Creationist: Dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark

Gunner said:
It's not like that, they're the religious zealots who extrapolate and bend logic to claim that God is the source of everything, just like this guy who says God created TV, the radio and telephone. Mullahs don't go around blowing themselves up, they tell other people to do that for them.
Click to expand...
It's not one in the same at all. Excuse me that they order murders and don't do it themselves. It's still horrible to even make that comparison.

When this guy issues an edict that people need to go out in the name of Jesus and blow themselves up, then you can say that. Anything else is akin to comparing an annoying kid to Hitler.
 
Did anyone else make it to the end with the sound byte of the supposed saurian bellow?
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
It's not one in the same at all. Excuse me that they order murders and don't do it themselves. It's still horrible to even make that comparison.

When this guy issues an edict that people need to go out in the name of Jesus and blow themselves up, then you can say that. Anything else is akin to comparing an annoying kid to Hitler.
Click to expand...

Cut the drama. Outside of the more dangerous followers, the two are extremely similar.

-Both preach religious exclusion, on the basis that their beliefs are the only correct ones.
-Both support theocracy.
-Both tend heavily towards decieving people with illogical arguments.
-Both have a small but fiercely loyal religious followings, comprised mainly of uneducated/undereducated working class laypeople.
-Both claim there is a worldwide conspiracy against them.
-Both lean towards antisocial behavior and/or insulting their opponents instead of engaging in rational discussion.
-Both demand that their followers "take matters into their own hands".

Etc.

The only difference is that one group is violent.
 
And more bearded.

Anyway... yeah. I guess I just wanted to post out that they're more bearded.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Cut the drama. Outside of the more dangerous followers, the two are extremely similar.

-Both preach religious exclusion, on the basis that their beliefs are the only correct ones.
-Both support theocracy.
-Both tend heavily towards decieving people with illogical arguments.
-Both have a small but fiercely loyal religious followings, comprised mainly of uneducated/undereducated working class laypeople.
-Both claim there is a worldwide conspiracy against them.
-Both lean towards antisocial behavior and/or insulting their opponents instead of engaging in rational discussion.
-Both demand that their followers "take matters into their own hands".

Etc.

The only difference is that one group is violent.
Click to expand...
That is a HUGE difference. When one comes up to you and threatens to behead you if you don't convert to Christianity then you can say that. Someone knocking on your door politely and politely asking (albeit it very annoyingly) asking if they can talk to you about Jesus is a FAR CRY from anything those types are doing.

He directly compared this guy to those violent soceopaths.

Not to mention I see a lot of those things you listed on the scientific side of the debate, too. Don't take me as a literal follower of the bible that thinks the world is 6,000 years old- I just can see when people are being ridiculously hateful for no TRUE reason just the same. I'm willing to bet some here have gotten so angry simply at these people beliefs (that they ironically aren't FORCING you to follow) and are so angry that they don't believe in science that they'd actually use violence on THEM. THAT'S wrong.

If you think someone's misguided, you can talk about it- if they don't agree with you and make it clear they won't change how they feel about it, you don't get ENRAGED and hateful. Frankly that's childish.
 
they're not all polite


oh and your implication that members here would physically assualt someone because of beliefs is rediculous ..they dont even know the person on the video ...however having been on the receiving end of hate and death threats I can rightfully say that it is usually people in your camp that behaves that way
 
CptStern said:
they're not all polite


oh and your implication that members here would physically assualt someone because of beliefs is rediculous ..they dont even know the person on the video ...however having been on the receiving end of hate and death threats I can rightfully say that it is usually people in your camp that behaves that way
Click to expand...
"My" camp as if I believe dinosaurs were on Noah's ark or the world is 6000 years old. I don't agree with these people but certainly, most certainly in this thread people have displayed such hatred and unprovoked anger at these people that it's surprising and worrying.

It makes sense to be angry at say, legislation demanding prayer in school etc, but the examples in this thread are such as "How can these SCUM even believe this? I am so ENRAGED that they think this!"

People are actually getting angry over the fact that someone holds a private belief that they feel isn't logical, and that's troubling.
 
I liked the video. I like the way they are asserting their beliefs and presenting a logical way for dinosaurs to have existed, be it ever flawed. It's fun.

I have my own unique beliefs on spirituality and I hold established science as fact.
Where science has established no fact, in the realm of religion and other places, lie mystery and something that piques my interest.
Even something incredible like small sauropods living in the congo marsh is exciting and however ridiculous it may sound, I do not think the men of God are fools to believe it.
I think you (general) may be a fool for ridiculing this belief and rejecting scientific mystery.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
When this guy issues an edict that people need to go out in the name of Jesus and blow themselves up, then you can say that.
Click to expand...
Christianity would never do that. Not because it teaches love and compassion, but because it is too fractured to produce a cohesive belief of helping all your Christian brethren around the world in the way that Islam does. Instead, you serve the Catholics or the Evangelicals, etc. Islam has shades of vehemence, but it is not divided into distinctive, exclusionist branches as Christianity is.

Furthermore, Christian societies have subjugated most other societies in the world at some point or another in one way or another (now there's an achievement to be proud of) and thus revels in the riches it pillaged and does not feel the threat that other religions feel. What is the human reaction to threat? Fight back.

I neither endorse nor agree with the actions of suicide bombers, those who would torture others in the name of their God, but I can see where the extremists are coming from.

I should like to reiterate that understanding and feeling an affinity are two entirely different things.

Raziaar said:
Why do scorpions fluoresce? Noone knows... science can't even answer it :(

If science can't answer that, I don't see how it can answer the creation of the universe. <chuckles>
Click to expand...
Quite how scorpions' fluorescence is supposed to debunk evolutionary theory (or fact, depending on how far South you are) I cannot comprehend. There are a lot of things science cannot explain, but science has the humility to accept when it cannot explain something, yet still look for answers, as opposed to the hackneyed out-moded religious answer, which simply states blindly "God did it."

But why did God make scorpions fluoresce?
Because it was His will.
Why? What was his reasoning behind making scorpions fluoresce?
It was His will.

As far as I can see, issues and excuses like this simply erode religion more than they do support it. How can a simple "God did it" be an answer to some of the greatest mysteries of our existenfe? How can one be satisfied with such an unsatisfactory explanation?
If God gave us the gift of free will and free choice, then how can we defend subjugation and blind faith?

Apologies if this sounds like a rant, but I had an exam today on the philosophy of religion and I'm still on the warpath. I should have been more objective than I was - I can only hope my marker is an etheist, or I might be f*cked.
Further apologies if you were playing Devil's advocate, Raziaar, as I think you were. It just triggered off a stream of thought in my head that, if I hadn't vented/inflicted on you lot, I might have inflicted on my dreams and housemates/friends. No-one needs that.
 
That is a HUGE difference. When one comes up to you and threatens to behead you if you don't convert to Christianity then you can say that. [...] He directly compared this guy to those violent soceopaths.
Click to expand...
Sociopaths.

And that's a case of finding fallacious
Wisdom in repugnance.

Like I said, they are identical in every way - save for violence. Their goals are similar and their means are, largely, similar as I've illustrated.
I was kind enough not to mention the constant threats of eternal torture and so on against nonbelievers.

Not to mention I see a lot of those things you listed on the scientific side of the debate, too.
Click to expand...
Way to change the subject.
This is a false analogy anyways.

These were my points:
1-Both preach religious exclusion, on the basis that their beliefs are the only correct ones.
2-Both support theocracy.
3-Both tend heavily towards decieving people with illogical arguments.
4-Both have a small but fiercely loyal religious followings, comprised mainly of uneducated/undereducated working class laypeople.
5-Both claim there is a worldwide conspiracy against them.
6-Both lean towards antisocial behavior and/or insulting their opponents instead of engaging in rational discussion.
7-Both demand that their followers "take matters into their own hands".

Now let's look:

1) Proper scientists do not preach. Nor are their beliefs religious. Also, scientists encourage logical debate, not excluding other opinions unless they are flawed.

2) Obviously, scientists do not support theocracy.

3) Again, scientists, by definition, do not rely on illogical claims.

4) Scientist's main support comes from academia and other scientists via the peer-review process. Scientists, by and large, do not deliberately recruit a "fanbase" of sorts.

5) There no conspiracy against scientists. Usually, religious actions against them (such as banning evolution) are quite overt.

6) There is a large difference between insulting something and insulting something for no reason. Example: In this thread's video, the guy randomly calls National Geographic "National Pornographic". The bizarre statement is never explained.
On the contrary, I call creationists "absolutely retarded" only after it is disproven that the earth is 6000 years old and they continue to claim it anyways.
One is designed to discredit. The other occurs long after the party has been discredited. Note the important part of #6: "instead of engaging in rational discussion."

Also, the scientists themselves do not write "creationists are stupid AM I RITE?!" in their research papers.

7) Scientists do not ask random laypeople people to set up their own universities or museums or things like that. Science is not a popularity contest.

RakuraiTenjin said:
I'm willing to bet some here have gotten so angry simply at these people beliefs (that they ironically aren't FORCING you to follow) and are so angry that they don't believe in science that they'd actually use violence on THEM. THAT'S wrong.

If you think someone's misguided, you can talk about it- if they don't agree with you and make it clear they won't change how they feel about it, you don't get ENRAGED and hateful. Frankly that's childish.
Click to expand...

So, you imagine that we're "ENRAGED" are therefore we're "childish", "wrong" and "violent".

Wow.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
"My" camp as if I believe dinosaurs were on Noah's ark or the world is 6000 years old. I don't agree with these people but certainly, most certainly in this thread people have displayed such hatred and unprovoked anger at these people that it's surprising and worrying.
Click to expand...

"your camp" as in right wing conservatives (I have a pretty long list) ...and I dont think there was hatred ..ridicule yes, but not hatred ..but do you really blame us for ridiculing such a rediculous notion of dinosaurs on noah's ark ..come on

RakuraiTenjin said:
It makes sense to be angry at say, legislation demanding prayer in school etc, but the examples in this thread are such as "How can these SCUM even believe this? I am so ENRAGED that they think this!"
Click to expand...

who? who called them scum? laughing at something is not the same as hating it ...I certainly dont hate them ..sure I get a little mad at the lies and the smarmy comments on liberals that are just sensational overexaggerations but I dont hate them ..they're more like charicatures than people that inspire hatred

RakuraiTenjin said:
"People are actually getting angry over the fact that someone holds a private belief that they feel isn't logical, and that's troubling.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but when they attack society at large as charlatans or as liars or whathave you they have to expect something in return

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here
 
Continuing on the point Stern made, there is a disturbing trend in people demanding their beliefs go unquestioned nowadays.

You are no more entitled to special treatment than anyone else.
If you're acting in a way that is quantifiably ridiculous, you have to accept that you will be made fun of.

Note that science is not demanding that it go unquestioned. Only that people stop making false claims.
 
CptStern said:
"your camp" as in right wing conservatives (I have a pretty long list) ...and I dont think there was hatred ..ridicule yes, but not hatred ..but do you really blame us for ridiculing such a rediculous notion of dinosaurs on noah's ark ..come on
Click to expand...
Stern, whilst I agree with you, this is not the way to go about making a solid, credible standpoint.
Naturally, there's a snowball's chance in Hell that a vehement Christian is going to accept any evidence outside of a text which is the better part of two thousand years old and was written a few hundred years after its protagonist died. Even so - it may be ridiculous, but simply stating it as such is little different to simply stating the Bible as truth.
The individual who subscribes to evolution, rather than creationism, has evidence and reason on their side and need not resort to saying "Yeah but you're wrong 'cause what you're believing is just stupid." The theist, on the other hand, must.
 
yes but somewhere along the way this thread became an issue about all christians when that wasnt my intent at all ..nowhere do I even mention christianity. I specifically call that person a loon and not the religion ...I'm not even sure which particular sect of christianity he belongs to nor do I care.

btw what are you doing up so late?
 
I finished my exams today and I have just got back from a club. My head is full of religious agitation and Long Island iced tea. A potent combination.
 
ooohh you're gonna have a headache ..sweetness overkill = longisland iced tea ...hey did you know there's no ice t in it? (I was a bartender years ago)
 
I know precisely what's in it. That's part of the reason I love them so much. :D
I may well have a headache tomorrow, but that's ok - I'll drink through it. The celebrations continue tomorrow. Or today, depending on how anal you're being.

Oh, and on-topic: Did you know that Noah and the dinosaurs drank Long Island iced teas on the ark? True story.
 
ya and the dinosaurs where so sick they fell overboard, never to be seen again


oh and pour me a scotch on the rocks will you .. chivas or glenlivet will do
 
Nah I don't like Scotch, thus none in my house. We've got Bombay Sapphire gin, cherry vodka, bullgrass vodka, apricot vodka (see a theme?), a couple of bottles of wine and some beer. Oh, and some absinthe. So what can I get you?

As you say, dinosaurs could handle none of these and fell overboard. They were shit at swimming and all drowned. Plus they were drunk, so it's going to be harder to swim properly.
Makessense to me.
 
el Chi said:
Quite how scorpions' fluorescence is supposed to debunk evolutionary theory (or fact, depending on how far South you are) I cannot comprehend. There are a lot of things science cannot explain, but science has the humility to accept when it cannot explain something, yet still look for answers, as opposed to the hackneyed out-moded religious answer, which simply states blindly "God did it."
Click to expand...

Debunk evolutionary theory? What are you talking about? I'm not trying to debunk evolutionary theory. lol.

I'm just saying, its hard for me to follow any 'facts' about the creation of the universe when we can't even understand our own world. Unless the creation of the universe is infinitely more simple than the things on our own earth we cannot understand.

But why did God make scorpions fluoresce?
Because it was His will.
Why? What was his reasoning behind making scorpions fluoresce?
It was His will.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about god!
 
Actually it is, by definition, more simple than things we do not understand, by virtue of the fact that it is something we mostly understand.

Saying we can't understand our own world is fallacious. There is no Perfect Solution.
But, science has repeatedly and consistently proven that we can understand nearly everything, down to hiesenberg uncertainty.


Why are scorpions fluorescent?
I'm betting the same reason flowers are: many insects like bees can see (and are attracted to) ultraviolet wavelengths of light.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Actually it is, by definition, more simple than things we do not understand, by virtue of the fact that it is something we mostly understand.


Why are scorpions fluorescent?
I'm betting the same reason flowers are: many insects like bees can see (and are attracted to) ultraviolet wavelengths of light.
Click to expand...

I was watching animal planet and it said that the reasons why all scorpions floresce, even after being fossilized, is unexplainable by science.

All i'm saying is... I don't buy the big bang theory. It's just a theory, it's disputed even among scientific circles.
 
yet genesis is somehow more credible? the big bang theory is based on observable phenomenon genesis is based on ..well ...
 
CptStern said:
yet genesis is somehow more credible? the big bang theory is based on observable phenomenon genesis is based on ..well ...
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about creationist. I'm just saying that the answer science currently has for the creation of the universe, isn't convincing enough for me.
 
well that's your opinion ...doesnt make the alternative more plausible
 
CptStern said:
well that's your opinion ...doesnt make the alternative more plausible
Click to expand...

You're right, it is my opinion. I don't know what scientific alternative I believe. The theory I believe in hasn't been created yet(all god talk aside). God doesn't factor in for me, the science of how the universe was created.I don't think things just 'appeared'... if I thought god created the universe, I think there is some complicated creation that happened, using all the physics and stuff that he developed. The belief of god does not negate the belief of science, for everybody.
 
yes but do you even understand it? you cant dismiss something just because you may not understand it
 
CptStern said:
yes but do you even understand it? you cant dismiss something just because you may not understand it
Click to expand...

I don't fully understand it, no... but I also don't fully understand how science can think something was created out of nothingness. The big bang for instance, from what i've garnered... science either things there was nothing before the big bang, or nothing we know of before it.
 
yes but you're clinging on to words that are essentially meaningless because you dont understand what it means in the context of the theory ..the "nothing" suddenly becomes a "gravitational singularity" ..which doesnt necessarily mean the same thing but without the context it's meaningless
 
CptStern said:
yes but you're clinging on to words that are essentially meaningless because you dont understand what it means in the context of the theory ..the "nothing" suddenly becomes a "gravitational singularity" ..which doesnt necessarily mean the same thing but without the context it's meaningless
Click to expand...

I don't know what a gravitational singularity is... but even if I did... how does such a thing even come to exist? How was it created, how did it get there? How did anything 'get there'?
 
I think you have to understand how ridiculous it is for everything that is the universe to supposedly come from nothing, or from a gravitational, all-beginning instant,
to understand how sense can be made from an everything-creating intelligence that might have come from somewhere, possibly being that beginning instant.
 
_Z_Ryuken said:
I think you have to understand how ridiculous it is for everything that is the universe to supposedly come from nothing, or from a gravitational, all-beginning instant,
to understand how sense can be made from an everything-creating intelligence that might have come from somewhere, possibly being that beginning instant.
Click to expand...

Well... see the whole thing about the belief of god, is that that being, whatever it is... even if it isn't the being we think created everything, is outside of the world of physics that defines everything in our existence.

I know it sounds rediculous... but that is what faith is, the belief in the supernatural.
 
Raziaar said:
I don't know what a gravitational singularity is... but even if I did... how does such a thing even come to exist? How was it created, how did it get there? How did anything 'get there'?
Click to expand...
Whenever I try to answer that question, and I have been trying since before I could write, I try to imagine what it would be like if nothing had ever existed.

That is a much more difficult question to answer.
Usually the answer to the previous question comes to mind,
and
that answer is
that the alternative is absolutely unthinkable.
Some famous person said that.
But
I believe it is impossible for the universe not to exist. It simply has to. That's why it does.
Nothing existed before the creation of it because there was nothing before it's creation.

Raziaar said:
Well... see the whole thing about the belief of god, is that that being, whatever it is... even if it isn't the being we think created everything, is outside of the world of physics that defines everything in our existence.

I know it sounds rediculous... but that is what faith is, the belief in the supernatural.
Click to expand...
Consider how little we know about what's natural beyond our own limited scope, I hardly consider an all-powerful being super or even remotely ridiculous.
 
The problem is the science behind the creation of the universe etc. is far beyond what most people can even comprehend, let alone understand. The masses don't like that...
 
Raziaar said:
Debunk evolutionary theory? What are you talking about? I'm not trying to debunk evolutionary theory. lol.

I'm just saying, its hard for me to follow any 'facts' about the creation of the universe when we can't even understand our own world. Unless the creation of the universe is infinitely more simple than the things on our own earth we cannot understand.



I wasn't talking about god!
Click to expand...
I wasn't having a go at you (should've made that clearer - sorry!), but rather the creationist mentality and justification.
Plus I was tit-faced and rant-ready, so sorry for the confusion :)
 
Read steven hawkings a breif history of time.
I've been reading it in bed for the past couple of days. Its wonderful.
 
Solaris said:
Read steven hawkings a breif history of time.
I've been reading it in bed for the past couple of days. Its wonderful.
Click to expand...

that reminds me, one time in general studies about some religious belief crap, a guy said he believed in God becuase Stephen Hawkings says he exists. I was very confused
 
Raziaar, I don't think any theory could satisfy you. If you think about it for the minute you're wondering how could everything come of nothing? If everything didn't come from nothing then everything was there to begin with, which doesn't fit with human perception of the world. I have often wondered about this sort of thing to the point where I have almost given myself headaches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

unozero
'Hello mum, this is going to be hard for you to read ...'
3 4 5
Replies
164
Views
8K
Absinthe
Absinthe
Back
Top