Vote "No" to keep the American Flag

RetiredOC · Aug 31, 2011

Beretta92FSLady said:
We should keep both...unless the reference "GOD" is changed to 'right-wing-nut-fringe-fundamentalist-christian'. For a number of reasons, one being, I think that the national Anthem would not sound right with the latter taking the place of the former.

You obviously have something aginst the idea of something being bigger than you which explains your bashing of creationism. You should take note that the simple title of "God" doesn't link to any specific religion. But your dislike for christianity seems to have closed your mind.

okboomer · Aug 31, 2011

Daylen said:
oh my, the ignorant have come out in force... I'd ask for some evidence to back up the claim that the Giant Space Spaghetti Monster created living things, but experience has shown this to be a waste of time. Just to be extra nice I'll offer up some evidence of evolution being the mechanism: domestic breeds of plants and animals. Over time humans have created selection pressures for a multitude of traits and shown it is not a puff of smoke and divine intervention that changes genetics but inheritance of genes and that by creating a selection pressure large changes in a breed can be induced.

You can't be calling me ignorant, and I didn't deny evolution at all ... just have questions about some points where an outcome seemed to go differently than the expected outcome. I choose to believe it was divine intervention when there is no evidence to the contrary.

I hope that you never need the power of prayer, but if you do, I hope you get it and that you receive the benefit of some kind soul taking the time to pray for you.

sFe · Sep 1, 2011

tim12232 said:
I will take creationism. I believe that science has done many great things, but last time I went out and took a walk in either San Diego, Minneapolis, Chicago or Charlotte, I cant help but find it so impossible that everything we have and are have come just by some random act of things exploding and evolving. I believe in a divine creation, because I am so complex, and if it were all science, why would doctors and scientists not have all of the diseases figured out by now? We still dont fully understand our own bodies and world, how could we possibly explain the universe? Call it a fairy tale call it BS or whatever, but I believe that someone far bigger and better than I molded me and created me in His image. Besides can someone tell me why evolution stopped? monkeys are giving birth to half humans?

Think with Faith.

We have come a long way, there is an engineered virus that attacks cancer cells now: http://www.zmescience.com/medicine/anti-cancer-virus-31082011/ Of course we will never have a cure for everything because like every other organism, bacteria/virus evolve. As for our bodies and those of other organisms if "intelligently designed" why are there vestigial structures: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html. Also why the 60+ million year gap between dinosaurs and humans?. If you would take a minute to actually research evolution you would find out that monkeys do not turn into humans but we do share a common ~4 million year old ancestor with several African apes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
Found transitional fossils: http://www.encognitive.com/node/10792

okboomer said:
Reject Creationism all you want, but there are still many cases of divine intervention that cannot be explained by science alone.

For example, the research being done into the power of prayer. First it was acknowledged that prayer had an impact on recovery time of surgical patients. Then, someone said, "Oh, it wasn't the prayer per se, it was that the subject believed, so it was the power of his own mind."

Next scientific study was a double blind in which the names of patients in IIRC even numbered rooms had a prayer circle pray for them without the patient, the staff, or the family knowing and there was still a marked increase in healing and lesser need for pain medication.
'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060403133554.htm
http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/news/9136

Schlitz said:
I could see how one could compare and contrast Creationism and Evolution of Man. But SCIENCE and CREATIONISM!? TROLOLOLOLOLOL

I have to choose between AR15s and Kittens. That's a hard one! I will take AR15s.
^ See how that didn't make sense? That's what you did.

For the record, the theory of man evolving is still a theory. It is hard to bash another theory when you're standing on one yourself. Well....it's easy if you're ignorant.

Something not proven is called a hypothesis, a theory is a thoroughly tested explanation for a set of observable and testable facts.. The theory of evolution is fact just like the theory of relativity (gravity).

Tawnos · Sep 1, 2011

Schlitz said:
I could see how one could compare and contrast Creationism and Evolution of Man. But SCIENCE and CREATIONISM!? TROLOLOLOLOLOL

I have to choose between AR15s and Kittens. That's a hard one! I will take AR15s.
^ See how that didn't make sense? That's what you did.

For the record, the theory of man evolving is still a theory. It is hard to bash another theory when you're standing on one yourself. Well....it's easy if you're ignorant.

Theory (via the OED): a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

RetiredOC · Sep 1, 2011

A hypothesis that has been "confirmed?"

Theory: the·o·ry Noun/ˈTHēərē/1. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution".

If you would take a minute to actually research evolution you would find out that monkeys do not turn into humans but we do share a common ~4 million year old ancestor with several African apes

Stated as if it was a fact. I lol'd. If you would take a few weeks to actually research the theory, or "hypothesis" of man evolving, you would find out that almost all the research these "scientists" do is leaned extremely in favor of them proving their man made IDEA right. Anything that proves it wrong is discarded or warped backwards to make it supporting evidence. (See KP271)

RetiredOC · Sep 1, 2011

Let's take a look and see where this thread drailed...drum roll please....

And the winner is! DAYLEN! When talking about the American Flag in U.S. schools offending hispanic people you found it neccesary to call someone's personal belief in the earth's genisis "emotional bs." Congratulations, this thread is dead / derailed.

Daylen said:
Or do you think creationism and that sort of emotional bs has merit.

Just like any other thread on the internet talking evolution and creationism, it will turn into a 100 page thread of back and forth THIS IS FACT - NO IT'S NOT.

Daylen · Sep 1, 2011

Schlitz said:
Let's take a look and see where this thread drailed...drum roll please....

And the winner is! DAYLEN! When talking about the American Flag in U.S. schools offending hispanic people you found it neccesary to call someone's personal belief in the earth's genisis "emotional bs." Congratulations, this thread is dead / derailed.

Just like any other thread on the internet talking evolution and creationism, it will turn into a 100 page thread of back and forth THIS IS FACT - NO IT'S NOT.

Thank you!

I'd like to thank all the little people who helped, knowingly or not, to derail this thread-without-a-point from the tracks of insignificant discussion of out of date idiocy and into the valley of everlasting ignorance!
:monkey:

sFe · Sep 1, 2011

Schlitz said:
A hypothesis that has been "confirmed?"

Theory: the·o·ry Noun/ˈTHēərē/1. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution".

Stated as if it was a fact. I lol'd. If you would take a few weeks to actually research the theory, or "hypothesis" of man evolving, you would find out that almost all the research these "scientists" do is leaned extremely in favor of them proving their man made IDEA right. Anything that proves it wrong is discarded or warped backwards to make it supporting evidence. (See KP271)

KP 271: Lubenow (1992)
states that this lower humerus is indistinguishable from a human bone,
Parker and Morris (1982) state that it is a human bone. Lubenow quotes a
number of scientists who state that KP 271 is very humanlike. He does not
quote from Feldesman (1982), who found that KP 271, "far from being more
'human-like' than Australopithecus, clearly associates with the
hyperrobust Australopithecines from Lake Turkana".
KP 271 has usually been assigned to the australopithecines
(and recently to A. anamensis) because no other hominids
are known from 4 million years ago.
Although Lubenow considers this conclusion
"shocking", there are plausible reasons for it. The
lower humerus of chimps is very similar to that of humans, and it
is reasonable to suppose that australopithecines would be even
more similar, especially since the upper end of the humerus in
australopithecines is known to fall within the human
range. Patterson and Howells (1967) state that both KP
271 and an australopithecine upper humerus were, based on their
measurements, virtually identical to some modern humans, yet
Lubenow is able to conclude that KP 271 is "strikingly
close" [his italics] to modern humans, while the upper
humerus is only "quite similar, based on visual
assessment".
Lubenow's claim that the lower humerus is "relatively
easy to discriminate between humans and other primates" is
incorrect. Patterson and Howells say that "it is difficult
to identify family from only the distal end of the hominoid
humerus". Most of the measurements they used had
considerable overlap between humans and chimps. Because of this,
they were forced to use multivariate analysis, but even this
advanced statistical technique was not able to completely
distinguish human and chimp populations. Because the lower
humerus is such a poor diagnostic indicator, it was premature to claim
that KP 271 can not be an australopithecine fossil.
The claim that KP 271 was human has been one of the stronger
creationist arguments because, although it had not been proven,
neither was it demonstrably wrong (unlike almost every other
creationist argument about human evolution). However a recent
paper now strongly indicates that KP 271 is an australopithecine
and not a human fossil.
Lague and Jungers (1996) conducted an extensive study of the
lower humeri of apes, humans, and hominid fossils. They used
multivariate analysis, a technique which is highly praised by
creationists when it delivers results favorable to them. Lague
and Jungers' results show convincingly that KP 271 lies well
outside the range of human specimens. Instead, it clusters with a
group of other hominid fossils so strongly that the probability
that it belongs to the human sample, rather than fossil hominid
group, is less than one thousandth (0.001). They conclude:

"The specimen is therefore reasonably attributable to
A. anamensis (Leakey et al. 1995), although the
results of this study indicate that the Kanapoi specimen is
not much more "human-like" than any of the other
australopithecine fossils, despite prior conclusions to the
contrary" (Lague and Jungers 1996)

Click to expand...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html

RetiredOC · Sep 1, 2011

Daylen said:
Thank you!

I'd like to thank all the little people who helped, knowingly or not, to derail this thread-without-a-point from the tracks of insignificant discussion of out of date idiocy and into the valley of everlasting ignorance!
:monkey:

ok ok i did lol

Tawnos · Sep 1, 2011

Schlitz said:
A hypothesis that has been "confirmed?"

or
—used as a function word to indicate an alternative <coffee or tea> <sink or swim>, the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases <lessen or abate>, or approximation or uncertainty <in five or six days>

—used in logic as a sentential connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences is true — compare disjunction

Stated as if it was a fact. I lol'd. If you would take a few weeks to actually research the theory, or "hypothesis" of man evolving, you would find out that almost all the research these "scientists" do is leaned extremely in favor of them proving their man made IDEA right. Anything that proves it wrong is discarded or warped backwards to make it supporting evidence. (See KP271)

Confirmation bias (part 2/2)

RetiredOC · Sep 1, 2011

Tawnos said:
Confirmation bias (part 2/2)

Watched 20 seconds and closed it. It doesn't apply to me. I am not bashing the theory of man evolving from a creationist stand point here, I have no agenda. (unlike many evolutionists/"scientists")

Beretta92FSLady · Sep 2, 2011

Schlitz said:
You obviously have something aginst the idea of something being bigger than you which explains your bashing of creationism. You should take note that the simple title of "God" doesn't link to any specific religion. But your dislike for christianity seems to have closed your mind.

*YAWN* Diversion tactic. I have no issue with some 'thing' being bigger than me. I don't have animosity against, say, a building, or a mountain, an elephant, or a whale. Basically, I have no issue with something than me.

But I digress. You seem to have meant to state, "something [greater] than you." If an individual wishes to worship some elusive being, then go for it. There is something on the other side, but I don't think it's what Christians think that it is.

Tawnos · Sep 2, 2011

Schlitz said:
Watched 20 seconds and closed it. It doesn't apply to me.

Confirmation bias - a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true. As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs.

Daylen · Sep 2, 2011

Beretta92FSLady said:
... There is something on the other side, but I don't think it's what Christians think that it is.

They worship the anthropomorphic personification of the second law of thermodynamics. I'm more a fan of Zeus the god of Coulomb's Law and Plasma Physics.

Vote "No" to keep the American Flag

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran

okboomer

Regular Member

sFe

Regular Member

Tawnos

Regular Member

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran

Daylen

Regular Member

sFe

Regular Member

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran

Tawnos

Regular Member

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member

Tawnos

Regular Member

Daylen

Regular Member