The big question, what religion are you?

[cystic crypt]

@Janus1:

because its right. i dont recall the first time evolution was taught in my school, but its true. meanwhile, creationism is hammered into little kids at a young age in church, teaching them lies and falsities.

seriously, if you still believe in creationism, you are poor and misguided.

which church? I do not recall being taught any lies or falsities so far. You have yet to demonstrate that these things are lies and falsities. As we have discussed - although there is no “proof” of God or creationism, there is what many might consider “evidence” of both.
This applies to evolution as well - there is some evidence which supports evolution, but no proof of it.
As for being “poor and misguided” - this is an ignorant statement. I know too many brilliant, successful creationists (including award winning, published scientists) for this to be true. What have you done?

[Guest]

I think Janus replied to TT2’s post

@cystic:

As for being “poor and misguided” - this is an ignorant statement. I know too many brilliant, successful creationists (including award winning, published scientists) for this to be true. What have you done?

I think the statement is not more ignorant than TT2’s

as for evolution, it is a bunch of hogwash. … it is a topic drilled into little kids from kindergarten…come on, the chance … is too absurd for me to accept.

although she at least qualified it as her personal opinion only, something that Janus did not in his posts, though he definitly should have done it.
I personally don’t see too much difference between “hogwash” and “poor and misguided”. Just as both of them used the “drilled/hammered” part to accuse the other of the same.

[tiger_tank2]

you are right falk, i should have ditched the “hogwash” part. But, Janis, why are you so angry? You just attacked me with salt and vinegar. you are wrong about the “hammering” into little kids going to church. usually if children are going to church, their parents are believers. when the child grows up, he has the choice to believe in ANY religion he/she wants(or no religion at all, like you.).

Here is a thought for everyone to ponder… there are many cultures that have a flood story, am i right? but none of them are like the christian one. it has perfect facts and measurements for a bouyant “ark”. now, the babylonian flood story has faults. the babylonian’s ark measured out to be a perfect square. I wonder how thousands of animals and some people survived in a square ark that ROLLED around in the water. must have been alot of seasick indaviduals! :wink:

Go ahead, find how many races have a flood story, and see which one is the most logical. personally, the bible’s flood saga is the most credible.

[Guest]

@tiger_tank2:

you are wrong about the “hammering” into little kids going to church. usually if children are going to church, their parents are believers. when the child grows up, he has the choice to believe in ANY religion he/she wants(or no religion at all, like you.).

Same with evolution ;).
Didn’t you say yourself that kids at younger age have “vulnerable minds” and suck indoctrination up “like a sponge”?
What you brought up above is not hurting Janus line of argument, unless you want your own line of arguement to fail the same way.

[Janus1]

although she at least qualified it as her personal opinion only, something that Janus did not in his posts, though he definitly should have done it.

well, perhaps in the interest of being civil, but otherwise, i wouldnt, because i believe i am right and you are wrong (you being creationists), period. but in the future, i can if you think its more polite

But, Janis, why are you so angry? You just attacked me with salt and vinegar

i dont know what post you are reading, but im not angry, im quite calm

[tiger_tank2]

Calm? You? hmm, i highly doubt that…haha :D

[cystic crypt]

@Janus1:

although she at least qualified it as her personal opinion only, something that Janus did not in his posts, though he definitly should have done it.

well, perhaps in the interest of being civil, but otherwise, i wouldnt, because i believe i am right and you are wrong (you being creationists), period. but in the future, i can if you think its more polite

also more accurate.
There still is a difference between “fact” and “opinion”. You keep citing your opinions as facts which is inappropriate.

[Janus1]

perhaps to you. as i said, in the interest of civility, i can make an effort to avoid that, but i have no personal doubt that i am right and you are wrong.

btw TT, i am exceedingly calm in this topic, i have no reason to be agitated, you are all wrong, and i know im right :wink:

[tiger_tank2]

Man, Janus! Just accept the truth for a change! How could you be right? You have yet to bring forth any facts pertaining to the issue. little kids in sunday school is not a pertinate issue to gripe about. Why don’t you bring some facts into play? Hm?? Come on, don’t chicken out :roll:

[cystic crypt]

@tiger_tank2:

Man, Janus! Just accept the truth for a change! How could you be right? You have yet to bring forth any facts pertaining to the issue. little kids in sunday school is not a pertinate issue to gripe about. Why don’t you bring some facts into play? Hm?? Come on, don’t chicken out :roll:

don’t waste your energy. His idea of a fact is
“there is no God and that is a fact”
irrefutable, no?

[APolaris]

I should probably mention that your mentality is outdated. Creationism WAS taught excessively at one time. Now, with all the efforts to stop it, it’s been brought to a near-complete end and now evolution is the thing that’s force-fed in schools.

E-mail me personally and I will e-mail you some evidence that evolution has not only got less proof for itself, but has been proven wrong.

I should also mention, just in passing, that Darwin himself admitted at the end of his major book that he found tons of holes in his theory and that he knew it was probably wrong because he couldn’t explain them, but he published it anyway because he thought these holes would be fixed at some point. Guess what? They haven’t been. And no, I’m not lying. He really did say that his own theory was most likely wrong.

[tiger_tank2]

You are very right CC. And I wont persue this one anymore because “There is No God, so there!”

[Janus1]

don’t waste your energy. His idea of a fact is
“there is no God and that is a fact”
irrefutable, no?

um, rude, no?

my quote saying im right and you are wrong was a joke.

Man, Janus! Just accept the truth for a change! How could you be right? You have yet to bring forth any facts pertaining to the issue. little kids in sunday school is not a pertinate issue to gripe about. Why don’t you bring some facts into play? Hm?? Come on, don’t chicken out

what on earth are you talking about? ive already explained my position and provided evidence. if you dont accept it, fine, dont pretend like i havent said anything and therefore you have won.

oh, and CC, stop being a jackass.

[cystic crypt]

@Janus1:

oh, and CC, stop being a jackass.

takes one to know one.
and seriously - this is the only argument i’ve seen you play on the God debate.
“there is no proof that there is a God, therefore there is none, and since i am right, then i am right” - or some variant of this.

[Janus1]

takes one to know one.

good comeback. really.

and seriously - this is the only argument i’ve seen you play on the God debate

then you havent been paying attention. also, this debate wasnt about god’s existance, but more specifically religious validity and evolution vs. creationism. i already posted my argument on evolution vs. creationism. ive already posted on other threads numerous arguments about the existence of god, which go beyond (there is none, im right and you are wrong). i post that often, but if you cant see the joke, than apparently your “excellent” canadian education isnt as good as you like to make us “USies” think.

[Yanny]

there is no proof that there is a God, therefore there is none, and since i am right, then i am right"

CC, your a doctor. I know this isn’t your field, but think about this hypothetically. Your in a lab and you perform some tests on a lab rat or something. The tests show that A, B, and C exist. There is no test for D. Does the lab rat have D?

[APolaris]

Yanny, he was responding to a previous statement by Janus1.

[Yanny]

I understand that. But I’m trying to turn a back and forth arguement into one of more substance.

[cystic crypt]

@Janus1:

takes one to know one.

good comeback. really.

and seriously - this is the only argument i’ve seen you play on the God debate

then you havent been paying attention. also, this debate wasnt about god’s existance, but more specifically religious validity and evolution vs. creationism. i already posted my argument on evolution vs. creationism. ive already posted on other threads numerous arguments about the existence of god, which go beyond (there is none, im right and you are wrong). i post that often, but if you cant see the joke, than apparently your “excellent” canadian education isnt as good as you like to make us “USies” think.

geee . . . i guess you can’t teach humor, eh?

[cystic crypt]

@Yanny:

there is no proof that there is a God, therefore there is none, and since i am right, then i am right"

CC, your a doctor. I know this isn’t your field, but think about this hypothetically. Your in a lab and you perform some tests on a lab rat or something. The tests show that A, B, and C exist. There is no test for D. Does the lab rat have D?

the rat MAY have D.
In fact, the results of A, B, and C may even suggest the presence of D. Naturally without a confirmatory test, this is impossible to prove.