I would refute the many points you have posted in that long post... but I have come to realize you are just an incredible troll. I really hope no one actually thinks in the way you project your beliefs. If it's true, I just hope you don't get into any position of power, or affect my life in any way other than to argue online.
I apologize if you read that, I fixed that typo now.
I would refute the many points you have posted in that long post... but I have come to realize you are just an incredible troll. I really hope no one actually thinks in the way you project your beliefs. If it's true, I just hope you don't get into any position of power, or affect my life in any way other than to argue online.
Don't worry, I'll probably just become a lawyer or a judge. I doubt I'll ever become president.
1. How are they bad? 2. If I was to stop using creationist sites then you should stop using evolutionist sites. 3. Wikipedia no matter how good you say it is I will still not use it because of the fact anyone can edit it to make it say what they want.
1. I've already told you 2. What I have presented is actual science as appose to the crap you are presenting. 3. Never said wiki was all that good but it's better then a creationist site.
I would refute the many points you have posted in that long post... but I have come to realize you are just an incredible troll. I really hope no one actually thinks in the way to project your beliefs. If it's true, I just hope you don't get into any position of power, or affect my life in any way other than to argue online.
1. I've already told you [quote]They use outdated debunked research, quote mines, straw man arguments, and just flat out lies.
I didn't see you give any examples of flat out lies, straw man arguments or anything of the sort. [/quote] No 1. You used a hasty Generalization argument. 2.
2. What I have presented is actual science as appose to the crap you are presenting.
It is no more science than my sources.
3. Never said wiki was all that good but it's better then a creationist site.
Well I guess I should play this for myself but anyway...
1. You used a hasty Generalization argument.
It's not a generalization.
It's been shown your sources use outdated debunked evidence, they do quote mine actual scientists, they do use straw man arguments (among other fallacies), and they do just make up stuff and call it true (lies).
I've yet to see a creationist site go outside this.
It is no more science than my sources.
For the very reasons given above no, just no...
Making this claim only shows your ignorance.
How is it better?
There are groups who go through wiki double checking the information presented to be sure it's accurate. Of course given it's size and being that anyone can make changes it does often require double checking. Basically you don't just have a one sided bias which creation sites have exclusively.
Christianity has never been changed to fit the evidence why?
The Christian church has changed many of its beliefs over the years. Like how they used to think the Earth was the center of everything because God made it and humans so it must be the center, till science proved them wrong.
The Christian church has changed many of its beliefs over the years. Like how they used to think the Earth was the center of everything because God made it and humans so it must be the center, till science proved them wrong.
It's more like science backed the religion into a corner until it either had to agree or die.
It's more like science backed the religion into a corner until it either had to agree or die.
That's a bit of an overstatement. Wouldn't you change your mind if someone flew something into space and showed you pictures of how our universe is set up? They were proved wrong, not pressured into changing their ideals.
It may seem contradictory but i believe religion is actually a good thing. It gives hope and cause to many. But I can't stand it when I see: "God send our troops." and other instances where God is used as either an excuse or backing-up-of for war. If God did exist, he wouldn't want people fighting at all, after all... killing is a sin. Unless I'm wrong.
It may seem contradictory but i believe religion is actually a good thing. It gives hope and cause to many. But I can't stand it when I see: "God send our troops." and other instances where God is used as either an excuse or backing-up-of for war. If God did exist, he wouldn't want people fighting at all, after all... killing is a sin. Unless I'm wrong.
Religion is good if we lived in some "Pandorian" society were the beings might actually be altruistic and mostly honest. But you are only seeing the good and not the bad. If this generic "killing" is a sin, then there are a lot of "Christians" in "hell."
Sorry for all the quotes... I felt the were needed.
Redace, wikipedia is better than myfreedictionary. Also, the terms have different uses depending on the field you're talking about evolution in. But macroevolution as in speciation is true and has been observed before.
Mirco-evolution is observable sure, but I still have yet to see a C-og (Cat-dog) walking around. They are still moths. And still bacteria.
A c-dog would not work. It would not evolve to adapt favorably to its environment, unless it lives on a planet made of kibble and fancy feast or something.
Sure, I can believe that. But it's still com-busting.
That doesn't mean that it would have to be much colder or hotter in the past.
Anyway, I'll answer the rest later. I gotta run now~
That's a bit of an overstatement. Wouldn't you change your mind if someone flew something into space and showed you pictures of how our universe is set up? They were proved wrong, not pressured into changing their ideals.
The first thing they did when they were proven wrong instead of changing there views to fit the evidence they tried to suppress the discovery and charge the person how made it with heresy. It was only until so many more were able to come to the same conclusion to the point they could no longer keep it suppressed that they changed there ways.
It may seem contradictory but i believe religion is actually a good thing. It gives hope and cause to many.
Yes it can do that though I think we can achieve the same thing through other means with out the "or else". If far to often comes across sounding like battered wife syndrome. "He loves me, I deserve it when he punishes me."
If God did exist, he wouldn't want people fighting at all, after all... killing is a sin. Unless I'm wrong.
If we are speaking of the Christian God, there are plenty of places in the Bible where God does send people to fight and kill and even assists in the slaughter.
The first thing they did when they were proven wrong instead of changing there views to fit the evidence they tried to suppress the discovery and charge the person how made it with heresy. It was only until so many more were able to come to the same conclusion to the point they could no longer keep it suppressed that they changed there ways.
That was BEFORE we had actual proof. Back when people were prosecuted for heresy it was just a theory, hundreds of years ago. Could you say that we're the center of the Universe now? No. It was their choice in "changing their beliefs" so early. But they've still been proven wrong.
If we are speaking of the Christian God, there are plenty of places in the Bible where God does send people to fight and kill and even assists in the slaughter.
I was talking about a God in general. I'm sure he wouldn't see to it that his own creations sought to kill themselves. He would punish them himself. I, personally, despise Christian beliefs. Only because they're very egocentric, cynical, and too all over the place. The first two are stereotypes, yes. But the third is true. Their range in beliefs among its followers is too vast. Some only follow and believe just a few of its teaching... others preach it and praise it like it's the gospel truth. Those other people I find sickening :P
That was BEFORE we had actual proof. Back when people were prosecuted for heresy it was just a theory, hundreds of years ago. Could you say that we're the center of the Universe now? No. It was their choice in "changing their beliefs" so early. But they've still been proven wrong.
A theory isn't something lesser it's the explanation for what the observed. While they didn't have as much evidence as we do today they still based there conclusions on it.
I was talking about a God in general. I'm sure he wouldn't see to it that his own creations sought to kill themselves. He would punish them himself. I, personally, despise Christian beliefs. Only because they're very egocentric, cynical, and too all over the place. The first two are stereotypes, yes. But the third is true. Their range in beliefs among its followers is too vast. Some only follow and believe just a few of its teaching... others preach it and praise it like it's the gospel truth. Those other people I find sickening :P
Okay usually when spelling God with the capital G it's referring to the Christian God while a god in general is more common to spell with the lower case g. But anyway if there is a god and this being is all loving I would find it unlikely that being would want us fighting and killing. Though I also find it unlikely such a god (if the one to create us) would make us with such a disposition to do so.
