Evolution Disproved by Peanut Butter!
- Thread starter Ah-Teen
- Start date
It's pretty stupid to be so sure of anything (with the possible exception of mathematics), if you ask me... What those people are saying is beyond belief, they're treating it as fact, which is idiotic.
Seraphim Pwns U
It Wandered In From the Wastes
fedaykin said:
Wow. You're good. I guess I can't pull the wool over your eyes. *rolls eyes sarcastically*.
Part of the reason is that, yes, his drawings are so-called proofs of evolution. But a larger part is the fact that 1.) they were disproven 2.) they aren't accurate and 3.) they are still in junior high and high school textbooks, and even some encyclopedias as being accurate proof.
I would have less qualms with issues such as that if they were mere references. Or better yet, if they were actually labeled as errors and hoaxes put forth in the evolutionary theory.
The banana video is, what, 5 years old at most. The video posted here was the first time I had heard of how our bananas are different from wild bananas... as apple trees grow wild out here (or would 'feral' be more appropriate? I don't know), as well as black raspberries, they look much like storebought apples and berries, so I had assumed it held true for most fruits. So, yes, based upon my own experience, I can understand. It's called 'sympathy'... being capable of understanding why someone does what they do. But upon knowing the truth, I believe it should be retracted as it doesn't hold water.
Why I can't understand why issues like Haeckel's diagrams are still being taught is because 1.) it was disproven a great many school-book-revisions ago 2.) educators are supposed to teach 'the right answers', not the wrong ones that don't hold water.
As for assuming my disdain for falsehoods-taught-as-truth and hoaxes is limited to theological debates, it also applies in other issues as well. Like the American Civil War... in school I was taught it was all about slavery. However, as an adult, I have learned that it initially had very little to do with slavery, but rather, states' rights. Then there's also the Cold War, where most of the issues that would put America in a negative light were sugar-coated, glossed over, or wholly untold (such as Project Northwoods).
Unlike your preconception of me, I am not as narrow-minded as you might think. I just have serious issues against lies and perpetuating errors.
After all, I was once an atheist myself.
Zeal said:FeelTheRads said:
If you check the bible, they actually do!
There is actually a very famous bible story, about a man, whose name was Job.
One day God decided to use one of his best followers as a guinea pig... check the interwebs for the story
Forgive the quote pyramid, but I feel it's a bit necessary.
Yes, Job was exemplary in his faith... but it's a little deeper than shouting "Hallelujah" every time someone catches a cold. It is knowledge in the fact that, come what may, God is always in control, and while He allows bad things to occur (through His "passive will"), He has assured us that, in the end, things will get better (through His "active will"). If we look to Him for help, instead of going against the flow and struggling ourselves, He'll make it better.
Now, that might sound a little naive to you who don't understand... so I'll simplify it. Imagine a kid with a knot in his shoelace. He has two options: either try to fix it himself, or go ask his parent for help. When he tries to fix it himself, he makes the knot bigger and bigger, to the point where he's in tears at the mess, or when that knot is so big and daunting, the kid goes and takes some scissors and cuts it out, destroying any chance of getting the shoelace untied. But, if he goes to his parent instead, they can undo the knot with relative ease (however, the bigger the knot is, the longer it'll take for the parent to fix). Just sitting back, and watching how the knot is fixed helps reinforce the child's knowledge that the parent knows how to fix knots, and will cause them to go to the parent first, instead of trying to fix the knot themselves, or resort to the scissors.
I'm looking forward to when my Father gives me a set of laceless shoes. He's already bought them, but He's just waiting 'til my feet are big enough to wear them.
@ The Overseer... what's your weather like right now? What forum are you reading? What did you have for your last meal?
Life really isn't that difficult. There are many things I can be sure about. I can be certain I'll be teaching soon. I'm certain I have 6 minutes to finish up my post. I'm certain I have had an upset stomach for the past couple days, and will for a couple more days. I'm certain I don't like Pepto-Bismol. I'm certain I'm smoking a cigarette. I'm certain my mom-in-law will bug me within the next two hours about something totally inane. I'm certain my dad, my grandpa, my husband, and my kids love me. And I'm certain I love them.
There are many things a person can know without a doubt. God happens to be one of them. While a person can say, "The wind is moving from this way to that", and have it be true, it takes a view of the bigger picture to understand meteorology and predict weather. Knowing about God is kind of like that.
What happens if the kid is orphan? 
Well one can always say that God imbued Man with the ambition to experiment and try to find a cure for himself, when a surgeon study for years to be able to operate someone with machines made by other scientists to rid someone from God creation, we can in a way say that God indirectly was responsable for the cure. but why to infect someone in the 1st place then, maybe to test humanity?
So whos gona tell all those lil kids in Africa dying from HIV (not to mention other things) that they are guinea pigs to test the human spirit?
Well in the old testament, god is most part of the time angry with something, maybe bacterias are a punishment :/ bad human bad human
And you cant be sure some Gods creation aint gona get you tomorrow, so how can u be sure of anything?
Btw, my Dragon name is Abel
he lives in my garage but doesnt makes much noise 
Now serious (i was just fooling around back there), if you belive in god its probable you belive in heaven. When someone you love dies, will you be happy? Why?
To The Overseer: Speaking about logic, using as base the dogma "god is omnipotent", can god make a stone he cant lift?
Well one can always say that God imbued Man with the ambition to experiment and try to find a cure for himself, when a surgeon study for years to be able to operate someone with machines made by other scientists to rid someone from God creation, we can in a way say that God indirectly was responsable for the cure. but why to infect someone in the 1st place then, maybe to test humanity?
So whos gona tell all those lil kids in Africa dying from HIV (not to mention other things) that they are guinea pigs to test the human spirit?
Well in the old testament, god is most part of the time angry with something, maybe bacterias are a punishment :/ bad human bad human
And you cant be sure some Gods creation aint gona get you tomorrow, so how can u be sure of anything?
Btw, my Dragon name is Abel
he lives in my garage but doesnt makes much noise Now serious (i was just fooling around back there), if you belive in god its probable you belive in heaven. When someone you love dies, will you be happy? Why?
To The Overseer: Speaking about logic, using as base the dogma "god is omnipotent", can god make a stone he cant lift?
Zeal said:
I know that he could probably microwave a burrito so hot he couldn't eat it...
I should know, since I lost the ability to taste food for three weeks after that little snafu.
Seraphim Pwns U said:
Are you really sure? Just because they happen in your reference doesn't mean they're TRUE.
FeelTheRads
Vault Senior Citizen
An omnipotent being would be able to defy logic too, no?
Oh, yes, he would.
But then, to abandon all logic, because some cute little fairy-tale of rather poor writing quality tells me so, is at least foolish and at most imbecilic.
Overused argument biting at the toes of a straw-man. "You must have a deeper understanding of the world to see God".
The punchline here is, however, that as we gather more and more knowledge of the world around us, we see that a god, of whatever characteristics, is not needed for anything.
If something puts an end to that, then where will your certainty go? Down the proverbial toilet?
You do realize that your reasoning is based on arbitrarily picking a couple of events, that at that certain moment in time seem unstoppable, while others, very similar to those, you avoid because of little differences. In other words, you say are sure you can eat that slice of bread, because it's there near you, while you can't be sure you're gonna drink a glass of water afterwards because the water might be stopped.
Relative. Irrelevant. Possibly false.
quietfanatic
Ancient One
Hi again Brother None.
I’m not saying that you like their methods. I found some of your inconsistent and patronising nitpicking annoying, so I’m trying to put that slant on the argument for interest and entertainment. The take home message is that a high level of arrogance and excessive scepticism is unnecessary, and makes one look bad.
You don’t properly differentiate between the quality of different messages and their associated evidence, unfairly lumping people together, such as Moore and the Peanut Butter, science and the supernatural.
Mind-reading? That is beyond nitpicking. Appearing not to give any ground in argument is apparently more important than reality?
I am not that concerned with the details of abiogenesis, otherwise I’d go into the technical detail, but the idea has been used to guide further research. Proving it is understandably difficult, such as due to lack of time and knowledge of very early world conditions, but gaining evidence is possible. Peer-review by scientists helps to protect against self-seeking bias, but explanations can be simplified to make things easier for children, which I find wrong. If abiogenesis was totally disproved, there would be paradigm shift, firstly amongst workers investigating the possibility, but the ramifications for other paradigms could be a little more dramatic, as one must be replaced with another. For example, if life existed for ever, then the universe would have to as well, which might be of interest to physicists. Early Terran micro-organisms would have to have been flying around in space, but not originating from such a planet. Having an almighty being doesn’t necessarily conflict with abiogenesis, but might cause a change in the thinking of billions of people around the world, and raise questions about the supernatural.
Scientists are not idiotic, although they are human, as you have noticed from your study of history. Your joke suggests that you really do think they are stupid.
Sorry if I’m not getting the balance of insults right, as I’m trying to match the negative aspects of your style and respond in kind, although I seriously believe that you’re a nice and clever guy. I sometimes like approaching something serious in an unusual (amusing to me), maybe silly, manner.
I’m not saying that you like their methods. I found some of your inconsistent and patronising nitpicking annoying, so I’m trying to put that slant on the argument for interest and entertainment. The take home message is that a high level of arrogance and excessive scepticism is unnecessary, and makes one look bad.
You don’t properly differentiate between the quality of different messages and their associated evidence, unfairly lumping people together, such as Moore and the Peanut Butter, science and the supernatural.
Mind-reading? That is beyond nitpicking. Appearing not to give any ground in argument is apparently more important than reality?
I am not that concerned with the details of abiogenesis, otherwise I’d go into the technical detail, but the idea has been used to guide further research. Proving it is understandably difficult, such as due to lack of time and knowledge of very early world conditions, but gaining evidence is possible. Peer-review by scientists helps to protect against self-seeking bias, but explanations can be simplified to make things easier for children, which I find wrong. If abiogenesis was totally disproved, there would be paradigm shift, firstly amongst workers investigating the possibility, but the ramifications for other paradigms could be a little more dramatic, as one must be replaced with another. For example, if life existed for ever, then the universe would have to as well, which might be of interest to physicists. Early Terran micro-organisms would have to have been flying around in space, but not originating from such a planet. Having an almighty being doesn’t necessarily conflict with abiogenesis, but might cause a change in the thinking of billions of people around the world, and raise questions about the supernatural.
Scientists are not idiotic, although they are human, as you have noticed from your study of history. Your joke suggests that you really do think they are stupid.
Sorry if I’m not getting the balance of insults right, as I’m trying to match the negative aspects of your style and respond in kind, although I seriously believe that you’re a nice and clever guy. I sometimes like approaching something serious in an unusual (amusing to me), maybe silly, manner.