WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't believe in God so where am I supposed to take this supposed imaginary friend of mine? Out of my head?

It would be within my best interests to be pro-choice since I don't plan on waiting til marriage to get my f**k on. I'd put a fetus's right to live over bailing out of my responsibility as a parent, what a selfish bastard I must be. This is nothing but an ad hom so yes it is flame baiting to reduce the opposing position to nothing more than selfishness and loathing.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 25 Apr 2011, 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How would you prove that it's Noah's ark and not just some random piece of scrapwood from the same time period? Do you think they'll discover a boat that fits the exact specifications or maybe find that one piece of wood that says "Noah's Ark" on it??

As I said, individuals would then be claiming it was something else, anything to claim the Bible isn't true. Face it Atheists don't have much in the way of objectivity either.

In the absence of evidence, I can. As a Scientifically minded person, it is my duty to keep an open mind, but there is no evidence that the fossil record was created by a massive flood, and it's up to the Creationists to provide it, and make there case.



It's fine, I forget which papers I read stuff in all the time. If you could find it I'd be interested in reading it. By any chance are you referring to the fact that much of the world (including my country) were once buried by shallow seas?



Its funny you mention that, there have been quite a few Noah's Ark forgeries on the part of Creationists (all minuscule little boats, I might add).

In any case, your question is loaded with a conclusion. If Scientists found an old wooden boat, they would have no idea who created it. Finding a boat, and not knowing its owner does not mean that they can suddenly say "oh, there was a boat in the Bible, this must be it". Fallacy from ignorance, as it is called.



I have no particular hatred of Christians. It just so happens the people imposing their beliefs on me (catholic education, blasphemy laws) are Christian. I despise Islam far more as a religion, because the book demands a literal interperation, so people are less able to ignore all the horrible stuff it says (some good stuff, but too much horrible stuff). Hinduism and Budhism don't affect my life in anyway, or try to interfere with Science, so I could care less what voodoo they believe in.

Creation "science" is an oxymoron. To hold such a viewpoint is contrary to science. Science is evidence based. There are literally tons of evidence of many different types that all clearly show evolution happens. This has been shown way beyond any reasonable doubt, so much so that more than one source makes the comparison that it is as certain that apes and humans share common ancestry as it is certain that the earth travels around the sun. Nested hierarchies of many different types of data are both expected and explained by evolution but make no sense if each "kind" were created separately (unless God is a trickster planting tons of false evidence trying to deceive us so we will go to hell if we use the senses and reason He gave us).

Whenever creationists go up against evolutionists in a fair fight in a court of law the creationists have nothing, NOTHING, that they can present as scientific evidence supporting their viewpoint. Their opinion is based entirely on how they read the Bible. Most of what they believe is beyond the realm of science and can't be tested, but those claims from their interpretation that can be tested have been proven false. This is why creationism does not belong in a science classroom. Teach the controversy in a sociology class, or a history of religion class, but don't try to pass off fairy tales as "science" if no evidence supports your view and all the evidence falsifies your view.

Even the so-called intelligent design crowd's star, Michael Behe, admits in his book The Edge of Evolution that it is clear that humans and chimpanzees share common ancestry (a lot of people who espouse intelligent design probably don't know that their hero Behe admits that). However, Behe says that fact is trivial compared to the bigger question of how things came to be the way they are.

I wouldn't care what anyone believes, until they try to legislate ignorance in public school science classrooms and dumb down everyone else's children in addition to their own. What amazes me most about this "controversy" is that it is purely a social one, not at all a scientific one, but the ones who argue against evolution try to make it sound like evolution is a big lie based on fraud to discredit God. What I've seen are egregious LIES by those arguing against evolution, misquotes, quotes taken out of context (called "quote mining") to imply the opposite of what is meant, distortions of evidence and ignoring much more evidence. These are the guys claiming the moral high ground when they are spreading LIES? Those who do so bring no honor to God or Christ, and make all Christians look stupid.

Of course it is in the USA that the fundamentalist Christians are the problem. Worldwide, fundamentalist Muslims are also against the FACT of evolution. How can so many people be so misled in this information age?

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 25 Apr 2011, 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You don't have to believe in god to be subject to irrationality, it just normal manifests in theism first.





And where is it anywhere against the law to have consensual sex pre-marriage? This is what I mean by loathing and not just selfishness. A lot of people HATE the idea that someone could just be happy and having sex and not worry about kids. What business is it of yours other than if he has sex with your wife or gives a relative/friend/etc an STD (which has nothing to do with abortion but ignoring best practices with safe sex).

Abortion doesn't fit in anywhere other than that people want to FORCE others to have kids. Life has nothing to do with it because the same people are mostly also social Darwinists who'd care less if that baby starved to death after birth.

Objectivity, Lesson #1; Removing "yourside" from the argument

A group of Scientists find an old, rusty sword in the Desert. There is an old, rusty sword mentioned in the Veda's, the Hindu sacred texts. The Scientists say "hey, this must be that sword!"

Is that logically sound? No. They didn't rule out other, probably explainations (it was just a random sword). They didn't read ever other holy book, to see what they said. They had no indication that the sword was that particular sword; their prejudice led them to that conclusion.

I doubt that helped, but maybe...



Trust me, I had the word in commas for a reason.

Last edited by ryan93 on 25 Apr 2011, 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, what I'm saying is "how do you come to the conclusion that it's Noah's ark?"

Do you have any clue how impossible it would be to prove it? Do you know how stupid you sound right now?

Prove to me it's Noah's boat instead of Moab's or Sargon's or Gilgamesh's. Do you understand this at all??

If I remember correctly Gilgamesh was born after the great flood.

I have to disagree, as much I have little patience for the anti-abortion movement myself. They believe they are defending those incapable of defending themselves. I see a lack of understanding for or interest in the real life complexities of the situation and an inability to see any piece of the debate as a personal moral choice in the same way the rest of us don't see the issue of murder of a born child as a personal moral choice, but I don't see selfishness or loathing in most of the activists I've met in real life. They are quite sincere. You're spending too much time listening to the crazies in the group if that is all you see.

"I am unerringly right. Therefore..."

Religious Science modus operandi. You'd do well to become familiar with it.

The names were more just generic ancient names, not specific examples (ie, some ancient Joe Schmoe). So, again, how do you prove that it is specifically the boat of one person who was named 'Noah' and was written about in the bible? I would assume that first, Noah wasn't the only one with that name and second, more boats existed then than just that one. What is your methodology to determine that it is "Noah's ark".

I think it is more specific than that, ie civilization existed, and much was wiped out in a flood.

Less scientific is the fact that mulitple major stories from the period adopt a similar theme, ie flood and mircale. If I recall correctly, my son's ancient civilization text books seemed to take it as a fact that a major flood must have occured in the region at some point in the 1,000 to 5,000 BC range.

Wish I remembered more or knew where to start ... what has stuck has been, "that must have been where the story came from." Even so, I don't believe there really were two of each species on one boat, no.

And some people believe that rubbing their lucky rock keeps them from being struck dead by asteroids. Just because people believe something stupid doesn't mean that it should be respected in discourse. I understand very well what their position is and they refuse to even consider my position and consistently appeal to vague generalities of the moral decline of society occasionally. They refuse to address the very basics of how society would be benefited from it other than that there'd be more babies (which is not a benefit).

They give me nothing to respect so I give it back.

I see the loathing when the conversation turns to the pregnancy and the act of sex. I see the selfishness when it comes to seriously discussing the measurable consequences of both aspects of legislation. When I use these terms, I don't use them needlessly. It's what I see come up in their semantics.

I 100% agree with you that it is not a personal moral choice, like giving money to the poor or picking up a wallet. If a fetus is a child, it is murder to kill it. Period.
However, after years of studying Biology I have come to the conclusion (at least for the moment) that a fetus is a very different thing from a baby, so I don't have a problem with (early stage) abortions.

Any abortion arguments should be based on fact, like the developmental state of a fetus, level of consciousness, and so on. Not of vague notions of a soul (which is often confused with personality/thoughts), or a knee jerk "but its a baby!" reaction.

I am not aware of true science actually saying that now ...

... but either way, and as others have said: I cannot imagine how anyone would/could prove any remnants found had come from Noah's ark.

@DW_a_mom: I am personally convinced Noah's ark actually has been found!