[_ Old Earth _] A Forum given too much Merit!

[ezer]

I have been back and forwards to a few of these different forums from time to time to see if any interesting debates with sound and tangible evidence have emerged. And I must admit from my past and current observations I remain convincingly disappointed. Especially with this forum on the current theories in regards to evolution.

I seem to be continuingly alarmed at the amount of weight such a topic, in regards to the bereft theories that evolution continues to propound, manages to gain.

Why in such a helpful and notable forum as this does even the idea in regards to this particular theory, harness such a mention?!

It would seem other theories with perhaps more credibility and a better scientific backing such as alien-encounters or the belief in ghosts should appropriate more noted weight in discussion, than whimsical and unsound theories in regards to evolution. I think it seems vastly unfair that logic and merit are put aside for such unsound and young theories in regards to evolution.

I would rather see the amount of space dedicated to these 160 year old theories much rescinded for that of more important matters.

For instance it would be good to see this space filled in by much more scientific and credible subjects to do with actual history. Perhaps a forum dedicated to Historical finds or digs. Especially anything current that brings new insights into ancient religions or ways of life. At least something with some more meat and merit and actual scientific base

Anyway just some food for thought.

 

[Quath]

I am not sure if you are aware but Evolution is a continued field with much research being done today. Science have gone beyond trying to prove it to the masses. Either you accept worldly evidence or you don't. It is like saying "Lets stop talking about the Earth being round. It is an old theory and lets get on to real science like exorcism."

Quath

 

[ezer]

I am sorry that you feel this way and this is one reason why such forums are redundant in the extreme for these wild kind of imaginings.

In case the rest of the world has been sleeping the theories regarding evolution have always been regarded as completely unscientific. And the massive lack regarding anything even remotely resembling evidence for these theories, makes any such subject a complete waste of time!

The Irony in regard to proving the 'world to be round' here, is that as any lay reader would know, the ‘bible’ spoke of this many thousands of years before ‘modern’ day 'scientists' could eventually accept it!

I think the extreme and benign assumptions needed to convince anybody that evolutionary theory has any substance equates closer to creative writing, rather than fact.

So as I said, lets try and fill this embarrassing evolutionary misnomer in with something that deserves a little more attention!

 

[cubedbee]

And the massive lack regarding anything even remotely resembling evidence for these theories, makes any such subject a complete waste of time!

It's funny that millions of scientists accept something that doesn't even have anything remotely resembling evidence. If those silly scientists are all on board for something as stupid as evolution, I don't think we can trust them in any other field either.

And you're wrong about what the Bible says about the shape of the earth. You can possibly read it as saying the Earth is round, but it also clearly says the Earth is flat. So a Biblical Earth is shaped like a plate, not the squished sphere we actually live on.

 

[ThinkerMan]

It would seem other theories with perhaps more credibility and a better scientific backing such as alien-encounters or the belief in ghosts should appropriate more noted weight in discussion, than whimsical and unsound theories in regards to evolution.

I agree completely. Whereas we only have millions of species readily observable on earth to whomever chooses to study them, it DOES make more sense to get into a truly substanitive debate like UFO's.

I mean, why talk about the apparent common decendancy of two species we can observe, when there are literally DOZENS of blurry 5-second clips of alledged "flying saucers" to fill our time.

Yes, that is TRUE science!

....OK...sarcasm ended.

In case the rest of the world has been sleeping the theories regarding evolution have always been regarded as completely unscientific. And the massive lack regarding anything even remotely resembling evidence for these theories, makes any such subject a complete waste of time!

Unfortunately, evolution is the accepted theory right now....even creationists accept that evolution is the "norm" and must be disproven, as opposed to the other way around.

Thus, the onus is on you, my friend, to challenge evolution, not simply dismiss it out of hand.

So, as a start, please offer up your most convincing argument against evolution and we will start from there.

I am inferring from your post that you obviously hold the trump card, the one irrefutable piece of evidence that renders evolution scientifically unsound.

I can't wait to hear it.

 

[Asimov]

The Irony in regard to proving the 'world to be round' here, is that as any lay reader would know, the ‘bible’ spoke of this many thousands of years before ‘modern’ day 'scientists' could eventually accept it!quote]

What are you talking about? It has been known that the Earth was round in ancient Greece. Way before any "modern" day scientists.

 

[Wertbag]

No interesting debates with sound and tangible evidence

Personally I've found quite the opposite, and have learnt alot from both sides of the arguement. If you are looking for discussions about the evidence have a browse through Barbarians posts, you'll find numerous discriptions, pictures and links to interesting information regarding fossils, evolution and related subjects.

In case the rest of the world has been sleeping the theories regarding evolution have always been regarded as completely unscientific.

Only by creationist Christians, the rest of the world bases its ideas on the evidence at hand.

The Irony in regard to proving the 'world to be round' here, is that as any lay reader would know, the ‘bible’ spoke of this many thousands of years before ‘modern’ day 'scientists' could eventually accept it!

Ancient people could look into the sky and see the moon, a large round disk that doesn't appear to rotate, and hence conclude that our planet is in that form. The description "round" is far too vague to be considered evidence of the Bible knowing the true shape of the planet. Obviously with the belief that the earth was the centre of the universe and that all heavenly bodies travelled around it creating day/night and seasons, the ancient peoples were quite off target.

 

[Quath]

I saw a picture once that described how the universe looked to ancient people. Oh. I found it. Here it is:

The cosmos as described in the book of Enoch.
Picture © 1992 by Robert Schadewald
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm


Quath

 

[Asimov]

Wow! That looks amazingly like our earth!

 

[ezer]

Proof in Point!

Well if this is not proof in point to all you jolly fellows I don't know what is.

It would be tiresome to refute your obvious claims of derision as so many would be suckered debaters do here. But I do feel sad such meaningless effort is wasted anyway.

For all that can read still, the point about the earth being ‘round’ was obviously stipulating proof before ‘modern science’ so called. That’s why it was stated such. Please read that little book called the Bible for if you didn’t know already, it is a best seller. And not simply for faith driven scholars but much noted and used by all manner of reputable historians, geologists, archeologists etc.

It’s all very friendly of everyone to feel they all have a voice by their accumulated information, but you yet need to seek accuracy with it.

NO, there is no evidence supporting theories regarding evolution and with such a pathetically young theory as this, the onus have never been anything but on the evolutionary theorists to prove otherwise. So please at some time feel free to begin!

I am also truly sorry that such young and agile minds waste so much time in these forums trying to convince each other that what they say must be right…..Mustn’t it?!?!
Stop concerning yourselves with your own pride and desire to sound like you actually know what you’re talking about and just get out more. Yes. If any would be evolutionary theorists would care even to perhaps get up off bottoms and perambulate to even their local plant nursery they may actually find some more accurate opinions regards to their favourite subject. Even a ‘true’ botanist will make plain to you the absolute impracticalities of evolutionary theory.

So take the challenge my friends and stop wasting those little finger muscles and you will find a whole world out there that truly does not subscribe to these unsound theories!

 

[Wertbag]

Have to say its pretty strange to come to a creation vs evolution section and post a message saying the whole thing is pointless. There is obviously a lot of discussion and alot for everyone to learn, if you don't want to take part in the discussions and don't want to hear all sides of the debate thats fine, but its pointless to post messages as you have.

 

[Asimov]

It would be tiresome to refute your obvious claims of derision as so many would be suckered debaters do here. But I do feel sad such meaningless effort is wasted anyway.

IOW, you don't know what you're talking about

For all that can read still, the point about the earth being ‘round’ was obviously stipulating proof before ‘modern science’ so called. That’s why it was stated such. Please read that little book called the Bible for if you didn’t know already, it is a best seller. And not simply for faith driven scholars but much noted and used by all manner of reputable historians, geologists, archeologists etc.

Round isn't spherical...modern science came to be in the 1800's. The earth was known to be round before Jesus was born.

NO, there is no evidence supporting theories regarding evolution and with such a pathetically young theory as this, the onus have never been anything but on the evolutionary theorists to prove otherwise. So please at some time feel free to begin!

So you make baseless claims and run off, complaining that it would be a wasted effort to "refute" Evolution.

Stop concerning yourselves with your own pride and desire to sound like you actually know what you’re talking about and just get out more. Yes. If any would be evolutionary theorists would care even to perhaps get up off bottoms and perambulate to even their local plant nursery they may actually find some more accurate opinions regards to their favourite subject. Even a ‘true’ botanist will make plain to you the absolute impracticalities of evolutionary theory.

Those big words shore do make comprehenshun difficult. Desire to sound like you actually know what you're talking about?? That's quite the show you're puttin on. Let's ask all the geneticists how impractical evolutionary theory is!

So take the challenge my friends and stop wasting those little finger muscles and you will find a whole world out there that truly does not subscribe to these unsound theories!

What, you mean like creation?

 

[rmills]

I have been back and forwards to a few of these different forums from time to time to see if any interesting debates with sound and tangible evidence have emerged. And I must admit from my past and current observations I remain convincingly disappointed. Especially with this forum on the current theories in regards to evolution.

I seem to be continuingly alarmed at the amount of weight such a topic, in regards to the bereft theories that evolution continues to propound, manages to gain.

Why in such a helpful and notable forum as this does even the idea in regards to this particular theory, harness such a mention?!

It would seem other theories with perhaps more credibility and a better scientific backing such as alien-encounters or the belief in ghosts should appropriate more noted weight in discussion, than whimsical and unsound theories in regards to evolution. I think it seems vastly unfair that logic and merit are put aside for such unsound and young theories in regards to evolution.

I would rather see the amount of space dedicated to these 160 year old theories much rescinded for that of more important matters.

For instance it would be good to see this space filled in by much more scientific and credible subjects to do with actual history. Perhaps a forum dedicated to Historical finds or digs. Especially anything current that brings new insights into ancient religions or ways of life. At least something with some more meat and merit and actual scientific base

Anyway just some food for thought.

ezer,

I have some respect for what you are saying, but I must add that my involvements in these debates as a Creationist stems from my own understanding that Creation vs. Theistic Evolution is a Theological debate at its core. The conversation always quickly turns to Science, Facts, Theories, Figures and the like, but when you boil down all the arguments, this is a difference in how we chose to accept Genesis. I have not one problem with a 7 day creation, or even a 7,000 year creation, because scripture can support both. What scripture does not support is foundation for Evolution. This comes from what is known as a literalist translation mentality that I am not ashamed to say that I have. Theistic Evolution is supported when one decides that Genesis is metaphorical or figurative statement or analogy to explain questions that the early followers of God had regarding the “How did we get here?†questions. Christians typically buys into Theistic Evolution because it is a theory that explains creation scientifically. I would guess that it is ok to do so, but it throws a theological spin on the Bible that I love to learn about.

At any rate, I think that it is fun to debate Creation vs. Evolution because it sharpens and challenges me as any debate should. Theology is my thing, so to speak, so I love this debate as I love any Theological debate.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

As an atheist I ought to point out that I don't have a part in the theological debate here, just the debate about science.
The only real reason that christianity has a problem meshing with evolution is because it enters onto the same ground as christianity's hebrew creation myth. Those who take their religion as literal facts on paper, dig up adam and eve's bones, (and remember the capital T) Truth. I'm fine with christians who integrate reality into their religion. But when people start claiming the Universe is 10000 years old, that the 2nd Law of Thermo denies evolution, and indirectly that all of physics, biology, and chemistry is wrong while staring at a computer screen running because people figured out how to use the laws and theories that make up those sciences, and then make these claims in arduous run on sentences; I have to stand up and voice my opinion and the facts that support it, in arduous run on sentences.

ezer, your claims are baseless, evolution has a body of work supporting it, from genetic statistics to directly breeding drosphilae to the fact that it's a bloody elegant theory.

 

[Guest]

I am not sure if you are aware but Evolution is a continued field with much research being done today. Science have gone beyond trying to prove it to the masses. Either you accept worldly evidence or you don't. It is like saying "Lets stop talking about the Earth being round. It is an old theory and lets get on to real science like exorcism."

Quath

Wrong,he's right! There is way too much attention given to
evolution,and it is not science at all,and it is not young,it is ancient.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-107.htm
Please explain science Quath because science is not evolution
and evolution has no evidence to support itself.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

I'm getting pretty sick of this.

First, evolution is a fact, deal with it. See that baby that looks like a combo of its mommy and daddy, that's evolution. The baby evolved (see changed).

Blue, you've got a problem with macroevolution, not evolution. At least I hope I've got that right or else you've got some strange beliefs.

I swear I'm going to have to clean up this forum.

BL

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Isn't necromancy a sin blue?

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Isn't necromancy the magical act of animating corpses? Okay, okay, we've got a word I can't remember and I've got to check it out

Hmm... here it be:

Okay I was close. "conjuration of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events." From Mr. Webster himself.

Yeah, you might say that attempting Necromancy would be a sin (although impossible anyway). So, who's necromancin' around these here parts?

:-D
BL

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Isn't necromancy the magical act of animating corpses? Okay, okay, we've got a word I can't remember and I've got to check it out

Hmm... here it be:

Okay I was close. "conjuration of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events." From Mr. Webster himself.

Yeah, you might say that attempting Necromancy would be a sin (although impossible anyway). So, who's necromancin' around these here parts?

:-D
BL

*Points to the dates on blueEL's post and the one directly above*

I'm surprised a mod doesn't know the term.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Well, I knew in the occult a necromancer is generally considered a kind of death mage, but I didn't know that they tell the future. I'm pretty sure modern necromancers claim to animate corpses, but I'd have to check in to that... and do I really want to go to necromancy website to find out...?

Weighing "confirming modern necromancers claim what I said" with "potentially gross, silly, and satanic stuff to weed through" aaaand... deciding its not worth it.

And I know you're trying to be funny, but I'm going to have to play the dummie who doens't get the joke... what dates? Are you referring to them being set on Pacific Time or... okay, I just don't get it.

Help me out here!

BL