Free Speech Wiki

[Warpnow]

As my semester project in school, I am founding a site called Free Speech Wiki and an organization known as the Free Speech Net which will consist of debate forums, chats and a wiki archive of produced works.

The site will revolve around political discussion, if anyone wants to check it out in its beta or give me suggestions or ideas, please do.

www.freespeechwiki.com

[Iyorvin]

Spelling needs some help

[Icor]

Having "Religion & The Creation Theory" together is an insult. Believing that nothing exploded 6.5 billion years ago making everything takes just as much faith as believing One, all powerful God made everything in 6 literal days 6000 years ago. Have a forum called "Theories of Origin" instead of "Religion & The Creation Theory".

[Ibdivine]

Im a Theist

[Pali]

While I agree that Religion and Creation Theory, while very much linked, do not go hand in hand, I'd disagree that scientific theories that have been tested and have so far stood up to the tests (i.e. The Big Bang Theory) should go alongside religious creation stories, as they are NOT backed up by the evidence so far examined.

[Warpnow]

It depends how you look at it.

There are some scientists and people who treat theories like the big bang much like religion, and it is a matter of faith.

However, people like me only accept it because we feel it is the most viable option. If something came around that was better supported and/or had more evidence I would lean easily.

I will change the name of the forum.

[Warpnow]

EDIT:

To rephrase that, we realize that theories such as the big bang are theories, not scientific fact. They are theories developped by people who have very little evidence to go on, but they do have some, and we believe that their arguments and evidence are better than any other argument or evidence presented.

[Warpnow]

I want to note that the site has BLOGS and CHAT intergrated with phpbb, but you don't see i until you register...its another tab at the menu bar at the top...so register and get to see it

[Lunicant]

Having "Religion & The Creation Theory" together is an insult. Believing that nothing exploded 6.5 billion years ago making everything takes just as much faith as believing One' date=' all powerful God made everything in 6 literal days 6000 years ago. Have a forum called "Theories of Origin" instead of "Religion & The Creation Theory".[/quote']

Except one has evidence and one doesn't. It doesn't take much faith to believe in something you can prove.

[Raargant]

Whoah, whoah.

Dangerous topic and ground. I'm not going to lock it yet, but be careful guys. This and politics are the two heavyweight 'nasties' of online forums.

[Icor]

Except one has evidence and one doesn't. It doesn't take much faith to believe in something you can prove.

If the Grand Canyon could be explained as being washed out in 40 minutes rather than 40 million years by a world wide flood, a flood recorded in the Christian Bible, then the biblical account is worthy of study, and worthy of being tested along side modern science.

But it doesn't matter. I just made it clear that putting Religion and the Creation Theory together could insult someone, someone like me. I think Evolution can be considered a religion, and Creationism a science.

[Mister E]

How exactly is creationism a science again? Maybe im a little slow.

[Chayesh]

I'll play Devil's advocate.

Earthquakes can split ground open and move huge pieces of land in less than 2 minutes, let alone 40.

Additionally, there is recorded scientific evidence that indeed there was a worldwide flood. The fossil record shows this. In addition to the Bible, this event is mentioned in the ancient texts of several other cultures, not just Judeo-Christian ones. And satellite footage, as well as personal explorations, have given evidence that there is a "ark-like wooden vessel" on Mount Ararat in Eastern Turkey (it's referred to as the "Ararat Anomaly" in some articles).

[Icor]

...Heh... Thanks Chayesh. As far as I'm concerned, both are worthy of scientific study. Layers of rock could be sediments instantaneously sorted by billions of tons of water, or, they could have accumulated over billions of years making the ages (Thus the geologic column). I don't mind which side you believe, I just detest Creationism being categorized as a religion when it could very obviously a science as well.

[Mister E]

Dont be offended by my ignorance please, I thought creationism is the belief that god created the world in 6 days and we all come from adam and eve. Is that right?

[Icor]

You're right. That's the more... fantastical part, however, and takes a good deal of faith to believe. However, the bible makes great note of a flood that covered the entire world, killing all but 8 people and two of [every] animal - namely, Noah's Ark. That "fable" exists in hundreds of cultures, including our own.

[Mister E]

Hmm, I never read the bible. I wouldnt be so bold to say it isn't at all accurate. I think there must be a lot of true stories in there. But just because some of it is true and scientifically provable, it doesnt mean it is all true. I guess it's hard for me to "believe" in one god and one religion, there are so many so who is to say which is right? It is also hard to dispute the scientific evidence of our origins that go back to before the time the bible states we began...

[Icor]

Oh, I agree. Just because some of it is true doesn't mean its ALL true. However, if one thing is true, I think the rest of it is worth testing.

The thing about our beliefs in the origins is that it affects out attitude. People that believe they came from animals tend to act like animals, while people that believe they were designed by a higher intelligence tend to be skeptical.

[Mister E]

I think fanatics and extremists in ANY religion are bad news. Some people who thik we evolved from animals are not supposed to act like them, hence the evolution. I prefer to look at people on an individual bases, although you can certainly find commonality in people within their respective religios groups.

[Icor]

Yeah. The crusades got thousands of people killed in the name of God, while Hitler killed 6,000,000 people to further the evolution of the Aryan race. Extremeism is bad.

[p3zd1sp3nx0r]

I've had many drinking nights that have gone to this conversation. Mostly we end up with a couple of theories.

1. Creation Theory. "But who made "God?" and who made the thing that made god?" coupled with Men in black theory "We could just be in a marble anyway"

2. The Matrix Theory: "Hey man how do i even know all this is real. You guys could all just be programs!!! The earth was created the second i was born!"

and then this.

Many people know that the earth has a magnetic field, but few are aware that this field is shrinking. This decrease has been measured over a period of 150 years, and the rate of the decrease shows that something very earth-shaking took place less than 6000 years ago. The fossil record contains evidence of great disturbances in the field that give us an idea of the magnitude of the geologic events during Noah's flood. This fact sheet answers some common questions on this subject, beginning with basic questions about magnetism and ending with some current theories about geomagnetism.

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/magnetic_fld/magnetic_fld.html

for more on the subject

[Lunicant]

If the Grand Canyon could be explained as being washed out in 40 minutes rather than 40 million years by a world wide flood, a flood recorded in the Christian Bible, then the biblical account is worthy of study, and worthy of being tested along side modern science.

But it doesn't matter. I just made it clear that putting Religion and the Creation Theory together could insult someone, someone like me. I think Evolution can be considered a religion, and Creationism a science.

Eh? The grand canyon was caused by the erosive effects of the Colorado river over millions of years. This is provable by the rock formations and contents there. On the other hand your idea that a global flood caused it in 40 minutes is ridiculous on many fronts. I'll point out a few of the obvious glaring mistakes for you:

1) Why *only* erode the grand canyon? Surely a global flood would have eroded everything else around it too?

2) The formation of the grand canyon is dated millions of years ago. The bible claims the flood happened during the time of people (and also that the universe is only 6000 years old).

3) The bible is a self perpetuating source of evidence - The bible says the bible is true. The bible says it is the word of God. Therefore the bible is the word of God. Almost every major religion has a 'flood' story. All at different times and ALL without proof. Claiming it must have happened because it's shown in the Bible opens up an enormous can of worms that I doubt you really want to. Unless of course you believe only portions of the book......

I could go on but it'll be pointless. If you truly believed that creationism was a science you would be asking for testable proof (as is the definition of science). Instead you have taken it on faith. Draw your own conclusions.

This is exactly the kind of piffle that lost the case for ID and creationism as a science. Science is measurable, provable, and constantly changing. Creationism is theoretical, unprovable, and single minded. That is why there are no 'scientific' peer reviewed documents on the subject by the founders of this theory - even they know it's philosophy and religion.

For a good example of how to come up with a theory and then PROVE it check out the study about how the Grand Canyon was formed at http://www.durangobill.com/Paleorivers_preface.html

For a good example of the failings of ID and creationism also visit the same site at http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html for a list of common creationist beliefs and the very simple disproof using existing knowledge and tangible, solid, resources.

[Sneak]

Lunicant dont bother arguing - people who believe in a God/a religion do it because it does so they dont need to consider all these sorts of questions:

How did life start

Whats the meaning of life

What happens when we die

etc etc. Instead they got it all in a nice handy little book. Its not hard at all you just follow whats in the book then you will get in 'heaven'. Eos.

[Pali]

I think I'm just going to stay out of this one... spend too much time debating religious people already to want to do it here.

[Icor]

Eh? The grand canyon was caused by the erosive effects of the Colorado river over millions of years. This is provable by the rock formations and contents there.

The bible describes the flood as having receded extremely quickly. Ever see a mud-slide? It carts hundreds of tons of dirt away in the blink of an eye, and even petrifies things quickly, but the important thing is that the sediments sort themselves.

1) Why *only* erode the grand canyon? Surely a global flood would have eroded everything else around it too?

Oh, what’s I think is really interesting is that I think the flood waters still exist today. I think the oceans -are- the flood waters filling the low parts of the world. Take Pangaea, for example. It seems like the continents could have fit together, right? Well, if you take the water out of the ocean, you won’t think that anymore. Besides, the continents aren’t like lily-pads floating on a massive sphere or water.

As for the canyon, I think there are canyons all over the place. We could agree that there are rock layers all over the place, right?

2) The formation of the grand canyon is dated millions of years ago. The bible claims the flood happened during the time of people (and also that the universe is only 6000 years old).

I don’t think the Grand Canyon came with a date tag on it. Someone made up the 6000 years, someone made up the 1,000,000, and both are being taught, and one is obviously WRONG. After all, it can’t be both – neither could be right for all I know. To actually prove and test the 6,000 account scientifically, someone would have to live for 6,000 years, let alone 1,000,000.

3) The bible is a self perpetuating source of evidence - The bible says the bible is true. The bible says it is the word of God. Therefore the bible is the word of God. Almost every major religion has a 'flood' story. All at different times and ALL without proof. Claiming it must have happened because it's shown in the Bible opens up an enormous can of worms that I doubt you really want to. Unless of course you believe only portions of the book...

Oh, and the school text books teaching kids that the embryo has gill-slits (a theory drawn by Ernst Haeckel, proven to be fraudulent in 1874) isn’t self perpetuating? They’re teaching kids as young as 4 that nothing blew up 6.5 billion years ago, making everything? This is a faerie tale, just like One God.

I could go on but it'll be pointless. If you truly believed that creationism was a science you would be asking for testable proof (as is the definition of science). Instead you have taken it on faith. Draw your own conclusions.

My point is, both Evolution and Creationism require a great amount of faith.

This is exactly the kind of piffle that lost the case for ID and creationism as a science. Science is measurable, provable, and constantly changing. Creationism is theoretical, unprovable, and single minded. That is why there are no 'scientific' peer reviewed documents on the subject by the founders of this theory - even they know it's philosophy and religion.

A court room cannot decide what a religion is. We can test the world wide flood, as I hope you understand.

For a good example of the failings of ID and creationism also visit the same site at http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html for a list of common creationist beliefs and the very simple disproof using existing knowledge and tangible, solid, resources.

Schools are not REQUIRED to teach creationism, but it is not against the law to teach creationism. Both evolution and creationism are worthy of study.