Evolution? How?

farmerman wrote:

real life, in a bit of 3 card monty says
Quote:
I have no disagreement with this process and have said as much numerous times in this thread.

Nearly every region of the Earth shows evidence of having been undersea, which is consistent with what I've said.

No its not. You said that all sediments were underseas and were deposited as sediments on mountaintops.

I don't think I said this. If you are able to show where I did.......

I think you assumed that is what I meant.

All that is needed to be consistent, for instance with Genesis, is to show that nearly every region of the Earth was undersea at some point.

It is not necessary to show that any specific area was at any particular altitude at that point.

The Earth could've been as 'flat' as western Kansas for all I care.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

real life wrote:
DS,

You said,

Quote:
With enough conditioning, brainwashing, preaching and proselytizing, I am convinced the average mind can be convinced of anything...

Who convinced you of this?

Is this an idea that you came up with all on your own without anyone suggesting the idea to you?

How came you to hold your set of beliefs? No doubt discussions with other people and exposure to their ideas, whether through books, lectures, discussion, etc played a large part, no?

Certainly you will say, 'well I thought thru what I heard, and kept or modified what I thought reasonable and discarded what I did not consider reasonable'

Are you assuming that others do not do so simply because they do not agree with your conclusions?

How is your process for arriving at your belief any different from what you are criticizing?

(Hint: It's not.)

Bee Ess

You seem to be insinuating in your usual roundabout indirect (some might say slippery) way that all 'beliefs' are equally founded in reality, and that all people have the same intellectual tools with which to formulate said beliefs.
To that I simply say...
HAH!
If you believe that I got a bridge you might be interested in buying.

You seem to be assuming that because YOU say a belief is founded in reality, then it is. And if YOU say a belief is NOT founded in reality, then it is not.

Any proof for this, other than your say-so?

Again you also seem to be implying that your 'intellectual tools' are superior to those of folks who disagree with you.

Any proof for this also, other than your say-so?

I won't hold my breath.

0 Replies

real, Whatever your arguments for a world flood, the fact of the matter is that the story of a world flood is based on mythology - even in Hindusim and the Epic of Gilgamesh that predates your bible myth.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about mythology involving great floods. For other uses, see deluge.

The story of a Great Flood sent by God or the gods to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution is a widespread theme in myths. The stories of Noah and his ark in Genesis, Matsya in the Puranas scriptures of Hinduism, and Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh are among the most familiar versions of these myths. A large percentage of the world's cultures past and present have stories of a "great flood" that devastated earlier civilization.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real, Whatever your arguments for a world flood, the fact of the matter is that the story of a world flood is based on mythology - even in Hindusim and the Epic of Gilgamesh that predates your bible myth.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about mythology involving great floods. For other uses, see deluge.

The story of a Great Flood sent by God or the gods to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution is a widespread theme in myths. The stories of Noah and his ark in Genesis, Matsya in the Puranas scriptures of Hinduism, and Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh are among the most familiar versions of these myths. A large percentage of the world's cultures past and present have stories of a "great flood" that devastated earlier civilization.

Yes, by some counts there are hundreds of Flood stories from China to South America. What's yer point? You have offered no proof that would show that NONE of the stories can possibly be true, have you?

If there had been a worldwide flood that effected the ancestors of every living person, then Flood stories in nearly every culture around the globe is exactly what we would expect, isn't it?

My earlier point was that nearly every area of Earth shows evidence of having been undersea. And that is exactly what you would expect if there had been a worldwide flood, is it not?

You would also expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers that had been laid down by water all over the Earth. And that is exactly what we do find, is it not?

(BTW I have made NO argument that EVERY sedimentary strata is a result of Noah's flood. So don't even try that one.)

0 Replies

rl, flatly not the case. What you would have to show is that every point on earth was underwater AT THE SAME TIME. What you're saying is tantamount to saying that if New Orleans was underwater in 2005 and the area that's now the Himalayas was underwater 200,000,000 years ago, since they were both underwater, that proves Noah's flood 6000 years ago happened. That's your argument. It's patently absurd.

To repeat, only some cultures have flood myths--those near rivers that periodically flood, or coastlines, most usually. And if you study those flood myths, they have no points in common with all of them. All of those that exist have the ancestors of the people telling them surviving. The gods or spirits that help them survive aren't the Judaeo-Christian god. Theiancestors that survive aren't Noah. They don't survive in boats in many of them (e.g. in the Western Hemispher, they usually survive by escaping that world into the sky or underground, into another world, and that's only one of four catastrophes (others being typically a total conflagration and a massive wind) that have caused them to flee from world to world. And the Noah story is after all a not particularly original retelling of the Flood myth of Gilgamesh from the Fertile Crescent, which predates it by at least a thousand years. God seems to have been a plagiarist.

0 Replies

And you might try studying the process of fossil deposition and for that matter rock formation and the amounts of time required before you make silly blanket statements like that.

0 Replies

username wrote:

And you might try studying the process of fossil deposition and for that matter rock formation and the amounts of time required before you make silly blanket statements like that.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you would reference what statement you are talking about.

Reading minds is against my religion.

0 Replies

real, Just type it into a search engine. You might be surprised how many hits you get.

Since your brain is calcified against studying geology, anthropology, paleontology, and all topics that comes under the general topic of science, it won't sink into your brain anywhos.

Your question in response to username shows your ignorance and inability to seek facts that will undermine your religious beliefs. Sad.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real, Just type it into a search engine. You might be surprised how many hits you get.

Since your brain is calcified against studying geology, anthropology, paleontology, and all topics that comes under the general topic of science, it won't sink into your brain anywhos.

Your question in response to username shows your ignorance and inability to seek facts that will undermine your religious beliefs. Sad.

OK here's what comes up when I type it into a search engine. Big deal.

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=it&kgs=1&kls=0

0 Replies

duh.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
real life wrote:
DS,

You said,

Quote:
With enough conditioning, brainwashing, preaching and proselytizing, I am convinced the average mind can be convinced of anything...

Who convinced you of this?

Is this an idea that you came up with all on your own without anyone suggesting the idea to you?

How came you to hold your set of beliefs? No doubt discussions with other people and exposure to their ideas, whether through books, lectures, discussion, etc played a large part, no?

Certainly you will say, 'well I thought thru what I heard, and kept or modified what I thought reasonable and discarded what I did not consider reasonable'

Are you assuming that others do not do so simply because they do not agree with your conclusions?

How is your process for arriving at your belief any different from what you are criticizing?

(Hint: It's not.)

Bee Ess

You seem to be insinuating in your usual roundabout indirect (some might say slippery) way that all 'beliefs' are equally founded in reality, and that all people have the same intellectual tools with which to formulate said beliefs.
To that I simply say...
HAH!
If you believe that I got a bridge you might be interested in buying.

You seem to be assuming that because YOU say a belief is founded in reality, then it is. And if YOU say a belief is NOT founded in reality, then it is not.

Any proof for this, other than your say-so?

Again you also seem to be implying that your 'intellectual tools' are superior to those of folks who disagree with you.

Any proof for this also, other than your say-so?

I won't hold my breath.

Slippery as always, at least you are consistent in that manner.

Ok real, you want to press this, let's explore your egalitarian nonsense stance a little.
First, answer these two simple questions. Yes or no.
Do all people have the same capacity to reason?
Are all beliefs equally valid?

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

real life wrote:
Doktor S wrote:
real life wrote:
DS,

You said,

Quote:
With enough conditioning, brainwashing, preaching and proselytizing, I am convinced the average mind can be convinced of anything...

Who convinced you of this?

Is this an idea that you came up with all on your own without anyone suggesting the idea to you?

How came you to hold your set of beliefs? No doubt discussions with other people and exposure to their ideas, whether through books, lectures, discussion, etc played a large part, no?

Certainly you will say, 'well I thought thru what I heard, and kept or modified what I thought reasonable and discarded what I did not consider reasonable'

Are you assuming that others do not do so simply because they do not agree with your conclusions?

How is your process for arriving at your belief any different from what you are criticizing?

(Hint: It's not.)

Bee Ess

You seem to be insinuating in your usual roundabout indirect (some might say slippery) way that all 'beliefs' are equally founded in reality, and that all people have the same intellectual tools with which to formulate said beliefs.
To that I simply say...
HAH!
If you believe that I got a bridge you might be interested in buying.

You seem to be assuming that because YOU say a belief is founded in reality, then it is. And if YOU say a belief is NOT founded in reality, then it is not.

Any proof for this, other than your say-so?

Again you also seem to be implying that your 'intellectual tools' are superior to those of folks who disagree with you.

Any proof for this also, other than your say-so?

I won't hold my breath.

Slippery as always, at least you are consistent in that manner.

Ok real, you want to press this, let's explore your egalitarian nonsense stance a little.
First, answer these two simple questions. Yes or no.
Do all people have the same capacity to reason?
Are all beliefs equally valid?

No doubt we would both answer 'no' to both questions.

You, just like every other human on the planet, think that YOUR beliefs are the correct ones; that YOU have logically sifted through various beliefs and found what is true and what is false.

You see yourself as unique in this regard.

You are not.

Nearly everyone on the planet sees themselves as holding correct beliefs, logically arrived at.

You are convinced that if one disagrees with you, then they must be 'brainwashed' or 'conditioned' and have succumbed because they are of an 'average mind'.

Meanwhile your SUPERIOR intellect has correctly discerned between truth and error, and has not fallen prey to simply picking up someone else's ideas. No, YOUR ideas are truly original AND they are TRUE.

What arrogance.

You arrived at your beliefs the same way everybody else does. You don't like thinking of yourself as being like others in this regard, but it is clear that you are.

Your beliefs are not only unoriginal, but they are so preposterous (you consider yourself to be 'god', for instance) that few people will even take you seriously if they know what you believe.

This is unpleasant for your ego, so you comfort yourself by imagining yourself to be 'smarter' than most in this regard.

Keep on dreaming.

--------------------------------------------

So, again to answer your questions:

Not all people have the same capacity to reason. I would put those who imagine themselves to be 'god' in the category with the weakest reasoning power, unless they offer proof other than their own say-so.

And not all beliefs are equally valid. I would consider the belief that oneself is 'god' to be completely irrational unless one can qualify as possessing characteristics equal to the definition of the word.

0 Replies

That whole reply was one big strawman, so I'll not address it point by point.
I've never asserted 'my beliefs' are the correct ones, or even that there are correct beliefs.
It is you that believes in an immutable manual for human existence not I.

Yes I am smarter than most, what of it? Yes, it is plain to me that many have poor reasoning skills and are very gullible. Do you dispute this?
Since you answered no to both questions, surely you don't.
What we have is reason and logic. we can either work with them or against them, but only one way leads to true conclusions.

0 Replies

If you're talking about the god of the bible, that's easily done, because your bible god approves of slavery, discriminates against homosexuals, and kills innocent babies (from the world flood).

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know those values are not good. How people of religion has the capacity to twist these truths and say he's a loving god is beyond logic and common sense.

0 Replies

The other issue is the religionists pursuit to change our laws to reflect your religious beliefs. Rather than keep your religion to yourselves, you want everybody to follow your beliefs by changing our laws.

I will continue to challenge religionists that continue to change our laws to discriminate against homosexuals and to teach ID in our schools.

You guys aren't as innocent as you make yourselves out to be.

0 Replies

It's bad enough that our christian president declares one brain damaged woman's life to be "precious" while not flinching in the killing of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq.

Yeah, there's a whole lot of difference in our beliefs and how we arrive at what we believe.

0 Replies

http://www.google.com/trends?q=creation%2Cevolution%2C+intelligent+design%2C+God&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

My earlier point was that nearly every area of Earth shows evidence of having been undersea. And that is exactly what you would expect if there had been a worldwide flood, is it not?

Only if viewed from an extremely simplistic manner that ignores physics, geography, geological processes and a whole passel of other rules that we respect.

I like your stealth correlation statements like
"In order to be consistent with Genesis , for example". I am pleased that many of us dont have to remain cuffed in myth before being able to interpret the world. You do have a problem when everything you observe must be "consistent with Genesis".Thats illogical and a waste of our time.

0 Replies

It may in fact be true that all land on earth was, at one time or another, under water--but there is no good reason to believe that it was all underwater at the same time, nor to assume that all now "dry land" was under sea. Even in the benighted days of the 1960s, enough was known about the surface geological properties of earth that our instructor in "earth sciences" (very trendy name then, may still be for ought that i know) had little difficultry in dealing with the few, resentful creationists who would jump up in class to make assertions such as are made by the member "real life."

Plus ça change, plus c'est le même chose . . .

0 Replies

And what may I ask, RR was the point of that graph? Hm? You sure don't belong in a scientific establishment, because they at least explain their graphs, state how they obtained the data and what specifically it represents. They make them very clear as to their purpose and why they're there.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know