Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mathetes · 11-11-2003, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I have read some credible science which supports both the creation and the flood.

Shit! And I was taking this Jim guy seriously...

Jim Larmore · 11-12-2003, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mathetes
Shit! And I was taking this Jim guy seriously...

This is a rude crude statement but aside from that what makes you believe all the information you have is better than what I have? Science is science and as long as its good science it should be taken seriously. You can have a negative opinion about me and my beliefs but at least consider the science for what it says.

Jim Larmore · 11-12-2003, 08:28 AM

Dr.X
I think Alanis Morrisett's artistry is superb, late response but I just thought about it and thought I'd respond

Mathetes · 11-12-2003, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
This is a rude crude statement but aside from that what makes you believe all the information you have is better than what I have? Science is science and as long as its good science it should be taken seriously. You can have a negative opinion about me and my beliefs but at least consider the science for what it says.

Your move. Go to the Evolution and Creation forum, and present your case. Be prepared to be torn to pieces and run away in total humiliation, as so many creationists before you. It you stand up there for a minimal amount of time, I will come back here and present my excuses.

My statement was crude, but it cannot be other than crude. I was reading your posts, and trying to follow your argumentation. Even if I did not agree, I tried to consider your case. Then you come up with this, which in a moment destroys all your credibility. I'm sorry, I have no respect whatsoever for creationists. Actually, I'm not sorry at all. Contempt for them is the only answer.

You represent everything I hate: dogma, superstition, denial, fear, abismal ignorance. There is no science in creationism, and never has been. It is just a political movement to maintain the masses in ignorance. You stand up rejecting four hundred years of efforts of humankind to understand and explain the world.

There are many Christians here that I frequently read and find interesting: Haran, Layman, Bede, Vinnie (he is a Christian, right?) and others. I was also a Catholic for many years, and I did not even know that creationists existed. If someone had told me that creation as described in the Bible was somehow possible, I would have looked at him as a lunatic. Only when I came to the US I found that such specimens exist, and I discovered the frightening amount of political that they hold. I am dismayed at their methods and brainwashing techniques. If I were still a Christian, I would be ashamed of them.

You seem like a reasonable person, so maybe there is still hope. Go ahead, open this post in the E&C forum, and prepare the first aid kit. Yes, my post is crude, but it is intended to be. If you believe in special creation, you have no idea to what point you have been brainwashed. You have been thoroughly and purposefully lied to, by people that you respect and love. What they presented as science is nothing like it. It's gonna be painful.

[Edited by moderator--Celsus] I suggest that you read this first (this is Scientific American, not an atheist website):

15 answers to creationist nonsense

Quote:

Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

One last word: I do not think anybody in this forum is going to take you seriously before you reject this creationist shit. Not even Christians. (Well, maybe Magus55.)

Moderators... sorry for the rant. If you think this is off-topic and I am behaving like a jerk, I will take the beating.

[Mathetes, please try to refrain from posting if you know you are ranting and off-topic. It does nothing for the discussion or your own case. --Celsus]

Jim Larmore · 11-12-2003, 12:20 PM

Theres been a lot of B.S. thrown on both sides. True science has nothing to do with what you are talking about as far as what creationist have done in the past. I too am ashamed of some of the things they've done, however there is some serious science going on with some creationist. I'm sure there has been lies from both sides and each side has an agenda, but real science is never supressed for long.

I've been on the E&C site and I will return sooner or later. I've been torn up over there like you said and I've posed some questions no one wants to answer in an intelligent way. They just blow off the issues they can't address properly. Many times in a rude and crude way just like you've done.

I'm here to learn and I don't care if anyone takes me seriously or not. This is a free country and aside from being booted by a moderator I can say what I want here as long as its civil.

acidphos · 11-12-2003, 12:51 PM

"True science"... creationist buzzword that means "anything that doesn't agree with creationism is not true science".

Tell us Jim, who are these "credible scientists". Please tell me you don't consider Hovind or the Glen Rose groups (Baugh/Patton/Wyatt) to be "credible".

Jim Larmore · 11-12-2003, 01:44 PM

I've read Carl Baugh's doctoral thesis and I've read some of the web-site he has put up, I'm not sure about him yet, I've heard he was accused of lying by an evolutionist, ( a fossilized finger found in cretaceous rock? ) if this is fact I'll consider him an invalid source of good science.

Actually, its hard to find good science being done by creationist but I am very interested in some work being done by Dr. Walt Brown. I'm checking him out right now, Baugh was a paleontologist before he became a creationist and has done some good work in the puluxy river basin on some digs. His theory's on the pre-flood earth is interesting but I'm not sure how accurate he is on his conclusions. I know he puts up a lot of references to check out so I'm still looking. Its so easy to get side tracked off of one subject onto another. I have to finish my work on the book of Daniel first.

Mathetes · 11-12-2003, 04:28 PM

Since it seems that you are still willing to learn, maybe you are not the mouth-foaming religious nutcase I thought you were. I apologize. Everyone needs some time of "searching" and, provided that you still believe that there is some kind of controversial issue with evolution (other than in demented fundybots' heads), you have just started.

The Bible gets many things wrong, but one of the things that are very valid is "truth will make you free". The tricky part is that you have to be prepared to accept the truth even if you do not like where it leads you.

I hope this does not sound condescending. It took a lot of time for me to arrive to the conclusions I now hold, mainly because I was trying to avoid them because I did not like them. Fortunately, not being born in the US, I was never exposed to creationist dementia. At least I got my biology science right.

I suggest understanding a bit of basic cosmology, geology and biology before trying to make sense of the book of Daniel. That will put the Bible into perspective. You will understand, for example, that the first chapters of Genesis have nothing to do with what actually happened. I never had a doubt about it, even when I was a Christian.

When you discover how much you have been lied to, you will hate creationists as much as I do.

Jim Larmore · 11-13-2003, 07:16 AM

I am about finding what the truth is and I too will accept where it leads me, I am not going to jump into anyones camp without extensive information which leads to a beyond a "reasonable" doubt conclusion. I have started from the christian mind set but I am a scientist too. I believe these two things can be compatible.

I was raised a christian so there is a lot of traditonal beliefs which I have that may not be accurate, i.e. since I've been researching the Bible I too have found a lot of inconsistencies. Dr.X made some accusations about Moses I'm checking out. My first search on the net is showing where the torah or pentatuech has some inconsistencies on geneology and other really minor things.

The critics make a huge deal out of some of these things ( maybe too big ) but I think I know why . There are many christians who claim the Bible is inerrant, I don't. I believe the one who inspired it is but the men who wrote is just as prone to making mistakes as we are today. The Bible is a compilation and an anthology spanning several thousand years how could it be otherwise considering how many hands and minds have touched the "soma" of it. I guess you could say at this point if I were to put into simple math, my persuation for the Bible is 100% for inspiration but around 50% for accuracy in the historical perspective. With such ancient writings its really difficult to make sweeping conclusions however the work continues in both camps.

I would say my basic beliefs have not changed so far with my research. I still believe the prophecies, especially after doing my research on Daniel and I believe in Jesus. I believe He was the messiah.

Mathetes · 11-13-2003, 10:52 AM

If this is what you think, you have my respect, even if I do not agree. But please, leave the 7-day creation and the flood alone.

You want to talk about Exodus and Moses? All right. There is a substantial difference between defending Exodus and defending the flood. It is the difference between a sane person and a looney.

(I also think Exodus is mythical, by the way.)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-12-2003, 08:28 AM	#23
Jim Larmore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Bartlesville, Okla. Posts: 856	Dr.X I think Alanis Morrisett's artistry is superb, late response but I just thought about it and thought I'd respond

11-12-2003, 12:20 PM	#25
Jim Larmore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Bartlesville, Okla. Posts: 856	Theres been a lot of B.S. thrown on both sides. True science has nothing to do with what you are talking about as far as what creationist have done in the past. I too am ashamed of some of the things they've done, however there is some serious science going on with some creationist. I'm sure there has been lies from both sides and each side has an agenda, but real science is never supressed for long. I've been on the E&C site and I will return sooner or later. I've been torn up over there like you said and I've posed some questions no one wants to answer in an intelligent way. They just blow off the issues they can't address properly. Many times in a rude and crude way just like you've done. I'm here to learn and I don't care if anyone takes me seriously or not. This is a free country and aside from being booted by a moderator I can say what I want here as long as its civil.

11-12-2003, 12:51 PM	#26
acidphos Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Nashville, Tennessee Posts: 114	"True science"... creationist buzzword that means "anything that doesn't agree with creationism is not true science". Tell us Jim, who are these "credible scientists". Please tell me you don't consider Hovind or the Glen Rose groups (Baugh/Patton/Wyatt) to be "credible".

11-12-2003, 01:44 PM	#27
Jim Larmore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Bartlesville, Okla. Posts: 856	I've read Carl Baugh's doctoral thesis and I've read some of the web-site he has put up, I'm not sure about him yet, I've heard he was accused of lying by an evolutionist, ( a fossilized finger found in cretaceous rock? ) if this is fact I'll consider him an invalid source of good science. Actually, its hard to find good science being done by creationist but I am very interested in some work being done by Dr. Walt Brown. I'm checking him out right now, Baugh was a paleontologist before he became a creationist and has done some good work in the puluxy river basin on some digs. His theory's on the pre-flood earth is interesting but I'm not sure how accurate he is on his conclusions. I know he puts up a lot of references to check out so I'm still looking. Its so easy to get side tracked off of one subject onto another. I have to finish my work on the book of Daniel first.

11-12-2003, 04:28 PM	#28
Mathetes Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Spaniard living in Silicon Valley Posts: 539	Since it seems that you are still willing to learn, maybe you are not the mouth-foaming religious nutcase I thought you were. I apologize. Everyone needs some time of "searching" and, provided that you still believe that there is some kind of controversial issue with evolution (other than in demented fundybots' heads), you have just started. The Bible gets many things wrong, but one of the things that are very valid is "truth will make you free". The tricky part is that you have to be prepared to accept the truth even if you do not like where it leads you. I hope this does not sound condescending. It took a lot of time for me to arrive to the conclusions I now hold, mainly because I was trying to avoid them because I did not like them. Fortunately, not being born in the US, I was never exposed to creationist dementia. At least I got my biology science right. I suggest understanding a bit of basic cosmology, geology and biology before trying to make sense of the book of Daniel. That will put the Bible into perspective. You will understand, for example, that the first chapters of Genesis have nothing to do with what actually happened. I never had a doubt about it, even when I was a Christian. When you discover how much you have been lied to, you will hate creationists as much as I do.

11-13-2003, 07:16 AM	#29
Jim Larmore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Bartlesville, Okla. Posts: 856	I am about finding what the truth is and I too will accept where it leads me, I am not going to jump into anyones camp without extensive information which leads to a beyond a "reasonable" doubt conclusion. I have started from the christian mind set but I am a scientist too. I believe these two things can be compatible. I was raised a christian so there is a lot of traditonal beliefs which I have that may not be accurate, i.e. since I've been researching the Bible I too have found a lot of inconsistencies. Dr.X made some accusations about Moses I'm checking out. My first search on the net is showing where the torah or pentatuech has some inconsistencies on geneology and other really minor things. The critics make a huge deal out of some of these things ( maybe too big ) but I think I know why . There are many christians who claim the Bible is inerrant, I don't. I believe the one who inspired it is but the men who wrote is just as prone to making mistakes as we are today. The Bible is a compilation and an anthology spanning several thousand years how could it be otherwise considering how many hands and minds have touched the "soma" of it. I guess you could say at this point if I were to put into simple math, my persuation for the Bible is 100% for inspiration but around 50% for accuracy in the historical perspective. With such ancient writings its really difficult to make sweeping conclusions however the work continues in both camps. I would say my basic beliefs have not changed so far with my research. I still believe the prophecies, especially after doing my research on Daniel and I believe in Jesus. I believe He was the messiah.

11-13-2003, 10:52 AM	#30
Mathetes Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Spaniard living in Silicon Valley Posts: 539	If this is what you think, you have my respect, even if I do not agree. But please, leave the 7-day creation and the flood alone. You want to talk about Exodus and Moses? All right. There is a substantial difference between defending Exodus and defending the flood. It is the difference between a sane person and a looney. (I also think Exodus is mythical, by the way.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.