Jump to content


Photo

Roger Ebert Reviews Expelled


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
78 replies to this topic

#41 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 December 2008 - 12:26 PM

Good Point. Did you get a chance to see this seminar that Jason777 posted?

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1897

View Post

Not yet. I have dial-up. About twice a month on average, I get a chance to watch videos

The Edinborough Creation Group is impressive, and I'm making my way through their list. The flood model they support is like what I've seen out of European creationists before. It differs from American and Australian models in that it attempts to incorporate atheist constructions of the "geologic column". Other than that, they're pretty much spot-on.

Well, that and they believe in 'natural selection' more than I do; but so do most creationists. I have concluded that it should be rejected lock, stock, & barrel.
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1655

#42 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 13 December 2008 - 10:47 AM

Well, the last sentence is absolutely true, at least as far as I'm concerned.  I am way to cool to ever believe in God.  Yup.

View Post


So what would you say makes it cool?

#43 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 13 December 2008 - 10:53 AM

Not yet. I have dial-up. About twice a month on average, I get a chance to watch videos

The Edinborough Creation Group is impressive, and I'm making my way through their list. The flood model they support is like what I've seen out of European creationists before. It differs from American and Australian models in that it attempts to incorporate atheist constructions of the "geologic column". Other than that, they're pretty much spot-on.

Well, that and they believe in 'natural selection' more than I do; but so do most creationists. I have concluded that it should be rejected lock, stock, & barrel.
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1655

View Post


What I'd like to do, or see someone else do. Is go out to the Grand Canyon and take a core sample of the layers. Dump them into a glass tube of water and see if they layer up just like the layers are already laid. That would be proof without doubt that the flood laid it like that.

The thing is, I am surprised no secular scientist has ever tried this, or maybe they have. And did not like the results. But they are always claiming their research is not bias. A test like this would settle it, which meakes me wonder why they are not interested?

#44 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 13 December 2008 - 10:58 AM

Blaming atheism for the atrocities of Stalin and Pol Pot is similar to blaming Christianity for the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades.  All through history people have been known to commit violence against their fellow human beings motivated by ideologies and philosophies, there is no arguing against that.  But to conclude that these philosophies, and not human nature itself (usually a hunger for power), were to blame is just not supported by the evidence.

And if you want to go down that road, we can talk about the Taliban, and Islamist suicide bombers, and any number of violations of humanity whose base philosophy is clearly a fundamentalist religious belief system, not atheism.

View Post


I'm glad someone understands this. But the last part. I can bring up a list that would way out do anything religious, and totally connects to athiestic views. Not that it would make any difference. But if you want to see which side was way worse in mass murder, I can provide this list.

#45 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 13 December 2008 - 11:28 AM

You're confusing moral behavior and the freedom to have your own ideas.


Ah, so it's up to the individual to decide?

My ideas, my thoughts, my way of thinking, will not change no matter what society says.  My behavior will be influenced by society, however.  And in this ever-shifting moral landscape, behavior that may have been acceptable in the past may not be acceptable now.  And vice versa.


The concept of humanism. Man is God and no one is going to tell them differently. So like God they follow no other rules.

Beating your wife and children used to be perfectly acceptable.  Now you could go to jail for this behavior.  Having multiple wives was once acceptable.  Now in most places this behavior is frowned upon.


Kids beating their parents, and raping their teachers is now acceptable. Teachers having s@x with students is now acceptable. Kids having s@x in the class room is now acceptable. Kids killing kids because they don't fit in is acceptable. Kids failing class several years in a role until they drop our is acceptable. Kids getting STDs because they are taught safe s@x instead of abstinence is acceptable. America having a current school system where it's education is being out done by some third world countries is acceptable.

Since the introduction of evolution, this is what is acceptable. Even the Columbine killings had several connections to evolution and Hitler, and zero connection to anything religious. Except that kids were selected and killed for what they believed.

Attached File  part1.jpg   7.24KB   11 downloads
Attached File  part2.jpg   6.41KB   23 downloads

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4eRb4GumGyQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4eRb4GumGyQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And even some of the worst totally connect to evolution and no religion for what they do:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eOJO8oMJv8E&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eOJO8oMJv8E&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

So for every atrocity that you point to religion about, to make your own belief look much better, I can pull ones up much worse for the atheistic side of the issue. Which usually includes the belief in evolutionism.

If I visited Saudi Arabia, I would wear a scarf, because even though I don't think women need to cover their heads as a rule, I wouldn't want to draw attention to myself and "rebel" against their social standards.  (I wouldn't move there to live, however.  I enjoy walking around in public by myself, and I enjoy driving my car!)


That is called freedom. Cults take away freedom.

Now, I imagine you'll say, your ideas about morality will inevitably influence your actions.  You're right, but usually most normal people are constrained by the fact that as social animals we wish to be accepted by the society we live in.  In fact, our very survival and the survival of our families may depend on being accepted by our community.   Add to this our ability to feel empathy, to put ourselves in another person's shoes, and our actions are naturally restricted and kept in check.  There isn't any need for an outside standard.  Even if there were an outside standard that we measured our morality against, in the end, we would be judging that external standard by something external to it.  You really can't see that?

View Post


And your idea of teaching others they are animals also gives them the excuse for being immoral because they were reverting back to the animal instinct. I am waiting for a court case in which someone will walk scot free using that claim. They use everything else, so why not the excuse that it's base is from the evolution theory?

I did it because I'm an animal, I can't help it and evolution will prove it. Not guilty.

#46 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 13 December 2008 - 02:17 PM

Hi Ikester,

What I'd like to do, or see someone else do. Is go out to the Grand Canyon and take a core sample of the layers. Dump them into a glass tube of water and see if they layer up just like the layers are already laid. That would be proof without doubt that the flood laid it like that.


Beleive it or not an evolutionist tried to refute Steve Austin by pointing out that only 4 or 5 nautiloids exist in the grand canyon.After Steve did some more feild work he discovered a case in the redwall limestone that stretches all the way to Las Vegas and contains between 1-5 billion nautiloids.It does'nt prove the flood of the bible is true,but it does prove those layers were formed catastrophicaly and not by slow gradual deposition.

Thanks.

#47 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 13 December 2008 - 04:10 PM

Being an atheist means that you are a person that does not believe in gods.

That's it.
The "Man is the highest known being" is your own spin on the meaning of the word atheist.  Where do you get all your information on what you think atheists think?

View Post


No it's not my own spin. It's a FACT. That's it.

#48 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 December 2008 - 09:33 PM

Being an atheist means that you are a person that does not believe in gods.

That's it.
The "Man is the highest known being" is your own spin on the meaning of the word atheist.  Where do you get all your information on what you think atheists think?

No it's not my own spin. It's a FACT. That's it.

View Post

Careful scott.... all it takes to refute what you say is for someone to provide an example of a being that atheists accept as being higher than man.

#49 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 14 December 2008 - 07:22 AM

No it's not my own spin.  It's a FACT.  That's it.

View Post


I am an atheist and I'm telling you otherwise. Atheists do no believe that "Man is the highest known being". Atheists believe that there are no gods.

#50 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 14 December 2008 - 07:24 AM

[quote name='CTD' date='Dec 13 2008, 09:33 PM']
No it's not my own spin. It's a FACT. That's it.

View Post

[/quote]
Careful scott.... all it takes to refute what you say is for someone to provide an example of a being that atheists accept as being higher than man.

View Post

[/quote]

The defining thing about atheists is that they don't believe that gods exist. Anything outside of that is not covered by the definition of atheism.

#51 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 14 December 2008 - 11:15 AM

[quote name='CTD' date='Dec 13 2008, 09:33 PM']
No it's not my own spin. It's a FACT. That's it.

View Post

[/quote]
Careful scott.... all it takes to refute what you say is for someone to provide an example of a being that atheists accept as being higher than man.

View Post

[/quote]

No need to be careful, because if an atheist truly believes there are known beings higher than man. Then what are they saying. Ah yes aliens are higher than man, uh huh, and their existance is NOT known.

Besides if an atheist believed there were higher beings then they wouldn't be atheist, for they would be insisting in some form of god, or insisting that their pet goldfish is a higher being than them simply on their incorrect bias.

#52 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 14 December 2008 - 11:18 AM

I am an atheist and I'm telling you otherwise.  Atheists do no believe that "Man is the highest known being".  Atheists believe that there are no gods.

View Post


You quote Hamlet, also I am telling you otherwise, because simply you cannot provide any evidence whatsoever of a being higher than man that is known, and i am calling you out on it because you are wrong.

If you insist that there are beings higher than man. Then you will have to provide the facts and not just your bias. Also, I am not insisting this is what anybody thinks or believes, it is just reality.

#53 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 14 December 2008 - 04:07 PM

I guess it's tempting to rank all living things. We humans like to establish hierarchies. If you were to rank mammals by sheer brain power and imagination, you'd be hard pressed to find another mammal who can be ranked higher than human beings.

That said, I don't see how this translates to atheists claiming "we are god." Or even "we are the pinnacle of creation." That's you guys. You claim to be made in God's image, to the exclusion of all other living things. That to me seems pretty arrogant, but that's just me.

If I were to claim I know everything, and moreover, I personally created the universe, then you'd have cause to claim that I am delusional, because I think I'm God. No atheist I've met has ever claimed anything nearly this bizarre. Yet you Christians keep accusing us of claiming we are gods.

#54 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 14 December 2008 - 04:34 PM

Why would you rank animals by brain power and intelligence? Why not speed, potency of venom, how deep they can swim under the sea, or how many legs they's got?

Assigning some sort of arbitrary hierarchy to animals and positioning us at the top is utterly meaningless. How do you measure whether animal x is 'higher' than animal y? What criteria do you use?

#55 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 14 December 2008 - 05:14 PM

Why would you rank animals by brain power and intelligence? Why not speed, potency of venom, how deep they can swim under the sea, or how many legs they's got?

Assigning some sort of arbitrary hierarchy to animals and positioning us at the top is utterly meaningless. How do you measure whether animal x is 'higher' than animal y? What criteria do you use?

View Post



Precisely.

In all actuality, every species alive today is at the pinnacle of its evolution - otherwise it wouldn't be here.

We just like to imagine ourselves as the undisputed masters of the earth. Religion does this by having God grant stewardship to mankind over all the beasts of the fields. Science does it by making intelligence the ultimate survival tool. But that's all it is - a survival tool. We don't have innate tools like speed or teeth or claws or hawk-like eyesight, therefore we have found a way to make up for these deficiencies by using our abnormally large cerebral cortex. However, having a big brain in no way makes us inherently "superior" to any other species.

#56 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 14 December 2008 - 06:20 PM

Why would you rank animals by brain power and intelligence? Why not speed, potency of venom, how deep they can swim under the sea, or how many legs they's got?

Assigning some sort of arbitrary hierarchy to animals and positioning us at the top is utterly meaningless. How do you measure whether animal x is 'higher' than animal y? What criteria do you use?

View Post

Would it be "scientific" to look at evolutionist charts?

Or maybe seeing who's "at the top of the food chain" would be objective?

Cracks me up, this new propaganda that "nothing's higher than anything else". It's pretty recent, and pretty unconvincing.

I have no need to argue that humans are the most highly evolved. Plenty of atheist evolutionists have already reached this conclusion.

#57 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 14 December 2008 - 09:48 PM

If you insist that there are beings higher than man.  Then you will have to provide the facts and not just your bias. 

View Post


I didn't. You stated "Man is the highest known being".

#58 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 14 December 2008 - 09:49 PM

Would it be "scientific" to look at evolutionist charts?

Or maybe seeing who's "at the top of the food chain" would be objective?

Cracks me up, this new propaganda that "nothing's higher than anything else". It's pretty recent, and pretty unconvincing.

I have no need to argue that humans are the most highly evolved. Plenty of atheist evolutionists have already reached this conclusion.

View Post


Good point. There's no way I would stand up to a lion in a bare fist fight. A lion would easily outclass me in weight, stamina and speed. That's a fact. Even my ability to climb trees wouldn't save me.

I guess you are right, in a survival situation like that, a lion would be higher than me.

#59 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 15 December 2008 - 02:37 AM

Good point.  There's no way I would stand up to a lion in a bare fist fight.  A lion would easily outclass me in weight, stamina and speed. That's a fact. Even my ability to climb trees wouldn't save me.

I guess you are right, in a survival situation like that, a lion would be higher than me.

View Post

I am right about what? I never said you'd get into a bare fist fight with a lion.

#60 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 15 December 2008 - 02:51 AM

Would it be "scientific" to look at evolutionist charts?

I don't see the relevance, but which charts in particular are you talking about?

Or maybe seeing who's "at the top of the food chain" would be objective?

Sure, why not? That's as random a criteria as anything else. In a city I'd say humans were at the top. But what if you were wandering about the Masai Mara (without a gun)? Or swimming in the sea at Gansbaai, South Africa?

I have no need to argue that humans are the most highly evolved. Plenty of atheist evolutionists have already reached this conclusion.

Anyone who claims humans are the most highly evolved animals doesn't understand the ToE. I suggest you ignore them.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users