Debate thread.....ELECTIONS!

Hydro King · Subject: Re: Debate thread.....ELECTIONS! Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:20 pm

Well, the reason I was telling you about 'dragons', Griff, was because they can be linked with dinosaurs. I mean, for all we know, a kind of dinosaur could've breathed fire, <(without having wings) like the one mention in the Bible verses in my other post. After all, bones alone don't tell us whether or not an animal can or cannot breathe fire.
People who lived back 'when' could've seen these horrible creatures and then, over time, get them mixed with Pterodactyls and such.

I know that this idea isn't any proven fact, but it does make sense.

_________________

Niedude · Super Spammer Posts: 902 Join date: 2008-08-03 Age: 17

WOOT WOOT!
BARACK WON!
WOOT WOOT!
BARACK ONE!

And I for one believe in dragons, especially after watching a National Geographic documentary about a guy who lived his life trying to proove that dragons existed.

He found several faked dragons, but the documentary showed him uncovering one dragon, studying it, and in the end uncovering its moma.
It also showed how the dragons, like the birds, evolved from Dinosaurs and, like the crocodiles, survived whatever killed the dinosaurs by going underwater (anyone know about the japanese dragon? Wingless snake like and living underwater?)

It then evolved and came back up to land on Eastern Asia and Aztec America, where wingless dragons had been portrayed similarly.

It also theoryzed about their extinction, and how they both flew and shot fire.

Answer: Two sets of lungs and silver on their teeth.

They had one se and another one filled with gas that helped it float, and which was also flammable. It ate silver, a highly flammable metal, to save some on its teeth and use it to start sparks and then, fires.

So yeah, I believe in dragons, even though a few days after my dad told me he read something oficial about that being a fake documentary --"
I want to believe =D *X files reference*

_________________

This is the reason why they invented perfection.

Riversong · Subject: Re: Debate thread.....ELECTIONS! Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:30 pm

Oh yeaah that'd be really cool if dragons existed! I mean, why would so many cultures around the world have dragon myths if they never existed? I'm 50/50 on it.

Quote:

I want to believe =D

Me too.

_________________

Fire Strike · Subject: Re: Debate thread.....ELECTIONS! Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:56 pm

Meh, I'm in a debating mood. Ignore my post if you want.

The US is going to erupt into chaos soon. Thanks to everyone who voted for Obama, who never stated what exactly he was going to do. And don't pull any of that "he's going to make changes" crap, since he never said exactly WHAT changes he would make. At least neither me nor my parents heard anything, and tconstantly watch the news.

I don't care who this agress with or disagrees with, but I'm all for believing what the Bible says. If the Bible didn't mention the dinosaurs, then they frankly don't matter or they didn't exist. What with the fossils, I can't explain, I'm just a 15-year old kid. What do I know?

And I'm sorry to say, as much as I love them, dragons don't exist. They just don't.

I don't feel like reading any of your other posts, no offense. I'm just tired and cranky *geehowcouldyoutell*

-FS

_________________

~Thanks to RS and HK for the epic banners~
Cause we all know I can't do anything like these.

Hydro King · Subject: Re: Debate thread.....ELECTIONS! Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:22 pm

Fire Suicune wrote:

Meh, I'm in a debating mood. Ignore my post if you want.

The US is going to erupt into chaos soon. Thanks to everyone who voted for Obama, who never stated what exactly he was going to do. And don't pull any of that "he's going to make changes" crap, since he never said exactly WHAT changes he would make. At least neither me nor my parents heard anything, and tconstantly watch the news.

I don't care who this agress with or disagrees with, but I'm all for believing what the Bible says. If the Bible didn't mention the dinosaurs, then they frankly don't matter or they didn't exist. What with the fossils, I can't explain, I'm just a 15-year old kid. What do I know?

And I'm sorry to say, as much as I love them, dragons don't exist. They just don't.

I don't feel like reading any of your other posts, no offense. I'm just tired and cranky *geehowcouldyoutell*

-FS

I know, My family and I are reading the news on Obama. - He promised people 'change', but now that he's been elected, nobody really knows what he's going to do...

FS, the Bible does mention dinosaurs. <(it even mentions dragon-like creatures) - Just look at my later posts on the page before this. There's also evidence for dragons in places more than just the Bible.

_________________

Tatortot · Subject: Re: Debate thread.....ELECTIONS! Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:38 pm

HK, please dont support your Biblical beliefs with science. This is exactly what you have criticized me for doing, mixing science with my religious views. Wasn't it you who said science was made up by a group of doubters of God? This is exactly what you said about me, you said, "Why believe any part of the Bible when you doubt part of it?" Well, now I ask you this: Why believe in any of science if you don't believe part of it? Hypocrite...

And FS, ave you even listened to any of the debates? Obama has clearly said what he wants to change, he wants tax cuts for the middle class, he wants withdrawal from Iraq, and a myriad of other things.

But I do agree with you on dragons, it would be cool, but they simply don't exist.

_________________

~I want to live where soul meets body
And let the sun wrap its arms around me
And bathe my skin in water cool and cleansing
And feel, feel what its like to be new~

Credit to myself for the banner, and Death Cab for Cutie for the awesome song lyrics

Hydro King · Subject: Re: Debate thread.....ELECTIONS! Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:35 am

Tatortot wrote:

HK, please dont support your Biblical beliefs with science. This is exactly what you have criticized me for doing, mixing science with my religious views. Wasn't it you who said science was made up by a group of doubters of God? This is exactly what you said about me, you said, "Why believe any part of the Bible when you doubt part of it?" Well, now I ask you this: Why believe in any of science if you don't believe part of it? Hypocrite...

I have never criticized you for mixing science with your beliefs. Evolution is not true science. <(nor should it be called so) - Evolution is what doubters of God <(like Charles Darwin) made up. <(not science) True science is based on facts, not just evidence. I advise you to think rationally before calling people hypocrites.

Tatortot wrote:

And FS, ave you even listened to any of the debates? Obama has clearly said what he wants to change, he wants tax cuts for the middle class, he wants withdrawal from Iraq, and a myriad of other things.

...He's also going to raise taxes on oil companies and such, ultimately raising gasoline prices...

Tatortot wrote:

]But I do agree with you on dragons, it would be cool, but they simply don't exist.

I've given you evidence for dragons. You can believe what I've shown you to be incorrect, but please don't go around stating that they didn't exist like its a proven fact.

_________________

Yani · Subject: Re: Debate thread.....ELECTIONS! Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:07 am

HK I know this is going to sound harsh, but I've never read the bible and I never will. I'm an atheist. Why back up everything with a religious statement, then back it up even more with a scientific statement if science is what opposes religion.
(We really need a religion debate thread)
You seem bent upon assuring us all that dragons do exist, JUST because the bible says so. It's YOUR opinion that they do exist because of the source you have. Just because you believe that dragons exist because they're in the bible, doesn't mean WE all believe it. I for one, don't believe in dragons, however much they may be true. If I am proved wrong in later life, then tough titties for me. Just please stop trying to force us all to believe something just because it's in the bible because (no offense) we (or at least I) don't care about the bible.

_________________

Credit Goes To Hydro King For The Beautiful Banner
Our Karma's All Been Burned... The Molecules Emerge...

LeoMarine · Subject: Re: Debate thread.....ELECTIONS! Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:15 pm

Hydro King wrote:

Tatortot wrote:

And FS, ave you even listened to any of the debates? Obama has clearly said what he wants to change, he wants tax cuts for the middle class, he wants withdrawal from Iraq, and a myriad of other things.

...He's also going to raise taxes on oil companies and such, ultimately raising gasoline prices...

That is done on purpose, as both McCain and Obama wants more people to use El-cars and hybrids. Obama wants half of the US (or something) to drive cars that doesn´t hurt the envoirement(SP?).

_________________

Hydro King · Subject: Re: Debate thread.....ELECTIONS! Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:25 pm

Yanni wrote:

HK I know this is going to sound harsh, but I've never read the bible and I never will.

Hey, it's your choice as to whether or not you do so.

Yanni wrote:

I'm an atheist. Why back up everything with a religious statement, then back it up even more with a scientific statement if science is what opposes religion.

True science <(evolution is not true science) does not oppose Creation. - They both go hand-in-hand. <(just like you guys, and others, think of evolution and science) The more I study the two, the more I realize it.

Yanni wrote:

(We really need a religion debate thread)
You seem bent upon assuring us all that dragons do exist, JUST because the bible says so.

Wrong. For one thing, I can't assure you that dragons exist, nor was I implying that I wanted to. All I can do is give you good evidence <(like I have) and not just from the Bible, but also from legends, old drawings, and such. <(please read all of my later posts on the page before this)

Yanni wrote:

It's YOUR opinion that they do exist because of the source you have. Just because you believe that dragons exist because they're in the bible, doesn't mean WE all believe it. I for one, don't believe in dragons, however much they may be true. If I am proved wrong in later life, then tough titties for me. Just please stop trying to force us all to believe something just because it's in the bible because (no offense) we (or at least I) don't care about the bible.

That's right, YOU may not believe in dragons. The point I was trying to make before was that I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't talk about them like there isn't any evidence at all.
And again the evidence is not limited to the Bible. - Dragons and giant reptiles are mentioned all around the world in ancient records like Marco Polo's adventures.

_________________

Griff4815 · Posts: 70 Join date: 2008-07-30

Please define this "true science" you speak of. Microbiology? Geology? Chemistry? Physics? Or is it... Economics? (THE STUDY OF MONEY IS NOT A SCIENCE, IT"S A WASTE OF TIME!) The fact of the matter is that all sciences are inter-related.

PS: Why is it the people who love water types the ones who are hardcore republicans?

_________________

Regards to Riversong for the banner. And Scenice for the second one.

http://www.serebiiforums.com/showthread.php?t=268560
Read at that address.

Hydro King · Subject: Re: Debate thread.....ELECTIONS! Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:00 pm

Griff wrote:

Please define this "true science" you speak of. Microbiology? Geology? Chemistry? Physics? Or is it... Economics? (THE STUDY OF MONEY IS NOT A SCIENCE, IT"S A WASTE OF TIME!) The fact of the matter is that all sciences are inter-related.

PS: Why is it the people who love water types the ones who are hardcore republicans?

True science is stuff that has all the undeniable evidence to be considered fact.

Evolution, on the other hand, is actually a religion itself.

www.icr.org wrote:

Evolution Is Religion--Not Science
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

The writer has documented in two recent Impact articles1, 2 from admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.3

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.4

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.5

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.6

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.7

It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 8

Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.9

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.10

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.12

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.13

Once again we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. Another prominent evolutionist comments as follows:

(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.14

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!

The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,15 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.16

Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."17 Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."18

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

In closing this summary of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

_________________

Tatortot · Subject: Re: Debate thread.....ELECTIONS! Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:56 pm

This thread is officially closed due to the 1st Amendment. Amen.

_________________

~I want to live where soul meets body
And let the sun wrap its arms around me
And bathe my skin in water cool and cleansing
And feel, feel what its like to be new~

Credit to myself for the banner, and Death Cab for Cutie for the awesome song lyrics