Poll: Evolution and the other side

[yman15]

The Escaist Proof Athist are no better then religous fanatics.

Athiests don't have a messiah figure telling them not to judge. Christians do... and yet....

Judge not lest ye be judged don't blame the creator for the faulty of man. If people want to twist and turn things to judge someone else they will. So blame the reader not the book.

The Escaist Proof Athist are no better then religous fanatics.

I assume you're trying to say that atheists on this site are no better than religious fanatics.

Which is a load of shit. Reading through this thread, all I've seen are atheists and...uh...what was the term? Theistic evolutionist? Is that the one? Believing in God and accepting evolution?
Whatever.
Point is - the atheists have pulled up scientific evidence and shot down the unprovable pieces of propaganda the creationists have thrown up in response. They have not been superior or arrogant. They have invited the creationists to bring their evidence. How is that proof that we atheists are in any way to be compared to religious fanatics?

No just blind loyalty the inability to admit. Hey we could be wrong and the fact they attack anyone who does not believe what they believe. They would cause a war if they were enough of them. So no they are no better than the west church. Trying to force a view and yelling like a mad profit. People who can only be around other like minded people unable to admit any wrong. So no I don?t see most of the hateful atheist here as any different than the fanatic with the god hates gays sign.

holy fuck how biased are you?

How many atheists have you seen physically damaging a religious person?

How many atheists have executed religious people?

How many atheists go to your house and tell you to join their cult?

What kind of atheists have you seen? Or rather, what kind of atheists have others tell you about? Because everything you have claimed there is absolute bollocks.

"Blind loyalty"? Ha! Being evolutionist is exactly the opposite of being blind. If you are evolutionist, it's because you actually cared to question how the world works. I can't count the number of christians that have became atheists after realizing christianity is absolutely insane. That is not being blind, that's opening your eyes.

"They would cause a war", "they attack anyone who does not believe what they believe"? What the hell? Seriously, I'm gonna need you to show me some proof of fanatic atheists directly attacking christians without any other added motivation.

Holy shit I can't believe my eyes. How, just, HOW did you get to the conclussion that atheists are fanatic violent and unstable extremists that would kill anyone in the world that isn't atheist? Because unless you are misspelling "atheist" for "religious", this is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read on this forum.

We may "attack" you verbally, as in, trying to debunk your theories, but I've yet to meet an atheist that would be willing to beat the shit out of you just for your beliefs. That's just insane and you know it.

Uh I think you need to calm down lol. Your kind of proving his point. I wouldn't go as far as to say atheists = Religious fanatics but you some of you do need some sensitivity training. Constantly bashing on others beliefs. It doesn't feel so good when some one generalizes you does it? Yet I see so many atheists do this everyday and say there different from religious people. Really what you did just now is the equivalent of yelling you're not violent at him in real life. There's a difference between debunking someones arguments and attacking them and this was definitely an attack.

lol I'm calm. Just because I use capital letters to emphasize or use swears doesn't mean I'm raging or overacting, exactly the opposite, to be honest.

Anyway, I was not trying to debunk anyone's theories in this case. I was genuinely defending myself. It is normal that it appears that I am angry, but really I am not. I get it's hard to get it from text, this reply you just gave me wouldn't have crossed your mind if we were in an actual face-to-face conversation.

Yes, I am aware that generalizations are dumb, in ALL cases. When I speak of christians, however, I'm speaking of the ones that actually practice christianity. There's a lot of bullshit christians that just do it because that's how it's been for their whole lifes but they don't really care at all. I'm fine with those, they can do whatever they want.

It's those that actually think they are superior to everyone else that I always try to bring down to their knees.

Yes, I am aware that verbally assaulting is still attacking, even if it is not physical. But as I said, I am in no way trying to attack anyone. Really, a verbal assault is something that is intentionally said to wreck your emotions and destroy your inner self. I am trying to do the exact opposite. I am trying to let you see that being atheist does not mean I am an agent of Satan.

I seriously hope you didn't interpret any of my comments as agressive, even though I did use language that would encourage you to think so. It was not my intention. I am sure that after reading this, if you actually go and re-read the whole thing with the tone that you think I am having right now, everything seems much more rational and makes more sense.

lol sorry usually when someone uses capital letters and starts cursing I assume they're raging and I know that atheists aren't agents of the devil trying to condem all of humanity to hell lol. It just gets tiring when I see people constantly blaming religion for everything that's wrong in the world and how all religious people are idiots cause and how everything would be better if religion never existed to tell you the truth I think that's bullshit. I'm sorry it came off to me as a verbal attack. Its just that most atheists I've met over the internet really need to be taken down couple notches. All in all I'm tired of this argument and people constantly judging others based off beliefs and not they're actions.

 

[christhenoob]

Thanks!

 

[sergnb]

The Escaist Proof Athist are no better then religous fanatics.

Athiests don't have a messiah figure telling them not to judge. Christians do... and yet....

Judge not lest ye be judged don't blame the creator for the faulty of man. If people want to twist and turn things to judge someone else they will. So blame the reader not the book.

The Escaist Proof Athist are no better then religous fanatics.

I assume you're trying to say that atheists on this site are no better than religious fanatics.

Which is a load of shit. Reading through this thread, all I've seen are atheists and...uh...what was the term? Theistic evolutionist? Is that the one? Believing in God and accepting evolution?
Whatever.
Point is - the atheists have pulled up scientific evidence and shot down the unprovable pieces of propaganda the creationists have thrown up in response. They have not been superior or arrogant. They have invited the creationists to bring their evidence. How is that proof that we atheists are in any way to be compared to religious fanatics?

No just blind loyalty the inability to admit. Hey we could be wrong and the fact they attack anyone who does not believe what they believe. They would cause a war if they were enough of them. So no they are no better than the west church. Trying to force a view and yelling like a mad profit. People who can only be around other like minded people unable to admit any wrong. So no I don?t see most of the hateful atheist here as any different than the fanatic with the god hates gays sign.

holy fuck how biased are you?

How many atheists have you seen physically damaging a religious person?

How many atheists have executed religious people?

How many atheists go to your house and tell you to join their cult?

What kind of atheists have you seen? Or rather, what kind of atheists have others tell you about? Because everything you have claimed there is absolute bollocks.

"Blind loyalty"? Ha! Being evolutionist is exactly the opposite of being blind. If you are evolutionist, it's because you actually cared to question how the world works. I can't count the number of christians that have became atheists after realizing christianity is absolutely insane. That is not being blind, that's opening your eyes.

"They would cause a war", "they attack anyone who does not believe what they believe"? What the hell? Seriously, I'm gonna need you to show me some proof of fanatic atheists directly attacking christians without any other added motivation.

Holy shit I can't believe my eyes. How, just, HOW did you get to the conclussion that atheists are fanatic violent and unstable extremists that would kill anyone in the world that isn't atheist? Because unless you are misspelling "atheist" for "religious", this is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read on this forum.

We may "attack" you verbally, as in, trying to debunk your theories, but I've yet to meet an atheist that would be willing to beat the shit out of you just for your beliefs. That's just insane and you know it.

Uh I think you need to calm down lol. Your kind of proving his point. I wouldn't go as far as to say atheists = Religious fanatics but you some of you do need some sensitivity training. Constantly bashing on others beliefs. It doesn't feel so good when some one generalizes you does it? Yet I see so many atheists do this everyday and say there different from religious people. Really what you did just now is the equivalent of yelling you're not violent at him in real life. There's a difference between debunking someones arguments and attacking them and this was definitely an attack.

lol I'm calm. Just because I use capital letters to emphasize or use swears doesn't mean I'm raging or overacting, exactly the opposite, to be honest.

Anyway, I was not trying to debunk anyone's theories in this case. I was genuinely defending myself. It is normal that it appears that I am angry, but really I am not. I get it's hard to get it from text, this reply you just gave me wouldn't have crossed your mind if we were in an actual face-to-face conversation.

Yes, I am aware that generalizations are dumb, in ALL cases. When I speak of christians, however, I'm speaking of the ones that actually practice christianity. There's a lot of bullshit christians that just do it because that's how it's been for their whole lifes but they don't really care at all. I'm fine with those, they can do whatever they want.

It's those that actually think they are superior to everyone else that I always try to bring down to their knees.

Yes, I am aware that verbally assaulting is still attacking, even if it is not physical. But as I said, I am in no way trying to attack anyone. Really, a verbal assault is something that is intentionally said to wreck your emotions and destroy your inner self. I am trying to do the exact opposite. I am trying to let you see that being atheist does not mean I am an agent of Satan.

I seriously hope you didn't interpret any of my comments as agressive, even though I did use language that would encourage you to think so. It was not my intention. I am sure that after reading this, if you actually go and re-read the whole thing with the tone that you think I am having right now, everything seems much more rational and makes more sense.

lol sorry usually when someone uses capital letters and starts cursing I assume they're raging and I know that atheists aren't agents of the devil trying to condem all of humanity to hell lol. It just gets tiring when I see people constantly blaming religion for everything that's wrong in the world and how all religious people are idiots cause and how everything would be better if religion never existed to tell you the truth I think that's bullshit. I'm sorry it came off to me as a verbal attack. Its just that most atheists I've met over the internet really need to be taken down couple notches. All in all I'm tired of this argument and people constantly judging others based off beliefs and not they're actions.

I'm going to judge the shit out of you if you don't edit that last "they're"

jk, anyway, OPINIONS, AIN'T THEM GREAT!? You CAN discuss if the world would be better or not without religion, on a plain intellectual level. That's the kind of discussion I strive for. I love discussions, it's when you get to see how people really are, and what better to spark the light than religion?

I am willing to accept any discussion that is opinion based. But I am not willing to dicuss if I should discuss with religious people or not. I am sorry but I find nothing wrong in trying to set someone's mind straight. Yes, I know, "that's what you believe" and whatnot. Listen, when what you believe is setting everyone back by 200 years, there IS something wrong. It is only my duty as a citizen to try to talk someone out of religion, and I'm proud to say a bunch people have actually cared enough about the world to listen to me and question their beliefs. They might or might not have abandoned christianity, but they HAVE QUESTIONED IT, and that is really important to me.

To me, religion is as selfish as you can get. "I am going to get eternal happiness, and if you want to, you better listen to what I have to say!". This mentality is holding mankind back, and I just don't find it tolerable in this modern society.

 

[Kaymish]

yes i have studied the "evidence" for creationism if you can call lies and straw-men evidence creationism is a load of crap to anyone who truly understands the scientific method and in most cases the creationist dogma i have seen has no evidence what so ever banana man and dogs don't count because they have been selectively bread by humans

i even got into an argument with the priest at my uncles funeral on Tuesday he decided that because my uncle was well liked and respected he would push his [the priests] creationist agenda and my cousins and aunt and the rest of the family were horrified at the priest i should have got up there and then for showing such disrespect to my uncle but i waited until after and you know what i got that guy on the ropes so much he walked off in a huff to some other place in the church he couldn't admit he was wrong
all i did was demolish his lies with fact he claimed to be tolerant and understanding and that being reasonable was a godly virtue but he was just another liar and i was having none of his crap

now that was arguing with a creationist who was not prepared for someone to to fight against lies and that's all i did fought against lies and his argument collapsed because there is no evidence to creationism and in many cases of creationist dogma i have seen they make unfalsifiable claims which are never scientifically testable anyway so there is no point

 

[Something Amyss]

I voted "yes," though that's a misnomer, since none of the "science" I've seen is real science supporting creationism, which itself isn't a science so much as a belief anyway. Yes, people have tried to use "Science" to prove creationism, in the same way truthers have used "science" to prove controlled demolition theories, right down to spinning or outright actively lying to make their points. There's a reason most creation "science" won't appear in peer-reviewed journals, and it ain't because it's some damned liberal conspiracy.

Creation "science" largely revolves around disproven theories and attempts to poke holes in evolutionary theory, where it generally fails. This really isn't a good foundation for science.

Trying to equate the two is like trying to equate phrenology with psychology.

Also, I'm descended from a people*** who believe man was first created from Mount Washington. Where's my alternative religion???????

***Also from Scots, but since I come from Scots who have believed in Jesus for many generations, it doesn't have the same effect.

Also, the amount of people in this thread who say that we involved from monkeys or apes make me sad. Just...*sigh* I give up.

Simplicity tends to win out over reality.

 

[evilneko]

Wow, your post is composed of 100% Creationist Propaganda. Would you like a Golden Crocoduck?

I really, really, really, seriously hope, FOR YOUR SAKE, that you are trolling. If not, then Science and Reason help you.

I can't even begin to facepalm with this post.

Oh wow. Oh wow. Bahaha. Come on now, seriously. You can't surely be serious. Yeah, you must be a troll. This post can't be legit.

Oh man you almost got me there, phew. For a moment I thought you were serious.

evilneko: if you think you can prove me wrong, please don't let me stop you.

And lotr rocks 0: I'm not trolling. That is what I believe. But I have often been banned from places for stating my belief.

I'll say again, if you can prove me wrong on anything. I'll shut up.

Since someone else got to it first (naturally since I just went to try out a certain large and awesome-in-concept New Vegas mod) I'll wait and see how you respond to that before giving you any more of my time.

In the meantime, I'll leave you this youtube playlist [http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#grid/user/DB23537556D7AADB] if you feel like watching videos explaining real science.

 

[monfang]

I'm going to start with the video first.

IT'S A JOKE!

Seriously, you couldn't pick it up that it was a joke? If you did your research you would see that the owner of the site held a contest for the funniest explanation of evolution. That one won.

Now for my proof:

Claim one: "None of the age testing is accurate past 5000 years."

Proof one: in 1996 a scientist was studing a lava flow in New Zeland that was less than 50 yo at the time. He took 11 samples and sent them back to get tested. What came back astonished him.

The lava flow was many millions of years old. The scientist had the lab use potassium-argon (K?Ar) dating methods to test the rocks. The tests give generalised spans of ages and the average of the results is sent back. The results showed 0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25?50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded ?ages? of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave ?ages? of millions of years.

Claim two: Scientists hide facts and lie.

Proof two A: In Dinosaur Valley State Park, near Glen Rose, Texas there is a river bed that supposedly has dinosaur tracts dried in the mud. People have also claimed to have seen human footprints in the mud as well. I have not been there so I can't say that as fact. But it wouldn't surprise me.

Proof two B: Also, personal option that I have gathered based on listening to the people ramble on.

Claim Three: Greeks, Native Americans, Chinese and Hebrew people have Dinosaurs in their historical writings

Proof Three: Lets start with the Griffin. That's right, that half bird half lion creature.. is really different than what you believe. First off, as apposed to other creatures of the time, the griffin was not the offspring of gods and was not associated with the adventures of Greek gods or heroes. Instead, griffins were generic animals believed to exist in the preset day; they were encountered by ordinary people who prospected for gold in distant lands.

Griffins are typically described as a race of four-footed birds having the beaks of eagles and the claws of lions, probably not flying but leaping in the air and digging in the ground, living in the desert wilderness.

Now look up the Protoceratops. Or let me do it for you: http://www.cmstudio.com/image/Protoceratops012.jpg

Beak, claw. And the researcher goes on to talk about how the creature was treated differently than other 'mythical' animals. You can read all about it here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i8f.htm#footnote1

For the rest, read here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i1f.htm

Any questions?

 

[Knight Templar]

None of the age testing is accurate past 5000 years.

Uranium-lead dating.

They pick and choose who is 'qualified' and they are mostly people who won't argue against the status quo.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Do you mean the view that people with education and degrees in the field are more qualified to talk about the topic? If so then that would be obviously correct, there's noting bad about being educated in a subject.

hey hide facts like finding dinosaur bones among human bones,

Source

human footprints among dinosaurs

Source

the 'missing links' they find are always human skulls on ape bodies.

Like Archaeopteryx?

They don't answer how the Greeks, Native Americans, Chinese and Hebrew people have Dinosaurs in their historical writings.

They don't. Or show that they do.

 

[BlueMage]

What's with all the evolution vs. creation threads?
And religion vs. science/atheism threads, in general?
They're rampant. Stop making them. No-ones mind ever gets changed on the Internet.

Not true. Minds do change. For example, one particular arsehole in another forum put forward a very good point about abortion, that pretty much nullified my stance. Given the evidence (or lack thereof, and therefore inability to correctly come to the conclusion I had) I changed my mind, because to do any less would be intellectually dishonest.

 

[monfang]

I already responded to all that Knight Templar... very ironic name, btw.

 

[Sight Unseen]

I'm going to start with the video first.

IT'S A JOKE!

Seriously, you couldn't pick it up that it was a joke? If you did your research you would see that the owner of the site held a contest for the funniest explanation of evolution. That one won.

Now for my proof:

Claim one: "None of the age testing is accurate past 5000 years."

Proof one: in 1996 a scientist was studing a lava flow in New Zeland that was less than 50 yo at the time. He took 11 samples and sent them back to get tested. What came back astonished him.

The lava flow was many millions of years old. The scientist had the lab use potassium-argon (K?Ar) dating methods to test the rocks. The tests give generalised spans of ages and the average of the results is sent back. The results showed 0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25?50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded ?ages? of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave ?ages? of millions of years.

Claim two: Scientists hide facts and lie.

Proof two A: In Dinosaur Valley State Park, near Glen Rose, Texas there is a river bed that supposedly has dinosaur tracts dried in the mud. People have also claimed to have seen human footprints in the mud as well. I have not been there so I can't say that as fact. But it wouldn't surprise me.

Proof two B: Also, personal option that I have gathered based on listening to the people ramble on.

Claim Three: Greeks, Native Americans, Chinese and Hebrew people have Dinosaurs in their historical writings

Proof Three: Lets start with the Griffin. That's right, that half bird half lion creature.. is really different than what you believe. First off, as apposed to other creatures of the time, the griffin was not the offspring of gods and was not associated with the adventures of Greek gods or heroes. Instead, griffins were generic animals believed to exist in the preset day; they were encountered by ordinary people who prospected for gold in distant lands.

Griffins are typically described as a race of four-footed birds having the beaks of eagles and the claws of lions, probably not flying but leaping in the air and digging in the ground, living in the desert wilderness.

Now look up the Protoceratops. Or let me do it for you: http://www.cmstudio.com/image/Protoceratops012.jpg

Beak, claw. And the researcher goes on to talk about how the creature was treated differently than other 'mythical' animals. You can read all about it here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i8f.htm#footnote1

For the rest, read here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i1f.htm

Any questions?

A couple things:

Do you have a source for the lava flow/dinosaur footprint story that isn't that scienceagainstevolution website?

I could have designed a website like that when I was 14 learning basic HTML and it makes my eyes hurt with the awful colour selections, it doesn't look like a very credible source to me.

Finally, personal opinions NEVER qualify as proof of anything because they are inherently subjective.

 

[Stilkon]

I'll let my friend Bill handle this.

 

[yman15]

The Escaist Proof Athist are no better then religous fanatics.

Athiests don't have a messiah figure telling them not to judge. Christians do... and yet....

Judge not lest ye be judged don't blame the creator for the faulty of man. If people want to twist and turn things to judge someone else they will. So blame the reader not the book.

The Escaist Proof Athist are no better then religous fanatics.

I assume you're trying to say that atheists on this site are no better than religious fanatics.

Which is a load of shit. Reading through this thread, all I've seen are atheists and...uh...what was the term? Theistic evolutionist? Is that the one? Believing in God and accepting evolution?
Whatever.
Point is - the atheists have pulled up scientific evidence and shot down the unprovable pieces of propaganda the creationists have thrown up in response. They have not been superior or arrogant. They have invited the creationists to bring their evidence. How is that proof that we atheists are in any way to be compared to religious fanatics?

No just blind loyalty the inability to admit. Hey we could be wrong and the fact they attack anyone who does not believe what they believe. They would cause a war if they were enough of them. So no they are no better than the west church. Trying to force a view and yelling like a mad profit. People who can only be around other like minded people unable to admit any wrong. So no I don?t see most of the hateful atheist here as any different than the fanatic with the god hates gays sign.

holy fuck how biased are you?

How many atheists have you seen physically damaging a religious person?

How many atheists have executed religious people?

How many atheists go to your house and tell you to join their cult?

What kind of atheists have you seen? Or rather, what kind of atheists have others tell you about? Because everything you have claimed there is absolute bollocks.

"Blind loyalty"? Ha! Being evolutionist is exactly the opposite of being blind. If you are evolutionist, it's because you actually cared to question how the world works. I can't count the number of christians that have became atheists after realizing christianity is absolutely insane. That is not being blind, that's opening your eyes.

"They would cause a war", "they attack anyone who does not believe what they believe"? What the hell? Seriously, I'm gonna need you to show me some proof of fanatic atheists directly attacking christians without any other added motivation.

Holy shit I can't believe my eyes. How, just, HOW did you get to the conclussion that atheists are fanatic violent and unstable extremists that would kill anyone in the world that isn't atheist? Because unless you are misspelling "atheist" for "religious", this is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read on this forum.

We may "attack" you verbally, as in, trying to debunk your theories, but I've yet to meet an atheist that would be willing to beat the shit out of you just for your beliefs. That's just insane and you know it.

Uh I think you need to calm down lol. Your kind of proving his point. I wouldn't go as far as to say atheists = Religious fanatics but you some of you do need some sensitivity training. Constantly bashing on others beliefs. It doesn't feel so good when some one generalizes you does it? Yet I see so many atheists do this everyday and say there different from religious people. Really what you did just now is the equivalent of yelling you're not violent at him in real life. There's a difference between debunking someones arguments and attacking them and this was definitely an attack.

lol I'm calm. Just because I use capital letters to emphasize or use swears doesn't mean I'm raging or overacting, exactly the opposite, to be honest.

Anyway, I was not trying to debunk anyone's theories in this case. I was genuinely defending myself. It is normal that it appears that I am angry, but really I am not. I get it's hard to get it from text, this reply you just gave me wouldn't have crossed your mind if we were in an actual face-to-face conversation.

Yes, I am aware that generalizations are dumb, in ALL cases. When I speak of christians, however, I'm speaking of the ones that actually practice christianity. There's a lot of bullshit christians that just do it because that's how it's been for their whole lifes but they don't really care at all. I'm fine with those, they can do whatever they want.

It's those that actually think they are superior to everyone else that I always try to bring down to their knees.

Yes, I am aware that verbally assaulting is still attacking, even if it is not physical. But as I said, I am in no way trying to attack anyone. Really, a verbal assault is something that is intentionally said to wreck your emotions and destroy your inner self. I am trying to do the exact opposite. I am trying to let you see that being atheist does not mean I am an agent of Satan.

I seriously hope you didn't interpret any of my comments as agressive, even though I did use language that would encourage you to think so. It was not my intention. I am sure that after reading this, if you actually go and re-read the whole thing with the tone that you think I am having right now, everything seems much more rational and makes more sense.

lol sorry usually when someone uses capital letters and starts cursing I assume they're raging and I know that atheists aren't agents of the devil trying to condem all of humanity to hell lol. It just gets tiring when I see people constantly blaming religion for everything that's wrong in the world and how all religious people are idiots cause and how everything would be better if religion never existed to tell you the truth I think that's bullshit. I'm sorry it came off to me as a verbal attack. Its just that most atheists I've met over the internet really need to be taken down couple notches. All in all I'm tired of this argument and people constantly judging others based off beliefs and not they're actions.

I'm going to judge the shit out of you if you don't edit that last "they're"

jk, anyway, OPINIONS, AIN'T THEM GREAT!? You CAN discuss if the world would be better or not without religion, on a plain intellectual level. That's the kind of discussion I strive for. I love discussions, it's when you get to see how people really are, and what better to spark the light than religion?

I am willing to accept any discussion that is opinion based. But I am not willing to dicuss if I should discuss with religious people or not. I am sorry but I find nothing wrong in trying to set someone's mind straight. Yes, I know, "that's what you believe" and whatnot. Listen, when what you believe is setting everyone back by 200 years, there IS something wrong. It is only my duty as a citizen to try to talk someone out of religion, and I'm proud to say a bunch people have actually cared enough about the world to listen to me and question their beliefs. They might or might not have abandoned christianity, but they HAVE QUESTIONED IT, and that is really important to me.

To me, religion is as selfish as you can get. "I am going to get eternal happiness, and if you want to, you better listen to what I have to say!". This mentality is holding mankind back, and I just don't find it tolerable in this modern society.

I need to learn how to "Snip" cause this is getting huge lol but anyways you got me all wrong I love debates I just hate it when someone is an asshole with they're opinion. Yes I agree with you that its wrong that religion has held science back but a lot of things can hold science back cause people fear progress and will find whatever they can to justify that fear. Also the whole what if religion could be an interesting topic but the only context I ever see it in is when people are saying stuff like, "God isn't real grow up"( direct quote from my buddy the internet btw) or how all religious people need to die. I also don't think religion is selfish they honestly want the best for you if they're reaching out to you like that but then again they're priorities are misplaced and they should focus more on them selves. I don't think trying to convert people is right unless if they're willing to help you out.

 

[Zakarath]

I haven't researched creationism, because I don't need to treat every crackpot theory as valid until disproved. If there was any actual evidence SUPPORTING it, then it might merit research. There isn't. There is only a bunch of people whining because they don't like their beliefs being challenged.

 

[Danzaivar]

You ever see the stuff from people who think the Worlds flat? They say there's no such thing as space, long distance flights just take a weird path to make you feel the Earths curvature and "satellite" signals are actually just broadcast from towers on the surface. Anything to the contrary is just lies to make you believe the grand conspiracies of Governments.

Some other guy believes there's actually 96 hours in a day (the 'timecube' theory) with 24 hours for each part of the World and the different races each belong to a certain time, so we shouldn't mix because living in another races time-day is the cause of strife in the World.

What I'm trying to say is you should always look at the other sides arguments and (if there is any) evidence. It will either enlighten you and shift your opinion, provide fallacies to discredit those who regard it as truth, or be so absurd that it becomes a hilarious read. None of those is a bad thing!

 

[evilneko]

-snip-

-snip-

The "human footprints among dinosaurs" that he refers to were shown to be fraudulent. I've been there, hell I've been to the "Creation Museum" where they proudly displayed casts of them (along with a video about them), despite the fact that they were thoroughly debunked years ago. Here's the talkorigins.org article on them: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

 

[2xDouble]

Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. The question is invalid.

 

[monfang]

A couple things:

Do you have a source for the lava flow/dinosaur footprint story that isn't that scienceagainstevolution website?

I could have designed a website like that when I was 14 learning basic HTML and it makes my eyes hurt with the awful colour selections, it doesn't look like a very credible source to me.

Finally, personal opinions NEVER qualify as proof of anything because they are inherently subjective.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/dating

 

[monfang]

-snip-

-snip-

The "human footprints among dinosaurs" that he refers to were shown to be fraudulent. I've been there, hell I've been to the "Creation Museum" where they proudly displayed casts of them (along with a video about them), despite the fact that they were thoroughly debunked years ago. Here's the talkorigins.org article on them: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Hmm. Well, I guess I could be wrong then. My apologies. Though I wish I was lucky enough to go to the Creation Museum.

 

[Knight Templar]

I already responded to all that Knight Templar... very ironic name, btw.

You responded to some.

Claim one: "None of the age testing is accurate past 5000 years."

Proof one: in 1996 a scientist was studing a lava flow in New Zeland that was less than 50 yo at the time. He took 11 samples and sent them back to get tested. What came back astonished him.

The lava flow was many millions of years old. The scientist had the lab use potassium-argon (K?Ar) dating methods to test the rocks. The tests give generalised spans of ages and the average of the results is sent back. The results showed 0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25?50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded ?ages? of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave ?ages? of millions of years.

Source?  

In Dinosaur Valley State Park, near Glen Rose, Texas there is a river bed that supposedly has dinosaur tracts dried in the mud. People have also claimed to have seen human footprints in the mud as well. I have not been there so I can't say that as fact. But it wouldn't surprise me.

Source.

Griffins are typically described as a race of four-footed birds having the beaks of eagles and the claws of lions, probably not flying but leaping in the air and digging in the ground, living in the desert wilderness.
Now look up the Protoceratops.

That's not a Griffon. They are a eagle and a lion put together, a mix of royal beasts. They have wings, claws and a lions body. They are also not small like Protoceratops. I suppose if you were to find the bones of such a dinosaur you might make the mistake, but since it is without any wings and isn't part lion you couldn't see a living creature and think "griffon" and the size wouldn't help.

What you have described is not a griffon.