World Peace Group Meditation

[worldruler086]

Oh, no, I'm not going on fucking Answers in Genesis. They use lies and deception to make people believe certain things. I've learned about them when I learned about creationism. They make the argument that if we didn't come about by God, then we came about by "random occurences", which makes no sense. The Big Bang was not random, and scientists and physicists are still trying to understand just what it was and how it happened. "Evolution" is also often misunderstood. It's not a completely random process. Natural Selection, by definition, NATURALLY SELECTS, and when you have things that are randomized, it changes based on how natural selection selects. I could go on and on about how Answer in Genesis lies and decieves, but let me be clear, through the scientific method you can prove that creationism simply CANNOT happen, but you cannot prove (or disprove) the existence of God. I have a playlist of videos discussing the foundational falsehoods of creationism, and it discusses the flaws of creationism, and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68EL ... CC&index=1

Here you go. Watch them. He's one of the most humble people I've witnessed.

[Mr_Hole_Digger1]

Ok, for starters, you didn't even go to that link I gave you to read while I watched that video you sent me. Sorry, but I find that stupidly arrogant of you. Second, this is other typical guy that hates creationists, he's not pointing out any flaws he's just ranting about how stupid he thinks they are. If he was humble he wouldn't make those videos. It makes me sad that most of you believe what the world says is true, not God.
Also, if you go read that link I gave you, you'll learn that those 'lies' you were thought aren't said the way you said they are, so you're also ignorant. :P

"Natural Selection, by definition, NATURALLY SELECTS, and when you have things that are randomized, it changes based on how natural selection selects"
Here's what they say to that: Evolutionists were not content to treat natural selection as simply an observable ecological process. Darwin himself was a cautious scientist, painstaking in his work. But others, especially T. H. Huxley and Herbert Spencer, insisted on making natural selection the touchstone of a new religion, a “religion without revelation,” as Julian Huxley later called it. For them, as for many others, the real significance of the Darwinian revolution was religious and philosophic, not scientific. These early evolutionists were basically anti-creationists who wanted to explain design without a Designer.

[RevStoningpot]

people are too black and white about evolution. Why does it have to be god that made life? If the universe and our souls were made by god our souls could make anything they want manifest in the universe. Evolution therefore being the dna shaped by the soul to create a body worth living in. dna can't just pop up out of nowhere but it doesn't need a god to construct it.

Any how i really just want people that are inclined to meditate to join me in my peace meditation. If you don't want to talk about meditation then go make your own thread, their fee.

[worldruler086]

Ok, for starters, you didn't even go to that link I gave you to read while I watched that video you sent me. Sorry, but I find that stupidly arrogant of you. Second, this is other typical guy that hates creationists, he's not pointing out any flaws he's just ranting about how stupid he thinks they are. If he was humble he wouldn't make those videos. It makes me sad that most of you believe what the world says is true, not God.
Also, if you go read that link I gave you, you'll learn that those 'lies' you were thought aren't said the way you said they are, so you're also ignorant. :P

"Natural Selection, by definition, NATURALLY SELECTS, and when you have things that are randomized, it changes based on how natural selection selects"
Here's what they say to that: Evolutionists were not content to treat natural selection as simply an observable ecological process. Darwin himself was a cautious scientist, painstaking in his work. But others, especially T. H. Huxley and Herbert Spencer, insisted on making natural selection the touchstone of a new religion, a “religion without revelation,” as Julian Huxley later called it. For them, as for many others, the real significance of the Darwinian revolution was religious and philosophic, not scientific. These early evolutionists were basically anti-creationists who wanted to explain design without a Designer.

I did read your link. I just knew from the source what I was dealing with. I could give you a rundown of why I think what they said was misleading. In fact, I will.

"When the person you talk to on creation insists that you “leave the Bible out of it,” they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way."-Ken Ham, president of AiG

This quote is the first red flag. It shows that Ken Ham is unwilling to be open-minded on the issue, which shows he's the one who stacks the deck one way. What is known can only be known by peer-review. This is how the scientific method works. The Bible is entirely open to interpretation. That's why we have so many sects of Christianity. The scientific community doesn't have this.

"Evidence"

Synopsis (can't copy paste because whoever designed this website is an ape) - Creationists and "Evolutionists" view the same evidence (fossils, DNA, bunch of other stuff), the difference is how they interpret it. The reason why the evidence goes toward evolution, according to the evolutionist, is actually due to a pre-supposition, also called axioms. This is useful for past events.

Right...where to begin. There is a "presupposition", but it's more complicated than the conspiracy theory they're getting at. We have, for a fact, witnessed species coming into being, as well as new genus's and new phylums. We have fossil records that show a clear trend of creatures with traits that branch off into the species we see today. We have DNA which, in fact, was predicted to exist, thanks to evolution. So why isn't this an issue? Why is saying "if evolution is true, we should expect to see this" not a bad thing? Because this is a step with the scientific method. You look at nature, and you present a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon. Let's give an example.

We know that things fall down. You let go of something, it falls. So let's say there were two schools of thought involving this "gravity", one that says things fall at the same rate, while another says things fall faster when heavier (after all, things that are heavier pull down harder, right?). So we take two weights up a 40 meter tower and drop them to see what happens. Although a bit off, it seems both weights hit the ground at the same time (possibly due to the person dropping the weights dropping one a tad later than the other), and worse still, the heavier one hit later, not sooner. So We need to do more tests. After a few tests, one thing is clear, both are hitting the same time. Other scientific groups from other cities are yielding the same results (except from one in Milan. Those dogs!). Now, what should we expect from the first train of thought? That both hit the ground at the same time, as gravity applies force based on mass and a ratio that has everything fall the same rate. And the second? That heavier things fall faster. What did our results say? Well, it seems the first one is correct. Now, it might be a bit off, maybe there is something we haven't considered, but the scientific community considers this "same rate" hypothesis a true theory of gravity. A Theory in Science is a school of thought explaining the phenomenon. So what is true and not true here? Things fall the same rate, but the same rate theory is not "true", it just isn't false, and it hasn't been proven false (you can't prove a positive, only disprove it), so it is taught in schools. Evolution is the same way. It explains the phenomenon, and the phenomenon is what we'd expect if the theory was true. I assure you, if evolution weren't true, a lot of fields of studies would simply be dead wrong.

"Past and Present"

Synopsis - Facts are present, and we live in the present. When facts refer to things about the past, since we weren't there to observe them, we must be wary of evidence that suggests something, regardless of what it is, since we were not there to observe it. The Bible is one of the exceptions to this since it is an eyewitness account of past events. Evolutionists have a similar "lens" that suggests either no God exists, or one that didn't create the world. Thus when the two argue, they argue based on their presuppositions, not based on the facts.

(here's the part I despise) So when the author was giving a seminar to a class, he gave evidence for Creation, while the teacher told the students what the evidence actually meant. The students told the author to "try again". He then told the students how he interpreted the evidence. The students then told the teacher what one thing meant, constantly disagreeing with her presupposition ("Yeah, the same-rate theory is a joke. The "Heavier-faster" theory is where it's at!"). Apparently a few became good solid Christians.

Alright, let's get a crack at this. Let me tell you another story. I work roughly 20 minutes from my house at a local grocery store. Pretty big building, nicely built, so when it rains really bad (we get freak storms in the summer) I generally won't hear it unless I look out the front windows. One of these storms hit pretty bad, luckily it was gone by the time I left. The next day, I was out walking my dog, going under the tree at the sidewalk. I looked up because something caught my eye, and, lo and behold, I could see through the tree. This was a pretty big tree, and I didn't recall a hole being there before. I then investigated further and found out that one of the branches was cut in half, barely holding itself up. This terrified me since I had walked under it earlier that day, but I asked myself how did it get that way? Was it the storm? Maybe, I wasn't here. The town my grocery store is at is about 10 mile north of where I live, it could have completely missed my subdivision. Maybe the tree was just getting old. It was there before my house was built, and my house is only 20 years old. Looking further around I noticed some more evidence. Random branches seemingly tossed around the yard, what looked like silt going toward the storm drains. Hm....maybe it was a storm? I don't know, wasn't there. You get the point? If it wasn't the storm, what was it? What would have cause that kind of damage? Did someone try to make us think we were hit by a storm by doing all this? If not a ruse, then what? The presupposition that the storm did the damage gives me evidence to look for. If the storm wasn't true, then I'd probably see something like evidence that the tree was dying from some other means (mold, disease, old age, insects, etc.). And I wouldn't see those branches (unless they were from a previous storm. Science wants you to think about ALL the reasons why it might be the case) if a storm didn't come through. I mow the lawn every week, I know which branches are new and which ones are older. So what caused the branch to break? I don't know. I wasn't there. But I'd like to think it was the storm that did it.

"Debate Terms"

(I can copy paste the rest now that that ad on the left is gone.)
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:

“Facts” are neutral. However, there are no such things as “brute facts;” all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions—see Naturalism, Logic and Reality.

Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 111:10); “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14).

A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: “The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters” (Matthew 12:30); “And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).

Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!

This ought to be fun. One must understand the terms used by the scientific method if one wishes to be part of the scientific community. I'll ignore the Bible quotes. If you agree to use them, then you must agree with QUITE a few other thing the Bible says (My personal favorite is the idea that displaying stripes to pregnant cows will make them give birth to striped calves (Genesis 30:37-43)).

FACT- A fact would be noticing that both weights fell at the same rate, and that there were branches tossed around as well as the silt near the storm drains. A fact is meaningless by itself. One must use facts by asking themselves "If this is the case, what caused it?" Having branches tossed around could have been caused by quite a few things, like kids trying to fuck with us, or maybe the neighbors tossed the branches from their lawn to our's when they were mowing it (to be fair, we do the same thing). The silt could have been caused by several things. Maybe someone had a jug of some sort and emptied it near the storm drain. But when we have BOTH of these facts, and are actively looking for evidence of storms (branches tossed around, silt at the storm drain) then we know that it is most likely that a storm hit.

THEORY - The "Same-Rate" theory is an example of a scientific theory. Make no mistake, a "theory" in science is not the same "theory" used by layman. Most of the time, when layman think "theory" they really mean "Hypothesis" (a position that has yet to be tested). A THEORY is a position that has yet to be proven false. We do not "prove" things in Science since we might be proven wrong later in the years. We disprove things. Science is not the belief of faith, it is the belief of doubt.

HYPOTHESIS - As above, a position that has yet to be tested. Your "lens" when doing an experiment.

PEER REVIEW - I tried to explain this with the gravity example. We had other cities give similar results (minus one), which lends credence to our theory. Milan probably lied about the evidence, since no one was able to duplicate their results. Probably because the proponent for the "Heavier Faster" hypothesis lived in Milan. Oh dear, I wonder how he will continue in the scientific community after being shown to lie? The other cities didn't have this bias. They just wanted to duplicate our results. As more and more cities get similar results, it becomes quite clear: The result that we are all telling the truth and are in fact showing that the "same-rate" hypothesis is infact not a hypothesis is much higher than all of us lying like Milan did. Now, it could be the case that Milan was the only one telling the truth, but when other cities, some even outside of Italy, are showing similar results, it might be safe to say the "same-rate" theory is here to stay. See where God fits in all of this? You're right, He doesn't. The same-rate theory is still working, with or without Divine Supremacy, since we weren't asking what God had to do with it, we merely asked how things fell.

Make sense? Good, because we have a few other terms.

EVOLUTION - The Theory of Evolution merely explains the change of life over time. The Theory was proposed by Charles Darwin when he went on the trip to the Galapagos and realized all the finches had different sized beaks to suit their diets (some ate seeds, others small lizards), and asked himself how this came about. He wrote the Origin of Species ( it's full name being "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.") in 1859, and in it he talked about the infamous "Natural Selection" (truth be told, Natural Selection is but one facet of the Theory), which he said "naturally selected" which beaks of the finches were considered "better" than others. For example, if there were a species of finch that ate lizards that liked to hide in trees, which of two traits would be favored: a thin long beak, or a thick short one? These two traits are still within the species, as in, a finch with the thin, long beak and the one with the short, thick one could still inter-breed. Well? The one with the thin, long one, obviously, to get into the tree and get the lizard. So if we fast forwarded 100 years, what would we expect? No more thick, short beaks.

SPECIES - If two organisms are able to reproduce non-sterile offspring, they are of the same species.

If you have any other terms you want me to clarify, just mention it. I'd be happy to explain them for you.

I could go over the next few sections, but I can't understand what argument they're even trying to make. Particularly in the "Practical Application" (Kind of hard to turn that into a "debunk" section) and "Naturalism, Logic, and Reality" (which has two examples of probably the most brain dead and misspoken people I know)

But there is one thing that bothers me with this post. One thing in particular...

"Here's what they say to that: Evolutionists were not content to treat natural selection as simply an observable ecological process. Darwin himself was a cautious scientist, painstaking in his work. But others, especially T. H. Huxley and Herbert Spencer, insisted on making natural selection the touchstone of a new religion, a “religion without revelation,” as Julian Huxley later called it. For them, as for many others, the real significance of the Darwinian revolution was religious and philosophic, not scientific. These early evolutionists were basically anti-creationists who wanted to explain design without a Designer."

Oh no no no, if you go so far as to call Herbert Fucking Spencer a "Evolutionist", then I ask you stop referring to people like Darwin as "Evolutionists". Darwin was a scientist. Spencer was not. Spencer was a politician, particularly famous for forming two schools of thought (that of neo-liberalism (more commonly known as "libertarianism" today) and agnosticism), and was an advocate for removing the welfare state that the UK had at the time. Imagine this, you're a rich white dude who hate social spending, hate poor people, think people of different color are idiotic by race, and think that the white man is the most dominant people of the world, and this guy named Charles Fucking Darwin comes along and says "yo, man, I think things change over time, and things naturally select!", and he has a book all about it that the scientific community in London says is pretty rad. Hm, some people (mainly proto-socialists) are saying that you're a fucking moron for having your views. If you use (or more accurately, *abuse*) Darwin's work and say not only is what you say true, you can prove it, you think your belief and dogma might have a bit more legitimacy? I know I'd do that if I was Herbert Fucking Spencer. I'm not a scientist in terms of being a member of any sort of peer-reviewed group, but I still consider myself a scientist at heart. If you refer to people such as Herbert Spencer as a "evolutionist" and say "well, Spencie said this, therefore all evolutionist think that" then you have another thing coming.

Look later, MUCH later, like 150 years later, because Spencer lived in a time where being a fucking bigot wouldn't get you ostracized by society. We learned quite a bit in 150 years. We've found fossils, we've found geological strata that goes back MILLIONS of years ago, that has been verified and RE-verified by various types of radiometric dating from various groups from around the world, we've found fossils that follow a taxonomic path that show, quite clearly, that Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor (the fact we have 98% similar DNA also gives it away), we've found DNA, the holy grail of genetics that show how information of a species is transferred and stored. All of this point to one hypothesis and that is Evolution.

If everything was created, we would not find fossils that show common ancestors. We would not find geological records before life came about (I'm assuming you believe in the creationism where everything came about in 6 days) that go back literally a billion years. That's the thing about this, all it takes is a bunny from the Triassic era to destroy Evolution. Just ONE piece of evidence that goes against what the theory says we ought to expect. I'll stop ranting for now (this has gone long enough) but I have to ask, what evidence is there for Creation? And I mean physical evidence. I can tell you this, if God did in fact create the universe, and make things go from the Big Bang to now, circa 2013, all by itself, without his supervision (probably took a cat nap and watched the game after creating the universe. I know I would), then damn, God is a pretty cool dude. He's a fucking programmer. I know people who would kill for skills like that. But if you notice, Evolution doesn't need, or even ask, God to be there. God may have created the Universe and then sat back. He may not have. But one thing is certain. Based on the evidence we have now, Evolution is mostly true, and Creation is most definitely false. But really, would like to see evidence.

[Mr_Hole_Digger1]

"When the person you talk to on creation insists that you “leave the Bible out of it,” they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way."-Ken Ham, president of AiG

This quote is the first red flag. It shows that Ken Ham is unwilling to be open-minded on the issue, which shows he's the one who stacks the deck one way. What is known can only be known by peer-review. This is how the scientific method works. The Bible is entirely open to interpretation. That's why we have so many sects of Christianity. The scientific community doesn't have this.

No, whatever you were thought about creationism is not what is taught in AiG. Of course you know what the argument is, you just didn't read it because you've been told it's wrong, so you didn't read it. *cough* arrogance again. I still watched your video even though I concluded it's anti-creationist, which is not even logical to consider.
Ok, Ken Ham is open-minded, it's the person that insists to "leave the Bible out of it" that is unwilling to be open-minded because he wants to win the argument that he can't win with the Bible opposing him. e.g., If there is in no enemy for the army to fight then the army will simply have conquered the city. How can you be so dumb?
I think this will be my last post in this thread, I'm kinda sick of your ignorance. Also, I hear Hell's a rough place.

Speaking of Hell, here's sad/funny story: My friend said he was driving with his dad and they went by the Catholic Church. There were a few Catholics crossing the road. Out of the blue his dad said, "Don't hit any of them, they'll go to Hell." We all laughed. But sadly, you'll learn it's true.

[Führer]

"When the person you talk to on creation insists that you “leave the Bible out of it,” they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way."-Ken Ham, president of AiG

This quote is the first red flag. It shows that Ken Ham is unwilling to be open-minded on the issue, which shows he's the one who stacks the deck one way. What is known can only be known by peer-review. This is how the scientific method works. The Bible is entirely open to interpretation. That's why we have so many sects of Christianity. The scientific community doesn't have this.

No, whatever you were thought about creationism is not what is taught in AiG. Of course you know what the argument is, you just didn't read it because you've been told it's wrong, so you didn't read it. *cough* arrogance again. I still watched your video even though I concluded it's anti-creationist, which is not even logical to consider.
Ok, Ken Ham is open-minded, it's the person that insists to "leave the Bible out of it" that is unwilling to be open-minded because he wants to win the argument that he can't win with the Bible opposing him. e.g., If there is in no enemy for the army to fight then the army will simply have conquered the city. How can you be so dumb?
I think this will be my last post in this thread, I'm kinda sick of your ignorance. Also, I hear Hell's a rough place.

Speaking of Hell, here's sad/funny story: My friend said he was driving with his dad and they went by the Catholic Church. There were a few Catholics crossing the road. Out of the blue his dad said, "Don't hit any of them, they'll go to Hell." We all laughed. But sadly, you'll learn it's true.

i hated god i regert it becuse ima in hell

[LoneSoldier55]

Fixed that for you

[RevStoningpot]

seriously go make an evolution thread if that's what y'all want to argue about

[worldruler086]

You made that post while I was typing my tl;dr post. My bad. I'd do that but it seems the most we can do is agree to disagree.

[Mr_Hole_Digger1]

You post huge messages because you're desperate. Sigh.