Evolution: Are you being brainwashed?

[I_Dont_Know859]

Exactly, coolsmile (Don'tKnow, etc..), I think you are getting caught up in all the hype around this evolution/atheism vs. creation/Christianity (to be general) thing that has been growing momentum in this country (possibly in part due to YouTube, The Rational Response Squad, and creationism in schools).

It has become some odd crusade of sorts to try and debunk evolution because it doesn't fit with your beliefs. I don't see anyone attacking the Theory of Thermodynamics or even the Theory of Relativity and crying "foul" that they don't exist because they are "just theories."

i never said evolution doesn't exist. I just don't believe we evolved from apes and the first humans were adam and eve created by God. I see it more of like an adaption for changes in the environment for animals and such. We are bashing your evolution (the way you theorize it) because look at the title of the tread. this is an evolution thread, not a thermodynamic or relativity thread. i'm just standing up for my beliefs, sorry if that as you say crying "foul" get over it. Your doing the same with your beliefs too. Come on negative:shocked: So what you can debate our theories and if we debate yours we are being whiney. Oh and how am i getting caught in the hype? This is actually the first time I've ever debated with someone about this issue.

It has become some odd crusade of sorts to try and debunk evolution because it doesn't fit with your beliefs.

It's the same vice versa too, so whats your point?

 

[I_Dont_Know859]

I myself don't see why creationism/intelligent design can't be at least mentioned in schools. I know that people would go crazy if they explained it, but why can't they at least say, "there is a large number of people that _____". My religions class teaches in depth other religions/atheism worldviews. That doesn't make me automatically want to hate my own.

This country is getting too weird. I am not allowed to say God on tv, but I am allowed to say Allah, Muhammad, Buddha, Visha, Brahma, etc. If people censored Islam or Judaism, it would be discrimination. Why does it happen to Christianity??

</rant>

Thats one of the ways satan tries to attack christianity.

 

[Brawny]

Science does not and should not go along perfectly with the Bible, mainly because then you're discriminating against other religions and also the Bible isn't that scientific. According to you, atomic theory is not science because it's not in the bible.

Evolution IS SCIENCE. It was presented as science 150 years ago and it was eventually accepted as science. Obviously, to be accepted, evolutionists had to find indirect proof that supported evolution. But there can never be direct proof of evolution unless we build a time machine. But if you think because of that, evolution is not science, then that means all other theories of sciences are not science as well.

I just don't get why people object to evolution so much. It really doesn't conflict with the Bible (except about Earth being created in 4000 BC part) and this isn't the only theory in science that has been accepted.

First, that is a good thing. How can two religions be true at the same time?

Second bolded: it doesn't say that. With creation being read as 7 24 hour days, it figures to around 6000 years old. If taken figuratively, it can be as old as science wants. (i'm the latter)

Edit: to Idon'tknow: I was talking to people about an outside forum on PRIVATE MESSAGES!!! got banned.

Edit2: I love this new edit mechanism.

 

[Squall7]

First, that is a good thing. How can two religions be true at the same time?

To create a fundamental split between two equally decided groups is a good thing? Also, you're not accounting for many other religions. There's tonnes of religions that are potentially correct. Also, you're assuming that one of the religions in the first place is correct. Perhaps we haven't found the correct answer yet?!

Second bolded: it doesn't say that. With creation being read as 7 24 hour days, it figures to around 6000 years old. If taken figuratively, it can be as old as science wants. (i'm the latter)

The day is one cycle. It's the time taken for the earth to rotate 360 degrees to face the sun in a particular spot again. If "light and dark" was created on the first day, how did they get the concept of a "day". Also, this assumes that during the time taken, the earths speed has sped up over the past 6000 years, either the time it takes to get around the sun (day length as the same) or time taken to for the world to rotate 360 degrees(day length shorter). Now, I'm not claiming to be an expert in astrology or anything, but to get from 6000 years to *4,567,000,000 must require a heck of an acceleration, certainly not likely. Also, if this were true, the implications for life on this planet would be quite disasterous. To accomodate the extreme night time (and I mean probably going down to near absolute zero - considering the amount of time it would take for a particular spot on earth to face the sun again), also extreme day time (the amount of time the Earth would heat up for under year long day-light), I doubt any recognisable lifeform today could have existed (unless it's life-cycle was astronomically shorter). Also, that's not accounting for other conditions that I haven't put into the equation.

*Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.567 billion years (4.567×109 years).

(If anyone doesn't acknowledge wikipedia as a credible source, find me an alternate source with a number and I'll change it)

Edit2: I love this new edit mechanism.

Me too. Means it takes less time for the editing as you don't have to load up new pages.

This country is getting too weird. I am not allowed to say God on tv, but I am allowed to say Allah, Muhammad, Buddha, Visha, Brahma, etc. If people censored Islam or Judaism, it would be discrimination. Why does it happen to Christianity??

Don't you think it's strange, how a conservative, Christian, right winged authoritarian media and goevernment stop you from saying that? Why is it that they would gladly fight a war with Iraq, but stop you from having your "freedom"? In my opinion, it sounds like they like to get the audience riled up because they can't say it. It happens a lot in the UK too (though probably not to the same extent). The authorities changed "christmas" to "winter festival" in order to de-Christianise it. However, what was not heard much was the fact that heads of other religions were also in outcry about this. They didn't wish for it to be changed.

 

[RedProdigy]

The essential problem with creationism (and to a lesser extent ID) is that it's non-debateable in science. You either believe God did it or not. There's no way to prove anything, even indirectly. Creationsim isn't even a "theory" in the scientific sense. That's why evolutionists hate it when people try to push creationism as a "counter-weight"; because it's at best pseudo-science.

If I make a thread claiming the the theory of relativity is bogus, would you be able to argue against it? I really doubt it. Yet, evolution is the sole theory that gets people riled up so easily.

Brawny: People frequently use the word god as an exclamation of disgust or frustrated. "Ugh, you're so dirty. God!" I bet the main reason why the word god is censored is because "You're not supposed to use the lord's name in vain". Yet people do it anyway. :/ Also, I read about a movement in school textbooks which downplayed Europeans and glorified and exaggerated other cultures. The reason why Christianity is downplayed as well could be the same. Or perhaps people think we need more religious diversity.

 

[kitkat_bar]

The problem of which religion is correct will never be solved. We will never know if a religion is correct, if any. I believe religion should be based on an individual basis. I do not believe in converting and I most definatly don't believe in spreading your religion. If people want to be converted or if they want missionaries to come to their house that is perfectly fine and I have no problem with that. I have a major problem with people telling other people who's religion is right and who's isn't. This CAN cause hate amoungst people just as racisim does. You don't need to make people "aware" of your religion by going to their houses. Thats why there are 30 billion churches set up out there for you to go to, not to mention the millions of books on religion out there if you don't know what religion you wish to join. I believe religion should be individual. Why should you care what they believe? What is the point in telling someone their religion is wrong? Are you really trying to "save" them from hell? Somehow I doubt that.

 

[Brawny]

Don't you think it's strange, how a conservative, Christian, right winged authoritarian media and goevernment stop you from saying that? Why is it that they would gladly fight a war with Iraq, but stop you from having your "freedom"? In my opinion, it sounds like they like to get the audience riled up because they can't say it. It happens a lot in the UK too (though probably not to the same extent). The authorities changed "christmas" to "winter festival" in order to de-Christianise it. However, what was not heard much was the fact that heads of other religions were also in outcry about this. They didn't wish for it to be changed.

I think the 6000 years people say that God created the earth with age. Pretty sure. Someone comment

Next, it is usually the left winged, liberals that try to censor everything.
In one study, Most muslims and Jews would rather have a greeter at a retail store say "Merry Christmas" than "Happy Holidays". Let alone try to guess Hannakuh or something based on ethnicity. (I actually saw it happen once.)

 

[Squall7]

I think the 6000 years people say that God created the earth with age. Pretty sure. Someone comment

Not sure what you're saying here...

Next, it is usually the left winged, liberals that try to censor everything.
In one study, Most muslims and Jews would rather have a greeter at a retail store say "Merry Christmas" than "Happy Holidays". Let alone try to guess Hannakuh or something based on ethnicity. (I actually saw it happen once.)

Actually, the one's in control are those that are right wing. Why would things things come into play by "the liberals" if the conservative right wing people are in charge. Also, I feel "liberal" may be a very different thing over in the US, than the UK. If you're refering to higher up politics (like running for presidency rather than just a mayor somewhere), then the labels do not actually tell you what they believe in anyway. That bit is the same with the UK, whereby Labour doesn't actually benefit or represent the working class at all.

 

[RedProdigy]

Actually, I don't see the big deal about saying "Happy Holidays". I think the "War on Christmas" is a steaming pile of ultraconservative ****. No one is waging war against Christianity in the US. It's just them being paranoid about their religion. Why is it that some must hear "Merry Christmas"? Saying "Happy Holidays" is a way of emcompassing the holidays of December, not to "censor Christianity".

 

[Brawny]

Actually, I don't see the big deal about saying "Happy Holidays". I think the "War on Christmas" is a steaming pile of ultraconservative ****. No one is waging war against Christianity in the US. It's just them being paranoid about their religion. Why is it that some must hear "Merry Christmas"? Saying "Happy Holidays" is a way of emcompassing the holidays of December, not to "censor Christianity".

This is exactly what everyone thinks while all the people they are trying to "encompass" are more offended by it. Ironic, but the truth.

 

[Brawny]

Not sure what you're saying here...


Actually, the one's in control are those that are right wing. Why would things things come into play by "the liberals" if the conservative right wing people are in charge. Also, I feel "liberal" may be a very different thing over in the US, than the UK. If you're refering to higher up politics (like running for presidency rather than just a mayor somewhere), then the labels do not actually tell you what they believe in anyway. That bit is the same with the UK, whereby Labour doesn't actually benefit or represent the working class at all.

I guess US and UK use them veeerrry differently.

Edit: My deepest apologies for the double post.

 

[Squall7]

I guess US and UK use them veeerrry differently.

Edit: My deepest apologies for the double post.

Ye. In UK, liberal means free. Like to "liberate" means to make free. Of course, I am aware that I'm getting my definition of what "liberal" means in the US, from a more conservative guy. Kinda means that I don't exactly take you too seriously when it comes to fair representations... Sorry.

 

[I_Dont_Know859]

Actually, I don't see the big deal about saying "Happy Holidays". I think the "War on Christmas" is a steaming pile of ultraconservative ****. No one is waging war against Christianity in the US. It's just them being paranoid about their religion. Why is it that some must hear "Merry Christmas"? Saying "Happy Holidays" is a way of emcompassing the holidays of December, not to "censor Christianity".

I agree with you for the most part, but I also see nothing wrong with saying to someone "Merry Christmas" either. I'm not jewish but if someone said "happy hanakuh" to me i wish wish it to them right back. Wouldn't you, or at the least "happy holidays"? I don't agree with you however with you saying "I think the "War on Christmas" is a steaming pile of ultraconservative ****. No one is waging war against Christianity in the US. It's just them being paranoid about their religion." I wouldn't go as far as to say its a war against christianity but people overreacting about something they don't believe in. These stupid people can be offensive to christians because I have seen and been a victim of it myself. In fact just the other year their was a walmart employee at my town that was doing business with a customer and when they were done she said "well have a merry christmas" and hung up. Then the customer calls back and starts yelling at her for telling her that. Then the customer rights a letter to the manager trying to get her fired, but the manager thought she was being stupid too so he took the employees side. He did tell her from now on to say happy holidays, which i agree is a good idea to say for a business. RedProdigy, its not a steaming pile of conservative ****, but people who are overreact and being stupid. That goes for both sides to. You really should consider the views from both sides to be fair. Granted some people are paranoid about there religion, but some are victimized too which your not taking into account. Its wrong to say they are all paranoid.

 

[I_Dont_Know859]

Don't you think it's strange, how a conservative, Christian, right winged authoritarian media and goevernment stop you from saying that?.

Yea that is strange, not the fact that you said a conseravative right winged authoritiarn media and govt (i can see that) but a christian one as well? Sorry but if they are christian and restricting you against saying God, but Allah and all those other Brawny mentions then that isn't christian at all. I do know a few conservative, Christian, right winged media groups that do can and do say God though. There are also tons of liberal and conseravative groups not matter who is in power at the time. Sorry, but that post is just sad if thats really what you believe.

Next, it is usually the left winged, liberals that try to censor everything.

Yes, I've noticed that they are always at it.

Actually, the one's in control are those that are right wing. Why would things things come into play by "the liberals" if the conservative right wing people are in charge.

There you go again. Do you know anthing about US politics. The right wings are in power, but the leaders can be heavily influnced by the left wings through pressure. It happens all the time. If you want proof just ask because I got plenty for president George Bush. And if you want some proof around the local level i got some for our mayor too.

I am aware that I'm getting my definition of what "liberal" means in the US, from a more conservative guy. Kinda means that I don't exactly take you too seriously when it comes to fair representations... Sorry.

so since he is conservative, you dont take him seriously when it comes to fair representations? Thats going a little to far, but hey believe what you wanna believe. I just wanted to point out that not all conseravatives give unfair representations. I can see right-wing extremeist being that why but just a normal conservative. I can also give you MANY cases where some left-wing liberal extremeists, not your typical liberal, give people and groups unfair representation but that doesnt mean if i was debateing with a normal liberal i wouldnt take him seriously because of what some crazy liberal extremeists are doing. You dont even know brawny and just because he may be a conservative you dissing him like that.

 

[Squall7]

Yea that is strange, not the fact that you said a conseravative right winged authoritiarn media and govt (i can see that) but a christian one as well? Sorry but if they are christian and restricting you against saying God, but Allah and all those other Brawny mentions then that isn't christian at all. I do know a few conservative, Christian, right winged media groups that do can and do say God though. There are also tons of liberal and conseravative groups not matter who is in power at the time.

Yes, Christian.

Fox most 'anti-religious' network
Posted Dec 15th 2006 9:01AM by Julia Ward
Filed under: Drama, Comedy, FOX, Industry, OpEd, House, The Simpsons, Family Guy

Thanks to the godless triple threat of Family Guy, The Simpsons and House, Fox has unseated NBC as the "most anti-religious network" in America according to the Parents Television Council. Way to go, Fox. UPN came in second with ABC picking up the bronze. This announcement came along with the Council's release of Faith in a Box 2005-2006, an annual report on how religion is portrayed in prime time.

As you might imagine, it's not a pretty picture in the Council's eyes. Religious themes are coming up less often, and when they do, they're given a negative spin. PTC president Brent Bozell had this to say: "After Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of the Christ, there was a lot of talk that Hollywood finally had found religion. But with television, sadly, this wasn't true. In fact, it was the opposite."
Despite Bozell's dire depiction of the study's findings, there are nuances to the study. "Simple expressions of faith" were depicted positively 70% of the time. Religious "institutions and doctrine" were the real targets. In particular, the PTC was not too keen on Family Guy's take on the Book of Genesis. In Seth MacFarlane's version, God creates the universe by farting on a lit match.

Personally, I've always found that the shows that come under fire from groups like the Parent's Council tend to treat religious themes, if not organized religion, very seriously. Shows like Lost, House and the short-lived Book of Daniel are at their core about the big subjects - redemption, forgiveness, faith, moral responsibility, human connection and penance. Scratch the TV surface, and you'll find some true Christian values.

Source:http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/12/15/fox-most-anti-religious-network/

Sorry, but that post is just sad if thats really what you believe.

Maybe someone might be more inclined to agree with you, if you didn't talk down to people.

Yes, I've noticed that they are always at it.

One could argue that they're not really "liberals" then... (If people are going to try and tell me that Mormons aren't really Christians, when they do believe in Christ, then I'll cry foul and say that the "liberals" you refer to aren't actually liberal. It's either one way or the other)

There you go again. Do you know anthing about US politics. The right wings are in power, but the leaders can be heavily influnced by the left wings through pressure. It happens all the time. If you want proof just ask because I got plenty for president George Bush. And if you want some proof around the local level i got some for our mayor too.

Maybe pandering to the left near election time - but not for the most part. And what the hell is it with people refering to people on the left wing as really negative things? Also, let's see what Bush says about Gay marriage:

"His position is that he thinks people ought to have the freedom to lead their private lives," White House spokesman Tony Snow said. "He also does not believe that that means that you have to redefine the institution of marriage. He believes the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman."

Source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201519.html
How about his views on immigration:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060515-8.html, these certainly don't seem left wing to me.

Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals, it strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our communities.

- one of the most conservative non-backed up statement's I've seen in a long time.

so since he is conservative, you dont take him seriously when it comes to fair representations?

He is an American conservative. American Conservatives are world renowned for having a hate for the left wing. You expect me to actually take his statements at face value about the left wing there? Why not ask a Sony fan about the shortcomings of Nintendo?

Thats going a little to far, but hey believe what you wanna believe.

"Believe"? Isn't this what this entire thread's been about? Also, I notice you weren't saying that in the previous thread without portraying yourself as the "winner" of the debate.

I just wanted to point out that not all conseravatives give unfair representations.

True enough but by the same token, we're talking about someone that has just accused the "liberals" of trying to censor "everything".

I can see right-wing extremeist being that why but just a normal conservative.

Depends on your definition of "extremist". To some, "extremist" doesn't just mean violent. It can also mean "to propogate a certain ideology without concern for any alternate ideologies". One could argue that MacDonalds has an extremist ideology for capitalism.

I can also give you MANY cases where some left-wing liberal extremeists, not your typical liberal, give people and groups unfair representation but that doesnt mean if i was debateing with a normal liberal i wouldnt take him seriously because of what some crazy liberal extremeists are doing.

No, but if they were to previously accuse conservatives of manipulating something, you'd surely not believe them either.

You dont even know brawny and just because he may be a conservative you dissing him like that.

You don't even know me, yet you've dissed me from the first time we debated. If I were to have a lecture from someone about this subject, you'd be the last person that had a right to do so. Also, I'd just like to point out that he had already made clear his opinion about "liberals" beforehand, which is what I responded to. I didn't say he was a incorrect. I said that I wouldn't trust him (a conservative) to give me a "fair" (perhaps I should have said unbiased, but I think fair in this term means roughly the same) representation on what "liberals" are like. If he has a problem with that, I'll change the words fair to unbiased.

Also, I'd just like to point out that the documentary "Outfoxed" is a brilliant film, and takes into light just how right winged the media REALLY is.