Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

official cb7tuner.com debate thread. topic #1

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Originally posted by '93accordse
    kind of a terrible way to put it, but i believe that Creationists believe it was incest. According to the bible Adam lived to be over 800 yrs old. The whole time he bore sons and daughters. This is one part of Crationism that also disproves Evolution. Apparently, the BIble says that many people back then lived to be well over 600-700 yrs old, aging much slower than the average human today. Our aging today is blamed on the current state of our world, pollution etc... disproving that we are actually getting better as human beings, although i can;t fault Deevergotes quote about humans needing less light, meat etc....

    as for the Noah's Ark debate he could have done it with babies, eggs, etc...

    as for the leftover useless parts showing evolution:
    Vestigial features are those parts of an organism, which are thought to be useless or no longer needed. The human tailbone is commonly to be such a feature. Vestigial features are taught to be leftover from an organism’s ancestors as it has evolved to a new way of life. The idea of vestigial features has been used as evidence for evolution since 1859 when Darwin first proposed that such features were evidence of descent of one organism from a completely different one. The logical consequence of this alleged transformation is that the "new" creatures will be left with some features, which are no longer needed in its new environmental niche.

    Belief in evolution demands that we believe that each type of animal on earth is a result of descent from some previous life form. If this were the case, almost every creature should have many leftover features, which are no longer needed. Yet the more we learn about biology, the more we discover that every part of an organism serves some useful function. For example, the appendix is often said to be a useless leftover part of the human body. We know that the appendix serves as a type of lymphatic tissue in the first few months of life to fight disease. It is no more a useless feature than one of your lungs is useless just because you can survive with only one lung.

    The acceptance of the idea that some parts of the human body are useless leftovers has had very tragic consequences. Based on the misguided concept that the human colon was a vestige of the past, Sir William Land and dozens of other surgeons stripped the colons from thousands of patients in order to "cure" a variety of symptoms. Many died. As late as the 1960's many people had their tonsils removed. This practice was again fueled by the mistaken belief that the tonsils were a useless leftover feature from our past. It is now known that they serve as an important disease fighting function and should not be removed.

    There are true vestigial features as the blind eyes of cave salamanders. Blind salamanders have non-functional eyes because they live their entire lives in total darkness. At sometime in the past, normal salamanders found a niche in dark caves and apparently only those who mutated to blindness had a need to stay in the total darkness where they could compete for existence without blindness being a disadvantage. However, these salamanders are still salamanders, a mutation to blindness is hardly an upward improvement in complexity, and no new information has been added to the DNA of the salamander.

    As to the question of the human tailbone, anatomists tell us that the tailbone serves a very important function in the human physiology. The coccyx(tailbone) is the point of insertion of several muscles and ligaments including the one which allows man to walk completely upright. Without a tailbone, people could not walk in a completely upright manner, dance a ballet, perform gymnastics, or stroll down the street with their arm around their spouse. Hardly a useless, leftover, vestigial feature! The human body is designed for maximum versatility-it is far more versatile than the body of any other creature. What other animal can perform the range of movement required for activities as diverse as ice-skating, pearl diving, skiing, and gymnastics. This range of movement would be impossible without the tailbone.
    what the fuck?!! can you not think for yourself at all?

    seriously, just wtf?!

    http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a

    fourthgenhatch.net

    Comment


      #77
      i was responding to the debate for useless parts. according to the article i read a while back. I could have taken the time and worded it myself or i could have copied and pasted from where i have the article saved on my computer. just easier that way. please stop trying to create a problem.

      *edit* side note- i also own the book. am i not thinking for myself? or maybe i just dont have all day to type up whats already been said. I guess when you're around everyone had better give credit to the original authors of ANYTHING said here. thanks for killing my interest in this entertaining debate.
      Last edited by '93accordse; 06-28-2006, 04:26 PM.

      CB7tuner.com Appearance Specialist - PM me with any bodywork questions

      Comment


        #78
        if i were trying to create a problem, you'd fucking know it.

        plagiarizing creation propaganda doesn't help this debate. i'm sure you think it makes you look well-read, and expert on the matter. it just makes you look like a sheep, and a douchebag for trying to pass it off as your own thoughts.

        Originally posted by '93accordse
        *edit* side note- i also own the book. am i not thinking for myself? or maybe i just dont have all day to type up whats already been said. I guess when you're around everyone had better give credit to the original authors of ANYTHING said here. thanks for killing my interest in this entertaining debate.
        just provide a link, if you don't have anything original to post. in the context of this type of debate, it would be helpful to know that the words being posted came from propaganda, and not from a reputable (agenda-free) source.

        i didn't kill your interest in this debate. when you turn on the light, the cockroaches always run.
        Last edited by gutterslide; 06-28-2006, 04:38 PM.

        fourthgenhatch.net

        Comment


          #79
          no, you killed it because it seems like youre trying to start a problem. I would have provided a link except that when i read things i save interesting articles on my computer for future reference. i wasnt even sure where to go to fins it online anymore. i will keep on this debate, not for you, but because it interests me and i have nothing to hide. You are coming off very offensivley to me and i have never done anything to you. Your personal attacks against do nothing to me and do not affect me one way or another, i am just sorry to see that you are so quick to judge someone you've never met. I havent cursed at you, i'd appreciate you not cursing at me or calling me a "cockroach"

          that being said I do have MANY articles on my computer, everything from this debate to moon landing to JFK. And i could argue FOR evolution with many references, but i just dont believe in it. Also, if you reread my firsts posts i never said i believe in Creationism but that i really dont know WHAT- i believe in because i've never found an answer that satisfies me. However, for the points being brought up in this DEBATE topic, many of the questions could be answered with Creationist thinking. i merely showed that. I never plugged Creationism in any way. Just because you "found" the links i "stole" doesnt mean that i can;t think for myself. im sorry for getting into this with you, i have nothing against you and am honestly shocked by your open hostility. Its people like you that ruin perfectly good threads. i did spout off at the mouth earlier about people who believed in evolution, but i was quick to retract my comment. pls. have the courtesy to not visit this thread again if YOU don;t have anything valuable to add.

          CB7tuner.com Appearance Specialist - PM me with any bodywork questions

          Comment


            #80
            Originally posted by '93accordse
            ...many of the questions could be answered with Creationist thinking. i merely showed that.
            Any question can be answered with creationist thinking...all creationist thinking does is "create" answers to questions that it doesnt have facts to back up. the same reason the greeks made up stories about how zues threw lightning to the ground, they just had no other explination....so it MUST be god, right?

            come to find out, its an inbalence in electrons that create lightning....if the ancient greeks could only see us now...

            Owner of https://theclunkerjunker.com

            Comment


              #81
              .....geeeeezzzz.....this is sounding like my PHILOSOPHY class.........the back and forth...the unanswered questions.....the answers with no ending....the mind twisting....and all......

              'All things come out of the one and the one out of all things. ... I see nothing but Becoming. Be not deceived! The very river in which you bathe a second time is no longer the same one you entered before.' (Heraclitus)
              Last edited by 2.2AZUL; 06-28-2006, 05:11 PM.

              Comment


                #82
                well, many of the creationist stories are like that, i agree. however, creationists tend to want to disprove evolution so much they usually discover honest scientific answers to back up the fact. and what i've found is that usually in these situations evolutionists arguments tend to disappear. i dont know if its lack of motivation, caring or just general ignorance to their own theory, but i have to applaud the creationists motivation.

                but a fundamental flaw of creationism is that by disproving evolution they rely on using known laws of nature, laws of the univers, and laws of science. HOWEVER, in the Bible there are many accounts that seem to ignore these facts or laws, which Creationists explain by "just a miracle." sound fishy? it is. because one thing i have found about creationists which is a major part of why i dont align myself in their camp is that whenever it comes to anything related to the Bible, no one will touch it with a ten foot pole. To believe in Creationism is a fundamental belief that God placed us here for His purpose. Instead of questioning their own "Origin of Species" they'd rather explain it all away as miraculous and if anyone dares question that then they arent "right with God". Ask a creationist sometime why theres such a big universe if God created only us to be His people. Why would we need such an enormous universe? I believe theres more to it all.

                see, like i said, i am not for or against one idea or another. I find evolutionary theory to be excessivley flawed. Man;s attempt to explain scientifically something no one can ever explain, but only theorize on. I find Creationism to be more believable but assuming you have faith in one major Thing. God. otherwise it is equally full of flaws. So the debate goes on. How and why are we here? In the end these two stories will be just that. Stories. like the Greek Mythologies. in 1000 yrs. if the earth or humanity survives that long people will have new improved origin of species theories and will tell our ancient theories as mystical mythologies. and they'll laugh at us. Its crazy how deep this debate can go, isnt it?

                CB7tuner.com Appearance Specialist - PM me with any bodywork questions

                Comment


                  #83
                  Originally posted by '93accordse
                  no, you killed it because it seems like youre trying to start a problem. I would have provided a link except that when i read things i save interesting articles on my computer for future reference. i wasnt even sure where to go to fins it online anymore. i will keep on this debate, not for you, but because it interests me and i have nothing to hide. You are coming off very offensivley to me and i have never done anything to you. Your personal attacks against do nothing to me and do not affect me one way or another, i am just sorry to see that you are so quick to judge someone you've never met. I havent cursed at you, i'd appreciate you not cursing at me or calling me a "cockroach"

                  that being said I do have MANY articles on my computer, everything from this debate to moon landing to JFK. And i could argue FOR evolution with many references, but i just dont believe in it. Also, if you reread my firsts posts i never said i believe in Creationism but that i really dont know WHAT- i believe in because i've never found an answer that satisfies me. However, for the points being brought up in this DEBATE topic, many of the questions could be answered with Creationist thinking. i merely showed that. I never plugged Creationism in any way. Just because you "found" the links i "stole" doesnt mean that i can;t think for myself. im sorry for getting into this with you, i have nothing against you and am honestly shocked by your open hostility. Its people like you that ruin perfectly good threads. i did spout off at the mouth earlier about people who believed in evolution, but i was quick to retract my comment. pls. have the courtesy to not visit this thread again if YOU don;t have anything valuable to add.

                  if you can't handle "naughty words", i suggest you stay off the internet. i'm not going to edit my language because you're too fragile to handle it.

                  my contribution to this thread is pointing out your plagiarism.

                  oh, and i believe the egg came first, of course, because the egg was around well before the chicken.

                  notice how i didn't plagiarize, or copy/paste pro-evolution propaganda? that's my contribution.

                  cheers.

                  fourthgenhatch.net

                  Comment


                    #84
                    I forget where I heard this, but it's definitely true:

                    Faith (what people have when they believe in god and anything having to do with it) is the result of repeatedly renewing a passionate subjective relationship to an object which can never be known.

                    Comment


                      #85
                      Originally posted by gutterslide
                      if you can't handle "naughty words", i suggest you stay off the internet. i'm not going to edit my language because you're too fragile to handle it.

                      my contribution to this thread is pointing out your plagiarism.

                      oh, and i believe the egg came first, of course, because the egg was around well before the chicken.

                      notice how i didn't plagiarize, or copy/paste pro-evolution propaganda? that's my contribution.

                      cheers.


                      wow....calm down take a chill pill...and relax...maybe he didn't feel like typing it all up...........
                      Last edited by 2.2AZUL; 06-28-2006, 06:02 PM.

                      Comment


                        #86
                        Originally posted by '93accordse
                        well, many of the creationist stories are like that, i agree. however, creationists tend to want to disprove evolution so much they usually discover honest scientific answers to back up the fact. and what i've found is that usually in these situations evolutionists arguments tend to disappear. i dont know if its lack of motivation, caring or just general ignorance to their own theory, but i have to applaud the creationists motivation.

                        but a fundamental flaw of creationism is that by disproving evolution they rely on using known laws of nature, laws of the univers, and laws of science. HOWEVER, in the Bible there are many accounts that seem to ignore these facts or laws, which Creationists explain by "just a miracle." sound fishy? it is. because one thing i have found about creationists which is a major part of why i dont align myself in their camp is that whenever it comes to anything related to the Bible, no one will touch it with a ten foot pole. To believe in Creationism is a fundamental belief that God placed us here for His purpose. Instead of questioning their own "Origin of Species" they'd rather explain it all away as miraculous and if anyone dares question that then they arent "right with God". Ask a creationist sometime why theres such a big universe if God created only us to be His people. Why would we need such an enormous universe? I believe theres more to it all.

                        see, like i said, i am not for or against one idea or another. I find evolutionary theory to be excessivley flawed. Man;s attempt to explain scientifically something no one can ever explain, but only theorize on. I find Creationism to be more believable but assuming you have faith in one major Thing. God. otherwise it is equally full of flaws. So the debate goes on. How and why are we here? In the end these two stories will be just that. Stories. like the Greek Mythologies. in 1000 yrs. if the earth or humanity survives that long people will have new improved origin of species theories and will tell our ancient theories as mystical mythologies. and they'll laugh at us. Its crazy how deep this debate can go, isnt it?

                        is it

                        Comment


                          #87
                          Originally posted by gutterslide
                          i didn't kill your interest in this debate. when you turn on the light, the cockroaches always run.
                          lmmfao, thats a good one!!
                          .............................-----------------93 Ex Coupe[/COLOR]-----------------


                          .



                          My CD7

                          Comment


                            #88
                            i guess i should have said they were not my quotes like i did in the other debate thread. the www.idebate.org site actualy gave me the idea to do so. hoping tom spark a little change of pace for the forum. so my fault for not being totaly upfront.

                            i did post the qoutes to help keep the fire going, but not to make it look like they were my opinions. i've been around here long enough, most people now or are atleast familiar w/ the way i post.

                            for that matter. heres the total run down.

                            Comment


                              #89
                              Originally posted by 2.2AZUL
                              wow....claim down take a chill pill...and relax...maybe he didn't feel like typing it all up...........
                              maybe so. normally, when you "don't feel like typing it all up", you cite the source. otherwise, it's plagiarism.

                              but i will try to "claim" down. i can't help it, really. i get a mild form of Tourettes every time i see idiocy.

                              fourthgenhatch.net

                              Comment


                                #90
                                Creationism vs Evolution
                                Summary: Should schools be allowed to teach creationism alongside evolution as part of their science curriculum?
                                print this page

                                Introduction
                                Author: Tom Hamilton ( United Kingdom )
                                Tom is studying for a PhD in ethics and philosophy of religion at Durham University. He was a Worlds finalist in Toronto in 2002.


                                Created: Monday, December 02, 2002
                                Last Modified: Monday, December 02, 2002


                                Context
                                Many Christians believe that the earth and all living things on it were created by God in seven days. This is denied by the theory of evolution. Since the origins and development of life are an important part of the school science curriculum, the question of what schools should and should not be allowed to teach is an important one. There are differences between the debate in Britain and in the USA. In Britain, schools must teach evolution as part of the National Curriculum, but are not barred from teaching creationism as well, and some religious schools, such as Emmanuel College in Gateshead, have done so, presenting creationism as fact and evolution as a matter of faith. In the USA, pressure has been put on school boards to enforce the teaching of creationism and evolution as equally controversial scientific theories (as in Ohio), or to remove evolution from the list of examination topics and therefore make it less likely to be taught (as in Kansas).NB This topic does not go into detail about the nature of the evidence used by evolutionists and creationists in support of their position; for this, I would recommend the web links and books given at the end – although I would also suggest that going into detail on this, and trading example and counterexample, will make for a poor debate, as the key questions about the legitimacy of creationism and evolution are about their respective approaches to scientific method rather than the evidence they employ.


                                Arguments

                                Pros Cons

                                Evolution is an unproven theory about the origins of life. Both creationism and evolution are faith-positions, given that both are attempts to explain the past, which is in principle beyond direct scientific examination and verification. If we are allowed to teach one, we should be allowed to teach the other. Evolution is not a theory about the origins of life at all. It is a theory about the development of life. All scientific theories are necessarily unproven - that’s what ‘theory’ means. If we only taught those areas of science which were entirely ‘proved’ there would be little or no science teaching at all. The theory of evolution is, however, supported by overwhelming evidence, and is therefore not a ‘faith-position’ whereas the ‘evidence’ for creationism is discredited. The fact that much (not all - evolution is a continuing process) of the evidence relates to the past is not a problem: all sciences (and indeed history as an academic discipline) make what are, in effect, predictions about the past which are then confirmed or disconfirmed by evidence such as, in this case, the fossil record.

                                Creationism is science. It has discovered evidence for a young earth and for the biblical flood. It has pointed to the absence from the fossil record of intermediate forms between known species. It has argued that certain species could not have evolved gradually because of their particular chemical or physical make-up. All of these discoveries and observations confirm the truth of the Genesis account of creation. Creationism is not science. It takes the Genesis account (actually there are two Genesis accounts, in Gen 1.1-2.3 and Gen 2.4-3.24, but let’s not get into that) as true in every particular, and bends the evidence to fit that so-called ‘hypothesis’ - in fact it is not a hypothesis at all, since it is in principle unalterable for the creationists. Meanwhile, evolutionists come up with hypotheses which they test, modify and, where necessary, abandon as appropriate.

                                Biology can be studied in a creationist context. Looking at the way in which different organisms work shows us the beauty and perfection of God’s design. Classification is still possible, along the lines of the ‘kinds’ described in the Bible - but cladistic classification based on hypothetical ‘lines of descent’ is deeply flawed and should be rejected. Creationism helps us to understand the power, goodness and majesty of God and to see how everything is under his authority. Evolution should be a central part of the science curriculum, because the rest of biology is dependent on it. Understanding how and why different organisms work as they do requires a knowledge of mutation, natural selection and adaptation, which are rejected by creationism. For creationism, the classification of living things based on lines of descent and chronological speciation makes no sense. Furthermore, understanding how evolution works as a theory helps teach students about the nature of scientific method - a matter on which creationists are notoriously shaky.

                                Schoolchildren are vulnerable and impressionable: if you teach them that Genesis is wrong, they may well believe you. This has implications for the possibility of bringing them up as believing Christians, which is of course the point of having faith schools in the first place, and what their parents must be presumed to want if they choose to send their children to faith schools. If a majority of Americans are creationists then the school curriculum should reflect this. Schoolchildren are vulnerable and impressionable: if you teach them the literal truth of Genesis as science, they may well believe you. Since you are wrong, this is not to be welcomed, particularly since what your teaching involves is a wilful misunderstanding of the nature of scientific method, with implications for their understanding of science in general for the rest of their lives. The fact that more than half of all Americans believe that the world was created by God in seven days is a testament to political pressure from Christians to water down the science curriculum, and it is harmful - because it is wrong. We may allow children to be sent to faith schools, but we do not allow those schools to teach them whatever they like.

                                If we are allowed to teach religious studies, we should be allowed to teach all of the implications of religious belief. The idea that God created the world is central to Christian, Muslim and Jewish belief. If we allow faith schools in which children are taught about their religion from an explicitly committed perspective, if we allow (indeed encourage) religious worship in schools, it is bizarre to allow this to be contradicted in science lessons. The belief that God creates and sustains the world is not the same as the belief that God created the world in seven days a few thousand years ago. The former is a theological position which implies the goodness and sovereignty of God, and his continuing involvement with his creation, not a scientific claim. The latter is an empirically testable claim which has been empirically tested and found to be false. We should not allow schools to teach our children things that are just plain wrong, and known to be wrong. This is distinct from allowing the teaching of religion, which is culturally and historically significant and which involves beliefs which are in principle distinct from science.

                                There is a great deal at stake in the claim that God did not create the world in seven days: the Bible says that he did; if he did not, then the Bible is wrong. If the Bible is wrong on this, we cannot trust it on anything else and our entire faith, which you seem to want us to be allowed to maintain, is built on a lie - on your logic, we should not be allowed to teach our religion at all, since on your logic it is all false. For example, the Bible’s description of Jesus as a ‘second Adam’ is undermined if there was no ‘first Adam’ - this would remove Jesus’ significance. Those churches which accept evolution are compromising their faith. On this question, the Bible just is wrong, and if you insist on holding a literalistic approach to Scripture then the implications you claim do indeed follow. However, there is no theological need to do this. The Roman Catholic and the Anglican churches, for example, have accepted the truth of evolution and they still hold what is a recognisably and distinctively Christian faith. Assuming that the writers of the Bible meant their creation stories to be understood as literally true makes them look stupid – we should do them the justice of allowing that they wrote stories designed to account for the world as they knew it, not scientific accounts.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X