Creationism is a mental illness (Page 210)

zeffur: It cannot be stated enough how absurd the false beliefs of evolution actually are...

As for your desire to malign The Bible erroneously, your inability to refute the contents of The Bible is sufficient for any sane, honest, & intelligent person to realize that nothing you've presented is important in any way as you cannot prove anything about your unimportant disbeliefs. Delude on... You deserve the consequences of your feeble thinking...

ghostgeek: Come on Zeffur, start providing the archaeological evidence that shows Solomon's mighty kingdom once existed. Seeing that it's rather thin on the ground, you may have to go digging up Israel yourself.

zeffur: I have no need to do that. My faith is in God--not in whether or not some archaeologist is able or not to find sufficient evidence of the destroyed remnants of a corrupted & failed king of Israel.

BelgianStrider: "We can actually see the planets mercury & venus orbit around the sun when they are visible to us as they have a shorter orbit times than the earth (i.e. ~88 days, ~225 days, respectively)."

Vraiment? Alors explique nous, pourquoi il a fallu attendre le 17ème sciècle afin qu'un "Germain" trouves le modèle héliocentrique.
Si on observait les orbites de Mecure et Venus, ici sur la Terre, on aurait bien trouvé le modèle planétaire bien plus tôt, non?
Donc, à nouveau, tu viens avec une assomption basé complètement sur le néant.

ghostgeek: Having faith in the Bible or having faith in evolution is just ... having faith. Without something approaching evidence, neither is worth the effort.

BelgianStrider: "
zeffur: I have no need to do that. My faith is in God--not in whether or not some archaeologist is able or not to find sufficient evidence of the destroyed remnants of a corrupted & failed king of Israel."

Cela vous donnerait des évidences irréfutable concernant la véracité de votre bouquin.
Tout comme des ossements de kangourous, de lemurs ou de paresseux quelque part au moyen orient (à partir du mont Ararat) les procurerait .
Petits problèmes: vous n'en trouvez aucun, alors vous vous retranchez dans votre croyance en un dieu misogine, capricieux, malicieux, et psychopate et ne devez prouver rien du tout.
Une attitude, qui n'est ni scientifique et encore moins honnête.

Nicotina: Science is evidence based.

BelgianStrider: ghostgeek: Having faith in the Bible or having faith in evolution is just ... having faith. Without something approaching evidence, neither is worth the effort.

There are no "having a faith" in "evolution".
Several evidences in different scientific domains just makes the "theory of evolution" valid beyond reasonable doubt.
And the most convincing ones are ("recently" ) found in micro-biology and bio-chemistry.

To conclude: as you said, it would be just having faith without any need for evidences and could be considered as a "religion". Though it is not the case at all.

ghostgeek: Start at the beginning. How did life come from non-life? Until that question can be conclusively answered, Zeffur and his ilk have got a valid argument.

BelgianStrider: Nope,not at all. That is a complete erroneous logical standpoint.

Evolution of life had occurred, is occurring and will occur.
Even if we know or not how life started, it "originated" (at least "once", here on Earth), and we have huge amounts of compelling evidences confirming "evolution".

The "origin hypotheses" has no influences at all on how "evolution" happened. It is also, in fact, also uttermost futile to know how "evolution" happened really to the smallest detail. (and it is also mostly impossible to know it too - a factor that creationist do abuse "you where not there" )

How life "originated" is NOT KNOWN (till now).

Even though there are several plausible hypotheses concerning a-biogenesis, none have the needed evidences.

We even can not exclude "ID" (though you will have the problem to answer what "created" that "ID", that has to be also an "ID", and again what created that "ID"; and so on - what, logically, makes the probability of that theory extreme low; though not inexistent - ).

Any creationist claiming they know (how life started) are, in fact, bullying and lying as they don't have any evidences that support their "theory".(that book is nor proof,
neither scientific evidences). A "honest creationist" has also to admit he also don't know, it is just a hypothese from his "group".

BelgianStrider: The biggest problem for those religious indoctrinated groupings is:
that humans are, scientifically, just "mammals" belonging to the family of "the great apes". The dogma that humans are "special" and "created at the image of the creator" is completely shattered.

zeffur: re: "Truly? So explain to us, why it was not until the 17th century so that a "Germain" found the heliocentric model."

Few people were that interested in the heavens or had time to squander studying & hypothesizing about the celestial bodies.

re: "If we looked at the orbits of Mecure and Venus here on Earth, we would have found the planetary model much earlier, right?

They also didn't have the necessary visual tools, insight, nor the math to understand the elliptical orbits.

re: "So, again, you come with an assumption based completely on nothingness."

Envious, huh? You have no truth to offer & I show you what you don't have the brain power to understand on your own... poor envious you...

How long do you need to whine, cry, & be verbally vicious until you overcome your bad self??

zeffur: re: "gg: Having faith in the Bible or having faith in evolution is just ... having faith. Without something approaching evidence, neither is worth the effort."

Wrong as always, of course. There is much more REAL evidence for Gods existence than there is for the lie that is evolution... You just reject it all because you've chosen to be against God/religion...

zeffur: re: "This would give you irrefutable evidence concerning the veracity of your book.
Just as the bones of kangaroos, lemurs or sloths somewhere in the Middle East (from Mount Ararat) would provide them. Small problems: you can't find any, so you retreat into your belief in a misoginistic, capricious, malicious, and psychopathic god and don't have to prove anything at all. An attitude which is neither scientific and even less honest."

What?? You are the one interested in finding ancient bones. I already know comparative anatomy is unreliable as a tool for trying to con people into believing in the lie that is evolution. If you want to find such bones--get to digging.

I already know there is ZERO proof & no evidence with a cogent explanation that can possibly substantiate evolution is anything more than just a complete & utter fraud.

Only gullible & delusional people like yourself are duped by such biased & bogus evo chump beliefs... That's your error that should be resolved by you--if you had any self-respect & integrity as human being...

zeffur: re: "Nicotina: Science is evidence based."

Evolution is unobservable, untestable, & unpredictable--hence it is NOT real science. It's nothing but a con job...

zeffur: re: "BSr : "gg: Having faith in the Bible or having faith in evolution is just ... having faith. Without something approaching evidence, neither is worth the effort.

There are no "having a faith" in "evolution". Several evidences in different scientific domains just makes the "theory of evolution" valid beyond reasonable doubt."

There is ZERO proof & ZERO compelling/convincing evidence with a cogent explanation that the imaginary & conflated biased & bogus 'beliefs' of evolution are valid/true in any way at all. You've got to be terribly corrupt, insane, dishonest, irrational, &/ delusional to be gullible enough to buy into the absurd beliefs of evolution.

re: "And the most convincing ones are ("recently" ) found in micro-biology and bio-chemistry."

Bahaha: No new evolution from one kind to another kind has ever occurred... Biased & bogus subjective DNA claims aren't verifiably true at all. You evo chumps just accept the unproven & unverified claims of your atheist or other nitwit shills who have infiltrated the sciences & you gobble it up regardless of how absurd it is...

re: "To conclude: as you said, it would be just having faith without any need for evidences and could be considered as a "religion". Though it is not the case at all."

That is EXACTLY the case of evolution. There is NO proof & compelling/convincing unbiased evidence with a cogent explanation that substantiates the absurd beliefs of evolution as valid/true. Deluding yourself & dishonestly claim that such evidence exists is just a bald faced lie...

BelgianStrider: "They also didn't have the necessary visual tools, insight, nor the math to understand the elliptical orbits."

Ah? Pas les moyens visuelles?
Alors que fait tu de cela?

"When was the first record of Venus being discovered?
And since the discovery happened before recorded times, there is no data that can say when this bright planet was exactly discovered. The Babylonians provide the earliest record of observing this planet at around 1581 BC; the Persians in 1032 made a record of the Transit of Venus." (ref: https://www.sidmartinbio.org/who-was-venus-first-discovered-by/#:~:text=Venus%20was%20the%20first%20planet%20to%20be%20explored,Magellan%2C%20which%20mapped%20the%20planet%E2%80%99s%20surface%20with%20radar.)

Cela contredit même ceci "Few people were that interested in the heavens or had time to squander studying & hypothesizing about the celestial bodies."

Concernant ceci: "nor the math to understand the elliptical orbits."

Tu sembles oublier un petit fait historique : notament les Grecques, Babiloniens et Perses.
Que penses-tu ce du "Théorème de pythagore", "L'espace et géométrie Euclidien" - ou on parles clairement de cercles et du constant Pi, déja connu en ces temps.

"Pi (π) has been known for almost 4000 years—but even if we calculated the number of seconds in those 4000 years and calculated π to that number of places, we would still only be approximating its actual value. Here’s a brief history of finding π.
The ancient Babylonians calculated the area of a circle by taking 3 times the square of its radius, which gave a value of pi = 3. One Babylonian tablet (ca. 1900–1680 BC) indicates a value of 3.125 for π, which is a closer approximation." (ref: https://www.exploratorium.edu/pi/history-of-pi#:~:text=Mathematicians%20began%20using%20the%20Greek%20letter%20%CF%80%20in,a%20way%20to%20calculate%20%CF%80%20based%20on%20probability."

Et en physique les Grecques maitrissaient déja "la loi d'Archimèdes".

Qui brait réellement comme un âne? Pas moi...
Toi par contre tu as nouveau confirmé ton manque de scolarité et que tu n'est pas beaucoup plus intelligent qu'un âne brayant qui hait les sciences.

zeffur:

Once again you fail to comprehend anything properly. "the necessary visual tools" refers to the visual tools that were not widely available until a certain time. The π equation is not the same thing as the ellipse equation--and even if someone in the world knew about it that doesn't mean it was widely known around the world as it is today.

You don't know anything worth knowing, you irrationally disagree with everything because you are a butt-hurt chump, & you have no truth to offer to anyone. Frankly, you're just a complete waste of everyone's time...

BelgianStrider: "The π equation is not the same thing as the ellipse equation--"



Ce raisonnement est complètement comparable que l'équation du parallélogramme n'est pas comme celle du carré. (comme si, dans ces périodes ils n'avaient aucune notion de l'éllipse et la particularité du cercle est dû au fait que c'est un éllipse particulier avec seulement un point focal contrairement aux deux d’un ellipse).
Ici tu démontres clairement ton manque de scolarité en maths et géometrie.

En ce qui concerne les "outils visuelles nécessaires": pas besoin d'un télescope pour voir Venus. Il est bien bel et bien là, très clair et observable à l'oeil nu. ( Peut-être une raison pourquoi elle fut connu si tôt??? )
Encore un idiocie anti-scientifique de ta part et ton ignorance complet en astronomie et histoire.

BelgianStrider: Pour le reste tes autres remarques/réponses sont si stupides et complètement hors propos que je ne veux même pas y perdre mon temps.

zeffur: re: "This reasoning is completely comparable as the equation of the parallelogram is not like that of the square. (as if in those times they had no notion of the ellipse and the peculiarity of the circle is due to the fact that it is a particular ellipse with only one focal point unlike the two of an ellipse). Here you clearly demonstrate your lack of education in maths and geometry.

You are just endlessly unable to comprehend even the simplest things that are posted here. While Euclid wrote about ellipses before Jesus was born, that does not mean they were well understood by everyone in later years who would be studying the movement of the planets. Watching Venus & Mercury move across the night sky & even cross in front of the sun, does not mean your average schmuck before Kepler's time was brilliant enough to say to himself--"Hey, what do you want to bet those objects are moving in elliptical orbit around the sun."

re: "Regarding "necessary visual tools": you don't need a telescope to see Venus. It is indeed there, very clear and observable with the naked eye. (Maybe a reason why she was known so early ???)"

I didn't state or imply that a person could not see Venus or Mercury. The point that I was making is that to make fine & precise observations, one would need a telescope--which wasn't invented until the early 1600s...

So, as usual, you show yourself again as unable to properly understand what should be easy to understand--which isn't a surprise for a bitter nitwit like you...

BelgianStrider: Celui qui ne pige rien est bien toi.

Je n'ai point besoin de grands moyens, ni de télescope, pour "mesurer" finement l'orbite de Vénus comme tu le prétends.

Si les phylosophes Grecques connessaient clairement l'élipse comme les babiloniens et les Egyptiens;qu'ils avaient des spécialistes pour observer les objets du firnament, pourquoi ces "spécialistes" n'ont point "découvert" le modèle héliocentrique?
On ne parles point des non-scolarisées de ton espèce..
Puis ceux qui contredisaient Galilei furent aussi des ignares (en astronomie) indoctrinés religieux comme toi...

Puis, finallement: tu es tellement stupide, ignare et ne pigeant rien de ce qu'on essaie de t'appendre que cela est complètement inutile.

En d'autres mots: j'ai terminé avec toi.

zeffur: You are endlessly dumb. Just because some people are aware of certain math knowledge--that does not mean they will put the pieces together. Man you are dumb...

re: "In other words: I'm done with you"

Promise? That's the best thing I read from you today!

BelgianStrider: "Heliocentrism[a] is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun at the center of the Universe. Historically, heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the Earth at the center. The notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun had been proposed as early as the third century BC by Aristarchus of Samos,[1] who had been influenced by a concept presented by Philolaus of Croton (c. 470 – 385 BC). In medieval Europe, however, Aristarchus' heliocentrism attracted little attention—possibly because of the loss of scientific works of the Hellenistic period."
(ref: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism)

Certains le savaient bien avant Copernic (et sans l'emploi d'un télescope).



Je dois concéder que très peu sont au courant que le modèle héliocentrique est bien plus ancien que Copernic et date déja de la période Hélénique.

kittybobo34: The switch to Christianity for Europe brought on the dark ages, and the loss of so much knowledge. It set science back 800 years. Much like Islam is keeping the middle east down now days.