Forum Index
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Don't Believe In The Hoax Of Evolution, Part II

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic

Did this convince you of the fact of creation?
Yes, you have enlightened me.
 11%  [ 2 ]
No, I was already convinced of it's clear truth.
 5%  [ 1 ]
No, I am too brainwashed by evolutionists.
 83%  [ 15 ]
Total Votes : 18

Author Message

Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well let me start by saying that I'm agnostic and have no quarrel with either side but in my opinion the bible was just a book written for control and I believe because of obvious observations it was done by male supremecists to raise the level of societies behavior and moral standards in a unifying, uniting, and therefore addictive following fashion. Let me conclude by saying touche to them because they did a very good job and covered nearly every corner and questionable theory.

"As intended they have become tame sheep to the invisible shepherd." -=-Me-=-
Back to top

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now, I know this his a joke. I have to admit, I didn't read the evidence, because I know that something like 99% of scientists believe in evolution. Whateveer his evidence is is extremly biased and wrong. But, if it isn't a joke, I have to say, its your own belief, and I reespect that. I believe in evolution and am pretty religious, and in my religion, we are split down the middle on evolution being true and evolution not being true. The half that don't believe in it are a lot like the half that do, so its not like it really makes you a different person, unless you are aethiest and still don't beleive in evolution, then you are an idiot. As far as I know, every single bit of scientific evidence points towards evolution, so you better have a religious reason to not believe in it or you are so dumb.
Back to top

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 581

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

First and foremost, I will say this:

This is NOT a counter-argument. I do not debate with extremists or fanatics, because they only speak out in places like Magic-League, places full to bursting with atheism and agnosticism, to try and convert the nonbelievers. I myself have been an atheist since the age of six, when I renounced the possibility of a single, supreme higher power, replacing it instead with a much more rational and supported theory of utter chaos.

Now, on to the point. A “theory” will remain a theory until proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be a fact. However, no one in their right mind would recognize anything as a theory if it were totally unfounded. This is why evolution, despite the fact that there are plentiful laboratory tests (not dating tests, but I’ll get to that), historical, geographical, and geological evidence to support it, remains only a theory: it cannot be proven on such an enormous scale as would have to be supported for the population of the entire world to have evolved from the most basic of organisms.

Creationism on the other hand has only one “reliable,” and I am reluctant to call it such, source: the Bible. How can you have such blind faith in the words of a book that, a mere 700 years past, was in the hands of a manipulative “organization” of the likes of the Church of England? They were not interested in the well-being of the people, or anything short of taking their money. But that all aside, they were also the *only accepted scribes of the good book.* If it wasn’t written by the Holy Mother Church, it was burned, even if it was, word for word, what the Church had written. I spent a long time wondering about that while I was in school, and I reached this conclusion: the book you follow so blindly today is NOT the same book that was written in years past. I am of the opinion that the Church of England, given their numerous motives to and their ability to as well, *changed parts of the Bible to suit their wishes.*

But I won’t try to prove that theory, because I don’t practice theology, and I honestly don’t know enough about the Bible or its history to play one. However, my knowledge of science is more than sufficient to disprove your tasteless articles on the falsity of the supported and the truth of the unproven.

In other words, you don’t just accept a laboratory date without question. It’s not the last word on the age of something. You only accept the date if it agrees with what you already think it should be.

And that is what we have been saying all along.10 That is why we won’t accept any date that contradicts the eyewitness evidence of human history recorded in the Bible. Such contradictory dates can’t be right.

In short, the dates are wrong because they are based on wrong assumptions. For example, the carbon-14 method does not account for the disruption of the carbon balance during the Flood some 4,500 years ago.11 The uranium methods do not make the correct assumptions about the initial conditions of the samples or about the effects of changing environmental conditions through time. The luminescence dates have the same problem.

I’m not going to defend the current dating methods, as most of them will produce different results on the same specimen under the same conditions. However, I have several problems with this particular passage from your silly article.

It’s true, it isn’t advised to accept the lab work if it doesn’t fit the known. However, the biblical definition of “the known” differs greatly from any other that I have seen or heard, and here is a perfect example: “eyewitness evidence of human history recorded in the Bible.”

eye•wit•ness - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n. ahy-wit-nis, ahy-wit-nis; v. ahy-wit-nis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
1. a person who actually sees some act, occurrence, or thing and can give a firsthand account of it: There were two eyewitnesses to the murder.
–verb (used with object)
2. to view with one's own eyes: to eyewitness a murder.

So, if I understand this correctly, that means that the Bible is recorded from firsthand knowledge of the events that came to pass. In short, Noah MUST have had all of the ORIGINAL documents up to the time of the alleged Flood for any of it to be logically considered accurate. But as I understand it, the Bible was not actually comprised of paper at all in those times, or for that matter, even firsthand knowledge. Now, I could be wrong, but if there were only two humans on the whole of the planet for 40 days and 40 nights, and there was no written record of history to speak of, and most importantly, if those two people who were the only human life on Earth at the time *did not write that part themselves,* how are we supposed to validate it? And even if they had, how do we know that it was changed for some bizarre reason by the Church of England in the middle ages? Or before then? Or hell, even AFTER then?

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.

“What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think.”

Is that not the very definition of the “brainwashing” to which you seem so vehemently opposed if it conflicts with your views?

Anyway, that is just an aside.

All the evidence is ours to view as we choose, but the fact that Christians choose not to inspect any of it on their own, placing their stock solely in the words of the Bible, does not mesh well with trying to cut down everything that other people have actually worked to understand. I am under the impression that were a Christian to search *in earnest* for evidence that proves the theory of evolution, they would find exactly what has already been found. The only problem is that this very search would be to renounce Christianity, since blasphemy and faith are kind of opposite ends of the spectrum.

I find myself getting off track. How about this. 1 Corinthians 15:6, the passage wherein hundreds of “eyewitnesses” (there’s that damned word again) saw the Lord Jesus rise from the dead. Maybe one of them caught on and would like to replicate the act so we can ask them? Unless that happens, there is no RELIABLE proof that Christ existed, and since all of this would have happened long before any of us were around, I don’t want to hear anyone saying, “But the Bible said they saw it, so it must be true!”

I could go on about this for days, but I think I'll just end with this.

Did you see it? Any of it? Has anyone reading this seen anything even remotely akin to the miracles mentioned in the Bible?

Anyone at all?

Thought not.
Back to top

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You have got to be kidding me! why does this show up everywhere?
Frankly, I am atheist all the way. I don't need god(s) to live my life, to guide me, or w/e else they're used for. As far as I'm concerned, they're useless.

And concerning the beginning of the world, I don't really care. I'm here now. How the world began isn't of much importance to me.
Back to top

Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 91

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Serious, this is Nightflare if you take him seriously you're all idiots. Every single person who posted in this topic seriously FAILS and just owned themselves.

Oh yeah! Jesus Saves!
Back to top

Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 127

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You try to put up a shield for your beliefs by using the names of scientists that choose to believe the same theory of creation that you believe. The fact is, just because some researcher says something is true doesn't make it any more correct.

From what I understand you believe the scriptures as dictated by God are the only real truth. And that "The Bible the infallible word of God," (note change to The Bible, the infallible word of God," it just feels more grammatically correct) are the general rules to which we should abide by. Question: Where do the words in the Bible come from? Surely it is the mouth of "God". Meaning some "God" dictated someone to essentially write down that what he says is the truth as he proceeds to tell the writer tales of, in my opinion, dubious nature. Would you accept these words if some unknown approached you in the street, and then started spewing out false nonsense from his lips. The answer is, of course, no.

NOTE: I am aware I have a lack of debating skills and what I just wrote wasn't exactly of high quality. My friend on the other hand can debate to a high degree and at some point in this forum, I will post his arguments.

P.S I noticed a lot of comma splicing in your first post, Naifler.
Back to top

Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 201

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JESUS SAVES..................................the rest of you take full damage

i am so sick of this argument i give up on it, have your faith i don't care its not my llife or my belive system its yours DON'T PUSH IT ON ME fucking idiot, Christians are notorious through the ages preaching brotherhood and peace when not in power but once they have power they force religion upon those who don't have power. hypocritical to the extreme, oh btw you can replace Christian with Muslim, Judaism, or what ever version of religion you want to they all do the same.

Give me that old time religion you know pagan the religions that developed in the Mediterranean before any of those others] read a non-biased history for once

btw i did vote for ' yes you enlighented me" but just becouse you sure did enlighten me about how brainwashed you are

good day sirs
Back to top

Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 201

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thedarkness i just read your post very well thought out perfect arguments, you sir do need to read a book called "the Jesus mysterys" they shed alot of light on how currant Christianity formed and were its origins sprang from. the things this book state and back will have most of you doubting currant church doctrine and looking at your religion in a new peaceful light. I would explain it here but it is a huge thissis and far to advanced for a few simple posts.
Back to top

Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 407

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm a Christian, but I stopped reading when I saw you use to try and prove anything constructive.

Back to top

Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


God evolved! Now, he is a Rock Star, can´t you see it? It´s just evolutionism!

ha ha ha

Your topic is insane and funny!
Back to top

Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you want a real debate, don't post things that insinuate "i am 100% right you are 100% wrong if you disagree with me and nothing you say will ever change that LALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU LALALALALALA". You post "the theory of evolution" then use your own words as fact and try to attack evolution, then post "the fact of creation" and again use your own diction to try to support creationism as fact. These circular arguments may convince your feeble mind, but I am afraid I require something more solid to base my opinions on, such as overwhelming scientific evidence proving evolution. To argue things such as the grand cannion being created by errosion over a 40 day flood is simply rediculous. If you want to live in your little bubble and thump your little book until your hands are raw, then be my guest, but don't expect to change any intelligent minds.
Back to top

Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 280

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's get things clear... first of all i'm a REAL catholic, with REAL i mean, a man that bealives in God and try to follow his laws (i obviously sin like everyone) but i know why i bealive in God. People that bealive in something without proof are stupid (that includes bealiving in God without any proof), but people that doesn't bealive just because they haven't saw it are stupid too, i won't discuss the tons of proofs there are.

and don't come with the "God wrote the bible and the bible says he exist", because that is a huge lie and stupid logic.

We (Catholics) bealive in evolutionism... God obviously didn't create the earth as it is writen in the bible, REAL catholics are aware of that. God created life, nature and it's laws.

i'll say something that you might not understand.

"Faith and Science are never opposed".

You (average guy) obviously fail at understanding this; I mean if you don't know that the bible is sometimes metaphoric you don't know shit about religion.

You says that we are brainwashed, well i'd say you're brainwashed, i mean you're "so openminded" because it's a trend, society tells you to be "rebels" and "go again the system" i won't discuss that either.

I rest my case
Back to top

Joined: 31 Oct 2004
Posts: 25

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First of all, i find your link on the holocaust highly offensive. How can you hope to make a serious argument for your case with such utter nonsense?

Secondly, though I must admit I have time nor interest to read all your links, I find that all you do is argue against evolution, and than present those arguments contra evolution as pro creationism? How are those valid arguments?

That is like saying that just because, say, this banana is not yellow, it must be an apple, although the only thing it proves is that the banana is a non-yellow banana( ok this may be farfetched Razz) or is in fact another fruit altogether, but in no way it must be that apple.

What I'm trying to say is, just because you think something isn't true, or you simply don't believe it, doesn't mean that the complete opposite must be true. Nobody can say for sure whatever happens, and even the most fanatical Darwinists can be dazzled by how bacteria can live under polar ice(mystery of live), and even the most religious people alive will have a hard time debating the truthfulness of the laws of physics or mathematical laws, even when these very same laws can be used to make a case for Darwinism.

Lastly, your preaching to the wrong crowd here mate, we're here to play magic, a non- political, non-religious, non-racial game I assume we all enjoy, or else we wouldn't be here now would we. What business have you then to try and 'convince' us about the big ol' hoax that evolution is and tell us the great answer to all questions ever posed is, well, God. I truly don't believe you will achieve anything by this, and that you should stick with your own crowd of like minded people, and take your need to win new souls for Christianity elsewhere.

cheers, Sun_Jian

P.S. I'm an atheist all the way, and believe that religion is merely created by the need of people to understand things that are beyond them, and that that is an outdated principle because nowadays, if you have the will to try and understand, say, lightning (or any natural occurrence) you can go a long way with math and physics, instead of creating a new god for it, or call it the wrath of god ( and hey, now we' re back at magic ;)let's stay there, i heard its a good place to be, seriously)
Back to top

Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 127

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"The theory of evolution is still a theory while the fact of creation is still a fact. "-Naifler

It's closed-minded statements like that why no one wants to listen to you. Like I said earlier: Just because you state something as fact, doesn't make it a fact. Creatio-sorry "Intelligent Design" and evolution are both theories. Some people say that they are equal-footed theories. Although I choose to disagree I'm fine with them telling me their opinion. Now I'm looking forward to YOUR reasoning as to why "creation" is "fact."

That's why we examine the evidence, which lead us to the conclusion that the Bible is completely right, not the other way around. [/quote]

In the meantime, I will do the same as George Carlin who said quote:

"I've begun worshipping the Sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the Sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate."
-George Carlin

Finally, here's my link to Penn & Teller's Bullshit:

I just watched the YouTube video of Kirk Cameron on the O'Reilly Factor. The comments posted under the video itself poke holes in what Kirk was saying. In his argument, he refers to the eye as a complex object, however the eye we have now is not the eye that we have had since we had developed eyes. Well, it's a long explanation, but to sum up, there is lots of evidence that points to plausible evolution of the eye. Something like this:

- Starts as photoreceptor cells
- Becomes dented to allow different angles of light
- eye 'hole' shrunk, making it into a pinhole camera
- transparent cells covered eye, eventually became lens
- filled with humours for focusing
Back to top

Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 201

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Please enlighten us in what parts of the Bible are in contradiction of others.

When you're done looking you'll realize the Scriptures are as consistent as a mathematical system.

here you go how about the first 10

1.Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
(a) God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
(b) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)
2.In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
(a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
(b) One million, one hundred thousand (IChronicles 21:5)
3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?
(a) Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
(b) Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
4.God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
(a) Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
(b) Three (I Chronicles 21:12)
5.How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)
6.How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:Cool
(b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)
7.How long did he rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Three months (2 Kings 24:Cool
(b) Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)
8.The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?
(a) Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:Cool
(b) Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)
9.When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?
(a) After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
(b) Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)
10.How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?
(a) Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
(b) Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)

who needs more?
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy