[_ Old Earth _] Blue! En guarde

[Asimov]

Heathen,you are just a heathen,and thanks for the
honesty about it!

Oh' wait a minute,you also believe in evolution too,right?
If so,that makes you part heathen and part religious.
enjoy!

Blue, until you can actually show us how evolution is a religion, you're wrong.

WOW! This is 6 pages of nonsense.

I agree, though probably for not the same reason.

 

[Judy]

WOW! This is 6 pages of nonsense.

I agree, though probably for not the same reason.

Oh, I am sure its for the same reason. : :

 

[Vic C.]

I now feel dumber for having participated in this debate.

ed!: :silly:

Quath

LOL!

I think this thread is hysterical! Too hysterical to even lock or delete.

Carry on.

 

[Asimov]

WOW! This is 6 pages of nonsense.

I agree, though probably for not the same reason.

Oh, I am sure its for the same reason. : :

Hahahaha, you're the best, Judy!

 

[Guest]

I have shown many website links,and have given ample
evidence that show evolution in many ancient religions,so why
can't you accept this?
Tuatha'an,you just cannot accept this for some reason.
I understand how christians might accept the idea of
evolution but I cannot understand how an atheist would.
The Home Schooling that I have been doing is basic education
for a 16teen year old daughter. It doesn't have one primary
subject. It is a christian home school that rejects evolution.
All you need to home school is your High School diploma.
I don't put down your liberal education,do I?


http://lionofjudah.tribulationforces.co ... ience.html
http://www.proving-it.com/ex-atheist.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/ ... ralism.asp
http://www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.htm

 

[Judy]

Here a another site to check out. : http://www.rae.org/

 

[ThinkerMan]

Judy:

I looked at your post and it only had numerous articles. Scanning the titles and clicking on a few showed none that were on-topic.

Was there one in particular that referenced pagan roots of evolution by means of natural selection? If so, can you link that one directly?

Blueeyeliner:

This time, you provided two links that were generally on topic, congrats. The other two were not.

While they illustrate that some ancient cultures believed that we are generally related to animals, neither address Syntax's question, and the main issue at hand. I will bold the important part...

Evolution by means of natural selection.

The natural selection is the important part. There is no "supernatural" aspect to this, generally what you believe are the pagan roots.

Interestingly, one cite actually supports the scientific notion, not religious, behind this.

One of the first evolutionary theories was proposed by Thales of Miletus (640–546 BC) in the province of Ionia on the coast near Greece. He was also evidently the first person to advance the idea that life first originated in water.3 Birdsell notes that Thales’ view of biological evolution ‘was not too far from modern truth’. One of Thales’ students, Anaximander (611–547 BC), developed these ideas further, concluding that humans evolved from fish or fishlike forms.4 These fish-men eventually cast off their scaly skin and moved to dry land where they have been ever since.

There is no implicit religion in this. What religion was Thales? Do you know? Perhaps he worshipped Greek Gods, perhaps not. Either way, it is not relevant to his hypothesis.

The Greek philosopher Empedocles (493–435 BC), often called the father of evolutionary naturalism, argued that chance alone ‘was responsible for the entire process’ of the evolution of simple matter into modern humankind.5 Empedocles concluded that spontaneous generation fully explained the origin of life, and he also taught that all living organism types gradually evolved by the process of trial-and-error recombinations of animal parts.6 He also believed that natural selection was the primary mechanism of evolution, the fittest being more likely to survive to pass their traits on to their offspring.7

"chance alone". That doesn't sound like religion. That sounds like science.


This cite generally implies that Darwin was not original in formulating his theory. Ok, maybe he wasn't.

Who cares? That is irrelevant to whether or not it is a sound theory.

Did Newton discover calculus, or did Leibnez? Whoever did it first, it doesn't distract from the accurancy of the mathematics? Even more so, Archimedes was pretty close to calculus 2000 years ago.

Does it make calculus invalid if either Newton or Leibnez stole the idea from Archimedes? Of course not.

All your post demonstrates is that idea of evolution by means of natural selection is a common sense idea that has been bandied about for thousands of years.

 

[Asimov]

Tuatha'an,you just cannot accept this for some reason.

There is a difference between not accepting, and not caring blue. I simply don't care what you say about evolutions supposed "pagan" roots. It doesn't disprove evolution as a science today.

I understand how christians might accept the idea of
evolution but I cannot understand how an atheist would.

That's because you don't understand evolution.

The Home Schooling that I have been doing is basic education
for a 16teen year old daughter. It doesn't have one primary
subject. It is a christian home school that rejects evolution.
All you need to home school is your High School diploma.

Then I fear for your 16 year old daughter.

I don't put down your liberal education,do I?

Because you can't.

 

[Sophistress]

Oh damn, not a daughter. Didn't you say that having a son is an indication of a man's strength? You and your husband must have been bummed when you had a girl. Poor kid. :evil:

 

[Guest]

The Tuatha'an/Then I fear for your 16 year old daughter.

I don't put down your liberal education,do I?

Because you can't.

:B-fly: Being wise in ones own eyes cannot and does not make
them wise. Yes,I can put down your education easily if I wanted
to,but instead I choose the truth which is much better. Taking God
out of the classroom makes you ignorant because it is indeed the
fool according to The Holy Bible who says there is no God!
Your personal attacks on me and my family proves you know you
are losing and that what you believe in is false because those who
know the truth do not have to ever get down to that low level to
argue or debate.

 

[Guest]

Oh damn, not a daughter. Didn't you say that having a son is an indication of a man's strength? You and your husband must have been bummed when you had a girl. Poor kid. :evil:

:B-fly: No, I didn't say that but the bible does,and I believe it.
That has no reflection on the goodness of daughters.
Actually we enjoy having both male and female children,not that
it's any of your concern. Of course it's none of your business.
What does this have to do with the topic here,not that you ever
stay on topic,but what does this have to do with anything?
Are you aware that you are making yourself look hateful and mean
spirited? Just some good advise,: you cannot win a debate with your
style,or attitude.
I hope you will learn that some the ancient pagans were also naturalists who worshiped nature. There are many kinds of ancient religions and
evolution is in many of them.
Do your home work before you try to debate.

 

[Sophistress]

It upsets me when I see this kind of attitude toward your children. Don't be suprised when your daughters grow up to have serious self-esteem problems, eating disorders, and trouble finding partners who will respect them. I think it's disgusting that you and your husband put a preference on your sons, especially in terms of this proving a man's strength, as if having a daughter would make him weak. You don't deserve to raise daughters. They're human beings too, and you're emotionally abusing them. Don't doubt that this sort of brainwahing and mental abuse will become illegal within a few decades. Those girls have rights, and they're not your flesh slaves just because you've given birth to them. Shame on you, shame on you! :evil: :evil: :evil:

 

[Guest]

ThinkerMan:
Who cares? That is irrelevant to whether or not it is a sound theory.

Did Newton discover calculus, or did Leibnez? Whoever did it first, it doesn't distract from the accurancy of the mathematics? Even more so, Archimedes was pretty close to calculus 2000 years ago.

Does it make calculus invalid if either Newton or Leibnez stole the idea from Archimedes? Of course not.

All your post demonstrates is that idea of evolution by means of natural selection is a common sense idea that has been bandied about for thousands of years.

:B-fly: First of all,Judy makes great sense,because this topic is about
evolution and also it's pagan roots.
That was an excellent web site too.
I think intelligent people like to listen to people who have a good track
record more than those that do not. That would be your common sense
if there were any involved.
My web sites that I gave you point to the facts that evolution is not new,
and that many religions in ancient times and present times still believe
in it.Common sense has nothing in common with evolution or science.
Can we call everything we want "Science" just because we feel like it?
Keeping evolution in some schools and colleges by calling it science is
ridiculous. You know that if it were not called science it would have no
funds and wouldn't be in any schools at all. The point is that those who
cannot accept God have to choose other ways to believe it seems,and
many have chosen evolution without even researching it.
What is christian science? Can we call it true science and put it in
schools? Some people might want to do that in the future thanks to
all this mess started by those who wish to call evolution science.
What is science fiction? What is medical science?
Should everything be called science now?

 

[8000 rads]

I hope you will learn that some the ancient pagans were also naturalists who worshiped nature. There are many kinds of ancient religions and
evolution is in many of them.

BWA-HA-HA-HA! Blue, please. you're killing me.

Naturalists have never worshipped nature. Well, maybe some have, but it's up to them and has nothing to do with them being naturalists. They study nature. There's a huge difference. They're not 18th-century Native American or something, they're scientists.

 

[8000 rads]

[quote="8000 rads]
Evolution Theory dates less than 300 years back; at least the kind on evolution that is discussed in science. If you want to make up your own definition of evolution, it's fine, but then you cannot debate about it, since it is made up.

Also, I'd like to point out that the Israelites that wrote the Bible, guided by the hand of God or not, WERE an ancient people with an ancient religion, who were into a Historical context in which other peoples with similar religions existed. But, for some unexplainable reason, one's tales are considered THE TRUTH, and the other one's are just mythology.

8-) What you call a myth has a great many witnesses,and what you call
the truth has none.It wouldn't take much to convince me that you also
have great faith in Harry Potter. If I say Harry Potter is a fairytale and
you say it's not,oh' well.
You believe in something no one ever see's or witnesses,yet the ancient
words of the Holy Bible has always had witnesses even now.
your religion is more invisible than you claim God is.
Why is that?

That's great to see you say that, because actually, what I referred to as "the truth" was the Bible. So you have said, and it is written for everyone to see, that the Bible has no witnesses. Next time, try reading twice before you post, don't just snap like that.

As a matter of fact, I have no religion. I have interest in many, but I'm not suscribing to any one.

The things told in Harry Potter have no evidence to support them, therefore, I don't believe them. Some of the thing told in the Bible have some evidence, and some don't. But the evidence that leads to evolution -which, by the way, is not a religion- is there and I can see it by myself. If those ancient witnesses you talk about are the only thing that makes you think the Bible is absolutely right, well, they could be confused, lying, crazy or whatever. You haven't seen the children of the Egyptians being killed, nor there is archaeologycal evidence of that happening. They just told you.

Don't believe everything they tell you.

 

[Guest]

It upsets me when I see this kind of attitude toward your children. Don't be suprised when your daughters grow up to have serious self-esteem problems, eating disorders, and trouble finding partners who will respect them. I think it's disgusting that you and your husband put a preference on your sons, especially in terms of this proving a man's strength, as if having a daughter would make him weak. You don't deserve to raise daughters. They're human beings too, and you're emotionally abusing them. Don't doubt that this sort of brainwahing and mental abuse will become illegal within a few decades. Those girls have rights, and they're not your flesh slaves just because you've given birth to them. Shame on you, shame on you! :evil: :evil: :evil:

colros: WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
Personally I do not care if you get so mad that you burst all over your
self,but what are you talking about? That bible verse does not say that
males are better than females.
You are really too crazy to discuss anything with as all your posts will
prove and have proven.
I personally wouldn't trust you alone with any child. You justify the
murders of millions of unborn babies as if they have no rights.
YOU HATE BABIES!
A son being the first sign of a mans strength doesn't mean that having
a son makes him better than if he had a daughter. Read the story of
Job who had three daughters and treated them equal to his boys.
Now everyone can see your folly for what it truly is!
No wonder you cannot make sense of the holy bible.
I am shocked you are allowed to roam free!!!

 

[ThinkerMan]

The point is that those who
cannot accept God have to choose other ways to believe it seems,and
many have chosen evolution without even researching it.

Blue, how much have you researched it?

Not from the perspective of the bible, but from the perspective of science.

You often quote creationist sciencists on the sites you promote.

I ask, do you really understand the arguments they are making, or do you simply support them because what they say their "scientific" evidence shows agrees with your predetermined idea?

One of your sites talked about the problems with the angular momemtum of the planets in relation to the sun's rotation. Do you understand the physics behind his claim?

When a creationist scientist makes claims about the elemental makeup of stars, do you understand what he is saying so you can make a critical analysis of it?

When a creationist scientist talks about fossils and the geology of the earth, are you well-versed enough in the subject matter to know if he is taking out of his rear?

When a creationist scientist raises the ideas of changes in the speed of light, do you understand physics well enough get the enormous implications of such a suggestion?

Make no mistake, I do not hold a PhD in all these subjects either. However, I do feel I have a solid fundamental understanding of the prinicples involved. Do you feel you have the same?

If you continue to use your own scientists to back up your theory, you should do so because you agree with their science, not because they agree with your theology.

 

[Guest]

[quote="8000 rads/ If those ancient witnesses you talk about are the only thing that makes you think the Bible is absolutely right, well, they could be confused, lying, crazy or whatever. You haven't seen the children of the Egyptians being killed, nor there is archaeologycal evidence of that happening. They just told you.

Don't believe everything they tell you.

:B-fly: You have not seen evolution happening,but if you do,then by
all means,please show it to everyone here.
I don't just believe the bible because of it's great many witnesses,I
know it's true because of my experiences,and what I have witnessed
personally. You were not there when the true christian's were killed
as described in Foxe's book of Martyrs,and you weren't there when
God created everything.
You are amazingly lacking in knowledge to think that all christians are
merely christians just because of the opinions of others.
You believe in something that makes no good sense at all,and that calls
itself science,yet has no evidence for it. You believe in it,though you have
no reason to believe it. No witnesses,no nothing.
Do you believe in christian science,or do you get to pick out what you wish and lable it as science?

 

[Guest]

The point is that those who
cannot accept God have to choose other ways to believe it seems,and
many have chosen evolution without even researching it.

Blue, how much have you researched it?

:Fade-color I have researched it and I am still researching it.
Real science and christianity have no problems together.
As I have stated before,there are many christians who do believe
evolution. You have not yet explained why an atheist would believe
in evolution.
You try to make it appear that christians like myself have a problem
with science,but thats all wrong. I have shown time and time again
that it is not just those like myself who disagree with your claims,
many people do from all walks of life.
Christians are the only ones from what I can tell so far,who have any
legitimate reason to believe in evolution because it came from religion.
I have shown that you don't even have to believe in God to be against
evolution. Many people don't accept it at all,not just christians like me.
http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/32-darkages.htm
http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/main. ... _what_I_do

 

[Sophistress]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Having people like you get away with emotionally abusing their daughters.

Personally I do not care if you get so mad that you burst all over your
self,but what are you talking about?

I am well aware you don't care about anything that doesn't fit with your pretty painted picture. You are an extremely closed minded person, which is obviously clear in your parenting skills, or lack thereof.

That bible verse does not say that
males are better than females.

Perhaps you could direct yourself back to the 'Was Paul sexist?' thread and dispute our arguments before you claim your Bible isn't sexist.

You are really too crazy to discuss anything with as all your posts will
prove and have proven.

How so? Because I show concern for the welfare of the daughters you're abusing?

I personally wouldn't trust you alone with any child.

You don't know anying about my parenting ability, as I have not revealed anything about it. Stop making assumptions to put me on the defensive.

You justify the
murders of millions of unborn babies as if they have no rights.
YOU HATE BABIES!

There goes your fundamentalist Christian venom thing. You really need to control your temper, and drop the CAPS. Abortion has nothing to do with your inability to raise daughters in a loving, compassionate and caring environment where they will be respected, although it does make for a handy straw man to deflect the discussion on to, which I am sure was the point.

A son being the first sign of a mans strength doesn't mean that having
a son makes him better than if he had a daughter.

If a son is the sign of a man's strength, it would logically follow that a daughter is either a sign of his lack of strength, or of his weakness.

Read the story of
Job who had three daughters and treated them equal to his boys.

Providing me with other Biblical references does not divert away from the fact you and your husband value sons over daughters as they are a sign of strength.

Now everyone can see your folly for what it truly is!

You use the word "folly" an awful lot. I am beginning to wonder if you actually know the meaning of it.

No wonder you cannot make sense of the holy bible.

Because I don't think sons are better than daughters and show a man's strength? You're making me laugh, albeit somewhat a laugh of despair for you and your daughters.

I am shocked you are allowed to roam free!!!

Perhaps you would like to contact a mental institution or the prison system and have me incarcerated? I bet you would just love it if everyone who didn't agree with your narrow minded views were to be locked away, wouldn't you?

Blue, if you want to reply to this please do so via PM as this is rather off topic and has nothing to do with science.