Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Creepier Belief system (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ScottNorwood
- Start date
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
"While that's a peeve of mine, too, you have to remember than when creationists use the word 'evolution', they're talking about Big Bang theory and abiogenesis in addition to actual avolution (natural selection and gene mutation) all in one fell swoop. They seem incapable of talking about the Darwinian processes independently. It's a little frustrating."if I knew how to use quote boxes, I would... in fact it was in the quote boxes above that still...1. I HAVE SAID THAT CHANGES HAPPEN!! "micro-evolution" changes that we have seen happen (minor ones, like color or fur, etc.) happen and everyone has seen it... Hippos to dogs is a TOTALLY different thing than this... evolution from one species to another (where mating IS NOT possible anymore) has NEVER been seen...2. You simply showed that you don't actually listen to what Creationists say... I have said that things change, yet you say that I say that the Big Bang, abiogenesis, natural selection, gene mutation, etc. all didn't happen in one fell swoop... when really, the only part I think it wrong is the big band and abiogenesis, and I don't think that animals HAVE changed from one species to another, although it wouldn't surprise me if it were possible if the earth were old enough... but I don't believe that it is (whether that is incorrect or not)but you know what i think... and you know what Creationists think... the creation scientists that everyone has heard of ("Dr. Dino" Kent Hovind for example) say REPEATEDLY during his lectures that change happens...but you woulnd't know that, 'cuz your too busy being an ### to listen to anything that other people say...
Wow, I got through about 7 pages of psotings, and then realized the sun most likely will rise before i get to page 22.I am not sure if it was mentioned but it seems to me that the greatest differnce between creationists and modern science is that creationists have one position that is immutable - (oh wait this was mentioned before in the comment of being at their core beliefs - sorry). modern science is founded on the concept that anything being said today is can be proved wrong later. It is constantly taking in new information to refine its position - example: Dinosaurs are cold blooded animals that were the predecessors of modern lizards. Today, based on new theories (ohh, there is that nasty words that implies and idea rather than a belief) it is suggested that they were the predecessors of birds. For those whose closest relationship to science is modern cinema, please see Jurassic Park, or even better, read the book.
When it becomes available next week, I will post a fascinating article from the Arlington Catholic Herald. The article talks about how the Church continues to reconcile modern science with spiritualism and Father Coyle talks about some religious instituitions that seem to continue to hope for science's inability to explain, or as Larry Boy
would say - prove - in order to fill in the gaps with God.This thread REEKS of this thought process. Wait, wrong phrase - mind set.
And lets not forget the Babel Fish arguement:
'I refuse to proce that I exist' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I nothing.'
'But, says Man, ' the Babel fish is a dead giveaway,isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED'
"'Oh dear, says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. (pg. 60, Simon and Shuster 1979 ed. - historian in me)
And BTW, Jericho rocks.
None of this even remotely relates to what I said. I said that when a creationist talks about the big bang, he'll usually describe it as part of 'evolution'. When a creationist talks about abiogenesis, he'll usually describe it as part of 'evolution'. When you ask a creationist why they don't like evolution, they'll start refuting the big bang and abiogenesis. None of that has anything to do with actual evolution, which is what you seem to be going on about.
You haven't listened to anything anybody has said in this thread. People are answering your questions and you're either not reading or not comprehending their replies. Your counter-points don't even relate to the positions others are taking, showing a complete lack of understanding of what's being told to you. But rather than attempt to gain understanding, you assume that since you don't get it, it must not be important. And anything that flies in the face of your preconceived (pre-programmed would be more accurate) notions of the world is either dismissed as nonsense of gets your 'you can't 100% prove that' blanket thrown over it.And I wouldn't open the insult bag, son, because I could have you in the fetal position sucking your thumb before you could say 'gene mutation'.
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
no, it is what YOU CALL IT!!If evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis and the big band STOP CALLING IT!!
stop teaching kids in sc hool that we got here by evolution, tell them we got here by abiogenesis and the big bang... otherwise, evolutionists are the ones who lumped everything together...
I have said that things change... there are these butterflies who have changed from white to black... dog breeds change... so do plants... tons of things change... WE ALL KNOW THAT!! I HAVE SAID THAT THEY DO!!
you are the one who is lumping them together, and you did from the start, I never said things don't change, in fact, if anything, I used the fact that things to do change to prove that the Ark could have happened, Noah could have gotten 2 of every creature on the ark... remember that? Yeah...
Seriously, where did this "lumb everything together" crap come from?
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
for one, you can't prove how the world got here, niether can science... until Science figures out how to re-create theworld it can't prove how we got here or if abiogenesis or the big bang happened...oh yeah, about the big bang...What about the scientific law about staying in the same direction (Thermodynamics #1 I believe)... goes kinda like this:Your on a merry-go-round, it goes faster and faster and faster, and eventually, you fall off, and you stay going in the same direction of rotation that you were ont he merry go round, you don't change direction...So, if things int he big bang were revolving around and around and around, and then blew up and shot out...why are some solar systems spinning in reverse? Isn't that breaking that law? (I don't remember which one it was or what it was called exactly, something about maintaining direction of rotation... }=OP I know, I'm not a science guy really, but I know a little bit)and why not open the insult bag? Seriously, this is the INTERNET!! What are you gonna do insult my mom? For real... it just makes you look like a bigger ###...
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
you said this on the second page:"I say that anybody who doesn't believe that humans and apes both evolved from a common ape-like ancestor (and all the various other offshoots of evolutionary theory) is a definitively creepy person."if abiogenesis is not a part of evolution, etc., then what exactly are you referring to as "evolutionary theory"?? seriously...alright... I'm at page 8... you entered the place where you just became assy and stopped actually answering anything that was said... so the point of continuing is kinda useless (its been for like 5 pages...)but that's one time...a nd you only posted semi-serious stuff for like 2 pages...
Of course we can't prove it. I've been saying that throughout this thread. Science doesn't try to prove anything. In fact, the whole purpose of science is, technically, to disprove things.
I think you're talking about Newton's first law regarding an object moving in constant direction and with constant speed unless an outside force acts upon it. The first law of thermodynamics involves the internal energy of closed systems. The laws of thermodynamics are about energy, not motion.Whoever said things in the Big Bang were revolving around and around and around? The Big Bang is theorized to be a singularity, a point of infinite density. All the matter in the universe squeezed into an area smaller than an atom. I haven't wrapped my head around that concept either, but it sounds neat.
Solar systems aren't rotating in reverse. There's no defined 'forward' direction.
Because it's not being excellent. I understand that you're frustrated about having been lied to all these years by people you trust, but I really don't think you need to take it out on me.
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
really? you don't? So when I'm talking about how the world got here, and that is generally referred to as "evolutoin" like "The Theory of Evolutoin", right? Yeah... but Evolutoin has nothing to do with how the world got here, right? *shakes head*
That post doesn't say anything about abiogenesis. It's talking about common ancestry. Evolutionary theory requires life to exist already. It doesn't care how that life got there. It just says, "give me life of some kind, give me a way of making random gene changes, and give me variable environments, and I'll make diverse life". Evolutionary theory makes no statements about how life arose, and doesn't require one.Abiogenesis is just about "give me a set of favourable conditions and some inorganic matter and I'll turn it into self-replicating life. I don't care what you do with it after that."It's a smooth handoff. They don't overlap at all.
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
of course you can't prove it...so you are putting your FAITH in something that can't PROVE ANYTHING EVER!! Why?
You just said it yourself that science can never prove anything, only disprove things...
But most of this thread has been about science proving things, hasn't it? Or was that all bull??
You can't have it both ways, either you think science can prove things or it can't, and if you think it can't prove things, abiogenesis and the big bang require just as much faith as it does to believe God made the world because SCIENCE CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING!!
right?
that is what you said...
Oh wait, no, it can prove things... but only things that you agree with...
Spartans Rule
Footballguy
You don't keep spinning around when you get flung off the merry-go-round. You move in a straight line tangent to the point on the curve you were at when you got flung off.So even if "things in the big bang were revolving around", they would be flung in straight lines in different directions. No rotation would be maintained.
Village Idiot
Pokerguy
Sigh. Newtons First Law states"Every body continues in it's state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless is is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it."So if some galaxies are spinning in an opposite direction then obviously there were other forces acting upon them to change their motion.This law has been scientifically proven.Larry will now respond with some garbage about how we are seeing these galaxies at distances of x number of light years and how do we know that Newtons First Law was correct at that point in time in the Universe. Sigh.
Noodlefish
Bloomin' brilliant...
I refer you to my sig...Even Darwin had problems with creation...
I think he summed it oop quite nicely... but maybe that's just me.
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Perhaps no more frustrating than repeatedly hearing all creationists (mis)characterized in one fell swoop.
Hey Noodle, Here's a quote for you:"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, haning been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one."The same guy also said, "Christ Jesus & his salvation. Is not that the best theme?"Guess who????????????????????????????Charles Robert Darwin Go figure.
Noodlefish
Bloomin' brilliant...
And your point?Darwin edited and re-published a couple of times during his lifetime. He struggled to reconcile his beliefs and his scientific theories. Not sure what you're trying to say...
Last edited by a moderator:
ratpfink
This looks like a job for You-Know and Who!
rodm, you realize you just quoted a different version of Noodlefish's quote, but you merely left off the last half of the sentence, right?As far as your second quote goes, the Lady Hope story is unverifiable at best, and probably a fabrication.
ats self on back:No it doesn't, it requires significantly less. That's because you can still have degrees of certainty without being 100% positive, and those degrees are a function of available evidence. The word 'faith' means 'belief without evidentiary support', meaning the more evidence you have the less faith you need. Since there is significantly more evidence for the Big Bang (to the degree of at least 99% certainty in many scientific minds) than there is for a divinely-created universe, then the levels of faith required for each are definitely not equal.
Why do you? Listen, you're going to have to get off this obsession you have with proof. I don't know how many times I have to explain this. The creationist platform can never prove their position. Science never even tries to prove their position (and isn't capable anyway). Proof is irrelevant. If you're looking for something to worship that can be proven, I suggest you become a numerologist or mathematician, or distiller.We're dealing with degrees of certainty, not proof. So shut up about proof.
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
how?you just said science can't prove anything, so how in the world can science give proof for anything?
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
aren't degrees of certainty basically = proof?I mean, they are evidence for something, but evidence proves things...
so evidence = proof...
but science can't prove things, right? So science can't give any evidence at all...
So, where is your evidence coming from? Did someone see the first cells evolve? what the heck? Where is this evidence from science when science can't give evidence 'cuz it can't prove anything?
Cestode
Footballguy
Ahhhh….the good book of Cesium. Authored by Brother Bunsen…if I am correct. A book whose pages contain not only vivid references to the majesty of lizards and all matters of herpetology, but will literally, as it is written, “bloweth upeth” when splashed with any water…holy or otherwise. It is said that the same is true of the preceding book…Rubidium. Thank you, Maurile, for drawing attention to these little-known and vastly underappreciated books.This is not true if you've read Ecclesiastes 4:16-27 or Geronimo 15:5. According to the latter, the LORD gave modern lizards beadier eyes and sexier hips than than their dinosaur counterparts. In fact, if you believe in the Bible (see especially Cesium 2:14), you know that modern lizards are in fact furry little suckers and are probably not even cold-blooded.I mean, as long as we're just totally making stuff up . . .but they're not just similar... they are EXACT, just smaller...The answer is because it's an efficient body shape for accomplishing certain tasks if you're a reptile. It therefore gets preferentially selected over time.will I get an answer to teh question?*doubts it*He doesn't really believe this. He's just stirring the pot.
Not at all. Not even if you have 100 degrees of certainty, that's still just belief. But even, for the sake of argument, if we define 100 degrees of certainty as proof, what happens if you have 50 degrees of certainty? Or 80? Or 20?
Evidence doesn't prove things, evidence increases certainty for things. Take a court case, the other most common use of the word 'evidence'. You can have all sorts of evidence, from fingerprints, to people hearing noises, all manner of other circumstantial evidence. But no eyewitnesses. Even without these eyewitnesses, the presence of circumstantial evidence will increase certainty that a crime did or did not occur. Nothing will ever be proven, but eventually you can accumulate enough evidence to be certain that either one thing or another happened.
This is the most back-asswards application of logic ever. I'm sure there's a fallacy in the somewhere even if your premise was accurate, but the fact that your premise (that evidence = proof) is false in the first place makes that moot.
Science can and does give evidence and can and does increase our certainty about how things work and how things came about in the physical world. Yes, some of the evidence is circumstantial and not direct, but that does not eliminate its usefulness in the certainty-increasing process.
Last edited by a moderator:
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
so, basically, what your saying is science does prove things...
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
then really, why do you berlieve all the stuff they say?I mean, you said yourself they can't prove things, only disprove them...
I mean, just because someone came up with some theory doesn't mean its true... There have been lots of things hypothesized at throughout history, but it doesn't mean they are true...
If science can't prove anything, why are things like evolution taken as fact? And they are taught as fact? It really is, too, my sibs are in high school right now and both of them are saying the same thing about thier science class and how they are being told evolution did happen and it is how we got here...
I mean, i'm sure I could come up with some crazy theory about how the world got here and you couldn't prove it wrong...
heck, you can't prove that creation didn't happen...
so why are people who think God created so insane? You can't prove that it didn't happen, right? And you can't prove that something else didn't happen...
So I understand believing something different (whether I think your wrong or not), but I don't understand the hostility/arrogance that is aimed towards anyone who has faith... its stupid...
Why in the world do you look down on someone who does believe in God? What is the purpose of that? Why do you feel like you are superior to anyone who believe that God created everything...
There are MANY people who are smart who think God created everything, but you act like they are all stupid...
I don't get what your angle here is... Are you really in general this much of an ### or do you hate Christians that much or what?
Gold Dragon
Footballguy
Before Darwin, the cummulative population of humans in history was close to 100% Creationist and absolutely 0% Scientologists. Now, the ratio is still not that different.While I think they are both wrong, it is pretty obvious who is creepier.
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
yeah, one admits that you need faith to believe it...one claims that it is proven and correct and has a bunch of people who are arrogant and think they are smarter than everyone else believing it, even though they admit they can't prove it happened, but thier whole belief in it is based upon the fact that it IS proven... but it isn't still... so they have what?faith...faith that we mean nothing or faith that God made us and loves us...Give me the fact that God loves us and made us over nothing even if it isn't true...BTW, prove something in the bible couldn't have happened scientifically... oh yeah, you can't prove anything could or couldn't happen, 'cuz science can't prove things...Seriously, though... I don't get what is so wrong with believing in God... what is the big problem with people who believe in God?
Last edited by a moderator:
No they don't. Most evolutionists are Christians, at least in the West.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Anyone that's opposed to bacon and sodomy can't be trusted.
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
wait... I'm being arrogant?really? Where have I been arrogant in this thread?I'd post all the times I got arrogant answers, but there isn't room to repost them all...
I'll put my faith in that which can be tested, and verified.Then retested, and reverified.Then retested, and rereverified.You cannot put "god" into this equation. You lose the verification part.To go with creationism, or divine intervention, or some such drivel is to give up.I will NEVER put my faith into a belief system that cannot hold up to some sort of formal questioning and reformation of previously held beliefs. If the lort shows up tomorrow and says "I made this", then he would make his case. IF he can provide verification.
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
1. pig isn't the "safest" food to eat, that is why the Israelites couldn't eat it... The law was there so that they were healthy, etc.... We don't have to follow it anymore, though...2. Sodomy is ok if its with your wife... by all means, go for it then...other people? Nope... mostly 'cuz of adultery/fornication, though...
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
but science can't prove things either, they just make guesses and tha'ts it...I don't see what the real difference is... abiogenesis can never be proven to have happened, EVER... niether can the big bang...There is no amount of scientific evidence that you can find that shows this stuff happened...you can prove it CAN happen, but you can't prove it DID happen...Well, guess what? If there is a God, He CAN create everything, DID He? Maybe, maybe not... either way... there is just as much proof either way...
Because I, like everybody else on the planet, don't need proof to form opinions. And the current operating scientific theories have been researched and verified to a level of certainty that is both satisfying and convincing.
Are you comfortable teaching the gravitational force in school? How about the structure of an atom? Because these aren't things that are proved either. Again, shut the #### up about proof. What's far more important than proof (which is impossible, especially based on your strict standards) is certainty, and that evolution happened we are certain. Extremely certain.
That's right, but you'd have no evidence and thus no certainty of your crazy theory. You wouldn't be able to effectively answer the question 'why should we believe you?' Creation myths also don't have avidence.
The whole thing seems so simple to me. And it's nothing to do with whether science is right or wrong, it has to do with how obviously wrong the idea of a creator seems. Even just that idea by itself, eternal omnipotent being creates universe, that is ludicrous enough by itself. But all the pomp and circumstance and force-fitted explanations of actual religious organizations, I don't see how anybody can't obviously see it as the remnants of an archaic power-play used by ancient powers to subvert the masses. Fear makes people loyal and all that.But forget that for a second. Strip it all down. Just the grass-roots idea of a creator, independent of any of the adornments and specificities of man-made religion. Just the concept. That concept is not only internally inconsistent, but also so devoid of evidence and reeking of a human desperation to understand that I can't help but view anybody who subscribes to any version of said theory as a deluded person who has either been involuntarily brainwashed or who has so much emptiness in their life that they need myth to ease their heart. And every once in a while I get a sympathetic (or perhaps sadistic) urge to tear down that wall.
This is where you are taking a leap of faith that my reasoning refuses to make.Once you allow for the "supernatural" cop out, you lose all credibility in scientific terms.I will continue to believe in those theories that have some sort of "testing" phase (this goes back to the whole scientific method reference way back when), and can either be prooved within some reasonable doubt, or disproved within some reasonable doubt.Religion (any creationism or supernatural belief) cannot currently be proved or tested in any way, shape or form. Therefore, it is not a valid hypothesis and must be disregarded.
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
so...why should anyone believe you? Why SHOULD people believe in that abiogenesis/big bang happened? Why SHOULD they?
Because it is a valid theory that shows promise when held up to scrutiny.There are advancements in astronomy in physics that show the theory is possible.NO ONE is saying we know exactly what happend in the first nanoseconds of the universe, but we are getting closer to understanding how matter at that level acts/reacts.
