1. Joined
    06 Jul '06
    Moves
    2926
    17 Feb '08 20:40
    i think there should be one; when you type in fossil record in google the first thing that comes up should be a data base. that way, creationists wouldnt say there is none and people could easily go and show them.
  2. Joined
    02 Apr '06
    Moves
    3637
    17 Feb '08 21:02
    Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
    i think there should be one; when you type in fossil record in google the first thing that comes up should be a data base. that way, creationists wouldnt say there is none and people could easily go and show them.
    What would you put in it? After all, it is only opinion what the fossil represents, so the same arguments would stand, no?
  3. Standard memberMexico
    Quis custodiet
    ipsos custodes?
    Joined
    16 Feb '03
    Moves
    13400
    18 Feb '08 03:15
    Originally posted by snowinscotland
    What would you put in it? After all, it is only opinion what the fossil represents, so the same arguments would stand, no?
    He makes a valid point, you can't argue with them using dates they dont accept in the first place. You see the dates are repoducable, and correlated via various different systems. However they claim its bad science. Why? I think its because its absoluoute and unquestionable proof that the earth is around 4500Ma.......... They prefer the half thruths and pseudoscience that agrees with them....

    Sorry about the poor spelling, my computer has gone funny and spell checker isnt working anymore....
  4. Standard memberMexico
    Quis custodiet
    ipsos custodes?
    Joined
    16 Feb '03
    Moves
    13400
    18 Feb '08 03:17
    What I find really annoying is that if you Type Geological column into google, many of your results are creation "science" pages. Which is not right because its certainly not science...
  5. Standard memberabnoxio
    M.U.T.I
    Joined
    16 Oct '07
    Moves
    4028
    18 Feb '08 03:18
    MEXICO! Amen brother. Go MUTI!
  6. Joined
    06 Jul '06
    Moves
    2926
    18 Feb '08 03:58
    Originally posted by Mexico
    He makes a valid point, you can't argue with them using dates they dont accept in the first place. You see the dates are repoducable, and correlated via various different systems. However they claim its bad science. Why? I think its because its absoluoute and unquestionable proof that the earth is around 4500Ma.......... They prefer the half thruths and pseud ...[text shortened]... about the poor spelling, my computer has gone funny and spell checker isnt working anymore....
    most creationists admit that if evolution didnt conflict w/ there beliefs then they would accept it.
  7. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    50026
    18 Feb '08 04:14
    Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
    most creationists admit that if evolution didnt conflict w/ there beliefs then they would accept it.
    Which is a bit ironic given that the vast majority of religious people have no problem at all with evolution ...
  8. Standard memberMexico
    Quis custodiet
    ipsos custodes?
    Joined
    16 Feb '03
    Moves
    13400
    18 Feb '08 04:22
    Yep its definitley bizarre.... Many religions accept that evolution and an old earth aren't paticularly opposed to their religious beliefs.... All it means is that their religious scriptures, which we're written by men, are probably not entirely accurate.... And may have been embelished, exaggerated and modified to tell a more dramatic and impressive story....
  9. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    50026
    18 Feb '08 04:25
    Originally posted by Mexico
    Yep its definitley bizarre.... Many religions accept that evolution and an old earth aren't paticularly opposed to their religious beliefs.... All it means is that their religious scriptures, which we're written by men, are probably not entirely accurate.... And may have been embelished, exaggerated and modified to tell a more dramatic and impressive story....
    Yeah, most moderate folk treat their sacred texts as allegorical - telling stories, sometimes based in reality, that get across moral, ethical and emotional points.
    It's only the smaller (dare I say lunatic) fringe that treat these texts as literal truths. Hard to justify with so many glaring errors of fact, but there you are ...
  10. Joined
    06 Jul '06
    Moves
    2926
    18 Feb '08 04:29
    Originally posted by amannion
    Which is a bit ironic given that the vast majority of religious people have no problem at all with evolution ...
    majority? then why does the majority try to debunk evolution so much? maybe A LOT of religious people have no problem but MOST dont believe it.
  11. Standard memberMexico
    Quis custodiet
    ipsos custodes?
    Joined
    16 Feb '03
    Moves
    13400
    18 Feb '08 04:34
    Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
    majority? then why does the majority try to debunk evolution so much? maybe A LOT of religious people have no problem but MOST dont believe it.
    Innaccurate..... Most christian faiths accept evoloution, only those that take the bible as literal truth have a real problem with it. The same applied to most other faiths, (Muslims being a exception I believe?) its only those that take literal interpetations to unreasonable extremes take don't accept good science..
  12. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    50026
    18 Feb '08 04:35
    Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
    majority? then why does the majority try to debunk evolution so much? maybe A LOT of religious people have no problem but MOST dont believe it.
    No, we're talking a very vocal minority - certainly not in the majority.
  13. Joined
    06 Jul '06
    Moves
    2926
    18 Feb '08 05:38
    Originally posted by Mexico
    Innaccurate..... Most christian faiths accept evoloution, only those that take the bible as literal truth have a real problem with it. The same applied to most other faiths, (Muslims being a exception I believe?) its only those that take literal interpetations to unreasonable extremes take don't accept good science..
    well i happen to live in the "bible belt" where there is a church just about every block and i know many christians. ive never met a christian who believes we share common ancestors w/ apes. where do you get these statistics from that say most religious people accept evolution?
  14. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    50026
    18 Feb '08 05:55
    Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
    well i happen to live in the "bible belt" where there is a church just about every block and i know many christians. ive never met a christian who believes we share common ancestors w/ apes. where do you get these statistics from that say most religious people accept evolution?
    From most of the rest of the world. Don't you think your sample is a little biased?
  15. Joined
    06 Jul '06
    Moves
    2926
    18 Feb '08 06:04
    Originally posted by amannion
    From most of the rest of the world. Don't you think your sample is a little biased?
    lol yes. i dont know much about the world cuz idc about it, i guess all ive known is the bible belt because i havent been to many states in the u.s. so when talking about the u.s., is it still the majority of theists believe in evolution or is that only the world as a whole?
Back to Top