide evidence that refutes their conclusions or falsifies their premises.  I also hope that if you intend to preach to us on here, that you acknowledge your intent explicitly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Honestly, I have had normal conversations in this thread until you applied your "opinion" about my so called agenda. Anyhow, if I wanted to preach to you I would and face the music, but Im not, so whats your point. This has been, to my acknowledge the only accusation of preaching, yet. The thread on the "dung" was totally out of context in that it was a peiod of time of great famine in the land of Israel, and also a time of great "walking" out of Gods commandments in return brought about the plagues that God so warned them about. This is out of context and really not relevant to anything in the thread. What was the point of proving "dung" eating in the OT? Great point.

 

As far as this thread, I also stand by what I said earlier. It is a joke to compare writtings of so much variance and time frame, and even if they did agree to one another there would be the debate about the "fudging the Bible by religious leaders" topic to defend too. I just wanted to get peoples honest opinions about another thought process. Part of education is the ability to have an open mind about all things. Dont confuse this comment with religious beliefs and faith. They are two separate entities.

[MrSpooky]

Honestly, I have had normal conversations in this thread until you applied your "opinion" about my so called agenda. Anyhow, if I wanted to preach to you I would and face the music, but Im not, so whats your point.

 

If you're here not preaching, and not listening, why the crap are you here?