Jump to content


The Speed Of Light


  • Please log in to reply
743 replies to this topic

#221 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 13 November 2009 - 04:32 PM

If my religion says 2 + 2 = 417 and your religion says 2 + 2 = 714, what is there to debate? 

View Post

There is nothing to debate because you are both wrong.

#222 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 13 November 2009 - 06:40 PM

I found this video on cosmology that some people might find interesting.

View Post

Jason was this suppose to convince me of anything? Comparisons made to computer generated guesses, to see see if their guesses are valid. Admissions of not knowing what it is that they are studying, that there are great quantities of energy and matter that exist but can't be measured yet, but it must be there because our theories say so. Even a world wide test for this dark energy (or was that for matter) that is so wonderful because in spite of the fact that nothing has yet been found.

I did not hear or see one thing that suggested God could not have made the universe. In fact, God seems a reasonable answr to the questions that are evidently in need of answer. Appearantly the universe is a net sum of zero energy and matter, and requires outside influence to exist. Hmm?

#223 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 13 November 2009 - 06:45 PM

If we were truly tolerant of other peoples religion, we wouldn't laugh at their ideas or claim they are from a sick mind.

Do you think a forum dedicated to Christianity vs. Hinduism would be a worthwhile subject?  Would it be okay to point out the ridiculousness of multiple (false) gods.  And claim that hindu creation stories are ramblings, double-talk and "symptoms consistent with dangerously advanced hindusickness"?

View Post

Why be tolerant of a religion that refuses to admit it's a religion, refuses to acknowledge its pantheon of goddesses, and promotes both immorality and amorality?

Tolerance has at least one purpose. Tolerance is a means toward peaceful coexistence. Modern evolutionism's goal, from the very beginning was to attack Christianity. We do tolerate evolutionists - even evopushers in our society, in case you never noticed. What we don't do is surrender to their desires that we all die or become their slaves, or whatever other malicious plans they harbour.

Christians have an imperative to be peaceful. Evolutionism has an imperative to destroy. Some may have learned nothing from the U.S.S.R. and their idea of "peace". I have learned a couple of the most obvious lessons, myself. Until and unless I'm confident it is God's will, I do not intend to be trodden under foot. If that revelation brings sorrow to anyone, good! They should get used to it.

I'm not particularly interested in how you intend to equivocate and try to paint me as "intolerant" for rejecting falsehood. The term will not serve your purposes. You may live, work, play in the community. You may not shove lies down people's throats unopposed. Whining about opposition won't make it stop.

Tolerance is not what you want for evolutionism. Tolerance is not enough to suit you. If you want evolutionism to be respected as more proper religions are commonly respected, the faithful need to own up to their silly crypto-goddesses, their blind faith, and their goals. A religion that's too cowardly to even admit its own beliefs is as mockworthy as anything in the world. I suspect there is even an obligation among honest, informed intellects to mock such an arrogantly suicidal and homicidal farce of a belief system.

#224 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 13 November 2009 - 06:49 PM

If my religion says 2 + 2 = 417 and your religion says 2 + 2 = 714, what is there to debate?

There is nothing to debate because you are both wrong.

View Post

That's no deterrent. Just look at all the schools of "abiogenesis research" arguing against each other, most - if not all - of them knowing full well they're all wrong.

#225 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 November 2009 - 06:54 PM

Evolutionism has an imperative to destroy.

:blink:

#226 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 November 2009 - 07:01 PM

That's no deterrent. Just look at all the schools of "abiogenesis research" arguing against each other, most - if not all - of them knowing full well they're all wrong.

View Post


NO... You're wrong, because I was wrong about your wrongness. And, because your wrongness is classically falsifiable, you are correct in your wrongness as well. :P

Wait, I think I pulled a brain muscle on that one :blink:

#227 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 13 November 2009 - 07:52 PM

"If my religion says 2 + 2 = 417 and your religion says 2 + 2 = 714, what is there to debate?"
Well, there's the simple fact that you'd both be objectively wrong.

View Post

Exactly, whether Christianity vs. Scientology, Islam vs. Sun Worship, Sunni vs. Shiite, or Creation vs. Evolution... all sides believe their worldview is true and the others wrong.

Some here will claim Christianity is objectively true due to their "faith" and evidence that correlates with their observation, but if they are honest about it, a person's "faith" in Sun Worship is just as true and can make evidential observations.

So given that no religion can really claim absolute and objective truth over another, they are all equally false or true. And there is no sense in arguing the difference.

Tolerance is acceptancing the existance of.  Not an agreement to not debate.

View Post

Sure... so why are some here so vitriolic towards evolution? The criticism of evolution gets quite scathing. Granted so to do some criticisms of YEC, FrankH an example. Is that the type of behaviour this forum wants to draw out of people?

Even some of my criticisms of Christianity have been quite blunt when I reflect on it. And that actually bothers me, because outside this forum I'm very indifferent towards Christianity. It's not my cup of tea, but I not offended that others believe it. So I can't help but think, this forum sometimes brings out the worst in people, through the adverserial set up.

Why be tolerant of a religion that refuses to admit it's a religion, refuses to acknowledge its pantheon of goddesses, and promotes both immorality and amorality?

Some Buddhist's believe their religion is not a religion per se. Are you saying we should be intolerant of them for that misbelief?

Or intolerant of Buddhist ethics, which can get quite pragmatic?

Tolerance has at least one purpose. Tolerance is a means toward peaceful coexistence. Modern evolutionism's goal, from the very beginning was to attack Christianity.  We do tolerate evolutionists - even evopushers in our society, in case you never noticed. What we don't do is surrender to their desires that we all die or become their slaves, or whatever other malicious plans they harbour.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the evolutionist desire to kill everyone or make them slaves. When I was evolutionist, I certainly did not wish people be enslaved. All I wanted was to understand the universe.

I'm not particularly interested in how you intend to equivocate and try to paint me as "intolerant" for rejecting falsehood. The term will not serve your purposes. You may live, work, play in the community. You may not shove lies down people's throats unopposed. Whining about opposition won't make it stop.

So, I should reject your beliefs in the Bible?

As an atheist, the Bible and Jesus Christ are all mythical to me. I'm quite accepting of others believing these things, but I do think they are falsehoods. Are you suggesting I become a militant atheist and stop people shoving what I see as biblical "lies down people's throats unopposed"?

Tolerance is not what you want for evolutionism. Tolerance is not enough to suit you. If you want evolutionism to be respected as more proper religions are commonly respected, the faithful need to own up to their silly crypto-goddesses, their blind faith, and their goals.

I'm not asking evolutionism be respected. I'm questioning whether disrespecting it in this format is ethical.

A religion that's too cowardly to even admit its own beliefs is as mockworthy as anything in the world. I suspect there is even an obligation among honest, informed intellects to mock such an arrogantly suicidal and homicidal farce of a belief system.

View Post

That's just more vitriolic criticism. and what you say could be applied to any religion.

[insert Christianity/Islam/Sun Worship/Buddhism/Evolutionism... etc]: a religion that's too cowardly to even admit its own beliefs is as mockworthy as anything in the world.

#228 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 November 2009 - 08:41 PM

Exactly, whether Christianity vs. Scientology, Islam vs. Sun Worship, Sunni vs. Shiite, or Creation vs. Evolution... all sides believe their worldview is true and the others wrong.

Of course. But 2+2 is math, and math has nothing to do with faith or personal beliefs.

#229 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 13 November 2009 - 08:46 PM

Of course.  But 2+2 is math, and math has nothing to do with faith or personal beliefs.

View Post

Not if you're a pythagorean. :lol:

#230 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 November 2009 - 08:52 PM

Not if you're a pythagorean. :lol:

View Post

I can't say I'm familiar with the principles of pythagoreanism, but regardless, the pythagoreans died out about 2000 years ago, so I don't really see how they're relevant here.

#231 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 13 November 2009 - 08:55 PM

Exactly, whether Christianity vs. Scientology, Islam vs. Sun Worship, Sunni vs. Shiite, or Creation vs. Evolution... all sides believe their worldview is true and the others wrong.

Some here will claim Christianity is objectively true due to their "faith" and evidence that correlates with their observation, but if they are honest about it, a person's "faith" in Sun Worship is just as true and can make evidential observations.

So given that no religion can really claim absolute and objective truth over another, they are all equally false or true.  And there is no sense in arguing the difference.

Sure... so why are some here so vitriolic towards evolution?  The criticism of evolution gets quite scathing.  Granted so to do some criticisms of YEC, FrankH an example.  Is that the type of behaviour this forum wants to draw out of people?

Even some of my criticisms of Christianity have been quite blunt when I reflect on it.  And that actually bothers me, because outside this forum I'm very indifferent towards Christianity.  It's not my cup of tea, but I not offended that others believe it.  So I can't help but think, this forum sometimes brings out the worst in people, through the adverserial set up.

Some Buddhist's believe their religion is not a religion per se.  Are you saying we should be intolerant of them for that misbelief?

Or intolerant of Buddhist ethics, which can get quite pragmatic?

I'm not saying anything about Buddhism. I'm saying what I'm saying - not what you'd have me say. Comprende?

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the evolutionist desire to kill everyone or make them slaves.  When I was evolutionist, I certainly did not wish people be enslaved.  All I wanted was to understand the universe.

So, I should reject your beliefs in the Bible?

As an atheist, the Bible and Jesus Christ are all mythical to me.  I'm quite accepting of others believing these things, but I do think they are falsehoods.  Are you suggesting I become a militant atheist and stop people shoving what I see as biblical "lies down people's throats unopposed"?

I'm not asking evolutionism be respected.  I'm questioning whether disrespecting it in this format is ethical.

That's just more vitriolic criticism.  and what you say could be applied to any religion.

[insert Christianity/Islam/Sun Worship/Buddhism/Evolutionism... etc]: a religion that's too cowardly to even admit its own beliefs is as mockworthy as anything in the world.

View Post

I don't buy your silly relativism. All statements are not equally untrue (or true depending on the phase of the moon). Truth is truth, and that which contradicts truth is untrue. It's pretty binary.

Your problem is that you actually try to convince yourself everyone else is as phony and insincere as the knowledgeable evopusher. You argue with yourself from incredulity, for you have no evidence with which to support the conclusion. You want to believe there is no truth to be had, but you give yourself away. If you really believed there was no truth to be had, you wouldn't argue at all.

To argue that no position has merit is a self-defeating argument, for it is itself a position.

We all have access to common experiences and we share a common reality. The existence of people who misunderstand or misrepresent reality does not alter it. Why would anyone want to believe it does? Do you want to make others into gods? Or yourself? Better to seek truth than to seek ways to deny it. The number of untrue things is limitless, but none of them satisfy.

#232 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 November 2009 - 09:20 PM

I'm not asking evolutionism be respected.  I'm questioning whether disrespecting it in this format is ethical.

View Post


The problem here is that you believe evolution as a worldview and philosophy is being disrespected... And it is not!

There is a huge difference between disrespecting and refuting. There is also a big difference between disrespecting and disagreeing. And there is just as big a difference between disrespecting and pointing out the flaws and discrepancies of said worldview and philosophy.

And pointing out the religious qualities of said worldview and philosophy isn't disrespecting either. And NONE of the above is intolerant. But, it is being intolerant of the accuser to claim intolerance whether they be Christianity vs. Scientology, Islam vs. Sun Worship, Sunni vs. Shiite, Creation vs. Evolution or Atheist vs. Christian.

#233 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 14 November 2009 - 01:23 AM

The problem here is that you believe evolution as a worldview and philosophy is being disrespected... And it is not!

Ahh... I get it. I have the problem.

There is a huge difference between disrespecting and refuting. There is also a big difference between disrespecting and disagreeing. And there is just as big a difference between disrespecting and pointing out the flaws and discrepancies of said worldview and philosophy.

There is difference between disrepecting and refuting. But that's not the issue. Your claim its about refutation is a red-herring.

Refutation of science is one thing. But macro-evolution isn't a science; its a religion. So why do you target evolutionary religion in particular? Why not refute Buddhism, Hinduism or Gaia worship?

While you claim I have the problem, I think it is actually the case you have the problem, and are in denial. You hate evolution. You hate the fact people are learning about this religion, and you hate having it shoved down your throat. You hate the fact Christianity has finally be displaced as the dominant religion in Western society.

I'm not saying anything about Buddhism. I'm saying what I'm saying - not what you'd have me say. Comprende?

Yup, I understand. You don't like to answer questions that are put to you. As you demonstrated in the Giraffe thread that you started. :lol:

I don't buy your silly relativism. All statements are not equally untrue (or true depending on the phase of the moon). Truth is truth, and that which contradicts truth is untrue. It's pretty binary.

I'm not selling relativism.

Christians frequently claim that faith is required to understand the truth of the Bible. Other religions also ask for that type of faith in accepting their beliefs as truth. So if attaining truth requires faith, how is the truth claims of different religions qualified without appealing to respective religious dogma.

Your problem is that you actually try to convince yourself everyone else is as phony and insincere as the knowledgeable evopusher. You argue with yourself from incredulity, for you have no evidence with which to support the conclusion.

Your statements are some of the most hostile towards evolutheism in this forum, so I'm not surprised you cannot look at this issue objectively.

You want to believe there is no truth to be had, but you give yourself away. If you really believed there was no truth to be had, you wouldn't argue at all.

You can put all the words you want in my mouth, but I never said them. Nice way of avoid the issue of intolerance.

#234 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 November 2009 - 01:28 AM

Okay, not to get repetitive, but once again, I've got to ask you guys for the paper which has convinced you all that the speed of light's slowing down. I mean, if I didn't know better, I'd say you all just believed it because answersingenesis.com told you it was true...

And really, if you actually had read a paper with hard evidence that lead to the conclusion, I can't imagine that this would be a very hard question to answer.

#235 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 14 November 2009 - 03:14 AM

Jason was this suppose to convince me of anything?  Comparisons made to computer generated guesses, to see see if their guesses are valid.  Admissions of not knowing what it is that they are studying, that there are great quantities of energy and matter that exist but can't be measured yet, but it must be there because our theories say so.  Even a world wide test for this dark energy (or was that for matter) that is so wonderful because in spite of the fact that nothing has yet been found.

I did not hear or see one thing that suggested God could not have made the universe.  In fact, God seems a reasonable answr to the questions that are evidently in need of answer.  Appearantly the universe is a net sum of zero energy and matter, and requires outside influence to exist.  Hmm?

View Post


Well there's nothing in modern cosmology that says a god couldn't have made the universe. Though from what we know about the universe, it's quite clear that Genesis is incorrect.

#236 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 14 November 2009 - 05:30 AM

. The number of untrue things is limitless, but none of them satisfy.

View Post

You aren't suggesting that there is a direct connection between truth and satisfaction are you?

#237 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 November 2009 - 07:53 AM

Ahh... I get it.  I have the problem.

View Post

Absolutely, you're refusing to recognize your religious worldview.


There is difference between disrepecting and refuting.  But that's not the issue.  Your claim its about refutation is a red-herring. 

View Post

Nope, its not a red herring, its a matter of your not accepting that worldviews can be religions if the amount of faith in them is so great that you defend them dogmatically (to the point that when someone brings them up, you refer to them as "Red Herrings".)

Refutation of science is one thing.  But macro-evolution isn't a science; its a religion.  So why do you target evolutionary religion in particular?  Why not refute Buddhism, Hinduism or Gaia worship?

View Post


That's correct, Macro-evolution is nothing more than a model. And to many-many of its adherents a religion that they refuse to admit to. When evolutionists (evolutheists) admit its a religion, then we can move on to the next step. Remember, "admitting is the first step". When evolutheists ridicule Creationists for interjecting their world view into their science, they need to realize, they (the evolutheists)are doing the self same thing, and are therefore hypocritical. Now, I have no problem with their religion, they can believe in any god they want to. But, don't be hypocritical about it.

In as much as micro-evolution is concerned; it is nothing more than adapting to one's surroundings. I do that whenever I move from one extreme environment to another. You have just swapped the word "evolution" with the word adapt, to make the world view of evolution more palatable to the masses.

#238 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 14 November 2009 - 01:53 PM

Absolutely, you're refusing to recognize your religious worldview.

How many times have I told you, by Larry's definition of religion I accept my worldview is a religion.

Are you intentionally repeating your false allegation to agitate me?

The worst thing about this now, is I cannot even report your goading, because you are both the culprit and the moderator. :lol:

This is the best Catch 22 situation I have yet encountered. :)

Nope, its not a red herring, its a matter of your not accepting that worldviews can be religions if the amount of faith in them is so great that you defend them dogmatically (to the point that when someone brings them up, you refer to them as "Red Herrings".)

I accept world views are religions. I've stated in this thread in almost every post I made "evolution is a religion". I'm not defending evolution, I'm questioning why people here are intolerant of it. It seems, and inspite of all the Christian platitudes. Christians are intolerant of other religions. And worse are in denial of it.

That's correct, Macro-evolution is nothing more than a model. And to many-many of its adherents a religion that they refuse to admit to.

You indirectly betray your intolerance, by revealing you are offended by their denial. and worse, you have your own denials about doing it!

When evolutionists (evolutheists) admit its a religion, then we can move on to the next step. Remember, "admitting is the first step".

See... you don't respect their beliefs. You're treating it like an addiction or alcoholism. It seems Karl Marx was correct when he said, "Religion is the opiate of the people".

I do find it amusing that one addict is trying to cure another addict. :lol:

When evolutheists ridicule Creationists for interjecting their world view into their science, they need to realize, they (the evolutheists)are doing the self same thing, and are therefore hypocritical.  Now, I have no problem with their religion, they can believe in any god they want to. But, don't be hypocritical about it.

Hypocrisy and religion go hand-in-hand. Get over it Ron.

In as much as micro-evolution is concerned; it is nothing more than adapting to one's surroundings.

Do you mean micro-evolution is Lamarckism, and the adaption occurs by the creature changing in its life time and passing it changes on to its offspring. Or do you take the view, that environmental selection pressures bring about micro-evolution because the off spring that survive are the ones best fit to the new environment?

I do that whenever I move from one extreme environment to another. You have just swapped the word "evolution" with the word adapt, to make the world view of evolution more palatable to the masses.

View Post

No its "adaption" and "natural selection" that I claim are the same. From the creationist writings I have read that accept micro-evolution, they accept natural selection of offspring is the drive behind adaption. In this way there is no need for new information, but natural selection is still the process.

But all this is just evasion on your part because you still have not answered my questions:

So why do you target evolutionary religion in particular? Why not refute Buddhism, Hinduism or Gaia worship?

#239 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 November 2009 - 02:22 PM

How many times have I told you, by Larry's definition of religion I accept my worldview is a religion.

View Post


Hey, I just answered your question. It’s not my fault you don’t like the answer.

Are you intentionally repeating your false allegation to agitate me?

View Post


No, I just answered your question. It’s not my fault you are agitated by the answer.

The worst thing about this now, is I cannot even report your goading, because you are both the culprit and the moderator. :lol:
This is the best Catch 22 situation I have yet encountered. :)

View Post


Lounge, you can report anything you like. But quit pretending that I’m using any moderation authority to quell you voice. That is not only condescending, but it is blatantly deceitful as well.

I accept world views are religions.  I've stated in this thread in almost every post I made "evolution is a religion".  I'm not defending evolution, I'm questioning why people here are intolerant of it.  It seems, and inspite of all the Christian platitudes. Christians are intolerant of other religions.  And worse are in denial of it.

You indirectly betray your intolerance, by revealing you are offended by their denial.  and worse, you have your own denials about doing it!

See...  you don't respect their beliefs.  You're treating it like an addiction or alcoholism.  It seems Karl Marx was correct when he said, "Religion is the opiate of the people". 

I do find it amusing that one addict is trying to cure another addict. :lol:

Hypocrisy and religion go hand-in-hand.  Get over it Ron.

View Post


I see you are afraid to directly address my point. And at best attempt to reflect your failed attempts at refutation on me because of it. So I’ll say it once again for you. I don’t hate evolution, I merely point out the weaknesses in evolutionary logic and pseudo-science. And the fact that, when defended dogmatically and ardently, it is a religion. And, you make a false accusation like “I'm not asking evolutionism be respected. I'm questioning whether disrespecting it in this format is ethical.”

I support my refutation with “
The problem here is that you believe evolution as a worldview and philosophy is being disrespected... And it is not!

There is a huge difference between disrespecting and refuting. There is also a big difference between disrespecting and disagreeing. And there is just as big a difference between disrespecting and pointing out the flaws and discrepancies of said worldview and philosophy.

And pointing out the religious qualities of said worldview and philosophy isn't disrespecting either. And NONE of the above is intolerant. But, it is being intolerant of the accuser to claim intolerance whether they be Christianity vs. Scientology, Islam vs. Sun Worship, Sunni vs. Shiite, Creation vs. Evolution or Atheist vs. Christian.”

To which you have no intelligent reply but “Ahh... I get it. I have the problem”

So, yes, you have a problem within your religious world view is you cannot recognize that there is NO disrespect in “refuting”, and there is NO “disrespect” pointing out the flaws and discrepancies of said worldview and philosophy.

SO, yes, you have a problem is you are going to flail away with false accusations of “Intolerance” and “Disrespect”. And then attempt to back up such false statements by accusing me of using moderation powers to quiet you. Again; That is not only condescending, but it is blatantly deceitful as well.

#240 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 14 November 2009 - 03:05 PM

So why do you target evolutionary religion in particular?  Why not refute Buddhism, Hinduism or Gaia worship?


Because the forum is targeted at the debate between creation and evolution.

There is more than enough to discuss between these two world views alone, without debating every other religion/denomination. Evolution is taught as science. It is not taught as a religion in a religious studies class, it is taught as science in the science classroom. So is it science? Are there fantasies creeping in? Speculation/assumptions? This is about seperating and exposing science fiction from actual science.

Many people from different religious backgrounds are also on either side of the origin belief and it's this belief that is the main topic of debate on this forum.

If you find this unfair or not to your liking and you'd like to see every religion discussed/debated/refuted, without evolution being the main target? Then why not find a forum that caters for it?

It would be nice to see this thread return to the topic.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users