Agreed. To reply to this post and the one before it:a- Science occasionally coexists with religion, but religion refuses to acknowledge science except when it's forced to. When it's forced to, people don't change their faith. They change what their God accepts. Remember when you could go to Hell for eating meat on Friday?b- what I was just talking about with 'superbugs'c- The time honored quote, "In human history, more people have died in the name of God than for any other reason." I don't consider leniency for bishopal pedophilia, greed, intolerance for homosexuals and unlike-minded people to be full of goodness. See Fred Phelps for details, and tell me how good you think he is.a - Many religions disrespect and oppose science. There is a need to put down these ridiculous beliefs.b - Your human lifespan allows you to observe micro-evolution; and that is all you really need to observe.c - I hope very much you are joking about religions overall bringing "goodness"; considering all the ignorance they spread and ridiculous doctrines they preach. If goodness is the delusion of grandeur, then yes, they do spread goodness. Goodness all around.
Who the hell would believe in evolution???
Started by
Guest_MichahSimmons
, Jan 09 2006 08:34 PM
1136 replies to this topic
#1001
skulhedface
-
- Member
-
- 211 posts
Serpent
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 16 October 2008 - 05:18 PM
#1002
Guest_spiralbond
Guest_spiralbond
-
- Guest
Posted 18 October 2008 - 08:33 AM
Well, I might have to concede for point A. As for point B, that is obviously true, and something I cannot argue with. But more specifically, I'm referring to the evolution of more complicated beings such as humans, which is the main beef with many people who dismiss evolution.And for point C, think of religion as another form of political system or form of law. It is supposed to allow people to... well... become better people. In Christianity we learn that we should not kill, steal and the likes, in some forms of Buddhism we learn that good deeds are rewarded, there are many examples. Of course, just like any political system or form of justice, there is corruption, thus leading to the scenarios that you have mentioned. And of course, I do not find things like homophobia and priests touching kids to be considered "goodness", but I am trying to say that the fundamentals (key word) of religions (most) is supposed to be good. And anyway, I find the belief that evolution can be the "answer to how, and not the answer to why" very interesting and worth considering. That way, both parties involved can actually coexist instead of being mutually exclusive.a - Many religions disrespect and oppose science. There is a need to put down these ridiculous beliefs.b - Your human lifespan allows you to observe micro-evolution; and that is all you really need to observe.c - I hope very much you are joking about religions overall bringing "goodness"; considering all the ignorance they spread and ridiculous doctrines they preach. If goodness is the delusion of grandeur, then yes, they do spread goodness. Goodness all around.
Edited by spiralbond, 18 October 2008 - 02:03 PM.
#1003
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 18 October 2008 - 11:52 AM
I guess you haven't read the Bible, huh?In Christianity we learn that we should not kill, steal and the likes,
You assume there is a why. What for? Assumption is the mother of most mistakes.In Christianity we learn that we should not kill, steal and the likes,
#1004
Guest_spiralbond
Guest_spiralbond
-
- Guest
Posted 18 October 2008 - 02:03 PM
Yeah, I guess it's true that I didn't really read the bible, was it that obvious? Haha, but I'll get into it one day, though this one day might not come.But either way, I don't see why you have to get so aggressive towards my point of view, considering that I am leaning towards the possibility of evolution... And within your statement itself, the one about assumptions, isn't there the assumption that assumptions will most likely cause mistakes? I don't assume, I simply suggest. Quite a lot of people in this world are looking for answers, about why we are here, and what our purpose is. That is why some people turn to religion, and even science to help them answer their questions. You cannot simply force your belief onto others, cause this "answer" (well another assumption here I guess, assuming that this is your answer, or that you were even looking for one to begin with) might not appeal to them. People are allowed to have their beliefs, even talk about them, but I feel that it crosses the line when you start attacking others, it will only cause retaliation. So what if someone believes that the Earth began with two people, or that we originated from micro-organisms? If the issue is about a power struggle and how Christians believe that evolutionists are wrong in teaching this to kids, I have to say that it is ironic, because of how they themselves try to inculcate their beliefs into kids from young. It's a matter of getting along with different ideals and beliefs, not who's right and who's wrong.
#1005
Guest_Kent Vonce
Guest_Kent Vonce
-
- Guest
Posted 18 October 2008 - 03:33 PM
If assumptions cause mistakes, then the evolutionary theory already have mistakes.Fact: Micro-evolution DOES happen. It causes variation in species.Assumption: Macro-evolution exists because it MUST be a series of Micro-evolutionsFact: The earth is made up of many strata.Assumption: The Strata HAD to be made over billions of yearsFact: Many animals found in different strata are similar.Assumption: The one found on top HAD to come from the bottom.Besides, how does one explain how they determined the age of rocks and fossils BEFORE radio-carbon dating?
#1006
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 18 October 2008 - 03:53 PM
Fact: You are setting up lots and lots of straw-men, simplifying theories (scientific ones; which differ from hypotheses in that they have significant proof to support them) and generally pissing us the hell off in the forum over-all. Either stop, or I will start reporting you for purposely reiterating arguments that have been shot down countless times, and overall spam.Macro-evolution is defined as a long chain of micro-evolution. That's all there is to it.The strata (layers of rock) had to be formed that way because we know for a fact how layers are formed. Unless you want to jump to another five or six conclusions (namely 1. There is a god, 2. This god created the Earth intentionally, 3. That god did not intend for us to use logic and science to improve our lives, 4. That god wants to "test your faith" by showing you evidence that contradicts that of the Bible, 5. That god has the power and knowledge to falsify scientific evidence, and 6. That god is a [insert crude word for vagina here]). Want to count the assumptions and see who has most? I'm going to give you a hint: YOU HAVE MOST.The one found on top had to come from the bottom because it takes a long, long time to form layers of rock.http://en.wikipedia....ki/Lichenometryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varvehttp://en.wikipedia....endrochronologyDoes this explain how we could date things before radiometrics?I am serious, I will report you the next time you make an absolutely ignorant remark about these sciences. You depend on scientists every day, and yet you have the gall to question science whenever it interferes with your faith?! Either move to a desolate island with no benefit from science, or study it and argument rationally against it when it does interfere with your faith - do not, as you have so far, throw out wild opinions such as that scientific theories are made up of irrational assumptions. It's really pissing me off, and I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that way.
#1007
Guest_Kent Vonce
Guest_Kent Vonce
-
- Guest
Posted 19 October 2008 - 05:46 PM
You want me to prove that strata can be formed in less than a million years? You want me to give another theory i might know about? FineUnder fast moving water, layers of rock or soil will pile up. Unfortunately they don't form from top to bottom in that simple order. They move with the current. as the bottom layer gains deposits, the next layer will gain some too, and so on. Great so tree rings form EVERY year? You'll find that often, trees cut down will have more rings than they are old. Many times a tree will produce more than one tree ring IN A YEAR.Same with the varves. It's not just Every year. how do they find that out anyway? They sit around in a year waiting for the varve to grow?"Among the potential problems of the technique are the difficulty of correctly identifying the species, delay between exposure and colonisation, varying growth rates from region to region as well as the fact that growth rates are not always constant over time, dependence of the rate of growth upon substrate texture and composition, climate and finally, actually finding the biggest one."So they have problem with the lichens. "growth rates are not constant over time" so how then, do you propose that they found out exactly how long it took the lichen to grow that large? For all they know it could have undergone a growth spurt.
#1008
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 19 October 2008 - 08:32 PM
The difference here is that there is so much evidence that one can deduce a more accurate result in all of the cases through comparing them to other similar pieces of such. These people are scientists, they are not idiots as you seem to think. Why do you think no one believes the Earth is between 6 and 11 000 years old? Because there is absolutely no indication of that being the case; and there IS indication that the Earth is far, far longer than that. Also, it is not important how we dated things before. We have something called "radioactive half-life", and it is very accurate (not 100%, but far more accurate than your "GOD DID IT!" hypothesis). Radioactive half-life is predictable, and as all dating methods, it has to take other things into account. I have not been informed of this "fast moving current" theory before. A source worth reading from would be appreciated.
#1009
Guest_DeinKonig
Guest_DeinKonig
-
- Guest
Posted 20 October 2008 - 12:11 AM
Nazer, no ad hominem on attacks on God please haha. There's enough evidence to support your side without being insulting at the same time. Believing in God doesn't contradict science, unless you think that Jewish oral traditions passed down for hundreds of years could be flawlessly transmitted. So Kent, sources please. I'd be very interested in learning about the tree rings, I thought they were a pretty reliable measurement.
#1010
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 20 October 2008 - 12:19 AM
Where did I insult your god? I was insulting Vonce's "GOD DID IT!" theory.Belief in his god contradicts science. Perhaps belief in yours doesn't. In any case there is no foundation for doubting current dating methods, and even less a foundation for doubting evolution (which we have witnessed in bacteria and viruses).
#1011
Ragamuffin
-
- Dragon's Sentinel
-
- 637 posts
Old Man Internet
Reputation: 232
Perfected
Posted 20 October 2008 - 12:45 AM
I just wanna jump in for a quick second here, without getting back into this debate like I did some months ago.Another example of (micro) evolution can be seen in insects like cockaroaches and bedbugs, how they develop immunities to poisons, and even generations after, long after those poisons are no longer in use (such as DDT, which has been illegal in America for quite some time), those immunities are still there.It's a small, petty example, but again, I've done this dance before and I don't feel like restating my arguments.Belief in his god contradicts science. Perhaps belief in yours doesn't. In any case there is no foundation for doubting current dating methods, and even less a foundation for doubting evolution (which we have witnessed in bacteria and viruses).
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#1012
Guest_BillDoor
Guest_BillDoor
-
- Guest
Posted 21 October 2008 - 07:08 AM
Microevolution is a creationist-hijacked term, and is basically meaningless. We know that by artificial selection, we can produce differences as extreme as that between a chihuahua and a Doberman without even breaking the species barrier. Creationists would call those differences "micro," for unclear reasons.On the problem of God and evolution, the following stances are consistent with the evidence, though they may violate Occam's Razor:1) God did it all, and planted false evidence of evolution to test the faith of believers.2) God created the earliest proto-life, and life evolved from that point on.3) God has control over probabilities, and has influenced apparently "random" selection.4) God exists, but did not interfere with either the origin of life or the evolution of life.5) God does not exist.As long as a creationist is willing to accept that the scientific evidence favors evolution, I have no real objection.
Edited by BillDoor, 21 October 2008 - 07:08 AM.
#1013
skulhedface
-
- Member
-
- 211 posts
Serpent
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 21 October 2008 - 04:21 PM
I don't know why macroevolution is being so heavily debated here.-There are still apes around simply because ape and man have a common evolutionary ancestor, as stated above. Of course, when you factor in evolving in different directions, there will be some that evolved highly differently than you (i.e., the fact that APES are still around.) The fact that we still have apes means nothing in itself except that, if you present this argument, you're an uniformed idiot.- microevolution,in essence, proves that macroevolution can happen. Look at it this way. What is a bacterium? A bacterium is a single cell. Since it only has one cell to work with, evolution is a relatively quick process in bacteriae. To put it in a relevant way, let me repeat that. A bacterium is a cell. Your body is made up of billions of...say it with me.... cells. It's no more a leap of logic than to say God created the universe, at any rate.- microevolution is an undisputed fact. To say that other organisms bigger than a bacteria can not evolve is to, in essence, say that bats can't fly because birds do. One doesn't preclude the other.
#1014
Guest_Zer0ic
Guest_Zer0ic
-
- Guest
Posted 22 October 2008 - 01:12 AM
If its not evolutionthen what?and dont say religious believes becauseyou can prove just like I can proveevolutionand yes I believe evolutionPOINTS were deducted for this post by -Mario-Please refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#1015
Guest_Kent Vonce
Guest_Kent Vonce
-
- Guest
Posted 22 October 2008 - 07:08 AM
Oh uhm sure. I didn't really read about it. It was on a seminar by an evangelist on... uh www.drdino.com There are a bunch of seminars there on different things. As for Nazer... the fast current theory is in the Noah's ark seminar.BTW, these seminars were done by a former Elementary and High School Science teacher.Nazer, no ad hominem on attacks on God please haha. There's enough evidence to support your side without being insulting at the same time. Believing in God doesn't contradict science, unless you think that Jewish oral traditions passed down for hundreds of years could be flawlessly transmitted. So Kent, sources please. I'd be very interested in learning about the tree rings, I thought they were a pretty reliable measurement.
Edited by Kent Vonce, 22 October 2008 - 07:08 AM.
#1016
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 22 October 2008 - 07:28 AM
Oh! A former elementary and high school SCIENCE TEACHER you say?Again, I have to ask: Are you [word filter] kidding me?Did you read what you just wrote? You said that two teachers were smarter than the whole of the scientific community. It's odd how there are Christian teachers, but not Christian scientists who support Creationism, huh? I mean, there are lots of Christian scientists - they just don't believe in something as silly as the world being less than 11 000 years old. I might be wrong here; so feel free to show me 20 Christian scientists (names and a list of their known publications) who believe Young Earth Creationism is right, that Macro-evolution is a lie, and that dating methods are silly. They will need either a Master of Science and a lot of experience, or a PhD. Oh, and feel free to bring in some evidence against evolution while you're at it. I've yet to see any.Edit: Pardon if it was only one teacher. If that is the case; I have to ask you again: Are you [word filter] kidding me?
Edited by 6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G, 22 October 2008 - 07:29 AM.
#1017
Guest_darkknight014
Guest_darkknight014
-
- Guest
Posted 22 October 2008 - 07:44 AM
Can you all stop using the terms micro- and macro-evolution? There's literally no difference between the two of them in Evolutionary theory, which basically says that "macro-evolution" is only a combined sum of "micro-evolutions". Micro- and Macro-evolution are terms made up by creationists.
#1018
skulhedface
-
- Member
-
- 211 posts
Serpent
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 22 October 2008 - 03:18 PM
To Kent: an evangelist priest is a credible, expert source? If all religious figures are sources of facts, God must really hate fags. Ask Fred Phelps about that, and see how many people would quote him that also aren't looked at as complete idiots. We asked for CREDIBLE sources, not "some guy said so and he must be right because he's a pillar of the community."To Darkknight: Have you been reading this thread? The whole point of our argument is to prove micro- and macroevolution are the same thing. Only someone arguing against evolution makes the distinction.
#1019
Guest_Kent Vonce
Guest_Kent Vonce
-
- Guest
Posted 23 October 2008 - 05:18 PM
I believe because he did his homework. I don't believe left or right. I believed in evolution as well because it was well studied. I'm not just someone who ocuses on the person. I focus on the message. He was a science teacher yes. He did his research. Watch it why don't you? I'd have thrown his theories out the door had I seen that it was just pure speculation.
#1020
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 23 October 2008 - 05:43 PM
Belief is a fickle mistress. Belief is knowledge without evidence (which essentially is what I like to call bull[word filter]).I believe because he did his homework. I don't believe left or right.
A religious belief is not evidence of anything, nor is a hypothesis. I would like to see this so-called evidence against evolution and dating methods, and how many scientists back up your high school science teacher's words with their own studies and experiments.I believed in evolution as well because it was well studied.
Really? I'm surprised you don't know the scientific method then, because if you want to prove something, you kind of need to know it.I'm not just someone who ocuses on the person. I focus on the message.
Unless there is evidence, it is pure speculation. Show us some. If you make an outrageous claim only supported by people who know nothing about how science actually works, I expect you to show a list of hundreds upon hundreds of scientific studies done by a whole lot of other scientists (because, you know, otherwise it's not really scientific, is it?) who for some reason have chosen not to tell the world of their amazing discoveries (disproving radiometric dating would be pretty impressive).He was a science teacher yes. He did his research. Watch it why don't you? I'd have thrown his theories out the door had I seen that it was just pure speculation.
Edited by 6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G, 23 October 2008 - 05:44 PM.
#1021
Guest_CandyCain
Guest_CandyCain
-
- Guest
Posted 27 October 2008 - 05:48 AM
Why not turn this around.Who the hell would believe in creationism?Seeing that everything has to be made by something, then who made God?And who made the person, or thing, that made God?POINTS were deducted for this post by KHRSPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#1022
Guest_weretindere
Guest_weretindere
-
- Guest
Posted 29 October 2008 - 07:43 AM
Just because you know more than you would have if you were a caveman does not mean you evolved. Humans seem to be in denial of how complicated they make the simplest things just because they try to prove a point. Primary example: "Millions of dollars went into the research and development of fiber glass." Just to get this response from EVERYBODY. "OOOH SHINY!!!" Just said it different terms and languages, but it will always be the same response no matter how much you try to sugar coat your caveman simplicity. All that work, because they want 'shiny color yay'. It's the first thing all of you look for isn't it? Shiny... oooh.Second: Sports, all these different rules and regulations for one common object. Let's put the concept in chains first; 'I want the ball!' All that for the different ways to hit a ball or sliding disc. You can say 'hite 42' or however you spell it, but in reality you're just saying catch the ball, throw the ball, rinse, repeat, and lather. Cavemen get so cheery when the ball-ball go to point zone!You realize not much has changed since these caveman times you believe happened. So easy a caveman can do it, eh Geico? Big deal, humans learned how to cut hair off their face, BIG improvement since their times I tell ya. Honestly, if you think evolution in the brain has even happened, I doubt it, you still haven't 'evolved' to the point for you to use something other than toilet paper. Don't you even understand that it doesn't work as effectively as a wash cloth in the shower? Never mind the fact that you use poisonous chemicals just to... (I laugh at this one) make your teeth white?! (Caveman smart, me no like yellow, me like white) I believe things live and die. Your idiocy excites me, the shear fact that you waste your time with this discussion, forum after forum of the exact same argument, I should make my own site and ban people with the phrase "This topic has been posted on 13 different sites, please go there and continue arguing." It's so repetitious, yet you're going to try and tell me you've evolved and learned from your mistakes? You can exaggerate your heaven's existence or your evolution's existence, but you're not fooling me anymore. 
POINTS were deducted for this post by M.V.PPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
POINTS were deducted for this post by M.V.PPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#1023
Guest_Ikeris
Guest_Ikeris
-
- Guest
Posted 29 October 2008 - 08:32 AM
Just one thing i would like to clarify. An insects "generation" is a much smaller unit of time then for humans, so mutations and immunities to certain exteritor influences (like poison) can be developped far quicker then they would for us. In fact there are some breeds of insects that are known to develop immunities within two generation. This can be attributed to their much simpler genetic make-up as well as there ability to breed at an increased rate.DDT is also a good example of insects ability to develop immunities. The insects were showing signs of the early stages of resistance when DDT was removed from use, however the birds who where affected weren't so lucky and many were pushed dangerously close to extinction. Bald Eagles come to mind.I just wanna jump in for a quick second here, without getting back into this debate like I did some months ago.Another example of (micro) evolution can be seen in insects like cockaroaches and bedbugs, how they develop immunities to poisons, and even generations after, long after those poisons are no longer in use (such as DDT, which has been illegal in America for quite some time), those immunities are still there.It's a small, petty example, but again, I've done this dance before and I don't feel like restating my arguments.
#1024
Guest_Death-Jester
Guest_Death-Jester
-
- Guest
Posted 29 October 2008 - 01:23 PM
First of all apologies for the long post.I see no reason not to believe in evolution, its the best theory to match what evidence we have. That having been said I think it needs to be at the forefront of everyone's mind that that's all it is. It's not the law of evolution, and if a better theory to match the observations is devised then it would immediately replace evolution.Also theres a few things I'd like to have my say about
a - How are these beliefs ridiculous? Believe it or not many there are many Christians who don't presume God's word is so basic and superficial that one may take the bible literally. Most bible stories have multiple layers and depths of meaning and were intended to convey some moral lesson or other. And if you represent the side of science then at times you are being just as disrespectfula - Many religions disrespect and oppose science. There is a need to put down these ridiculous beliefs.c - I hope very much you are joking about religions overall bringing "goodness"; considering all the ignorance they spread and ridiculous doctrines they preach. If goodness is the delusion of grandeur, then yes, they do spread goodness. Goodness all around.
c - Ignorance and ridiculous doctrine? To Christians who don't take the bible literally the important aspect of Genesis is not that God made the Earth in seven days and Adam and Eve were the ancestors of all humans. It is about our earliest connections with God and the nature of humankind in its early days. There are valuable lessons behind every story, they are not fairytales for the fanciful. And you can't deny the enormous amount of people who have found fulfillment through faith (regardless of whether you believe they are deluded or not).That god is a [insert crude word for vagina here]
I presume your alluding to the many Biblical stories that depict protagonists with questionable qualities (e.g. Samson). Its an interesting point. I guess one could reason that such stories are about humans and humans are imperfect, they waver from the divine path. Or else there was an excusable necessity and this is to warn us against zealous conviction of seeing right and wrong as absolutes. I guess one needs to study each story in its own rights and find the morality contained therein on their own.In Christianity we learn that we should not kill, steal and the likes,I guess you haven't read the Bible, huh?
There are plenty of reasons why one shouldn't steal and kill, your beliefs and world perspectives will shape which has the most meaning for you. Such things as fear of retribution (either from the divine, carma, the victim, the community or the legal system) or respect for ones fellow man and their property. There is a why behind everything, a reason why chemicals react in a certain way and even why our universe is the way it is (check out the investigations being made with the LHC).In Christianity we learn that we should not kill, steal and the likes,You assume there is a why. What for? Assumption is the mother of most mistakes.
I fail to see how this is insinuated by anythingThat god did not intend for us to use logic and science to improve our lives
Well the Christian God is attributed with ultimate power over this world. Why not?That god has the power and knowledge to falsify scientific evidence
Through criticism flaws are revealed and the capacity to improve on a theory (or else discard it as incorrect) is greatly increased. This is true for people of faith as well as science. Through intellectual debate both sides are enlightened and made aware of the faults and strengths of their own theories. They are then able to confront those. This is not to suggest all debate has been intellectual and civilised on either front but to attempt to oppress the view of the faithful is no better then them oppressing scientific theories.You depend on scientists every day, and yet you have the gall to question science whenever it interferes with your faith?! Either move to a desolate island with no benefit from science, or study it and argument rationally against it when it does interfere with your faith
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't radioactive dating rely on the assumption that the number or distribution of particular radioactive isotopes throughout environments was exactly the same now as thousands years ago (or more)? Where's the evidence?We have something called "radioactive half-life", and it is very accurate
Edited by Death-Jester, 29 October 2008 - 01:24 PM.
#1025
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 29 October 2008 - 04:48 PM
One does not replace a scientific theory, one improves upon it and changes it. A theory as established as evolution will never be replaced (nor do I think any real scientific theory will) because of the massive amounts of evidence required to call a hypothesis a theory rather than a hypothesis. A theory is one step next to a law. In a hundred years, it will be the law of evolution. We just haven't been aware of evolution long enough to form laws. Many of the laws of physics were known 700 years ago. How many years have we known about evolution, and studied it?It's not the law of evolution, and if a better theory to match the observations is devised then it would immediately replace evolution.
These beliefs are ridiculous because they contradict everything science says without any reason to do so. Beliefs in general are ridiculous, but they're particularly ridiculous when they go up against science (knowledge without evidence vs knowledge with evidence).How are these beliefs ridiculous? Believe it or not many there are many Christians who don't presume God's word is so basic and superficial that one may take the bible literally. Most bible stories have multiple layers and depths of meaning and were intended to convey some moral lesson or other. And if you represent the side of science then at times you are being just as disrespectful
A lot of Christians take the Bible literally, and a lot of Christians think homosexuality is a sin without considering what things were like back when Christianity ran amok. Are you insinuating fairy-tales have no valuable lessons? Also, a whole lot of the Christian (and likely every other Bible as well) Bible is pure nonsense that doesn't add up. It's like taking the good advice from Mein Kampf, leaving out the bad, and saying Mein Kampf is a good book that preaches goodness.Ignorance and ridiculous doctrine? To Christians who don't take the bible literally the important aspect of Genesis is not that God made the Earth in seven days and Adam and Eve were the ancestors of all humans. It is about our earliest connections with God and the nature of humankind in its early days. There are valuable lessons behind every story, they are not fairytales for the fanciful. And you can't deny the enormous amount of people who have found fulfillment through faith (regardless of whether you believe they are deluded or not).
The thing is: Back then, these things were "cool" and normal. To us it seems appalling, and therefore we consider it an example of horrible acts that shouldn't be done. Back then, it was the opposite. It depends on how you interpret things, and if you intend to have something be "good" no matter what you do, you will end up making it good in your own perspective. Facts and opinions are different.I presume your alluding to the many Biblical stories that depict protagonists with questionable qualities (e.g. Samson). Its an interesting point. I guess one could reason that such stories are about humans and humans are imperfect, they waver from the divine path. Or else there was an excusable necessity and this is to warn us against zealous conviction of seeing right and wrong as absolutes. I guess one needs to study each story in its own rights and find the morality contained therein on their own.
Common sense dictates that there is no god (you can bicker all you want, Occam's razor prevails, unless you're referring to a non-interventionist, neutral, non-omnipotent and non-omniscient god), and if your god would send us to hell for not believing, then he she it would not want us to be scientific (unless you're going with doublethink, in which case you make my point for me).I fail to see how this is insinuated by anything
You make the assumption that an ultimate god would have a reason to do something like that. Jumping to conclusions without evidence is not exactly a very clever way to go about things.Well the Christian God is attributed with ultimate power over this world. Why not?
The evidence is in that we check the surroundings of where we find what we date to make sure there are few contaminants, not to mention that we have an incredible amount of evidence to make comparisons with (you know, lots of pieces to the puzzle). Also, what would bring about a cataclysmic change in radioactive isotopes in environment without leaving some kind of distinguishable mark? We are many things, but not idiots.Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't radioactive dating rely on the assumption that the number or distribution of particular radioactive isotopes throughout environments was exactly the same now as thousands years ago (or more)? Where's the evidence?
