Debunking Dangerously Deceitful Dogma

It is my opinion, that the complexity of nature and humanity indicates there is a designer. As to talking snakes and the garden of Eden, I wasn't there and can not give first hand knowledge of what did or didn't happen or exist, I can only speak to what I believe.

As to a talking snake, it sounds about as believable as something that has a chemical makeup of about 65% oxygen being able to talk.

Irregardless of what you believe in and how it may differ from what I believe in, I will value you as an individual and respect you as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan82

The problem with your statement sir is that, while it is true that the bible takes place in historical times and references real events and places, there is no real proof that described biblical stories actually took place. The real historical events/places are merely in the periphery. In any event, whether or not the historical backdrop is accurate or not is entirely irrellevant. Just because a story is set in Rome doesn't mean it actually happened in Rome. Like I said before, you either believe all of it or none of it.

---

Your last sentence is a perfect example of a well know logical fallacy - The false dilemma. And a number of the biblical stories are recorded Sumerian, Assyrian, and Roman records, none of which are particularly interested in supporting the religious interpretations. Finally, metafors are not necessarily false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tg16

It is my opinion, that ...

---

With respect, sir it does not matter what your opinion is of the likelihood of such things.
All that matters is what can be shown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

Thank-you for your thoughtful post Tony, but that's not quite how it went down there. Inquiries were made as to the veracity of scientific theories and when explanations were given they were ignored or discarded out of hand. That is not the intention of my first post either and if you watch the videos in question you will discover that they do not denounce religion as a whole, but only the charlatans I have referred to. Thanks again for being so respectful. Reading your posts is like a breath of fresh air.

---

Isn't questioning the veracity of scientific theories part and parcel of the scientific method itself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

With respect, sir it does not matter what your opinion is of the likelihood of such things.
All that matters is what can be shown.

---

Respectfully, what can you actually show and prove? Even the scientists have not reached a concensus and none of us were there to report back with first hand knowledge. Many of yesterdays scientific facts have been proven wrong.

I cannot prove creationism, but no one has disproven it either.

I've have enjoyed the interaction, but it is time for me to make the commute home where I will enjoy a shave with a 1/4 Le Grelot, relax and watch the thunderstorm that is brewing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tg16

Respectfully, what can you actually show and prove? Even the scientists have not reached a concensus and none of us were there to report back with first hand knowledge. Many of yesterdays scientific facts have been proven wrong.

I cannot prove creationism, but no one has disproven it either.

---

These claims are both patently false. Please, everyone. Do not start trolling here and spouting opinion or useless creationist drivel. Do not post anything without viewing the videos posted in the first post in this thread and then only about specific points. The creationist dogmatic view has been repeatedly debunked here and to discover how, you only need to review what has been presented. If you are uncomfortable understanding any of the details we can discus that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Isn't questioning the veracity of scientific theories part and parcel of the scientific method itself?

---

Yes, if one has a counter claim which can be backed up, which fanciful creation mythology cannot be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fccexpert

I challenge you to find one person that has died because of my handgun. You are of course entitled to your opinion that handguns are bad, and to your preference not to own one, but you do not have the right to make the same decisions for me.

---

So what does that mean? I may own a hydrogen bomb and have never injured anyone with it. Does that mean we should all be allowed to have thermonuclear devices?

By the way I never said someone should take your hand guns away. I happen to own 4 by the way. I was referring to the bad things that oftentimes come of them. However if they passed a law outlawing all handguns it would make me happy and I would turn mine in if everyone else did including all bad people. However that will never happen so this is an unproductive discussion.

Nelson,

You need to register that Hydrogen Bomb . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kees

With all due respect: does it really matter what someone else believes when it comes to the history of the universe and mankind?

Why can't we just respect what someone else thinks/believes etc.? Many wars started just because one group wanted to force their opinion on another group.

---

Well, first off, evolutionary theory and creationism are not two competing systems of belief. Evolution is a well proven theory that is accepted by the entire scientific community because of the preponderance of evidence supporting it. Disputing evolution is about as logical as disputing the Copernican theory of the solar system, or even disputing the theory of gravity.


Second, as Xman said, these people often try to pass legislation forcing creationism to be taught alongside evolution and recognizing it as a valid scientific theory. And they aren't only content now to attack evolution, a... well, I wont post my opinion of this woman, but its far from good... Anyway, a woman legislator in Texas, I think, has decided that since the "red shift" in astrophysics disagrees with her ignorant view of the universe, it shouldn't be taught in school either, and is trying to pass laws to that effect (the red shift is used to establish the age of distant stellar bodies). This is an example of the kind of magical thinking and taught/enforced ignorance that will continue to spread as long as viewpoints like creationism are given any type of validity. How would you feel if in Norway, there was a group of people attempting to teach children that the sun rotates around the earth, and they actually had political power and a basis of support? Thats what we have here. Its completely absurd.


And, honestly, I don't like it on a personal level. Its a group of people deceitfully enforcing an inaccurate world view on their followers and keeping them in ignorance so that they can maintain power over them. Its not about accuracy or truth, its about the church not liking evolution b/c they feel they will lose the monopoly on creation and be diminished. The exact same thing happened in the dark ages. Despite overwhelming evidence the church enforced the view that the the earth was the center of the universe and the the sun and everything else rotated around it. After a few hundred years they finally gave up on that (and just forgave Galileo for promoting it a few years ago), so I expect they'll accept evolution around 2300 or so, if the church still exists at that point.


Of course, as has been pointed out, evolution and Christianity aren't necessarily at odds. There are many Catholics who embrace evolution and see it as the mechanism of God, but I guess the church feels this is a little too heady for its common members.