PDA

View Full Version : NFBT: Are there people out there who are really this stupid?


Clint in Wichita
07-03-2001, 10:32 AM
Maybe the guy made this site as a gag:

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/


I guess he thinks it's more likely that we were created from dirt and ribs.

Even if "God" did create life on Earth, IMO he created organic molecules and they evolved on their own.

keg in kc
07-03-2001, 10:34 AM
Clint, without even reading anything but the title of your thread, my answer will be a vehement "Yes, there are people out there who are this stupid". ;)

Phobia
07-03-2001, 10:36 AM
Clint,

Just because someone believes differently than you doesn't make them an idiot. I'm sure there are plenty of people that think you are a complete idiot.

The sooner you recognize that there are a variety of valid opinions in this world, the sooner you can relax and enjoy life.....

Sorry for the lecture - I admit, sometimes I revert to this type of behavior but it seems like you do it ALL the time.

I hope you are much happier than you seem online, man.

Clint in Wichita
07-03-2001, 10:40 AM
My level of happiness is fine...there is, however, a lack of interesting topics due to the offseason. Sure, dissenting opinions are to be expected, but c'mon. This guy's not even close.

Mark M
07-03-2001, 11:07 AM
I have no problem with what this guy's trying to do. I can respect that part of it. It's the arguments he uses that make me think that he's a complete moron.

He says all of that stuff has not been "observed." Umm ... okay. Much of it has, but I won't go into details (but if someone else wants to, I'm ready). I'd like to ask this guy to show me where god, Jesus and the rest of the gang have been observed ... show me Jesus' bones ... show me the crucifix on which he hung ... show me a legitmate Shroud of Turin. It has to work both ways, fella.

MM
~~Admires the attempt, but abhors the ignorance.

Kurt Surber
07-03-2001, 11:08 AM
Phil, me think he is a complete idiot but I like him anyway!
Sorry Clint, couldn't resist.

old_geezer
07-03-2001, 11:17 AM
Clint

I'm a creationist. That means I believe the bible's description of how God created the heavens and earth. I do not believe in evolution . Let's rephrase that to I don't believe in macro-evolution (the change of one species to another) but I do agree that there is micro-evolution (change within a species). There are several learned and very intelligent people on both sides of the issue. I can not in good faith call them stupid or idiots just because they choose to believe differently than I do.

I have not taken the time to read this web site in any detail, but I can make a general statement that each side has its own zealots that do a very poor job of outlining their beliefs. You can believe what you want, but please allow me the same opportunity. :cool:

bishop_74
07-03-2001, 11:26 AM
Divine intervention is a very touchy thing. I think everyone has their own oppinion, unfortunately, some people try to cram it down your throat with misinformation, or inaccurate assumptions. It's all very unnacceptable to me. Why couldn't God be the one who set evolution in motion, and the big bang? This still wouldn't dispell the notion that BOTH sides are still correct. I think being stubborn is the worst viewpoint you can take. It all fits together somehow, we just don't know how. That is the answer that we are searching for everyday. It's all very interprative if you think about it. God has some very decent moral lessons to teach, hopefully we won't toss those aside when we do find out the truth.

chieffanphil
07-03-2001, 06:50 PM
anyone that believes in evolution and thinks that God had nothing to do with us being here should start looking around him and realize that someone greater than us created us and this world . This did not just happen by chance . Look how the human body is made , this was by accident , i don't think so! We should be careful who we call stupid . Mankind wants to think a little to much of ourselfs sometimes . Evolution has never been proven but some people act as if it has . This can be taught in school and cannot be proved . But the Bible cannot be taught and has proved to be true by everyone that has accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour .
You won't find Jesus' bones because he rose on the third day and lives today in heaven and in the hearts of all who have accepted him as saviour .

splatbass
07-03-2001, 07:05 PM
Clint,

I agree with you 100%, but unfortunately you can't use logic and science to argue with "true believers". For example:

"But the Bible cannot be taught and has proved to be true by everyone that has accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour"

Has proved to be true? Huh? So if you believe, then that is proof that it is true! Then agian, a lot of people believe in Bigfoot, aliens and the Loch Ness monster, so they must be true, too...hmmmmmm.

47mack
07-04-2001, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by chieffanphil
Evolution has never been proven but some people act as if it has . This can be taught in school and cannot be proved . But the Bible cannot be taught and has proved to be true by everyone that has accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour .

So, in turn, evolution is proven because people believe in the theory?

You contradict yourself.

splatbass
07-04-2001, 07:24 AM
I never said evolution has been proven. But the evidence for it is strong enough that most scientists accept it as the most likely scenario. On the other hand, there is no evidence of creation, in fact the evidence contradicts it. According to the Bible, the Earth is only 10,000 years old, yet science shows it to be about 4 billion years old. Quite a discrepancy. By the way, I believe in God, but I don't believe the Bible is infallable. It has been edited by man numerous times in the centuries of its existance. I don't believe the theory of evolution is any threat to God, in fact God could have created evolution as part of his creation of the earth.

47mack
07-04-2001, 07:38 AM
I like your theory.

mcan
07-04-2001, 08:06 AM
Let's go back a few steps.
1. Science has never PROVEN the earth is billions of years old.
There is alot of evidence to support that it is NOT. However, because of natural disasters and the like, the fossil record is little more than a hypothesis. Scientist may say that most of the midwest was once an ocean, or that all the continants used to be one big continant (pangea). Bible believers say these oceanic fossils are from the great flood. Also, several excavations have found man's footprints congruent with dinosaur remains. The "earth is old" theory puts these two species several million years apart. These are just a few examples. But there is PLENTY of real evidence to suggest the earth is only a dozen or so thousand years old.
2. No examples of even micro evolution have ever been recorded under scientific study. Mutations occur all the time, but never has any mutation been found to HELP the species survive, or make the species any less prone to predators.
3. Darwin himself, while on the islands writing Origin of Species, admited the theory had major wholes in it. Many species have systems of survival so complex, that it would be impossible for the system to evolve piece by piece. Some animals produce toxins that would kill the animal, unless it had every working part already in place.

As for myself, I am a christian. I don't however beleive that God smacked his hands together and all was done. To God, a thousand years is like a day and a day is like a thousand ears. 6 days can be a very long time. I believe we were created, but because we are creatures made of carbon, and water, I choose to beleive that when god spoke, he created us through some natural means. I don't believe we are advanced enough to begin to grasp what those means are, but I am fairly certain that it was not evolution. Origin of Species and theories of the like seem EXTREMELY far fetched and I believe are impossible.

Sorry for the long post.

chieffanphil
07-04-2001, 09:10 AM
What i don't understand is why is it so easy for some people to believe that they came from a monkey or some other form or whatever some scientist comes up with and can't prove , but won't believe what the Bible says . Not trying to fight here , just wondering .

Clint in Wichita
07-04-2001, 09:44 AM
Whether or not God created the Earth, evolution is clearly apparent all around us. One example is the fact that most people have to have their wisdom teeth removed because they simply don't fit our mouths anymore. We no longer have to do things like rip raw meat from bones, so our jaws are growing smaller, as are our teeth.

As for the Earth being only several thousand years old, the Bible itself (if it's accurate) tells us that that's impossible. There was a great flood at one point that supposedly killed everything except the creatures on Noah's ark. If that happened, say, 10,000 years ago, there would not have been anywhere near enough time for the entire Earth to be repopulated by now, especially when you consider that there were animals indigenous to continents that had not even been discovered at the time of the great flood.

The only way the "great flood" could've happened so recently is if it was in reality a very localized event. That would make that portion of the Bible incorrect. If that's incorrect, then you could ask yourself, "Gee, what other parts are inaccurate?"

How can you have total faith in a book that is part history, part fable, and part pure fiction?

NaptownChief
07-04-2001, 09:59 AM
Clint,

Good comments...I completely agree. A great book that I am reading is called "The Christ Conspiracy...The Greatest Story Ever Sold". It picks apart the bible and gospels showing many of its gross inaccuracies and ripped off ideas from earlier writings.

Though your argument makes absolute sense, it is an argument that is only going to be well received by those who haven't invested their heart and soul into some of the false beliefs that you discredit...

The Jim Jones followers were roped into following some obviously crazy ideas but no matter what evidence that you could have provided them they would have adamantly defended their beliefs all the way up to the point they knocked down the punch...

chieffanphil
07-04-2001, 10:38 AM
To compare Jim Jones to Jesus Christ now i have heard it all . You don't won't to believe the Bible and it is the same today as it was thousands of years ago , because it is the inspired word of God, but you are willing to believe someone that is calling the Bible a lie . And just who is this author that knows more than millions of people through the ages ?

NaptownChief
07-04-2001, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by chieffanphil
You don't won't to believe the Bible and it is the same today as it was thousands of years ago ,


You sure about that? Do you have an english copy that is thousands of years old?

Clint in Wichita
07-04-2001, 10:50 AM
Actually, the Bible has been edited by various rulers throughout the last 2,000 years. It's probably nowhere near the same now as it was when it was written.

chieffanphil
07-04-2001, 10:51 AM
I am sure that God can and did have the Bible translated into English .

tommykat
07-04-2001, 11:05 AM
On a day that we celebrate OUR freedom and sing the songs, like GOD BLESS America and so forth, I refuse to even discuss this topic! It is a time of celebration of freedom and what all the men and women have done and given their lives to keep our country free. We all should enjoy the day and count our blessings that we are not under rule or refused to voice our opions. Happy 4th to all! Remember what it stands for and be pround we live in America.. :D :D :D

NaptownChief
07-04-2001, 11:05 AM
Do you think those translators were anointed people or just regular individuals that took the task upon themselves? Last I checked he conveniently stopped speaking with folks aloud a couple thousand years ago...

chieffanphil
07-04-2001, 11:13 AM
God still speaks to people today through his word and through things that happen in our lives . Like Tommykat said this is a day to be thankful to God for this country where we are free to speak our mind . Thank God for the USA .

keg in kc
07-04-2001, 11:17 AM
Phil, are you not sure that men could and have twisted the translation of the bible to fit their own means as well?

If you don't believe that, then I'd suggest some study of the history of the King James version of the bible, and I'd also suggest of study of the ways different churches have deemed what is Apocrypha and what is not.

Clint, I'm not a bible supporter, but there is global-wide evidence of a great flood marking the end of the last ice age, and this "great flood" is part of virtually every religion and mythology mankind has ever known - arguing the historical authenticity of the great flood isn't the best approach to take in other words. Another strain of interest running through history's varied and sundry religions is the resurrection myth, as represented by Adonis, Attis, Dionysos, Hercules, Krishna, Kronos, Mithra, Osiris, Serapis, Saturn, Shiva, Tammuz and others, all of whom predate Jesus. The origin of this mythos is, of course, still a mystery...

47mack
07-04-2001, 11:17 AM
I thank God for many things, but not everything.

I never said that I believe one theory more than the other, I am just not convinced of either.

chieffanphil
07-04-2001, 11:22 AM
keg , i do believe that man would and has tried to twist the word of God but i believe that God has kept his word the way he wanted it .

keg in kc
07-04-2001, 11:26 AM
Then which word is the one He wanted, because there are literally dozens of variants of the English translation of the bible, some of which have significant and very important differences. That's the problem...

God I can trust, but I know Man is capable of anything.

Clint in Wichita
07-04-2001, 12:05 PM
There may have been a great flood, but not as described in the Bible.

Noah had 2 of each kind of animal? I guess that would include insects, as well as creatures from other continents, such as the duck-billed platypus, that people in the Middle East had never dreamed of. The Austrailia to Israel swim must've been a killer.

Cannibal
07-04-2001, 12:21 PM
There were millions of different species of animals back then. The fuggin "Ark" would've had to have been the size of an Aircraft Carrier!

Also, why no mention of Dinosaurs in the Bible?

Cannibal
07-04-2001, 12:26 PM
How did they feed all those animals BTW?

They would've had to have tons upon tons of food to keep all those animals alive.

Not mention the fact that they would've had to have had hundreds of people around to take care of the animals and clean up the animal waste.

They also would've had to keep the animals from fighting each other, which means that each animal had it's own cage.

Boy! That must've been some boat!

Vindicator
07-04-2001, 12:40 PM
No need to argue, as BOTH theories are correct. Life evolved for a long time (including us), then BAM, here WE were (created by "Divine Intervention"). It would be interesting to see where we go next, ie. evolutionary progression, DNA manipulation (we don't have to wait for Divine Intervention anymore because we can do our own) or next stop "The Borg"(very useful for produceing the Bad Guys of the future as a basis of/for war and hence a convient economic "engine")?
BTW, one theory for the great flood we were "Divinely" warned of and DID happen is that in the vicinty of the astoroid belt between Mars and Jupiter (I think), where there was supposed to have been a planet, can now be found the remnants of the planet Atlantis (had very much water) that suffered a cataclysmic impact. Water remnants were "Divinely" rounded up and placed here thus producing rain for some 40 days and 40 nights, moderating the climates of our planet. Don't shoot me, it's just one theory. :)

Have fun,
be young,
play fair,
eat cookies.

Brock
07-04-2001, 12:41 PM
Cannibal and Clint - Why do you insist on applying human perspective to what God can or can't do?

Rausch
07-04-2001, 12:45 PM
I don't think they are...



That's religon's job...:D

BIG_DADDY
07-04-2001, 12:51 PM
Clint,

Actually, the Bible has been edited by various rulers throughout the last 2,000 years. It's probably nowhere near the same now as it was when it was written.

There is a great book that goes over many of the discrepancies in the bible. It is called Holy Blood Holy Grail. Pretty eye opening.

Mark M
07-04-2001, 03:06 PM
Just a quick hit here:

If you don't believe in evolution, and believe in the Noah fable, then why doesn't everyone look like Noah and his wife? Where did Chinese people come from? Africans? Indian?

It just doesn't jive, folks. And the reason evolution can't be proven by scientifice observation? It takes millions of years for species to develop, not just a few hundred or thousand.

MM
~~Adding his $.02

FeistyOne
07-04-2001, 03:46 PM
Come on, you have to be kidding me. With the way that human nature is some of you honestly think that the bible is completely accurate? Humans wrote the bible, of course there are several mistakes, to many to even mention. Evolution is also very easy to prove all you have to do is open your mind and eyes to take look around you. Take roaches for example; they have been on this planet since the dinosaurs. They had to evolve to survive for as long as they have and the nasty things will continue to evolve just so they can stick around to gross us out.

Yes there is proof that the “Great Flood” occured and yes there is proof that there was a man named Jesus that walked the lands. Yes there is even proof that evolution exists! They have yet to prove exactly when the “Great Flood” took place and as far as having two of every animal, come on, do you honestly think that they had Kangaroos on the boat, I think not. And that is just one animal that was not in attendance that day.

Besides, instead of arguing about the “Great Flood” why don’t you guys chose something more challenging. Like are we really top priority on Gods lists?
:eek:

BigMeatballDave
07-04-2001, 03:50 PM
Mark, good point. I have always believed in evolution and not the Noah`s Ark fable. I do, however, believe in God. The Bible is really a just a book of fables for a more simplified reference. Evolution will never be proven 100% and neither wiil the Bible. Read my signature.

chieffanphil
07-04-2001, 03:53 PM
It seems a lot of people around here are just like the people in Noahs day . So i guess white people came from one thing and black people from another and Indians from another and chinese from another and so on ?

Michael Michigan
07-04-2001, 05:12 PM
Read my signature.


__________________
"All things being equal, the simplest explination tends to be the correct one."

kchiefs30--

I read it---you spelled explanation incorrectly.

Simple & correct.

:cool:

BigMeatballDave
07-04-2001, 05:57 PM
I did? ;)

splatbass
07-04-2001, 05:58 PM
The dinosaurs lived on earth for 100 Million years, while humans have inhabited it for less than 100 THOUSAND years, a mere tick of the clock in the history of the earth, yet humans persist in thinking that the earth was created just for us. If god created the earth, why did he wait so long to create humans?

Michael Michigan
07-04-2001, 06:31 PM
kchiefs30

you should have corrected mine also ;)

Chieficus
07-04-2001, 07:50 PM
First off--for those who are arguing against the Bible based upon the english text, you argument fails. Biblical hermeneutics as used in apologetics won't even touch the english version (heck, we can't even get the tenses right since english lacks some of them)--you gotta look at the greek and hebrew, anything else (including the latain vulgate) is not good enough.

Now speaking of the greek and hebrew and looking specifically at the new testament--we have 5000 copies of the ancient text. The oldest we have found thusfar dates back to 130 AD--soon enough to the true originals that from a time-frame stand point their accuracy in regards to the original should not be any more in doubt than the accuracy of the works of Edgar Allan Poe are today. Among those copies of the New Testament there is an accuracy rate of 99+%. For comparison--among the works of Homer, we have 643 copies with an accuracy of 95%, of Thucydides--8 copies, of Tacitus--20 copies, of Caesar--10 copies. Now further notes on errors and descrepencies--none of them have anything to do with theology; the major ones that are commented about typically have to do with ages, numbers or geneologies. The ages and numbers are typically the result of a misplaced decimile or a dropped number, a copiest error that is easier to commit than messing up words or phrases. The geneologies are not actually in error, just the way we view them--the hebrew people's manner of keeping family trees was vastly different than ours, skipping sometimes several generations at a time and rarely including women to the point where a wife's geneology would be placed under her husband's name.

Now I want to keep this as short as possible, so I'll move on to the next topic--evolution.

1) I have serious issues with the dating methods--with the exception of C14 dating (due to the comparatively short half-life), all manners of radio active dating are based upon the assumption that during the creation event there was 100% parent isotope and 0% daughter isotope. This is not based upon any valid evidence, rather it is based upon the idea that even if there is a god, he just set the quantum off that produced the big-bang. It's an assumption in which science turns a blind-eye towards god. As for C14 dating, this assumption has less effect, however C14 dating is also the least reliable form of dating and has the most potential in being thrown off due to environmental factors.

2) To the person who argued evolution and used the cockroach as an example--that argument shows nothing. All it is is an argument of micro-evolution, and no rational person is going to argue against you in regards to that. A cockroach remaining a cockroach for millions of years does nothing to help the argument of evolution.

3) To the person who said if the flood happened, why don't we all look like Noah. Your argument fails as well. You have within you already the genetic code to look like a man from China, you have with in you the dna to look like a black man, you have within you the dna to look like an eskimo, a mexican, a white man, etc. Variations that determine skin color and other racial variants such as nose shape, eye shape and hair color take only a few generations to change. Not to mention the human history of inbreeding that genetically pushes towards a certain extreme depending upon the traits of the group and also tends to eliminates the possibility of variant traits occuring within the offspirng of future generations without the incorporation of outbreeding.

4) To the person who argued that there were no kangaroo's on the ark, I have this to say: The Bible does not say that Noah gathered up the animals, the Bible says the animals went to Noah. Now the only way the animals are going to go to Noah to get on the ark is by devine intervention. Now if God is making sure that the animals get to Noah, then there were kangaroo's on the ark.

5) Concerning dinosaurs--the Bible arguably does mention them and creatures like them in Job and Psalms. And to use the dinos to throw a wrench into the cog of evolution--in two places, one of which I can't remember where, but one being in the black mesa of Oklahoma there was found dino footprints in the same layer of rock as the footprints of man. The scientist knew for a fact that couldn't be right, so they looked deeper--same thing. However you won't read about this in any highschool or college text book--why? Because it kicks out the crutches that science likes to lean upon. It throws the entire dating mechanism into a mess and helps provide tangible proof against evolution.

And finally, for those of you who argue agianst biblical accuracy, God and special-creation, if you truly want to expand your mind and get some of the best arguments from the other side, I'd recommend these books:

Christian Apologetics
Evidence that Demands a Verdict
When Critics Ask
Darwin on Trial
Darwin's Black Box
The Genesis Flood
Mere Christianity
The Closing of the American Mind
Inerrancy
The Face that shows the Farce of Evolution
I'm Glad You Asked
Basic Christianity
(and these are just a few...)

keg in kc
07-04-2001, 08:05 PM
Speaking for myself only, I was arguing against the accuracy of the English version of the bible, which you have supported, Chieficus. With regards to the actual bible itself, I consider it an historical document, a mythology, if you will, nothing more, nothing less, but that's a matter of personal reflection on a great deal of historical and theological arguments from both ends of the spectrum.

Regarding carbon 14 dating, here's an interesting short snippet:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1413000/1413326.stm

This is the typical argument: neither side of the debate will flex at all, regardless of the evidence that is presented either in favor or against. People just see different things different ways, and that's the beauty of free will.

NaptownChief
07-04-2001, 08:06 PM
"3) To the person who said if the flood happened, why don't we all look like Noah. Your argument fails as well. You have within you already the genetic code to look like a man from China, you have with in you the dna to look like a black man, you have within you the dna to look like an eskimo, a mexican, a white man, etc."

This argument fails because if this were true you would hear about stories and probably know people where you have two white people concieve a black child or a kid that looks asian etc.etc...Or two pure asians that have a child that looks hispanic....

BigMeatballDave
07-04-2001, 09:08 PM
Chieficus - 3) To the person who said if the flood happened, why don't we all look like Noah. Your argument fails as well. You have within you
already the genetic code to look like a man from China, you have with in you the dna to look like a black man, you have within you
the dna to look like an eskimo, a mexican, a white man, etc. Variations that determine skin color and other racial variants such as
nose shape, eye shape and hair color take only a few generations to change. Not to mention the human history of inbreeding that
genetically pushes towards a certain extreme depending upon the traits of the group and also tends to eliminates the possibility of
variant traits occuring within the offspirng of future generations without the incorporation of outbreeding.


You need to find a link or something to prove this. I`m having difficulty believeing this.
If it were true, wouldn`t we all just be one race?

Chieficus
07-04-2001, 09:17 PM
"This argument fails because if this were true you would hear about stories and probably know people where you have two white people concieve a black child or a kid that looks asian etc.etc...Or two pure asians that have a child that looks hispanic...."

I'm a creationist, but I'm going to quote a college-level evolution text book to refute your statement (Evolutionary Analysis--Freeman and Herron): "...taken together, the genetic data and at least some of the morphological data suggest that 1) all present-day people are descended from African ancestors, and 2) all present-day non-African people are descended from H. sapiens ancestors who left Africa within the last few hundred thousand years. Present-day differences among races must have arisen since then."

Even the popular evolutionist argument says that the earth's current population came from a noah-like (in the sense that our ancestors were of the same race) background.

You start out with a similar population and as it breaks up and spreads out, you get inbreeding among the groups, this changes the genetic adaptive landscape of the group and you get a push towards certain traits and the virtual elimination of others. This does not mean that the genetic code has been changed, only a mutation can do that and the effects of inbreeding are not coupled to mutations (they may occur together, but you can have one without the other). Because of this you get a population that only has an extremely small chance (close enough to zero) of ever showing a particular trait again unless it outbreeds with a member of another population (and in the case of races, this would be a mixed-race relationship); however the trait remains in the genetic code (there has been no mutation to hinder it or change it). Thus you will not hear of a white couple having a black or asian child. The DNA is the same, nonetheless, the expression of the traits is different...

chieffanphil
07-04-2001, 10:09 PM
well spoken Chieficus

oleman47
07-04-2001, 10:43 PM
Home schooling is the nation's biggest threat.

Saggysack
07-05-2001, 05:05 AM
Is this one of these religous postings again?

BIG_DADDY
07-05-2001, 10:03 AM
Home schooling is the nation's biggest threat.

:confused: