The human race should be put down.

[FuzzyLogic]

I remember reading about people who looked at the Noah's Ark story scientifically, describing how the ark could have held all the animals etc. Found someone wh's written it up.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ark/sld001.htm

Haven't read it all yet, mind.

 

[DaGaffer]

Looks like a bit of a piss take to me?

There are some fairly humourous comments there?

Anyway, talking of stupid, I just completed http://www.mindspring.com/~mccarthys/puzzle1.htm and feel very proud!

Try not to cheat if you fancy a go...

Got it right, but the guy who gave the answer got his methodology wrong (green house is to left of white house).

 

[Furr]

Just been reading this site

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm

Retards, but then they are in america and we are over here, thankfully europe is a bit more sensible, although i do worry about this country as Tony Blair has tried his mighty best to americanise us and that has caused all sorts of problems as now we do have these sort of problems coming into the limelight. Thanks Tony your a prick..

 

[DaGaffer]

I remember reading about people who looked at the Noah's Ark story scientifically, describing how the ark could have held all the animals etc. Found someone wh's written it up.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ark/sld001.htm

Haven't read it all yet, mind.

LOL! It postulates a reformation of the continents, laying down of sedimentary layers and all our petroleum and coal reserves, in a 12 month timeframe . The best though, is that apparently they didn't have to take all the animals two by two; oh no, they just need specimens from each genus. Anyone see the slight flaw here? Their 'faesability study' for Naoh's Ark relies on evolution to get their numbers to work! Genius! (TBH, even with this jiggery pokery the numbers for biomass and food requirements are completely made up anyway). And this should be taught in schools...

 

[Panda On Smack]

Neither Evolution or Creation can be factually proven so you have to make a choice on what you personally believe/feel.

I believe in God. The concept that this amazing planet and all the incredible things on just sort of 'happening' doesnt really add up to me.

Its not something you can argue about with me, you can just hold a different viewpoint which is fair enough.

 

[Furr]

THey also claim that the law of thermodynamics means that the idea of stars, galaxies and subsequently people all coming from the chaos that was the big bang is nigh on impossible as for this to have happened this person claims that the law shows over time objects become chaotic rather than ordered.

Talk about using a law out of context. I would say the coming together of stars and matter clumps is the most easily understood of theories. Its a small thing called Gravity. Also they seems they think of the start of the big bang as a small cloud of gas and that it impossible for everything to have come from something so small, they haven't got their head round the concept of what a singularity is. Life has been around at last find 3.7 billion years.. thats 3,700,000,000 years ago im can easily see the complexity of life we see today being a results of 3.7 billion years of evolution.

 

[DaGaffer]

Neither Evolution or Creation can be factually proven so you have to make a choice on what you personally believe/feel.

I believe in God. The concept that this amazing planet and all the incredible things on just sort of 'happening' doesnt really add up to me.

Its not something you can argue about with me, you can just hold a different viewpoint which is fair enough.

You can believe in a 'higher power' without believing in the bible. Even if you follow the scientific explanation for the creation of the universe back to the Big Bang, science stops giving you answers at this point (there's quite a bit of speculation and theoretical physics such as M-Theory and aspects of string theory, but its maths not physics at this point). So if you want you can postulate some agency that set the wheels in motion. Does that translate into a bloke with a big white beard, harps and choirs of angels? Probably not.

The bible was written by men, and it really doesn't stand up to close inspection as 'fact'. The world is demonstrably not 5000 years old, Noah's Ark is demonstrably nonsense and no amount of pseudo-scientific intelligent design claptrap is going to change that. Plus, you've got to ask yourself, if it was all true, the world's 5000 years old, the heavens are just lights in the sky, the fossil record is fake, then why is God fucking with us? What kind of an omnipotent being would get its kicks that way, and why the fuck would we worship such a thing? Fear seems the only reason to me, which is a pretty screwed up way to view the universe.

 

[Whipped]

An enjoyable rant from the other side of the fence.

That was a really good read actually. Cheers.

 

[Scouse]

To be fair, this debate has been coming for a long time. The 20th Century Western world has seen such a ditching of organised religion as a bad idea that we should be expecting some sort of half-cocked religious counter-offensive.

Anyway Turamber, nothing personal (honest!) but:

Its very difficult to have a simple discussion about whether we arrived through a singular act of creation or if we evolved. People are disinclined to believe in a God for many reasons -- because they see how religions act, because they dislike the concept of 'miracles', because of the moral requirements.

If we can just stick to the one area I'd be glad to discuss it.

That's a very restrictive request (whether it was subconcious or consious on your part) and would, if people here would allow it, in one fell swoop wipe out huge swathes of evidence that could be used to disprove creationism.

Actually Turamber, lots of topics have been raised and questions have been posed that you could directly rebuff if you lean that way. But you haven't - and I suspect it's because you can't. But if you ignore them then you're playing into the hands of the people who would argue against you.

So I'm going to ask you to explain the following directly:


Justify why schoolchildren in the US could fail the following task if they gave a similar answer to this hypothetical question:

Q) Give a brief description of how man came to be.

A) Millions of years of a process called "Evolution" created man. A time (and scientifically)-tested process called "Natural Selection", which is part of Evolutionary Theory, gave rise to numerous changes in the development of lower-order beings which culminated in the way man appears today.

We have a seemingly limitless supply of evidence which is peer-reviewed in the most savage fashion by scientists from all over the world in an attempt to find holes in the theory but it's stood the test of time and the evidence is now so insurmountable that we now call "Evolutionary Theory" by it's practical name: Evolution.

Some 8 year old in the US would (or should I say will?) fail an exam with that because what creationists want him to say is something like:

A: God created man, as was said in the bible. The mountains of well-tested scientific evidence that pervades all walks of life and dictates the direction of future research that thousands of companies are investing billions of dollars in is, in fact, a red herring.

For example, God put the dinosaurs in the ground to test us.

I was tempted to put quotes around the "God put the dinos in the ground..." bit because that's one of the arguments that have been used by these dangerously misguided souls. And loads of Americans lap it up!

What a crock of shit!






Edit: I had 3 phonecalls and a chip pan fire whilst writing that.

 

[Panda On Smack]

DaGaffer

Men the wrote the bible but under the inspiration of God. If you read the bible it would answer lots of your questions.

Your answer seems to suggest if things added up then you would happily believe in creation.

Anyway, not here to argue.

Bit busy at the mo but have some more thoughts.

 

[Kari]

In fact, unless Noah's Ark was actually a metaphor for an entire continent that was spared from the flood, how could he have made a boat big enough to hold two of every animal in the animal kingdom and leave room for adquate toilet facilities and a tennis court?

According to the bible, every species of animal, and indeed man are descended from a single pair of originals.
Essentially meaning we're all heavily inbred & should all be living in Somerset.

Imo, ofc

 

[Scouse]

Neither Evolution or Creation can be factually proven so you have to make a choice on what you personally believe/feel.

I believe in God. The concept that this amazing planet and all the incredible things on just sort of 'happening' doesnt really add up to me.

Shame you're not Prime Minister m8! If Britain was run on your always-to-be-trusted-over-proper-evidence "gut-feeling" loads of things would get fixed!

It "doesn't add up to me" that drug use and crime is linked. That could be because I've done nothing but smoke marajuana all day long since the middle of September and I've not robbed, mugged or burgled even one person!

Good thing that we use scientific evidence to base our policy on eh?

Perhaps in a statistical analysis of the wider population the scientists would discover that crime and drugs are linked and that I'm an odd-one-out so to speak because I've just done a 12 month contract that means I don't have to work again until January and therefore don't need to go out and rob people to feed my "habit"*.

Or perhaps not eh?

I'm not dissing religious beliefs. Far from it - you should be free to express your religious beliefs in any way that doesn't directly harm other people. However, the teaching of creationism and ID in schools directly harms the intellectual development and job prospects of young people.


Why don't they have Religious Education lessons alongside science lessons instead? That way pupils could weigh up the contradicting evidence and choose themselves, rather than be indoctrinated.

Or does the constitution forbid that or something silly?





*Not that I'm saying that anyone would rob someone because of weed use - I couldn't be fucked going out my front door right now if there was a fiver on the doorstep!

 

[Scouse]

According to the bible, every species of animal, and indeed man are descended from a single pair of originals.
Essentially meaning we're all heavily inbred & should all be living in Somerset.

Imo, ofc

Good to know that. DNA proves that we weren't. Lack of variation in the couple's DNA would have meant that we'd have died off ages ago through disease and infertility.

 

[Trancor]

Couldn't they both be right? Surely a day for someone who created everything is going to be slightly different from a day on a tiny speck of dirt flying around a small ball of flame. Think BIG people. Not that I believe in it, but it's always good to make sure all possibilities are covered, you never know after all.

 

[Tom]

The idea of a God creating things here on Earth is, in my opinion, an idea formed by people many many years back who couldn't rationally explain their existence by any other means.

That people still preach this nonsense is a testament to the arrogance of man - that we're here, that we're special, and that above all others, we were moulded to be the likeness of God. Of course the idea that God might actually look like a tree-hugging Sloth repulses them, since men are obviously superior to Sloths.

These same people were happily burning women at the stake 500 years ago, because they were 'suspicious'.

 

[Whipped]

Tom's a warlock!!!

*Erects Stake*

Burn Him!!! Burn Him!!!

 

[DaGaffer]

Couldn't they both be right? Surely a day for someone who created everything is going to be slightly different from a day on a tiny speck of dirt flying around a small ball of flame. Think BIG people. Not that I believe in it, but it's always good to make sure all possibilities are covered, you never know after all.

Yeah, why not? That would mean God, on his timescale, made the universe (assuming here we're starting on a Sunday and the Saturday is the 7th day), goofed off for a couple of days, probably played golf for a bit, created the Earth at 3-ish on Wednesday afternoon, created life at about 1.30AM on Thursday (pulling overtime that night obviously), Got back into work on Friday went off for a nice lunch, maybe caught a movie, pulled another late one (he really likes night work) and got around to creating us, apparently his greatest creation, about .2 of a second before midnight. Nice work fella! This might also explain why we never hear from him as he's now got a day off. He should be checking up on us when he gets back to work in about 3 billion years (or 9AM Sunday morning as he prefers to call it).

 

[WPKenny]

It "doesn't add up to me" that drug use and crime is linked. That could be because I've done nothing but smoke marajuana all day long since the middle of September and I've not robbed, mugged or burgled even one person!

Never seen Trainspotting then?

Smoking pot usally doesn't cost hundreds of pounds a week. "Drug crime" is usually for Class-A drugs.

 

[Bodhi]

Never seen Trainspotting then?

Smoking pot usally doesn't cost hundreds of pounds a week. "Drug crime" is usually for Class-A drugs.

So crime and smack are linked. I can't think of another that makes you want to go and rob people for another hit. Coke is mostly done by the affluent class who can afford it anyway, after dropping a tab of acid you would be in no fit state to rob anyone, I honestly can't see a loved up pillhead jacking people (random huggings maybe), for mushrooms see acid and speed is too rank to want to rob people to do again. Oh yeah crack, but that falls in the same bracket as smack for me (i.e drugs for lewsers).

 

[Kari]

Yeah, why not? That would mean God, on his timescale, made the universe (assuming here we're starting on a Sunday and the Saturday is the 7th day), goofed off for a couple of days, probably played golf for a bit, created the Earth at 3-ish on Wednesday afternoon, created life at about 1.30AM on Thursday (pulling overtime that night obviously), Got back into work on Friday went off for a nice lunch, maybe caught a movie, pulled another late one (he really likes night work) and got around to creating us, apparently his greatest creation, about .2 of a second before midnight. Nice work fella! This might also explain why we never hear from him as he's now got a day off. He should be checking up on us when he gets back to work in about 3 billion years (or 9AM Sunday morning as he prefers to call it).

Rofl, now that I can almost believe in

 

[Scouse]

Never seen Trainspotting then?

Smoking pot usally doesn't cost hundreds of pounds a week. "Drug crime" is usually for Class-A drugs.

Ah, Mr Kenny. Go back and read the whole post, it was a little on the sarcastic side*...







*bit like this one

 

[Panda On Smack]

Yeah, why not? That would mean God, on his timescale, made the universe (assuming here we're starting on a Sunday and the Saturday is the 7th day), goofed off for a couple of days, probably played golf for a bit, created the Earth at 3-ish on Wednesday afternoon, created life at about 1.30AM on Thursday (pulling overtime that night obviously), Got back into work on Friday went off for a nice lunch, maybe caught a movie, pulled another late one (he really likes night work) and got around to creating us, apparently his greatest creation, about .2 of a second before midnight. Nice work fella! This might also explain why we never hear from him as he's now got a day off. He should be checking up on us when he gets back to work in about 3 billion years (or 9AM Sunday morning as he prefers to call it).

Heh, you can't take the piss out of what you don't understand.

 

[Turamber]

Their 'faesability study' for Naoh's Ark relies on evolution to get their numbers to work!

I've not actually read the website, but I have come across many ideas by those who believe in God concerning Noah's Ark. They require a belief in adaptation - which is *not* the same as evolution.

Adaptation allows creatures to change their diets, to grow thicker skin etc. But a cat remains a cat, a dog remains a dog. Evolution requires that one animal become another animal to survive. Apples and oranges.

 

[Turamber]

The world is demonstrably not 5000 years old

Who said it was? The Bible itself says that the Earth had a beginning (Genesis 1:1). It doesn't date stamp it, and it doesn't include it in the creative processes described in the following verses.

Not believing something is one thing -- not even taking the time to read it and just regurgitating other peoples arguments is another.

 

[Trancor]

Heh, you can't take the piss out of what you don't understand.

Sounds like you are impossing your timescale on God there Panda. Dagaffer is just elaborating on my post that 'God time' might just be different to 'Human time'

 

[Turamber]

That's a very restrictive request (whether it was subconcious or consious on your part) and would, if people here would allow it, in one fell swoop wipe out huge swathes of evidence that could be used to disprove creationism.

Apologies but I have been at work today, and only had 2-3 minutes to access the net whilst swallowing a sandwich at the same time. I'm glad to discuss anything to do with religion, creation etc but was hoping to just stick to the one subject in this thread.

I'm not in a position to explain or defend how some schools in the USA explain how we arrived or their viewpoint of evolution. I took Geology as one of my lessons at school and always found that it was possible to present an answer that showed how evolutionists believe things happened -and- how creationists think it happened.

To think that only the uneducated or unthinking believe in a creator is just not correct. Its as much a travesty as assuming that humans know all that there is about the life and the universe are in a position to say with certainty that we all evolved from a puddle of chemicals.

 

[DaGaffer]

Heh, you can't take the piss out of what you don't understand.

In what way 'don't I understand'? I've read the Bible, and anyone who takes the Old Testament literally is...well...let's just say they may as well believe in Middle Earth or Narnia. As for the New Testament, the Gospels are second hand accounts, some written hundreds of years after the event. And don't get me started on Revalations...

 

[DaGaffer]

Who said it was? The Bible itself says that the Earth had a beginning (Genesis 1:1). It doesn't date stamp it, and it doesn't include it in the creative processes described in the following verses.

Not believing something is one thing -- not even taking the time to read it and just regurgitating other peoples arguments is another.

The timescales in Genesis place the creation of Earth 4,004 years before the Birth of Christ, on the 26th of October, at 9 o'clock in the morning. Of course, since we don't know the actual birthdate of Christ, this date is subject to a little variation . So sorry, 6009 years old, give or take.

 

[DaGaffer]

I've not actually read the website, but I have come across many ideas by those who believe in God concerning Noah's Ark. They require a belief in adaptation - which is *not* the same as evolution.

Adaptation allows creatures to change their diets, to grow thicker skin etc. But a cat remains a cat, a dog remains a dog. Evolution requires that one animal become another animal to survive. Apples and oranges.

What a load of bollocks. Adaptation is simply a step on the evolutionary road. Eventually genetic drift causes a species bifurcation. For crying out loud, are you really saying that you believe Dinosaurs shared the Earth with man? That all the species in the fossil record existed concurrently with each other and were all created fully formed? That all the extinct hominids in the fossil record are just human-looking but not human creatures that don't happen to exist anymore (and were convieniently not mentioned in Genesis)? I don't why I'm asking...faith is Blind (and stupid).

 

[FuzzyLogic]

Well, when all is said and done, there's always the uncyclopedia entries for Intelligent Design and Evolution to set us straight