http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL8KAJkdF2I
Printable View
You are aware that you can put all the links in one post, right?
Eddie Bravo believes in creationism doesn't he? Annunaki theory is creationism.
I also believe creationism is not as far fetched as people want to believe. I would think the scientific mind would be more open to other theories. Now creationism that's 100% detached from science is kooky. But there are plenty of very intelligent people who have various beliefs regarding our origins. Infinity is huge. And within infinity lies an infinite number of possibilities. Why can't one of those possibilities involve creation of human life?
I'm not exactly sure what Eddie believes.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rosado
I was being a bit facetious in the title to this thread. I believe in creation as do 60% of the leading scientists that are published in peer reviewed journals among related disciplines such as physics, astronomy, genetics etc...
I posted this thread in opposition to high profile people who continuously state that evolution is a fact, when in fact, it is not.
Here's a link to a debate that will happen in about 7 hours between an Evolutionist and a Creationist in case anyone is interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI
Your right, it is not a fact. THERE IS NO SUCH SCIENTIFIC TERM AS "FACT"! So you're are right and wrong at the same time. Congratulations! Where the frag do you get the 60% of scientist nonsense? I have heard that more than 70% of all scientist are atheist or agnostic. "heard over 80% but i prefer wiggle room". Now if you were to say that a recent poll of the ignorant right wing morons said they believe in a creation. Then yea, i can believe that. Of course most those participants would be meaning to say "I think god made the universe". When in reality creationist believe a literal translation of the bible. "The earth was built in 7 days, the universe is 6000-12000 years old." If you ask them that, then i believe that number drops like a stone!!!!!!
Evolution is a theory. Want to know another "theory" try gravity, time, strong and weak nuclear forces. I can go on and on about what is a "theory". In order to be a law, the portion of a theory that is a law has be be purely mathematically based.
Lets say tomorrow evolution were completely discredited. How do you prove creationism with the scientific method? You can't!! "god done it" is not how science works!!
Lol whoa....Quote:
Originally Posted by shellysummers
Gotcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
First, relax. Second, there's a ton of irony in your post. "Oh those guys are dumb and don't know facts and in response I will also prove that I don't know enough about the subject either." Third, how do you prove creationism with the scientific method? The same way that we "proved" the big bang and everything else. I don't know why that's such a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by shellysummers
Fact: Not all creationists believe in the bible. Christianity and creationism are separate. Many religions believe in creationism. And yet, creationist science and religion are still separate. In fact, not even all Christians believe in the literal 6 day theory (not 7 days). Learn what you're debating against before you try to respond. You'll save yourself the embarrassment.
Ok... so the 60% was a generalization on my part so forgive me for that but that people in the video links above are leading scientists with doctorates in their respective fields that believe the proper interpretation of the scientific evidence supports creation rather than evolution of any kind whether cosmic, chemical, biological etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by shellysummers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDy0vnP7VMQ
Jason Im actually reading Darwins black box right now.
That's cool. Behe's work and the modern understanding of how complex 'simple cells' are is fascinating. Here's a more recent link to Behe talking about irreducible complexity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dewitt Jr
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...60444564,d.bGQ
good videos. i'm enjoying his perspective and his points
Interesting stuff... I don't agree that our 'animal consciousness' creates space and time but I do believe that experiments have been repeated that demonstrate how matter's behavior can change when being observed by a conscious being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Smith
Yeah I found it to be an interesting theory. How to disprove such a notion, Im too dumb to do lol
This is funny: http://www.bvcsm.com/
Even funnier is to call them up and pretend to be from a School that is looking to book a kids tour there. Lead them down the path a bit, then start asking if they have displays of the 'Terrible Lizards' eating women and children or of people 'Walking the Earth with Dinosaurs'. All sorts of fun to be had:)
Dr. Mary Schweitzer discovers fresh blood cells in T-rex bones.Quote:
Originally Posted by NameLikeNoOther
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjpJ9R201vM
Did your read about the explanation of those blood cells and how they lasted millions of years? LolQuote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
Haha... yeah. Even though scientists know organic material cannot survive millions of years but somehow it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dewitt Jr
I can show you a "doctorate" in cosmology that believes the center of EVERYTHING is a few light years from earth and is the celestial home of heaven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
So the irreducible complexity boils down to bacterial flagella and how the flagella looks like a on board motor and "there is just no way it could come about because of chance." The easiest way to look at that statement would be to ask a question. Do any of the parts of the flagella have other uses in a cell. The short answer is yes, and the long answer is ow hell yea!
You know I used to think the internet is a great tool to find out correct information but the longer Ive been on it the more I realize a professional in one field and set of ideas or ideals w/e can have someone in the exact same field claiming opposite ideas and ideals. For example nutrition is always changing (fat is bad , cholestoral is bad, salt is bad etc etc) but sooner or later science and experiments change. It can be really hard on certain subjects to find out what is truth or makes sense when 99.9% of us arent smart enough to debate it (I highly doubt theres any top notch scientists here)
But it just takes time for us to experiment and use the scientific method to prove or disprove things , just cause it hasnt been proven yet or can't be proven doesnt mean its true or not (absensce of evidence is not the evidence of absensce). The things is we can be pretty sure (not %100 positive) if things are as they seem to be. Correct me if Im wrong but doesnt the catholic church even acknowledge evolution to be the most likely scenario, if so I think they believe in intelligent evolution I think its called (evolution with the help of "god").Again just cause we cant prove or disprove something or even test it doesnt make it one way or the other but we can sure make "educated" guesses at least.
Not going to get stuck in this argument again.
Will say two things:
1) We *can* hear you. Yeah, this is a BJJ forum and trashing on your brothers for believing differently from you is uncool. I'm a so-called "Creationist" but I haven't met a person I can't take apart in argument but I have met trolls.
2) Are you a troll?
Let's talk about something else. This stuff is divisive. :( I came here excited about X Guard and now I'm bummed out because my heart wants to kill trolls with fire but my mind says that there are too many of them and they regenerate very quickly. :(
Early explanation of the "soft tissue". From what it sounded like, the research is still to young to say much more than "we think it has to do with the iron". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4349214.html That being said, i hope no one thinks i am saying there is no god. I am agnostic, but yea, creationism fails on all fronts when it comes to science. Faith can be a beautiful thing and i don't think science will ever be able to definitively prove or disprove god. One last way i can prove "creationism science" is horse crap. If it was a viable model, then people would be using it to make money and make products that those that don't even believe in it would want. Works for real science :)
No, I'm not a Troll. I started this thread to show that creationists aren't unintelligent and that the scientific evidence can support creation just as well as evolution... if not better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
My intention was not to be divisive. If you're not interested in talking about the subject then it's easy to simply not read this thread.
You should check out the 'Brackish Waters' thread. Pretty cool technique there :)
Maybe it's easier for you. But the idea "Creationists are Kooky" smells exactly like "Don't do Rubber Guard, you'll hurt your knees." I've studied apologetic and I understand evolution better than most of the folks I've met that believe in it, so I walk around with a chip on my shoulder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
It's tough to be called stupid by your enemies and just let that slide.
Tougher when it's coming from your friends.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have an intelligent conversation on the subject. It's just really easy for a conversation about Science to get stupid when people that don't know much about it open their mouths and start yammering.
Brackish Waters: man, I'm a serious BJJ noob but the name seems to conjure up shades of Muddy Waters. And I don't know what that is either. Sometimes when I'm on this forum or on youtube, I'm like a kid in a candy store. But I have to be careful what I eat or I wind up seeing a bunch of stuff I can't replicate. I just watched a few clips about the Berimbolo, I'm seeing connections there somewhere to the truck, but I can't execute either. :confused:
But last night, after watching Einstein break down Twister Side Control (yes, again) in no-gi, I hit it in a free roll. Remembered some of the finer points. Didn't lose the position this time and got the mount easily. It's enough to keep a noob happy for a couple days. :) It helps to focus.
Anyway, it's kind of you to try to redirect me away from the hate, but brother, the hate is there. It's staring me in the face and it's really tough to walk away and keep the peace and let people talk trash; people that are supposed to be friends. I don't expect that if I was hating on your people that you'd just let it slide. Am I wrong? Or would you grab your hat and your rhetorical guns, walk out at high noon and settle scores? ;)
Oh, and for the record, I'm not saying this is you or anybody else on this thread. I'm just saying I've seen threads like this a thousand times and it's always the same old stuff. It's difficult for me to imagine that this is different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
You really need to work on your logic debating skills. Ad hominems only make your already weak argument appear weaker. How old are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by shellysummers
Anyhow, science revolving around origins of the universe and human life doesn't produce products other than books mostly. Secular science makes money this way. And to ruin your "proof," creationist books also sell just fine. There's even a museum that makes money. Even though I'm not a fan of that museum, it does prove you wrong. People are making money and selling products off of creationist science. Making money and product is not proof that something is scientific.
You are painfully ignorant to what creationism entails. From what I gather, it seems you think that creationism = Christianity. That's pure ignorance. And after I explained that the two are not the same, it appears you hold to your approach instead of taking time to learn the other side of the coin, so you're WILLFULLY ignorant.
Lastly, what you're referring to as "real science" is not discounted by creationists. In fact, creationists also use this "real science" to support its own beliefs and theories. But this "real science" that creates vacuum cleaners is a totally different branch of science from origin theories. I have absolutely NO clue how you even drew a correlation between the two as if somehow Darwin's theory of evolution helped Tesla and Edison understand electricity.
Learn more. Your ignorance is making you look baaaaaaaaaaad. It's never wise to enter a non existent debate knowing only one side of the argument.
That's tough man. So much of the stuff we were taught as children is in jeopardy right now. Remember that bit about radioactive materials decaying at a constant rate? Half-lives? Stuff like that? We know that's not true now. So we can't really use radioactive materials as some kind of flipping clock anymore. The scientific community seems to be ignoring that, but it's plain as day. And it's *critical* to the rest of it. It's a linchpin. If we lose that, we have almost nothing to gauge how old the Earth is against the fossil record.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
Also, apparently Brontosauruses never existed. :( My world will never be the same. :(
Maybe i'll go back and check out the youtube clips later and try to have an open mind. Maybe they won't contain a circus of Christians that think that the earth is 7,000 years old and that people walked alongside dinosaurs. Maybe they won't have a laugh track.
But I should really write some code today. :( I think I'll go do that and quit being a wet blanket.
*whistles* And there's that troll-killing fire I was talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rosado
I already checked one of the videos. Very intelligent man. Very good points. It's not hocus pocus invisible man talk. It's simply addressing the problems in traditional origin theories scientifically. It's really informative. Even as someone who believes in evolution, it's interesting to hear another perspective. It's a shame how closed minded the scientific community has become. Conflicting evidence gets dismissed instead of researched further. Anything that threatens the current mode of thought is hated. It's almost as if they've become the new church suppressing info because it disagrees with their beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
Dude, that is EXACTLY right. It smells like blind orthodoxy. Blind orthodoxy is the enemy. It's the enemy of science, it's the enemy of religion and it's the enemy of BJJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rosado
I wish I could find the quote by one of the scientists that was looking into this variability of radioactive decay with regards to solar flares. He or she was saying that it was mind blowing that there could be some link between solar flares and radioactive decay. That's nuts. We have no idea how the two could be related.
That's exciting! There's work to be done!
Hey Joshua. I said earlier in the thread that I was being a bit facetious in the title, I'm actually a creationist. I wanted to post links of cutting edge scientists giving supportive scientific evidence for creationism.
No hate here brotha :)
I must have missed that. I read in a bit, saw some stuff posted by folks other than you and my trigger finger got itchy. Wanted to speak up without getting into a point by point fisking match.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
Fisking. New word I learned. Huzzah.
...oh right, code. :(
We are in a computer program, your arguments are irrelevant.
Oh, here we go.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/a...un-082310.html
crazy sauce.
...what? I'm in a triage meeting. Code can wait right? :(
http://debatelive.org/
Its going down tonight...lol