Evolution vs. Creation.

[Andy]

hey man, you felt him up more than anybody in gr 12 compsci

[Brightguy]

sylvester-27 wrote:

Also the way that scientist used to calculate the age of the earth with carbon dating but since that is only effective to up to 3000 years they stopped and switched to other methods (i forget it but will check later and enter it). This methods are also highly inaccurrate and the scientist find that with the calculations, the earth is only 6000 years old which is way off from what they expected. So they change their calculations to match the years they want.

I really hope you don't mean that. I have no problem with people holding their own personal religious views, but I do have a problem when you say things like "they change their calculations to match the years they want".

You are basically saying that thousands of scientists are fudging their data and lying about it, and that the scientific community encourages this conspiracy. Actually, occasionally it is revealed that a scientist fabricated some data (often when the results aren't reproducible), and this is treated very seriously. Since the evidence for the age of the Earth comes from many different branches of science, you are also saying that this practice is quite widespread, which completely undermines the importance of science.

For the second time, I suggest you read this, or do some research on your own (there is plenty of material available on the web). And I hope you can see that it's not a big conspiracy to disprove the Bible, there's actual evidence for every conclusion the science reaches.

sylvester-27 wrote:

i don't agree because i believe something and no amount of truth whether true or not will make me believe something else. i figure the same is for u

Actually I think this the reason for a lot of the controversy. I feel is that you should never believe something so strongly that no amount of evidence will change your mind. Instead, you should critically challenge your beliefs and constantly re-evaluate them based on the latest evidence.

sylvester-27 wrote:

Yes my parents did choose my religion but they gave me a choice as i got older if the roman catholic religion was where i wanted to stay.

I wish people would stop teaching religion to kids, or at least give them an unbiased teaching.
"You can believe this and go to heaven, or refuse and go to hell, but it's completely your choice."
If you tell that to a kid, I wouldn't even call it a choice... if they trust you, they'll automatically believe whatever you say.

sylvester-27 wrote:

I don't see a point in pointing out that one religion is better than another. Atleast all religions under the one true god.

Wait... how do you know there's only 1 true god? When the universe was created, maybe god needed help from a few of his friends. Also, the universe is amazingly big... it probably wouldn't be too hard to overlook Earth, so maybe god doesn't even know we exist. Or he went out for a coffee break 5 minutes ago (5 million years to us) and so he missed humans.

Seriously though, if one assumes that most/all of our gods haven't really communicated with us, then what can we conclude? Perhaps:
-Humans have quite an imagination
-Humans feel the need to explain things around them
-Someone just wanted to spread their philosophy and decided that people would be persuaded easier if there was some supreme authority behind it

[Albrecd]

Quote:

Quote:

sylvester-27 wrote:
Also the way that scientist used to calculate the age of the earth with carbon dating but since that is only effective to up to 3000 years they stopped and switched to other methods (i forget it but will check later and enter it). This methods are also highly inaccurrate and the scientist find that with the calculations, the earth is only 6000 years old which is way off from what they expected. So they change their calculations to match the years they want.

I really hope you don't mean that. I have no problem with people holding their own personal religious views, but I do have a problem when you say things like "they change their calculations to match the years they want".

You are basically saying that thousands of scientists are fudging their data and lying about it, and that the scientific community encourages this conspiracy

If the evidence has been changed, I don't think it would be nessary for every scientist to be lying or changing data. The part that Sylvester said was "altered" was in the calibration, which is basically "inventing" it. It would not make much sence for every scientist to recalibrate or "reinvent" carbon dating when it already exists. We might as well reinvent the wheel just because we werent the ones who invented it. I think that the evidence being changed would be very possible if the ones involved in calibration were insistant on proving their own personal theories (or maybe just evolution) and the ones further down probably just use it without realizing everything was changed.

I'm not saying this is true, only that it's possible.

[sylvester-27]

yes that is what i meant and i was at a lack for a better word so i said calculations. and brightguy...i believe what i believe and i do change my beliefs but not too drastically so that is y it doesn't really matter what u say. I respect other religions and those who don't have religions. and just stop freaking at me please (although it is rather amusing) because it gets rather tedious

[md]

changing the calibration scale for say carbon dating would not work, because it's not something that people can just change. It's based upon the rate of decay of certain particles, and the rate of decay does not change. So when you say that people could have changed the scale what yoru saying is that the rate of decay is not what people are told, and since the rate of decay is easy to measure were that the case it would have been easy to find. There is no scientific conspiracy of any kind; those who think there is are highly misguided.

[codemage]

1 - The Catholic church does not recognize the Jehovah Witnesses as a true religion. (They consider it a heretical cult). The JW's think the same thing of the Catholics. (If you're a JW, you can be "kicked out" for attending a Christian church).

2 - Anglicans weren't the first to split from the Roman Catholic Church. The Lutherans did it first because the church wouldn't reform several corrupt practices (like indulgences).

3 -

Quote:

if we assume the universe is infinite ... That means everything *must* happen

*IF* we assume the univere is infinite. AND we assume something has probability > ZERO, which isn't necessarily the case.

4 -

Quote:

Second, there isn't one true God.

That's an opinion, not a proof. Just because something is believed by a bunch of people doesn't make it a fact. Lots of people think that the Montreal Canadiens are a good hockey team, for instance.

5 -

Quote:

And the roman catholic church is a branch off of a cult that was started during the colpases of the roman empire....

That's based on misinformation. There are similarities, but no direct relationship to the mystery religions of Rome. I have a slew of resources that back that up (history specialist here), but I think that would be too off topic.

6 -

Quote:

I wish people would stop teaching religion to kids, or at least give them an unbiased teaching.

Meh. All parents teach their kids what they think is right. It's hard to bring up children in a moral vacuum. Agreed though, children should be taught to think for themselves more, and not condemned for their choices.

7 -

Quote:

Wait... how do you know there's only 1 true god? When the universe was created, maybe god needed help from a few of his friends.... it probably wouldn't be too hard to overlook Earth, so maybe god doesn't even know we exist.

The Christian concept of God is that he is all powerful and all-knowing, etc., etc. That worldview harbours no necessity for other deities.

[Dan]

codemage wrote:

5 -

Quote:

And the roman catholic church is a branch off of a cult that was started during the colpases of the roman empire....

That's based on misinformation. There are similarities, but no direct relationship to the mystery religions of Rome. I have a slew of resources that back that up (history specialist here), but I think that would be too off topic.

I have read some history resocres that point to the relgions orgins 1st apreaing affter the fall of the roman emplire and that they stemped from a small movement that blived in one god from with in the emplire. I do know if such resorces are corect but i whould like to see the ones you are refuring to.

[sylvester-27]

[/quote]Quote:
And the roman catholic church is a branch off of a cult that was started during the colpases of the roman empire....
Quote:
Second, there isn't one true God.

Quote:

uh i believe that there is one true and god and i believe that the church was started by Peter, Jesus' strongest follower. Peter was also the first Pope and it's pretty far out to believe that the Roman Catholic Church was a branch off of a cult

[sylvester-27]

sorry i don't know how to use quotes the one in quotes is my words and the others are some other peoples

[1of42]

sylvester, your problem isn't your views. your problem is the fact that you make absolutely implausible statements (the Earth is 4000 years old, for example, when we know for a fact that there are civilizations which existed FARTHER back in history than that), then promise to provide evidence (which in the first place is stupid, since your "evidence" comes from biased, unscientific sources), and then don't even provide that evidence.

you then proceed to say that since you believe what you believe, this entire discussion is pointless since you're not changing.

SO WHAT WAS THE POINT OF STARTING THE ARGUMENT THEN!?

You're essentially saying: I'll argue with you until I've backed myself into a corner, and then still pretend to win the argument by saying "I believe, and so you can never win. THAT is what is stupid about religion. The absolute unwillingness to accept when they are proven wrong, and the idiotic circular logic that is used to support religious points of view, while still arguing against the perfectly valid logic that others use to refute them.

And finally: You do realize that, more than anyone else, Constantine (founder of Byzantium) was responsible for making Christianity into what it is today, and that Christianity prior to that point had been viewed as an underground cult, much like Satanism is today? Because if you don't, the fact that you're arguing against these documented historical facts just makes you look idiotic. Sorry.

[md]

Quote:

3 -

Quote:

if we assume the universe is infinite ... That means everything *must* happen

*IF* we assume the univere is infinite. AND we assume something has probability > ZERO, which isn't necessarily the case.

4 -

Quote:

Second, there isn't one true God.

That's an opinion, not a proof. Just because something is believed by a bunch of people doesn't make it a fact. Lots of people think that the Montreal Canadiens are a good hockey team, for instance.

Since it is impossible to prove something is false, it is also impossible to prove that something has zero probability of happening; thus in an infinite amount of space the probability of anything happening must be >= 1 by the math given before.

And when I say there isn't one true god I am repeating what the christian church(es) usually (not so much of late), and many christian fundamentalists state. I personally believe there is no god, so it'd argue that there isn't even one true god

[sylvester-27]

please stop insulting me and for the last time i am not cement in what i believe. i change what i believe, although never out of christianity, if proper proof is given. And also for the last time if u checked the post...
I DID NOT START THIS CONVO.[b] also Peter did start the church and constantine was just a Roman Emperor dude that accepted christianity and made Rome chrisitan, correct me if im wrong. and if im wrong provide some sources.

[1of42]

Didn't say you started the conversation, said you started the argument. Big difference.

And you are correct, Peter started the Church - but he was not responsible for its rise to power - that was Constantines legacy (fault? ).

Now, to say you are not cement in your belief's and then to say "I will never change my beliefs past xyz" is an inherent contradiction. If your beliefs truly were flexible, there would be no limits on what you could believe, if provided the proper proof.

But now you're attempting to bog me down in semantical stupidity, which is why religious arguments always become so stupid. So, back to my original issue:

Where is all this proof you promised us that the earth is 10000 years old etc.? And don't give the obviously biased crap that's already been posted - its basically drivel that's all glued together by attempting to use an imperative truth (god exists, the Bible is literal and true) to prove it, which is stupid, being that that is what the argument is about in the first place.

[Martin]

Maybe God created the earth mid-stride 100 years ago. I mean, who would want to sit around and wait for billions of years for something interesting to happen. Here, God gets an exciting 50 years complete with an economic collapse and two world wars.

[Tony]

Martin wrote:

Maybe God created the earth mid-stride 100 years ago.

For all we know, that could be. None of us are over 100 years old, thus a God could have created the entire world, including your parents (after all, Adam and Eve weren't created as kids).