ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/20/2018 06:15 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  14.060 Visits   8 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
09/28/2008 09:53 PM ID: 73668 Permalink   

Palin: Man and Dinosaur Existed at Same Time

 

When asked about her religious beliefs, Governor Palin of Alaska/Running Republican Party Vice-President, publicly stated that man and dinosaur co-existed on the planet 6,000 years ago. She made the comment during her reign as a small town mayor.

As critics are starting to pick apart Palin's past, questioning her political agenda and religious background, a spokesman for the governor states that she has never made those remarks about dinosaurs and evolution in public.

Although scientists have proven dinosaurs went extinct some 65 million years ago, Palin did push for "intelligent design" to be taught along with evolution in Alaska schools but has yet to force it into the curriculum, say Alaskan educators.

 
  Source: www.latimes.com  
    WebReporter: theironboard Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  423 Comments
  
  ...  
 
"...Palin did push for "intelligent design" to be taught..."

Good job Palin!
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/28/2008 10:04 PM     
  well  
 
if you believe in god and the bible then this isnt new to you.

if you believe in the bible then obviously the earth isnt 65 million years old, dinsaours obviously lived at one point so putting 2 and 2 together along the lines of your beliefs it would have to be that dinos lived at the beginning of time when man lived.

rather you believe that they lived in some place like where europe is now and the humans of that time lived where isreal is now, or that they lived togehter its just following your beliefs.

anyone who believes in god and believes in the bible thinks the earth is about 6,500 years old, (according to what the bible says)

dinos obviously lived at some point in time, obviously not later in time so it would have to be (if following YOUR beliefs in the bible) at the beginning of time when humans and animals came together.
 
  by: cray0la     09/28/2008 10:06 PM     
  Go Palin  
 
I am a firm believer that the Bible should be taught in public school as a historical document. The students can make up their mind. And once again, fossil dating is based upon whether you believe all the hype that the scientists try to force down your throats. When America was founded, the Bible WAS taught in public schools. How far America has strayed !
 
  by: wvcoalminer   09/28/2008 10:21 PM     
  Religious belief  
 
Most Christians (aka 'people who believe in the bible') accept that the Earth is billions of years old and that evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth. Which means crayola is wrong.

The trick is to have faith without believing obvious falsehoods. Many religious people do.

Humans and apes share, for example, the same flaw in the same gene that allows most mammals to create vitamin-C. Both humans and apes lack the ability to synthesise vitamin-C because of this flaw. In light of this simple piece of evidence, believing that humans and apes were independently created is quite simply untenable.
Our DNA has the same errors as ape DNA.

Rationally, if humans were created after apes, we were created as a reproduction of existing apes. Unless you're willing to postulate that our DNA was written by a deceitful being, this is the only conclusion that can be drawn from this simple piece of evidence.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/28/2008 10:21 PM     
  @cog  
 
so I'm guessing you believe that the world looked like the "Caveman" movie. Ringo fighting off T-Rex and and stealing pterosaur eggs.
 
  by: Jaded Fox     09/28/2008 10:22 PM     
  I want someone to nominate  
 
a completely perfect person for high office. I won't vote for that person, though. Some of our greatest Presidents were also the most flawed.
 
  by: walter3ca   09/28/2008 10:22 PM     
  Fish with fingers  
 
Some of the people in this thread really should have a look at this article: http://www.shortnews.com/...

If you're all so sure that the 'scientific theory' of creationism is valid, you should have no trouble explaining the fossil of an ancient fish with fingers.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/28/2008 10:25 PM     
  .  
 
"Although scientists have proven dinosaurs went extinct some 65 million years ago,"

^ Uh, they did? Because I thought all they proved was they are good at circular reasoning and creating timelines to suit their theories rather than vice versa.

 
  by: rachsquelch   09/28/2008 10:32 PM     
  @rachsquelch  
 
You don't believe scientists did this. But you're wrong. I suspect you have been lied to by creationists. It's quite sad that so many people trust a liars who tell them what they want to hear over the vast majority of peer-reviewed and referenced scientific literature.

May I ask, who told you scientists are lying? Who did you trust?
 
  by: Ec5618   09/28/2008 10:37 PM     
  Holy Crap.  
 
Evolution by natural selection is the only working method we have of explaining life. I dare anyone else to produce EVIDENCE to the contrary.

And, before you all go off and start cutting and pasting quotes from the Bible (you go to hell for doing that, didn't you know?)- please do not use the Bible as evidence as it was written by a few greedy aristocrats MEN who 'translated' older works to fit bring the throne of England more glory and tribute. Your 'Holy' Book is worthless as a historical document.

Also, if you can please disprove the existence of a giant floating teapot in orbit around Mars... it would go a long way in convincing me that God does exist and Palin is a brilliant woman, well-educated, and obviously a capable leader that can defend us from Putin's rearing head.
 
  by: theironboard     09/28/2008 10:54 PM     
  Of course we support her.  
 
We wish for all views and theories of the origin of life to be mandatory teaching in the classroom! I look forward to Palin requiring the teaching of Pastafarianism and all about the good works that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has done for our us.

In his name we pray, RAmen.
 
  by: Kolman   09/28/2008 10:58 PM     
  This woman must be  
 
Danforth Quayle's lost sister...
 
  by: H. W. Hutchins   09/28/2008 11:00 PM     
  NO Ec5618 YOUR WRONG  
 
please dont spew this crap that "most christians" when you know damn well thats a flat out like about them believeing the earth is billions of years old

are you smoking crack?

thats defying what the bible says and THIS CHRISTIAN right here never knew ONE CHRISTIAN that belived the earth was billions oif years old.

please stop posting mis information
as my congregation and where i was confirmed only taught the bible and that the earth is what the bible says it is, along with everyone i know from our large group of churchs all over the place.
 
  by: cray0la     09/28/2008 11:12 PM     
  Bah!  
 
You can't talk to people who have been brainwashed from birth to believe a religious book over common sense. It's futile. I've given up. If they want to let their ignorance rule them, then to hell with them (literally).
 
  by: JonSmith     09/28/2008 11:12 PM     
  im not saying its right or its wrong  
 
im saying that this is why she said this, im not arguing with her negativily or positivily.
but this is why she said this, shes following her beliefs.

please dont try to put some liberal spin on this like shes a crack pot when shes just following her religion.

you going to put some liberal spin on a muslim and what he believes in?
i think not.
 
  by: cray0la     09/28/2008 11:14 PM     
  ======  
 
You can believe any damn thing you want. That doesn't mean it's true just because you believe it.
 
  by: JonSmith     09/28/2008 11:16 PM     
  @crayola  
 
I don't support the Muslim suing the store either.
 
  by: Jaded Fox     09/28/2008 11:17 PM     
  @ wvcoalminer  
 
"....I am a firm believer that the Bible should be taught in public school as a historical document...."

Only if every family that has kids in PUBLIC schools is a Bible believer. Until that time, the piece of crap can stay the hell away from my kids in school!

Because YOU believe it should be taught, does not mean the sentiment is across the board.
 
  by: Tumbleweed   09/28/2008 11:17 PM     
  =====  
 
"they are good at circular reasoning and creating timelines to suit their theories rather than vice versa."

That is exactly what Protestant Christians do.
 
  by: JonSmith     09/28/2008 11:19 PM     
  @crayola  
 
"when you know damn well thats a flat out like about them believeing the earth is billions of years old"
No, it isn't. Don't get upset. You're probably just ignoring the world outside of the United States. Most Christians are Catholic, which means they accept the science.

"thats defying what the bible says"
No, that's realising that not all of the bible is to be taken literally.

"THIS CHRISTIAN right here never knew ONE CHRISTIAN that belived the earth was billions oif years old."
If you were the only Christian, you might have a valid point. But no, you're not the majority of Christians.

"please stop posting mis information"
That's rich.

"please dont try to put some liberal spin on this like shes a crack pot when shes just following her religion."
Would you be as forgiving if her religious beliefs didn't agree with your own?
 
  by: Ec5618   09/28/2008 11:20 PM     
  @ rachsquelch  
 
Poe's Law strikes again. I really am uncertain if that was satire or not. If it wasn't, it only gets funnier - a creationist accusing the scientific community of making up facts to fit their beliefs. I'd be rolling on the floor laughing if the people who actually subscribe to this utter ignorance weren't such a powerful force in today's society.

Just one more reason to not vote for McCain/Palin.

And for those who don't get the reference, here's the Wiki description of Poe's Law: "Poe's Law — Without a blatant display of humour, it is impossible to tell the difference between religious Fundamentalism and a parody thereof."
 
  by: Endemic   09/28/2008 11:20 PM     
  various  
 
@COG
""...Palin did push for "intelligent design" to be taught..."

Good job Palin! "

no bad job... if you cant prove it, IT DOESN'T BELONG IN SCHOOL... ID and creationism cannot be proven...why? because "god" cannot be proven" they are not science... not even by a long shot no matter how stupid people get "intelligent design" and creationism will never be a science... why IT CANNOT BE PROVEN.

and until it can be it has no place in school other than in in a world religion class.


@wvcoalminer

"Go Palin
I am a firm believer that the Bible should be taught in public school as a historical document. The students can make up their mind. And once again, fossil dating is based upon whether you believe all the hype that the scientists try to force down your throats. When America was founded, the Bible WAS taught in public schools. How far America has strayed !"

for one the bible is no more a historical document than the necronomicon WHICH IS FAKE..

second, fossil dating is based on the natural decay of isotope of various elements.. while it my not be exact, there is a massive difference between 6000 years and 65000000 year..

thirdly, yes the bible used to be taught in school... people also used to believe the world was flat at one point. sometimes, just sometimes society advances, this same time you speak of america was burning witches at the stake in withchunts, basically for not being christian enough.

teaching the bible in school is no different that scientolgoy teaching the crap they teach... no religion should ever be taught in school, because no religion is true; in that no religion can be proven to be right. tis all a matter of fact, not a matter of fact school is a place where people should be learning facts like math (we don't teach 1 + 1 is 3 because someone BELIEVES it to be true), like language (we dont teach things in language which aren't true nouns and verbs are seperate concepts of language even if the person teaching you would say otherwise) science (we dont teach things which cannot be proven to be true IE why creationism and ID should be taught in science)..

leave the teaching of mythology to wortld religion/mytholgy classes, church and perhaps at home...it doen't belong anywhere else.

forcing religion into school is forcing religion on everyone because everyone is forced to go to school atleast until a certian age...

if i had school force religion down my kids throat (even to limited extent it was pushed on me) i'd be shoving it (the bible) right up their ass.


to everyone... anyone that believes the world is 6000 years old an idiot and chances are no amount of education is going to fix that... you cant fix stupid...

and to palin particular stupidity... if man and dinosaur lived at the same time WE would extinct not dinosaurs... but i guess palin believes we won the human-dino wars...lol
 
  by: HAVOC666     09/28/2008 11:22 PM     
  @crayola  
 
"im not saying its right or its wrong
im saying that this is why she said this, im not arguing with her negativily or positivily.
but this is why she said this, shes following her beliefs.

please dont try to put some liberal spin on this like shes a crack pot when shes just following her religion."

thats why she's a crackpot... believe belief over fact is a crackpot thing to do.

"you going to put some liberal spin on a muslim and what he believes in?
i think not."

liberal spin have seen that ... lots of neocon spin though... 72 virgin for killing the infidels... women being forced to wear covering garbs (most do it themselves out of modesty).

this BS with you and liberal spin just shows how far gone the far right is.

and bout christaians not believe the worls is billions of years old... what EC should have said is most NON-fundamentalist christian believe the world is billion of years old... only fundamentalist would deny science for what archbishop usher came up with about 450 years ago, which fundamentalist continues to spew as it it had any scientific merit at all.
 
  by: HAVOC666     09/28/2008 11:32 PM     
  @Kolman  
 
I will teach it in my full pirate garb!
 
  by: Manic_Panic     09/28/2008 11:35 PM     
  Let's get this out of the way  
 
It usually comes up on evolution/creation topics.

theory - in general it means a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or an unproved assumption.

HOWEVER

scientific theory is different - a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". (Wikipedia)

Two different meanings. Please do not bring up the, "Evolution is just a theory" argument again.
 
  by: Jaded Fox     09/28/2008 11:38 PM     
  This Is Just The Kind Of Flake  
 
The religious right would like to have to push their flavor of religion down everyone's throat.

That she would bring about the end of a free country means as little to them as it does to the other extremists like the Taliban.
All Praise to god
Allah Akbar

Same words, different language . Same intent.


Go to the pulpits and rouse the faithful to the polls.

4 more years! 4 More Years! 4 More Years!
 
  by: ichi     09/28/2008 11:51 PM     
  @Ec5618 You mean obious falsehoods  
 
like god exists?

At least their are movies supporting Palin's belief that "Man and Dinosaur Existed at Same Time" like "One Million Years B.C." No thats wrong, there wasn't anything that long ago.
 
  by: MmmMan     09/28/2008 11:58 PM     
  Well, seriously,  
 
God, Creationism, Intelligent Design, all can be classified as religion. Which is mythology. I've yet to see a high school that doesn't offer some sort of Mythology elective course. That's where religion belongs. Religion is not science, so it should not be taught in science classrooms. Religion is religion, and as such should be taught in Religion/Mythology Classes.
 
  by: Kolman   09/29/2008 12:01 AM     
  @crazy0la  
 
So where in the bible exactly does it specifically say the earth is only 6000 years old... I want a source.

So glad you are helping to take this country backwards several steps. Guess some people cant get enough of those gran ole dark ages huh?
 
  by: slavefortheman     09/29/2008 12:05 AM     
  @MmmMan  
 
"You mean obious falsehoods like god exists?"
Many religious people feel with great certainty that they have a relationship with a deity. They may be wrong, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. Accepting science doesn't mean rejecting religion. Many great scientists, even today, are religious.

Many religious people see science as a threat to their religion. In my opinion, these people should learn to embrace science as a way to enhance their religion.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/29/2008 12:07 AM     
  Creation101  
   
  by: MmmMan     09/29/2008 12:13 AM     
  Oh.  
 
My.

God.

To think that a significant portion of the country is willing to vote in a team that includes a woman with an IQ lower than that of a retarded worm.
 
  by: Mister crank     09/29/2008 12:16 AM     
  Well, Mr. Crank  
 
"All you have to do is follow the worm."
Pink Floyd


That should no longer be a surprise. Look at Bush - as bright as a bucket of hair.

A retarded worm seems to be the only level the dumbed-down public sheeple can relate to.

That's the standard because it's the only standard inferior enough for them to meet it.

A White House janitor has to pass a civil service test to prove his qualifications.

If presidents had to take a civil servant qualifications exam, like the janitor in the White House and all other federal employees do, then we'd never have a president worthy of the job (unless he was 13 years old).

We need a woman president. Women should be given an equal opportunity to screw up the country and the world just as much as the men do!


Gov. Palin, PhDuhhhhh, for prezidunt


:)

 
  by: DeepSand   09/29/2008 12:57 AM     
  People considering voting for McCain...  
 
Do you really, REALLY want this being a heartbeat away from the presidency? Do you really want this in control of the most powerful military on Earth?

Those of you still considering voting for McCain: I'm not asking you to consider voting for Obama, or a third party candidate. But please, for the love of your country, consider not going to the polls this year.
 
  by: vash_the_stampede     09/29/2008 01:33 AM     
  @ vash_the_stampede  
 
I fear that's exactly what the majority will do - vote McCain/Palin.

I am adamant that it's the whole "black/Muslim" hoohaa BS that will sway them away from Obama. A juvenile mentality at best, as it's the most anyone seems to be able to muster up "against" him.
 
  by: Tumbleweed   09/29/2008 01:47 AM     
  Heresay  
 
An liberal blogger conjours up another unsubstantiated allegation and you all take it as if it came from God's lips himself.

Munger isn't a balanced or unbiased news source - he's a radical left wing blogger and has been for years.

I went through the article looking for some kind of substantiative evidence, something that would show that it actually happened.

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

This blogger, a left-wing hard-liner, who has done nothing but critize the right, and Palin, for years, is the only one to have been told by Palin candidly that she believes this. Was she drunk? Why on earth would Palin even talk to a man who has committed every day of the past two-three years with critizing her. And yes, I mean every day. If you think L'anglais does a good job of putting up articles biased to the left, this guy leaves him for dead. Regularly 40+ articles a month, every month, for two years.

Title should read: "Blogger: Palin Told Me 'Man and Dinosaur Existed at Same Time'".

It's ridiculous that you're even discussing this as if it was real.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 02:14 AM     
  Repent Ye Sinners !  
 

We're doomed either way!

Damn the science, full speed ahead, forward into the Dark Ages v2.0

LOL

The national elections have become a sham. They don't do a thing to change the behind the scenes political and financial greedmongering manipulators who are the real cause of most conflicts and inflation and are the very same people who profit the most from it mostly at our expense. None of the power to change things for the better even exists in whoever we elect anyway. It's their warmonger sponsors who profit and control. No honest man will ever have the road to Washington paved with gold because nobody will sponsor an honest candidate who isn't for sale. The Boy Scouts just don't have the deep pockets and connections the crooks have.

Votes decide nothing of any actual importance to the voters at the national level. Beyond home-town politics, votes have little value. It's mostly appearances only.




"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Johann W. Von Goethe




Long live Amerika
 
  by: DeepSand   09/29/2008 02:25 AM     
  ...  
 
I'm afraid Soshi is right...reading the source it seems this statement about man/dinosaurs was only supposedly made to one person, making it hearsay....
 
  by: deadvenusblue     09/29/2008 02:25 AM     
  Religious Nuts  
 
If you believe in the bible, next time you or your wife/girlfriend is pregnant or when you are sick, do not come to the physician. Just pray to your god, to make it all better, after all you that is what you believe...you can't have it both ways. It makes me sick, that these religious nuts want to hold back human society.
 
  by: gpatel55   09/29/2008 02:29 AM     
  Wow  
 
Although that is wildly interesting, I have not came into contact with any supporting data.
 
  by: Mannyishere     09/29/2008 02:38 AM     
  Here Are A Few Sites On Palin's Dinos And Man  
   
  by: ichi     09/29/2008 03:22 AM     
  @Ichi  
 
Those are all reproductions of the exact same content, which is the same as this one, and which is still all based on the say so of one adversarial blogger.

Is this a case of "repeat it often enough and people will believe it"?
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 03:25 AM     
  @soshi  
 
you are right, this is hearsay. Now, if she would just talk to some journalists about her views instead of hiding behind the campaign managers we could straighten this all out.

But then we might get such nonsense as we saw in her interview with Katie Couric.
 
  by: jendres     09/29/2008 03:26 AM     
  Same Time?  
 
When did religious monkeys stop denying dinosaurs even existed? Did they find another bible passage hidden somewhere?

It only makes sense (from a religious (ha!) position) if they never existed, having them share the Earth with us is just ludicrous. If you believe they existed you have to concede that it was millions of years ago, you can't just cram in the parts of science that fit into the bible and ignore the rest!

@Soshi
You may not have heard, but Palin has been found to be retarded... Sorry i knew you were a fan.

http://au.youtube.com/...

My condolences.
 
  by: lachs     09/29/2008 03:41 AM     
  Flintstones?  
 
I mean, they had a dinosaur for a pet, a can opener, a record player....
 
  by: smarta$$     09/29/2008 03:49 AM     
  logic  
 
I'm stunned by some beliefs.. would people please stop inbreeding
 
  by: bobloblaw   09/29/2008 03:51 AM     
  Wow  
 
This ticket is doomed.
 
  by: l´anglais     09/29/2008 03:51 AM     
  @lachs  
 
I didn't find a single reference to Palin behind retarded in that clip. Perhaps you linked the wrong one?

That'd be pretty retarded.

Couric's question was loaded with insinuation and bias to start with - painting the republican position of the bail out as "anti good people, pro bad people", Palin had difficulty reconciling that bullshit with what has been explained to her.

Terrible answer though.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 03:53 AM     
  @l'anglais  
 
Sorry mate, wishing doesn't make it so.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 03:54 AM     
  Oh lordy  
 
I know to each their own...

but come on...don't let this moron be in office...I can't STAND HER
 
  by: Jediman3     09/29/2008 03:55 AM     
  @McPalin  
 
Who you calling a dinosaur you bimbo?
 
  by: valkyrie123     09/29/2008 03:55 AM     
  @Jedi  
 
I can't stand Obama.

I'd rather Biden over Obama, and I'd rather Palin over both.


 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 03:58 AM     
  @Soshi  
 
No one actually mentions Sarah's condition, but to even the most untrained ear it is instantly recognisable after Couric's bailout question.

"Couric's question was loaded with insinuation and bias to start with"

Come on! You are blaming the f*&^ing question?

Palin's answer proves to anyone with half a brain that she is CLUELESS!!! She literally ran through the 'McCain economic checklist' in her answer, throwing in every republican buzzword out there because she had NO IDEA what to say. Lower taxes! More jobs! Lower taxes! Rein in spending! Lower taxes!

She needs to quit the race, she is in way over her head. She is gonna have the nuclear launch codes FFS!
 
  by: lachs     09/29/2008 04:17 AM     
  @lachs  
 
So you lied.

Yes, I'm blaming the question as much as her. Couric essentially asked "Everything about the republican bailout plan is bad and evil, the democrats plan is good and helps people and gives little girls ponies. Why do you support a bad evil plan?"
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 04:22 AM     
  @soshi  
 
Oh, it's much more than a wish. Obama got a three-point boost in the Gallup Poll after the debate and now leads McCain 50-42. When people find out that Palin believes in the "Land Before Time," that's likely going to give Obama another boost.

The problem with Christian fundamentalists is that they don't understand what a small minority they are. They think most people believe the way they do, but thank God -- and I say that with no irony whatsoever -- they don't.
 
  by: l´anglais     09/29/2008 04:26 AM     
  @l'anglais  
 
You mean what an adversarial liberal blogger says she believes, right?

You're not going to start stating this as fact, right?

Cuz, that would be lying.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 04:29 AM     
  @Soshi  
 
Lied? About what?

This is absolute GOLD! I finally have a conservative right here and now telling me "its not my candidate, its the tricky questions the evil liberal reporters are asking her"

Blaming the question a reporter asked for Palin's response is pathetic, how blindly will you follow this woman? I thought Couric's question was excellent and not terribly hard to answer either.

Please admit that if Obama/Biden had given such a pathetic excuse for an answer you would be tearing into them over it, i think that is all i can expect from you.
 
  by: lachs     09/29/2008 04:36 AM     
  Sushi  
 
You have absolutely no personal knowledge about this whatsoever. You are nothing but a troll and I'm tired of feeding you.
 
  by: JonSmith     09/29/2008 04:45 AM     
  @lachs  
 
You said she'd been found to be retarded. I've seen no evidence of that in the link you provided.

So you lied.

Oh, I know you think you were just being clever or funny. However, you did in fact lie. Palin has never been found to be retarded, in fact, very few people would think that. She's cunning, intelligent, and astute - her difficulty doesn't change that fact.

Yes and No. I'd probably point out that Obama has been campaigning hard for two years now, and such performance would be a terrible result in light of that. If he'd made the same mistake at the start, I'd let it go.

No candidate in the history of American federal politics has been under as much pressure as Palin is now, nor had to learn as much in as short a period of time. I don't know about you, but I still remember what it was like to cram for exams, and I still remember getting less than 100% despite making my absolute best efforts. So she screws up a couple of questions, big deal.

At least she didn't cry like Hillary.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 05:02 AM     
  @JS  
 
I'd really appreciate it if you shut up too.

I'm immune to your "troll" statements. I really don't give a shit if that's how you feel.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 05:04 AM     
  @Soshi  
 
Tell you what -- I'll keep spreading lies about McCain/Palin, and you keep spreading lies about Obama/Biden. That way we'll balance each other out! :P
 
  by: l´anglais     09/29/2008 05:09 AM     
  @soshi  
 
"nor had to learn as much in as short a period of time"

She wouldn't have to cram so much if she was actually qualified to be the vice president!
 
  by: l´anglais     09/29/2008 05:11 AM     
  @Soshi  
 
"No candidate in the history of American federal politics has been under as much pressure as Palin is now, nor had to learn as much in as short a period of time."
I offer: No candidate in the history of America has been so unqualified as Palin is now. Do you really think the world will be as patient when she's brushing up on things? You should be ready for the office when you decide to run.
 
  by: justaperson     09/29/2008 05:19 AM     
  @L'anglais  
 
Isn't that the American political system in a nutshell?

No thanks.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 05:19 AM     
  How utterly embarrasing  
 
not just her views but also that it leads to discussions that are other than mockery of her views. USA will go down the shitter (even further) if these kinds of people are elected.
 
  by: Kaleid   09/29/2008 05:25 AM     
  I've always valued  
 
Skill and ability over knowledge.

Knowledge can be acquired, skill and ability much less so.


 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 05:31 AM     
  For that matter  
 
Do you really think Obama is ready for presidency? Get real! He's lost without a teleprompter, bombed on foreign policy, and relied on pre-rehearsed responses to the rest. Obama doesn't demonstrate any kind of understanding, or insight, he shows that if you tell people what they want to hear and what makes them feel good, you can get anywhere.

Like I said, I'd much rather Palin in the Whitehouse than Obama.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 05:33 AM     
  @Soshi  
 
"You said she'd been found to be retarded. I've seen no evidence of that in the link you provided.

So you lied.

Oh, I know you think you were just being clever or funny. However, you did in fact lie. Palin has never been found to be retarded, in fact, very few people would think that. She's cunning, intelligent, and astute"
- Just don't ask about the ECONOMY!?!?!?!?! ROFL!!! I sure as f@ck hope i'm a liar too!

"at least she didn't cry like hillary"

Thanks for the insight into your partisan soul! I'm beginning to think you only like Ms Palin because she is a republican... I mean you can't know much about her that isn't from the mouth of the republican party, and if you're basing your opinion of her on interviews she has done, then, uh... So i'm gonna assume you haven't seen her interviews?

Couldn't you be a little more open minded about what you don't know about her? She has already been proved out of her league, how are you so sure she is ready to lead the country/world?
 
  by: lachs     09/29/2008 05:39 AM     
  @SoshiMaster  
 
Poor Palin had to have the word nuclear phonetically spelled out for her on her teleprompter, as to not repeat the many gaffs of George W. Bush. So sad that she has no skill or ability =(

And to think, if McCain had just spent more than five minutes deciding his vice presidential pick, she would have been spared almost all of this embarrassment. Palin could have, perhaps one day, been an actual contender for the presidency. Now McCain has most likely blown her chances =\

Poor, poor Palin.
 
  by: vash_the_stampede     09/29/2008 05:51 AM     
  @cray0la  
 
I've read a book that claims the bible may have been misinterpreted and that it's referring to the mayan or sumerian "year" which is like thousands of earth years (I forget the exact #), so the bible and science may not even be contradicting each other.

Interesting theory for sure. :)
 
  by: silentrage   09/29/2008 05:52 AM     
  @lachs  
 
I wouldn't dispute that she isn't ready for presidency. That's never been my contention.

My contention is that given the alternatives of Obama/Biden - she is better equipped to handle the position than them.

FWIW, the President doesn't need to know every last detail, in fact, by and large he/she operates on executive summaries which are provided by various advisers and departments.


 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 05:59 AM     
  @vash  
 
New-clee-ar Miss-Isle

Say it with me now. Miss-Isle. Got it? It's not miss-ill.


 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 06:03 AM     
  @SoshiMaster  
 
That lesson should really be spent on the potential president of the United States, Sarah Palin.
 
  by: vash_the_stampede     09/29/2008 06:34 AM     
  Sorry, Soshi  
 
I shouldn't have just said this ticket is doomed. I should have explained why it's doomed.

Here's a sampling of comments about John McCain from some of SN's conservatives and Republicans:

"McCain...He's a good guy, but not one that faithfully represents conservative ways or ideals." - Carnold (http://www.shortnews.com/...

"John McCain is not a conservative." Tomblik in the same thread

"He *has* made “wink-wink” promises. That’s why conservatives have such a hard time accepting this guy. Conservatives tend to gravitate toward those that are principled and with a clear agenda. McCain voted twice against the Bush tax cuts. Now, he’s saying they were a good idea and he wants to make them permanent. “Wink-wink”." - Carnold, in the same thread

Some other general conservative/Republican bashing of McCain on the topic of being a Republican In Name Only:

"Unfortunately for conservatives, John McCain is surging in the polls right now. He’s surging enough that the momentum just may take him all the way to the Republican nomination. If you’re a conservative, you should be very worried by McCain’s sudden popularity..."
http://conservativedialysis.com/...

Here's a whole thread on the subject at the hardcore Republican freerepublic site: http://www.freerepublic.com/...

Some quotes from that thread:

"That week McCain called members of the Christian right "evil". Everyone in the church immediately turned against him. He lost the primary, and the momentum."

"I'm convinced McInsane, the pitiful bastard, is a few cans short of a 6-pack.

NOTHING means as much to him,......as him.

His "closeness" to Kerry "the traitor" and his behavior at the MIA/POW hearing, confirmed his untrustworthiness for me..."

"Only by going up against Hitlery could McCain possibly convince me to vote for him. And even then, I'd be seriously conflicted. With his most recent betrayal, I'd probably vote third party (probably libertarian). So McCain loses."

Then what happens? McCain wins the Republican nomination. By a landslide! He got 1,575 delegates to the 278 won by Mike Huckabee, his closest competitor.

When I saw that, I came to the logical conclusion that people who call themselves Republicans are now significantly more moderate than the Republican "base" is. In fact, I think the base is really the moderates now, and the old base of socially conservative, hawkish voters is now really the fringe.

But McCain wasn't able to convince the Republican powers-that-be to trust in his national popularity in the primaries. They had to "fix" him. You saw McCain reverse positions on things like Roe v. Wade. He's now a staunch supporter of offshore drilling; four months ago he was a staunch opponent of offshore drilling.

Then to complete the transformation of McCain, enter Sarah Palin. You know what the difference between Sarah Palin and George W. Bush is? Lipstick. She talks to God, she likes shooting stuff and she's prone to making herself look stup -- uh, likeable, when she talks to the press.

Even then, McCain didn't want this. He was blasted by the fringe "base" when he contemplated going with a moderate like Leiberman or a pro-choice candidate like Ridge, so he ends up saddled with Palin.

The downfall of the ticket will be the fact that the Republican fringe base still insists it's the real base of the party, not all those moderate conservatives who overwhelmingly supported McCain in the primaries.


 
  by: l´anglais     09/29/2008 06:42 AM     
  @l'anglais  
 
You were more or less on the money until the bit about Palin.

McCain hand picked her, discarding the shortlist provided by the party and demanding other candidates. He chose her in staunch opposition to the wishes of the party, and yes, they cried "It's over" when he did. It isn't over. Not by a long shot.

Current polls are up and down all over the place - Gallup put McCain neck and neck with Obama after the first debate, now he's down, Obama up again. If anything, it shows the large percentage of swing voters paying attention in this election.

It could go either way, right down to the wire.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 06:47 AM     
  @Soshi  
 
How is Palin better equipped than Obama/Biden?

"FWIW, the President doesn't need to know every last detail, in fact, by and large he/she operates on executive summaries which are provided by various advisers and departments."

- I heard this one being bounced around Bush in '00, it didn't work then, and it wont work for Palin. Obviously no one knows everything but for some reason only people with stupid candidates use this line.
 
  by: lachs     09/29/2008 06:50 AM     
  @lachs  
 
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
stu·pid [stoo-pid, styoo?] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, noun
–adjective
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio.
5. in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue.
6. Slang. excellent; terrific.
–noun
7. Informal. a stupid person.

Please clarify which meaning you are applying so I can smack you on the head with it.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 06:58 AM     
  Which do you rate as more important  
 
Rate the following two issues in terms of importance for the new president to deal with (scale 1 to 5, with 1 being least important, 5 being most important):

+ Foreign relations and global presence
+ Domestic finance and economy
+ Education reform
+ Health-care reform
+ Energy initiatives

 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 07:01 AM     
  @  
 
In a scale of 1-5:
+ Foreign relations and global presence - 3
(Obama wants to talk as a first result, not a last result, using international sanctions if needed and is willing to do face-to-face meetings if necessary. McCain wants to Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran and seems unwilling to meet our enemies face to face on the proverbial battlefield. Funny, that. So my vote here goes to Obama/Biden).

+ Domestic finance and economy - 5
(McCain believes the fundamentals of our economy are sound, even after several financial collapses had occurred. The same day he said this, Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy. So my vote here goes to Obama/Biden).

+ Education reform - 5
(McCain said during the first debate he would potentially freeze all spending if he wins the presidency. Reform, without injecting money to improve failing facilities, pay teachers more, and providing a greater chance at a future education to the impoverished youth, will not happen. So my vote here goes to Obama/Biden).

+ Health-care reform - 5
(While mayor, Palin’s administration made rape victims pay for their own forensic kits. So my vote here goes to Obama/Biden).

+ Energy initiatives - 4
(McCain would give more money to some of the richest companies on Earth, namely Big Oil, instead of focusing on alternative energy sources in order to decrease and eventually eliminate our dependence on foreign AND domestic oil. This of course doubles as an environmental issue - getting off of fossil fuels is a great way to start to heal our planet. So my vote here goes to Obama/Biden).

Priority, from least to most important: Foreign relations and global presence, energy initiatives, education reform, health-care reform, domestic finance and economy.
 
  by: vash_the_stampede     09/29/2008 07:44 AM     
  @Vash  
 
I didn't ask for your opinion on who would be better. I asked just for a rating on the importance of the issues.


 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 07:47 AM     
  @Soshi  
 
"Gallup put McCain neck and neck with Obama after the first debate, now he's down, Obama up again."

You realize I just looked at that poll's latest findings a few hours ago, don't you? You're just -- never mind. I though you were more honest than that.
 
  by: l´anglais     09/29/2008 07:51 AM     
  @l'anglais  
   
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 07:55 AM     
  @SoshiMaster  
 
I answered, and wint into detail with my reasons why. I give my opinions without being asked, and quite often. I'm very vocal with my freedom of speech =-)
 
  by: vash_the_stampede     09/29/2008 08:05 AM     
  @langlais  
 
"When I saw that, I came to the logical conclusion that people who call themselves Republicans are now significantly more moderate than the Republican "base" is. In fact, I think the base is really the moderates now, and the old base of socially conservative, hawkish voters is now really the fringe."

It has been argued that this election isn't really left vs right. It is old vs new. Both tickets have some of each, but the Democrats have put "new" as the President and "old" as VP. Republicans have done the opposite.
 
  by: jendres     09/29/2008 08:07 AM     
  @SoshiMaster  
 
"Gallup put McCain neck and neck with Obama after the first debate, now he's down, Obama up again."

Nope. Gallup put McCain neck and neck with Obama on September 24th. After the first debate (Friday, September 26th), the Gallup poll shows a 49 to 44 Obama lead.

The links you just posted show that.
 
  by: vash_the_stampede     09/29/2008 08:11 AM     
  Agh  
 
That's my bad, for some reason I have the debate written in as the 24th.

In any case, my original point still stands, it's far from over.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 08:14 AM     
  @wvcoalminer  
 
While I believe there should be no teaching of religious anything in public school I just have to pick at your little belief.

"I am a firm believer that the Bible should be taught in public school as a historical document."

Why not also teach the Qur'an, Buddhist scriptures, Gita, Talmud, OR (and here's the cherry on top), Dianetics.
 
  by: tknjunki   09/29/2008 08:49 AM     
  I smells Trolling  
 
Prime suspects:
C.O.G.
wvcoalminer
SoshiMaster - either a troll or something worse (Tony Alamo?)
 
  by: baraka     09/29/2008 10:25 AM     
  So...  
 
What you're saying is, when a Christian voices his beliefs, it's trolling? Sorry to hear that.
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/29/2008 10:37 AM     
  possible trolling  
 
is posting a comment containing a totaly opposite opinion than the on on the board and not bothering to reply when ppl want to discuss it.
It has nothing to do with your beliefs, just your comment.
 
  by: baraka     09/29/2008 10:42 AM     
  Not defending my comment?  
 
Son, I was sleep. It doesn't take a scientist to know that some people sleep during the night.

"...and not bothering to reply when ppl want to discuss it..."
I'm pretty sure that you already know that discussions between atheists and Christians turn into verbal wars on this site. I'm not going to be caught up in that anymore. Call it what you wanna. Keep in mind, I'm not here to please you.
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/29/2008 10:46 AM     
  I smells Trolling  
 
Suspects: Baraka, Vash, John Smith

Heh, it's almost Godwin's law only "troll" instead of "hitler".
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/29/2008 10:50 AM     
  @C.O.G.  
 
Does that mean you're about to explain why fish had fingers? Or why human DNA has the same errors as ape DNA?

Or does that mean you're going to explain why teaching a belief in science class is a good thing?
 
  by: Ec5618   09/29/2008 10:51 AM     
  Ec  
 
Why? Would it make you feel better about yourself? Is it going to bring you any money? Would it make you more profitable? Would it make you more popular? Would it boost your self esteem to "prove a Christian wrong"? What do you gain by me explaining those things?
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/29/2008 10:54 AM     
  @C.O.G.  
 
I don't mean to be rude, but you implied just minutes ago that you WOULD have defended your comments had you not been asleep. You're awake now. Go ahead.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/29/2008 10:59 AM     
  Ec  
 
We go over this all the time, I figured that you would remember by now why I believe the way I do. It's because I'm "irrational" remember. Again, what would you gain from me defending my beliefs? Just look back at some of our past conversations... go ahead, take a minute, shortnews will still be here when you return. Hopefully you won't miss too much.

"Does that mean you're about to explain why fish had fingers? Or why human DNA has the same errors as ape DNA?"

Simple answer found in Genesis 1:1.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I know you're not going to like that. Oh well.
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/29/2008 11:06 AM     
  @C.O.G.  
 
I know that you believe humans were created. I'm not even asking you to show evidence of that. I'm asking you to explain evidence that shows that what you're saying is impossible.

The evidence I showed you means this:
If humans were created, we were based on the ape template. Genetically, we are not 'original'. We are reproductions, no more unique than a reproduction of the Mona Lisa. If humans were created by an honest deity, that deity created us out of apes.


Look, I know you believe. That's nice. But if a part of your beliefs turns out to be wrong, you should know that, shouldn't you?
 
  by: Ec5618   09/29/2008 11:18 AM     
  You know what Ec  
 
I commend you, you're very good at inciting "conversation". I told myself I wouldn't reply anymore because it was pointless, but...

"Look, I know you believe. That's nice. But if a part of your beliefs turns out to be wrong, you should know that, shouldn't you?"

I believe in the Bible, and nothing about the Bible is wrong. It is the perfect and free from defect. And based on that belief, If I were to believe that anything the Bible states was wrong, that would mean that I'm calling God a liar. Since lying is not in God's nature, that would mean that I feel that He's less than God, which would make my faith obsolete, and strip him of His HIGHNESS in my eyes.

With that being said, I'm all for science, as long as it lines up with the perfect Word of God. If it differs from what the Bible says, I'll have none of it, regardless of how much "proof" man can come up with (which you blindly follow) that opposes a PERFECT God.

So, no sir, you are wrong.
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/29/2008 11:26 AM     
  God the incompetent  
 
"I believe in the Bible, and nothing about the Bible is wrong. It is the perfect and free from defect. And based on that belief, If I were to believe that anything the Bible states was wrong, that would mean that I'm calling God a liar. Since lying is not in God's nature, that would mean that I feel that He's less than God, which would make my faith obsolete, and strip him of His HIGHNESS in my eyes."

Why bother with that. We know he didn't write it. And yes, of course he lies and misleads.

Looking at the world is proof enough that god(s) is/are not perfect. At best he/she/it/they are incompetent.
 
  by: Kaleid   09/29/2008 11:36 AM     
  @C.O.G.  
 
Did I say the bible was wrong?

No.

I said YOU were wrong.

You (made of dust, fallible) may have made a mistake in interpreting the bible. If you interpret the bible as meaning that human DNA and ape DNA share no history, for example, you must have done something wrong. We can clearly see that they do.

We can see that all humans carry the same error in their DNA. The same type of error that we use to convict rapists. And we can see that all apes carry this error too.
Clearly, this same error must have come from somewhere, from the same place. Human DNA and ape DNA must share a history.

Luckily for you, you have good options. Almost all Christians accept that parts of the bible are allegorical. That when dry facts cannot capture the essence of a god, then poetry can come closer. Most of them have chosen to believe that part of Genesis is meant to be read as a testament to the greatness of god, instead of as a history lesson. Have a look at the Documentary Hypothesis, for example.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/29/2008 11:39 AM     
  Ec  
 
Genesis 1:
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Genesis 2:7
7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

God isn't an ape, so you're wrong. I'll agree that ape is similar to man, yes, but ape and man are two different species and one did not come from another.


"We can see that all humans carry the same error in their DNA. The same type of error that we use to convict rapists."

Yeah, it's called SIN. Moving right along.

"Almost all Christians accept that parts of the bible are allegorical."

True, so what?

"Most of them have chosen to believe that part of Genesis is meant to be read as a testament to the greatness of god, instead of as a history lesson."

True, they did not have the knowledge we do now. And the knowledge we have now is to PRAISE GOD! If it contradicts what the Bible says (like your theories do). It's rubbish.
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/29/2008 11:56 AM     
  palin is such a  
 
stupid bitch...
 
  by: OneEightSeven   09/29/2008 12:30 PM     
  @C.O.G.  
 
"in the image of God"
"God isn't an ape"
So, you're saying that your God has a physical form, and that that form is human. That's blasphemous. God would be as close to a human as to an ape.
An alternative explanation would be that 'image' doesn't refer appearance, but to something deeper. Humans, in this interpretation, would be endowed with a soul, an eternal essence that no animal has. This soul is the 'image' of God, eternal and constant.
Again, perhaps YOU are wrong. Perhaps YOU misinterpreted the bible.

"Yeah, it's called SIN. Moving right along."
So sin caused humans and apes to mutate IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY? How? Why?
Why would sin cause human DNA to look like ape DNA?

"True, they did not have the knowledge we do now."
I was talking about modern Christians. As in, most Christians alive today.

"And the knowledge we have now is to PRAISE GOD!"
Which they do. They're Christians. Obviously they do. What's your point?

"If it contradicts what the Bible says ..."
You interpret the bible one way. Other people interpret it another way. And science disagrees with your interpretation.
Why don't you at least consider that you could be wrong?
Dusty, fallible you could have misinterpreted the bible.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/29/2008 12:31 PM     
  Ec  
 
EPIC FAIL!!!

You tried, that's commendable, but in the end, FAIL!

"in the image of God"
"God isn't an ape"
So, you're saying that your God has a physical form, and that that form is human. That's blasphemous. God would be as close to a human as to an ape.
An alternative explanation would be that 'image' doesn't refer appearance, but to something deeper. Humans, in this interpretation, would be endowed with a soul, an eternal essence that no animal has. This soul is the 'image' of God, eternal and constant.
Again, perhaps YOU are wrong. Perhaps YOU misinterpreted the bible."

Genesis 1:
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Notice how it says IMAGE and LIKENESS!!! God is a Spirit. Yes, but Got made us to look like Him. You should do more research. As far as God being closer to an ape than a human... seriously, was that a joke? God did not make ape in His image or His likeness... Remember, Jesus is God, and Jesus has a Human body, Yes, even in Heaven. The likeness part is what you're referring to (emotion, love, etc).

"Why would sin cause human DNA to look like ape DNA?"
It wouldn't, however, both sets have similar results (as do all living things because of sin) DEATH. So, yeah, I guess we're all more alike than not.

""True, they did not have the knowledge we do now."
I was talking about modern Christians. As in, most Christians alive today."

I'm more than aware of what you're talking about!

"If it contradicts what the Bible says ..."
You interpret the bible one way. Other people interpret it another way. And science disagrees with your interpretation."

um... okay, I'll say it again. If what some scientists, Christians, Muslims, construction workers, RingMasters at the circus, etc believe what the Bible says, they're wrong.

"Why don't you at least consider that you could be wrong?"

If what I feel about God (outside of the Scriptures) is wrong, then sobeit. I could be wrong about a lot of things that are not in the Bible (how many people did God create in total... EVER, Is he sitting or standing RIGHT NOW, etc). If it's in the Scripture, I believe it... and that's not wrong.
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/29/2008 12:47 PM     
  sorry mistype  
 
um... okay, I'll say it again. If what some scientists, Christians, Muslims, construction workers, RingMasters at the circus, etc believe what the Bible says, they're wrong.

should be
believe in contradiction to what the Bible says...
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/29/2008 12:49 PM     
  @C.O.G.  
 
"If it's in the Scripture, I believe it... and that's not wrong."
The trick is that BOTH interpretation are 'in the scripture'. That's the point of interpretations.
You choose one interpretation, and then condemn those who chose another interpretation. But you could have chosen the wrong one. You are fallible.


"Notice how it says IMAGE and LIKENESS!!! God is a Spirit."
What shape is your soul? What shape is god?
Why is it impossible that 'image' and 'likeness' refer to our soul instead of our physical shell?


"It wouldn't, however, both sets have similar result"
Exactly, it wouldn't. But both sets of DNA have THE SAME typo. Which doesn't make sense in your world view, but perfect sense in mine. Which means you might want to consider that you could be wrong about a minor detail. Your interpretation of the bible may not be perfect.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/29/2008 12:57 PM     
  Palin Unsuitable  
 
Sarah Palin is the reason that I'm not voting for McCain. I find the prospect of an aging McCain being elected and not living through his term very unnerving given the fact that Palin would be the Commander in Chief. Not a risk that I'm willing to take, so Obama gets my vote.
 
  by: LeroyJenkins     09/29/2008 01:02 PM     
  @cog  
 
"If it's in the Scripture, I believe it."

So you really believe that we should stone kids to death for disrespecting their parents? And in the execution of all adulterers? How about the law stating that you shouldn't mix fabrics?

If you believe in the bible and the bible is god's law then you believe that all the laws apply right?
 
  by: Jaded Fox     09/29/2008 01:15 PM     
  Ec & Jaded Fox  
 
"You are fallible."
I never said that I wasn't. I believe the Bible, which is infallible. You've switched your arguments, try to stay on track.

"Notice how it says IMAGE and LIKENESS!!! God is a Spirit."
What shape is your soul? What shape is god?
Why is it impossible that 'image' and 'likeness' refer to our soul instead of our physical shell?"

So, I see that you're recognizing the soul. Good job. My soul is my LIFE BEING. My Life does not have a shape. I should worship God with every aspect of my SOUL meaning worshipping Him with my LIFE. What shape is your brain? How do you know? Have you seen it?

Image could refer to Soul. But God is a Spirit. There's a difference between the two (look it up). God made man in His Image.

"Your interpretation of the bible may not be perfect."
My interpretation of the Bible IS NOT perfect, but I believe in the PERFECT Word of God. Big difference. I've been wrong about the Bible before. Show me how I'm wrong about the Bible.

Jaded-
"So you really believe that we should stone kids to death for disrespecting their parents? And in the execution of all adulterers? How about the law stating that you shouldn't mix fabrics?"

Is this a real argument? Please tell me this was a joke because this is TOOOOO easy. Check John Chapter 8 about the stoning question. All sin (rebellion against God) is punishable by death (His Justice). This includes lying, adultery, murder, stealing, etc. But because of His love for us, He sent Jesus to suffer that Justice and Wrath so that we wouldn't be held to the punishment of the law anymore (eternal death). As far as the fabric question goes... understand that the Bible was written in a DIFFERENT TIME and DIFFERENT CULTURE than our own. A lot of the things apply to THAT CULTURE (discipline, dress code, etc). The mixing of fabrics was law of THAT DAY. Since Christ fulfilled the law and lived a sinless life, we're justified in that. This doesn't mean we should sin all willy-nilly at our leisure, but some things don't apply to us anymore. Read the book in context for the answer.
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/29/2008 01:50 PM     
  @C.O.G.  
 
"My interpretation of the Bible IS NOT perfect, but I believe in the PERFECT Word of God."
When you read the bible, you interpret it. When others read the same bible, they interpret it differently. You, for example, interpret the bible to mean that god created the world in 6 literal days. Most Christians interpret the bible differently.


You want to follow scripture. You don't want to follow your flawed interpretation, but the actual scripture, right?
Shouldn't you then learn about the different interpretations, instead of just the one you happen to know already?
 
  by: Ec5618   09/29/2008 02:13 PM     
  lol  
 
the bible is infallible... yeah so is bush...lol

the soul is as real as an imaginary friend, ever see one, ever heard of one ebing discovered... nope... and nope.

jesus died for your sins... how does that work... if i hit my foot with a shovel is your morgage paid... at some point people ought to evaluated the stupidity of this belief in particular. just an FYI, this is also a doug stanhope joke.

``god`` is perfect... not if man has anything to do with `god`... if there was a `god`and he was perfect... how come were not perfect... if we were created by a perfect being`, and we`re not perfect, by default neither can `god`... but of course this is logic.


if anyone doubts any of these points... prove it... if not all you got is faith... which to a logical, rational person... is nothing.

if you discard science for faith... your stupid, look up the word specifically meaning 2&3. this is why religious people tend to have lower IQ's they are more inclined to believe things without proof and without questioning... this is also why i believe children should not be brainwashed into relgion ubntil they are old enough to atleast think for themselves.... but then thèir minds wouldn`t be vulnerable and weak; IE and easy target for brainwashing (programming).


and yes COG your a troll... there is no question.... not for being a christian... but for constantly spewing your ignorant, irrational religious venom all over the internet on a regular basis with no intent of discussion only preaching... there is no room in your very small mind for religion to be in doubt... in a dicussion that in an of itself will make you a troll... never even mind that scripture you so love to spew.

with your posting here i can only conclude your a troll and that you belong on a christian forum where no-one cares about your particular breed of ignorance, nor of the trolling.... atleast you`d fit in, and you have a nice blanket of ignorance to wrap yourself tight in, as you already do so well.
 
  by: HAVOC666     09/29/2008 02:30 PM     
  some of the early posts here  
 
are nothing short of worrying and indicative of the complete ignorance of people who will believe blindly anything that they are fed consistently enough.

The Bible should be taught at home, the only religion in school should be a class outlining the beliefs of all major religions in a factual manner, neither Christianity nor any other religions has any place in a place of true learning.
 
  by: dieu_7     09/29/2008 02:34 PM     
  @tknjunki  
 
Because Christianity is the basis of America's founding that is why. Peroid. :) Don't ja just love my viewpoints ? :)
 
  by: wvcoalminer   09/29/2008 02:40 PM     
  @wvcoalminer  
 
The fact that several of the founders of the US expressly stated that that's not true isn't going to matter to you, is it?
 
  by: Ec5618   09/29/2008 02:42 PM     
  C.O.G.  
 
Your posts are scary as hell,

"I believe in the Bible, and nothing about the Bible is wrong. It is the perfect and free from defect. And based on that belief, If I were to believe that anything the Bible states was wrong, that would mean that I'm calling God a liar. Since lying is not in God's nature, that would mean that I feel that He's less than God, which would make my faith obsolete, and strip him of His HIGHNESS in my eyes.

With that being said, I'm all for science, as long as it lines up with the perfect Word of God. If it differs from what the Bible says, I'll have none of it, regardless of how much "proof" man can come up with (which you blindly follow) that opposes a PERFECT God."

Stuff like that really makes me think some people are beyond insane. I dont know how you come to a point where stuff like that seems reasonable to you, but the worst kind of religious person is the one who doesnt question everything. Everythign written in the bible was written by man, by men long after the'events' they were writing about. to claim this as the word of God, is really stretching an already incredibly flawed piece of very slightly historic writing.
 
  by: dieu_7     09/29/2008 02:51 PM     
  COG sometimes we should listen to our own advice  
 
"This doesn't mean we should sin all willy-nilly at our leisure, but some things don't apply to us anymore. Read the book in context for the answer."
 
  by: dieu_7     09/29/2008 02:59 PM     
  @dieu_7  
 
He unfortunately does not realize that the Bible itself was written by man as well and man as he says is fallible.

I dont know if he realizes there are canons in which the catholic church excluded from the bible as well.

Simultaneously, if the bible is perfect and yet written by man, the Koran must be perfect as well since it was supposed to be direct instructions from the angel Gabrielle to Mohammad from God...

Anyhow those are my observations.
 
  by: slavefortheman     09/29/2008 03:06 PM     
  @ Ec5618  
 
Nope not one bit. Start issuing the KJV Bible tomorrow, and start the historical teaching. Post the ten commandsments on the walls (the whole version, not the abridged versions). Give a 10 minute quiet session every day to either pray or reflect on whatever. Bring some discipline back into the schools. Ah, don'tja just love my views ? :)
 
  by: wvcoalminer   09/29/2008 03:10 PM     
  Painful To The Eyes  
 
Funny, Creationists VS evolutionary theory. Using the tools afforded to them by science, to invalidate a scientific theory, in favor of completely ascientific, codified religious hysteria.
 
  by: Malefice   09/29/2008 03:10 PM     
  A belief system  
 
Evolution is a faith based belief (humanism) just like Creationism is. Except evolution has you to make a huge jump in belief that you and I come from nothing, to tadpoles, to apes, then one day humans. Please, spare me.
 
  by: wvcoalminer   09/29/2008 03:14 PM     
  @wvcoalminer  
 
"Evolution is a faith based belief"
Not true.

"(humanism)"
Humanism is a philosophy, so it's not a faith either.

"Except evolution has you to make a huge jump"
That's not true. Evolution deals with small steps. Enough of these allow you to cover a lot of distance. But each step is relatively small.

"in belief"
No, not a belief.

"that you and I come from nothing"
You come from your parents. That lineage can be traced back to the first life. Not nothing. Life.

"to tadpoles, to apes, then one day humans."
Well, close. This isn't complete nonsense.

"Please, spare me."
You're saying things that aren't true, as though they are true. You are bearing false witness. It does you no good if I spare you.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/29/2008 03:25 PM     
  @cog  
 
that was just a clarification question. So those sins are forgiven. That's fine. Then in theory everyone should be able to enter heaven because Jesus died for us. Shouldn't that include nonbelievers as well? What makes lying, cheating, and talking back to your parents different from not following the same god in terms of severity of sin?
 
  by: Jaded Fox     09/29/2008 03:30 PM     
  at: WV  
 
actually evolution is a scientific theory, its observable, measurable... ultimately quantifiable... creationism is a belief.. not founded on anythign scientific, but rather archiac belief from ignorant people that thought the earth was flat.

evolution and creation or ID aren`t even in the same league.

evolution has you make big jumps of faith... how the hell... to believe in creation you have to believe in a mythical being... how is that a lesser jump of faith that believing in things that actually do exist and understanding patterns in life rather that stupidly saying everything is a miracle from something that can`t even be proven to exist in the first place...

and you talk about leaps of faith... RELIGION IS A LEAP OF FAITH. evolution is connecting the dots.... the problem is religious people tend not to even see the dots we are connecting.

people like you see fingered fish or snakes with legs and say abomination...
people like me see fingered fish or snakes with legs and say evolution...

the difference being there is no proof that anything is an abomination becauswe that would require there to be a `design plan` for everything in which to deviate from... which in nature there isn`t... things adapted and change as environment dictates... and so have we... we are by no means the same as we were 2 million years ago, or even 500,000 years ago... we`ve underwent many changes including the ability to stand upright, a massive increase to cranial capacity, the developement of both written and spoken language... all of which are indicitive of evolution... yet creationist assume this was all handed down from ``god`` and with no proof outside of the bible to back up their claim... IE, all they have is faith (which to many is nothing)... we have scientific in addition to whatever personal belief we may have.
 
  by: HAVOC666     09/29/2008 03:36 PM     
  @wv  
 
Why can't you just accept that 'god is everything there ever has been and ever will be' is not a good enough answer for everyone?
You would have a much easier time integrating evolution into creationism ('intelligent' design does NOT count!) than dinosaurs...
 
  by: lachs     09/29/2008 03:38 PM     
  Daryl, Jaded Fox, Slave  
 
Daryl (a.k.a Havoc666)- You're disregarded.

Jaded Fox- I get what you're saying, but in order to go to Heaven, you have to have faith that Christ died for your sins. So therefore, nonbelievers fall out of this window.

Slave- The Bible was written by man, but inspired by the Holy Spirit (Who is God).
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/29/2008 04:39 PM     
  @cog  
 
Then god isn't forgiving. He told the truth in Exodus. He is jealous and very spiteful if this is the only sin he cannot forgive.
 
  by: Jaded Fox     09/29/2008 04:57 PM     
  Jaded  
 
"Then god isn't forgiving. He told the truth in Exodus. He is jealous and very spiteful if this is the only sin he cannot forgive."

God is forgiving as long as you have breath, you can be forgiven. There are certain things that the Bible state are unforgivable such as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (which is hard to completely grasp, there are a lot of debates about that one), and some view suicide as unforgivable since it's a sin to kill (yourself included) and there is no repentance after death. So, I cannot answer those.

What do you mean by "he told the truth in Exodus?"
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/29/2008 05:01 PM     
  @ all arguing with cog  
 
what's the point? his argument is always "if you don't agree with the bible then you are wrong". Why even try to argue with him? You'd get further with a 3 year old
 
  by: jeniq     09/29/2008 05:09 PM     
  @jeniq  
 
i try... but... COG, is the litteral embodiment of a troll... even crayola can't match COG.

people like COG need help... they are rather helpless, if they went about the totality of life the way they do about religion they wouldn't have survived their first year of life...

stupidity should be painful.
 
  by: HAVOC666     09/29/2008 05:19 PM     
  @jeniq  
 
Personally, I hate to see such a wide chasm between religion and science. There was a time when religious people would rejoice when new scientific evidence furthered our understanding of the universe. In their minds, studying the 'godgiven' universe was a deeply religious experience.

For most laymen in the US, this was lost. They now oppose science, because they have been taught to distrust it.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/29/2008 05:23 PM     
  @Soshi  
 
Here's what you said: "Current polls are up and down all over the place - Gallup put McCain neck and neck with Obama after the first debate, now he's down, Obama up again."

Your first post was the Gallup result of a three-day rolling average of polling conducted Sept. 22-24; i.e. begun last Monday and ended last Wednesday.

The debate was held on Friday.

Your second link shows the rolling average of polling conducted Thursday, Friday, and Saturday -- i.e. the after McCain suspended his campaign (Thursday), the day of the debate (Friday) and the day after the debate (Saturday).

The first poll had nothing to do with the debate -- yet you said, I repeat: "Gallup put McCain neck and neck with Obama after the first debate."

That's false. Either you knew it was false and said it anyway, or you don't check the facts carefully enough to be considered reliable in your assessment.
 
  by: l´anglais     09/29/2008 05:25 PM     
  Daryl, Jeniq, Ec  
 
Daryl- You're still being disregarded.

Jeniq- You're probably right. Relationship with God shouldn't be argued in the first place... I'm wrong for that.

Ec- We're not taught to reject all science. Just science that is contrary to what the Bible says about God. A lot of the stuff you say makes sense. Me personally, I can't get down with the whole humans from apes and infinite cycle of big bang theories though
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/29/2008 05:28 PM     
  @C.O.G.  
 
"The Bible was written by man, but inspired by the Holy Spirit (Who is God)."

In this context, so was the Koran. So what is your point?

Do you think it is flawed? It is also supposed to be inspired directly by god (the same god by the way) as well.

Just trying to show that if you think the Bible is perfect, then other religious texts (especially of the same god) and canons must be equally as perfect.
 
  by: slavefortheman     09/29/2008 05:29 PM     
  Slave  
 
I believe the Koran is false. If you want to know my reasoning behind it, then read the story of Abraham, Isaac (who was given the blessing), and Ishmael (spelling?). Isaac continued on into the Jewish teachings while Ishmael's decendants went on to form Islam. Check it out, even if you don't believe in this kind of stuff, it's a good read.
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/29/2008 05:33 PM     
  Palinosaur  
 
If Palin makes it to the White House, then Dan Quayle’s Guinness Book record as world champion VP airhead will be broken.

VP Dan Quayle is a tough act to follow.



"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history."

"I am not part of the problem. I am a Republican."

Dan Quayle



The president needs a stooge for a sidekick because it makes him look so much smarter (or so he thinks).

McCain is sick. If he can't perform his duties for some reason, then Palin becomes the president ... Lord help us ... return of the dinosaurs.

LOL
 
  by: DeepSand   09/29/2008 05:52 PM     
  @COG  
 
"We're not taught to reject all science. Just science that is contrary to what the Bible says about God."

That is textbook arrogance. It is foolish to deny the facts because they conflict with your beliefs. You can't change the facts. They are facts. You can change your beliefs, however.
A lot of the information in the Bible and other mythological documents attempt to explain what science could not at the time. No one knew how the world was created then, so they made up a story to satisfy the masses. Once the truth is revealed, the masses should use their brains and accept the facts. Unfortunately, some of the masses tend to be stubborn and stick to the stories they've been told their whole lives. They reject the facts simply because they have an established belief in that area.
 
  by: Mr. Wright     09/29/2008 06:10 PM     
  @C.O.G.  
 
But that is a double standard.

Accepting something from one book but not another even though they are supposed to come from the exact same god.

Many of the texts of the bible are known to be mistranslated and even 2nd hand accounts of events. With that said the Koran is a 1st hand account of what is supposed to be direct word of god from god himself through the lips of the angel gabrielle.

So technically the Koran should in many cases be an even more direct link to god.

And on top of that nearly all jewish scholars say to take things into a subjective meaning in the old testament. EX: When it refers to the creation of the earth, there is no such thing as time to a high being so therefore it is relative. 1 day could equal many millions or even billions of years. Adam is referred to collectively in many instances of the bible. Ex: Instead of "him" it will refer to as "them".

So right there, there are some flaws in your literal interpretation. In other words, Adam is not even one man but humanity in general. This referral of "them" instead of him basically proves it.

So again my point is you should not take things to literally. Or else you are going to be wrong about a great many things. These books have a poetic nature to them and as such you have to be read careful when interpreting them or else you will reach flawed assumptions.
 
  by: slavefortheman     09/29/2008 06:14 PM     
  And They Spoke English  
 
My bible is the word of god and it is in English. And Christ was a fair haired Caucasian.
 
  by: ichi     09/29/2008 06:29 PM     
  Message from the Big Guy:  
 
Dearly Beloved,

"STOP CUTTING AND PASTING THE WORD OF THE LORD."

Sincerely,
God
Heaven, Above All

P.S. I WILL SMITE THEE, YOU LITTLE MONKEYS. Just see if I don't.

 
  by: theironboard     09/29/2008 06:33 PM     
  cough-flik  
 
The Bible is not a textbook.. the Bible is a bunch of stories, changed over time to suit the Catholic Church's needs.

If it will should be taught again in normal state funded schools, it should be accompanied by the Koran, and every other Religious Story book.

While I was brought up Catholic, I recognized, early on in life, that there are people who need the Bible/Koran/Religious Doctrine in order to go about their lives.

I equate folks that 'believe' to needing a crutch to help them get through this existence we call life.

I, personally find that 'GOD' is inside of me and I control my own destiny.

No need to flame me since I am my own GOD then my word is final :)
 
  by: RAD     09/29/2008 06:57 PM     
  Another message from St. God!!  
 
"I am just pretend. Sorry for all the bullshit over the years, but that was really your own doing, not mine. You all should probably think about things and not listen to a book that was written by the same people that said the earth was flat. You have things like lava lamps and space travel now. C'mon, seriously. Intelligent design? You might as well call gravity 'intelligent falling'. If you don't believe in evolution, just look as MRSA. That happened before your very eyes. Of course it's bacteria, so if you don't believe in evolution, you probably don't believe in bacteria either (it wasn't mentioned in the Bible, and you refuse to update your thinking). If you have trouble seperating God's will from your own will, you are confused. If you think you understand God's will, you are a fool, and if you force your will on others, especially in the name of God, you are a tyrant. Now go play nicely with each other."
 
  by: captainchainsaw   09/29/2008 07:12 PM     
  Can't Help But Wonder  
 
What effect menopause would have in an international crisis.

Nukes, anyone?

Oy!
 
  by: DeepSand   09/29/2008 07:13 PM     
  imo ...  
 
the only difference between a dinosaur and a hockey mom ... lipstick donchaknow
 
  by: bpearson   09/29/2008 07:17 PM     
  This is great  
 
" Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people are more than concerned about Palin."

"The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as “disastrous.” One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, “What are we going to do?” The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is “clueless.”

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/...
 
  by: l´anglais     09/29/2008 07:30 PM     
  @Kolman  
 
Oh man, laughed so hard.
 
  by: saltinekraken08   09/29/2008 07:37 PM     
  +++++++++++  
 
"Man and Dinosaur Existed at Same Time"

I'm convinced that Palin believes this and has said it because it is the belief of the Assembly of God church, and Palin is brainwashed by them. This is Jimmy Swaggart's denomination. Remember him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/...
 
  by: JonSmith     09/29/2008 07:37 PM     
  Another one  
 
Sarah Palin Endorses Hamas

29 Sep 2008 10:43 am
How can it be that some people still pretend that Sarah Palin is suited for high office? This country has never seen someone so comprehensively unprepared for the vice presidency; Dan Quayle was Metternich by comparison. I've watched Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric three times, and my astonishment does not diminish. Her nonsensical answer about Russia has deservedly been highlighted, but let me focus on another question, this one concerning the export of democracy. Couric asked, "What happens if the goal of democracy doesn't produce the desired outcome? In Gaza, the U.S. pushed hard for elections and Hamas won."

Palin's answer, in full, was this: "Yeah, well especially in that region, though, we have to protect those who do seek democracy and support those who seek protections for the people who live there. What we're seeing in the last couple of days here in New York is a President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends, Israel ... and we're hearing the evil that he speaks and if hearing him doesn't allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, especially there in the Mideast, then nothing will."

The issue here is not that Palin didn't know the answer. There are many possible answers to this question, some of which are right and some of which are wrong. The issue here is that she didn't know the question. Because she was apparently ignorant of the subject, she endorsed Hamas' victory, and, in essence, called for the U.S. to "protect" Islamists who seek to use democratic elections to lever themselves into power. And, of course, Ahmadinejad came to power in a more-or-less democratic election. Palin's answer was truly remarkable. A person who could be President of the United States has shown herself to be completely ignorant of one of the most vexing and important foreign policy questions of the day. Freshman congressmen know how to answer this question. Here's one possible Republican response:

"Yes, Katie, it's true that if you push for democracy, sometimes you get an outcome that you don't want. This happened in Gaza with Hamas, and I think the Bush Administration was as surprised as everyone else. So the lesson here is that you have be careful when you try to export democracy. But I still believe that, over the long-term, democracy is the best antidote to terrorism that we have. What we have to do, though, is know when to push, and know when not to push. And every day, we have to do the hard work of advocating for press freedom, and the rule of law, and for all those things that build a civil society."

See? Not that hard. Unless you don't:

a) Know what happened in Gaza;
b) Know where Gaza is;
c) Know who rules Gaza today;
d) Care.

I want to wait and see Palin on Thursday night in her debate with Joe Biden; perhaps her performance in the Couric interview was abnormally bad. But I have a terrible feeling that John McCain has placed this country - and, of lesser importance, his campaign - in an untenable position.
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/...
 
  by: l´anglais     09/29/2008 07:43 PM     
  Critics my arse  
 
These so-called "critics" are nothing more than paid Democratic operatives looking for real or made up dirt about Palin. Obama can't win a fair contest so the "critics" have to resort to this. Since Latimes is the source, I give this story zero credibility.
 
  by: vbened   09/29/2008 07:47 PM     
  @ Ec5618  
 
Actually, I'm not wrong. I've heard people who believe that nonsense explain to me how scientists supposedly "proved dinosaurs went extince 65 million years ago" and quite frankly all I heard was one flaw in logic after another. Scientists who use actual science rather than circular reasoning have proven the earth is much younger than some people say it is. Quite a few billion years younger actually. I pity people who take the lies and flawed logic of certain scientists as gospel truth without looking into it with unbiased eyes, it's dangerous to deny the words of the living God. Read the Bible and have a nice day. :)
 
  by: rachsquelch   09/29/2008 08:31 PM     
  @C.O.G.  
 
"Ec- We're not taught to reject all science. Just science that is contrary to what the Bible says about God."
That makes sense. But again, most Christians have found a way to combine the science you reject with their faith. So, while rejecting evolution and the like may seem justified to you, it really isn't necessary.
You may be rejecting valid science, and the understanding and truth that comes with it.

"A lot of the stuff you say makes sense."
I'm glad you agree.

"Me personally, I can't get down with the whole humans from apes and infinite cycle of big bang theories though"
Science isn't a very intuitive thing. Some people have a hard time accepting that. But please accept that many scientific discoveries seem 'odd'.

The history of the Theory of Evolution is a quite interesting one.
When he came up with his ideas, Darwin never sought to discredit creation, nor did his scientific peers. In Darwin's time, the Western world was just discovering the vastness of the world and the diverse plants and animals in it. No-one expected to find apes, but they did. No-one knew what to make of them. The vast diversity of the natural world came as a bit of a shock to the scientists of the time, and they struggled to categorise and label everything. (Indeed, the most famous namer of animals and a creationist, Linneaus, put humans in the same family as chimpanzees and gorillas, because it made sense to him.)

Darwin's ideas brought order to the chaos. They explained that different creatures were all related in a vast and beautiful web of life. Suddenly, understanding one type of bird meant you could rightly say you understood all birds better. A disease in one animal might affect another if they were closely related. It all fit together in a pattern. A pattern larger, simpler and more imaginative than anyone before Darwin had ever imagined.

Deeply religious scientists saw what Darwin's ideas meant, and embraced them. Darwin's ideas explained the world better than the old ideas. Darwin's ideas allowed them to understand the world better.


I've not explained the Theory of Evolution. But I hope to show you that evolution was not proposed to reduce your religion.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/29/2008 08:34 PM     
  Slave  
 
"Accepting something from one book but not another even though they are supposed to come from the exact same god."

Sticky subject, but yes and no. We both (Christians and Muslims) believe that God is the supreme being in the universe... however, Muslims don't recognize the Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), 3 entities in one. Muslims believe that God is one being. Also they don't recognize Jesus (2nd person in the Trinity) as being the Messiah and God, but a good teacher. This makes them reject Jesus as the Only way to Heaven and they believe that good works will get you into Heaven. In Christianity, we don't believe that works get you into Heaven, but faith alone will. Once you accept the Spirit, these things come over time. I see how you feel though.

"Many of the texts of the bible are known to be mistranslated and even 2nd hand accounts of events. With that said the Koran is a 1st hand account of what is supposed to be direct word of god from god himself through the lips of the angel gabrielle."

yeah, BUT, check out who the blessing was passed on to... It was Isaac, not his brother, and Isaac would continue on in the covenant of God. Ishmael received the blessing of becoming a great nation (his decendants), but the blessing of continuing the right path was afforded to Isaac, who's teachings led to the prediction of Christ, and that prophecy was fulfilled.

"When it refers to the creation of the earth, there is no such thing as time to a high being so therefore it is relative. 1 day could equal many millions or even billions of years."

Ah, good point, but time started with "In the beginning..." Before this, there was no time and God was still eternal. Hard concept to grasp. But if you break the word "day" down, the word Moses used for "day" was the same word as "sundown to sun-up" used later in the texts. So it is accepted that It literally meant Earth days. If you want me to, I can find the word.

"Adam is referred to collectively in many instances of the bible. Ex: Instead of "him" it will refer to as "them"."

You are very right, however, reading in context comes into play here. Adam means "Man" and was referred to in singular and plural a few times, but you have to read in context to understand the difference between man and mankind (both named Adam). There was no flaw in my interpretation in this. I can show you this in detail also. The differences in Adam are located mainly in Genesis chapters 1-3.


 
  by: C.O.G.   09/29/2008 08:36 PM     
  @rachsquelch  
 
"Actually, I'm not wrong."
Yes, you are. You have been lied to. I wish I could explain this to you.

I'll ask again, who was it that told you that the scientists are all wrong?

"Scientists who use actual science rather than circular reasoning have proven the earth is much younger than some people say it is."
No, they haven't. Again, who told you this?

"lies and flawed logic of certain scientists as gospel truth"
You take the word of people like Kent Hovind as gospel truth. Honestly, what you do is worse.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/29/2008 08:39 PM     
  @EC  
 
I think what he / she meant to say is: "Scientists who ignore actual science and use the Bible as their soul source of information have used circular reasoning to prove the earth is much younger than some people say it is."
 
  by: erasedgod   09/29/2008 09:14 PM     
  Ugh...  
 
I meant sole, not soul.

As I'm typing, the Blue Angels are flying practice runs outside my window... very distracting.
 
  by: erasedgod   09/29/2008 09:18 PM     
  <deleted by admin>  
 
LISTEN.

<deleted by admin>

In America the religous goons make the country look like an episode of Green Acres to the rest of the world and it is getting its ass smeared across international media as we finally get what's coming to our vain and prideful asses.

You stupid sheep need to learn to think for yourselves or you'll find the Apocalypse has come for us all in the form of idiot Palin who inherits the throne from McCain and she decides to nuke the godless non-americans.

I wish you the best in your after-life, because you'll be quite suprised when you are not emitting any kind of cohesive energy and your atoms reintegrate with the rest of the universe and join us all at the X point when everything collapses on the rebound. This, by the way, is refering to some SCIENCE that is far beyond your ken.

<deleted by admin>

Go off and read your bible fantasy novel and drink some more of that electric kool-aid.

Two-Fisted Science comin' at ya, left and right. Step back Jesus Freaks.
 
  by: theironboard     09/29/2008 10:04 PM     
  TIB  
 
Wow... that was quite a rant. Everything you said applies back to you since whether or not you choose to accept it, science is your religion and your god. I know you don't want to hear that, but you yourself are a religious nut.
One thing you're going to have to accept is that we're here to stay... you should get used to it before you have an aneurism, because you definitely lost it then. Glad you got it off your chest. I hope you feel better now.
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/29/2008 10:13 PM     
  Wrong, COG.  
 
Science is neither a religion nor a God. A God is a deity, science is a process of discovery and documentation. A religion is based upon faith, science is based upon evidence. I know you're good at twisting these terms, like saying the Bible is evidence when really it's just a book in which you have faith, but that doesn't change the vast difference between the two. That doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive, either, because you can as easily have religion informed by science as you can have milk with cookies.

Apparently, though, some people need to feel like they're at the front lines of God's army with a milk-versus-cookies war.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/29/2008 10:49 PM     
  @ MoC  
 
"....some people need to feel like they're at the front lines of God's army...."

That's part of the martyrship syndorme, it inables claims of persecution when refutted.

I grew up watching this tactic, and still see my family and their Bible-bound clan practicing it. It never stops.
 
  by: Tumbleweed   09/29/2008 11:00 PM     
  @ MOC  
 
re·li·gion
–noun 1. a set of beliefs (theories) concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies (big bang), usually involving devotional and ritual observances (science and the study), and often containing a moral code (slander all Christians) governing the conduct of human affairs ("Go off and read your bible fantasy novel and drink some more of that electric kool-aid.").
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs (big band, evolution) and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects (scientific tests)
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices (evolutionists): a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. (scientists)
5. the practice of religious beliefs (atheism); ritual observance of faith (in science).
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly (scientific theories); a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/29/2008 11:02 PM     
  Atheist Outrage  
 
There's not enough being done to stop the mixture of religion and government in the USA and this story is the perfect summation of exactly why religion should be a private matter for people, and that they shouldn't open their mouths unless they want to be verbally attacked (or, as some might like to say... 'pre-emptively struck').


If you, and other pulpit-smashers, feel good espousing the lies of your bible book on a public forum and supporting Christianity, then fine... don't expect all others to bask in the glow of your meaningless words. I've studied history and know enough 'Christians' to know it's more of the old rich and corrupt leading the poor and blind happily to their doom.

I've had enough of all you- Scientologists, Catholics, and especially you hippy Shinto crazies with all your inner harmony and rock gardens. Gah.
 
  by: theironboard     09/29/2008 11:07 PM     
  science vs. religion  
 
sci·ence (sns)
n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

"The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation. Science makes use of the scientific method, which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis."

n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
 
  by: HAVOC666     09/29/2008 11:09 PM     
  the latter part is religion (obviously)..  
 
after the quotation about science.
 
  by: HAVOC666     09/29/2008 11:11 PM     
  @C.O.G.  
 
Please don't do that. You know perfectly well that you're stretching the definitions quite thin.

Firstly, the term 'evolutionism' doesn't exist in science but was created by creationists to paint 'the other side' as an opposing philosophy rather than science.

Secondly, in the science community, those who accept evolution don't do so on faith. They do so based on evidence. You have faith. Do you really want to equate what you have to 'gravityism' and other such nonsense terms?

Thirdly, becoming a monk is nothing like becoming a scientist. One is a spiritual thing. The other isn't.

Fourthly, science does know fundamentals, but not 'a specific fundamental set of beliefs'. And the fundamentals are not 'evolution and the big bang'. Those are the result of science, not what science was created for.

Please, don't say these things.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/29/2008 11:11 PM     
  my definition  
 
re•li•gion - A load of bullshit fed to the masses by people in power as a means to instill fear and keep control over a population. It can not be proven, but can be disproven; the latter will be disregarded as a "test of faith" by those who can't accept the truth.
 
  by: Mr. Wright     09/29/2008 11:40 PM     
  @ lmao at COG  
 
".... 5. the practice of religious beliefs (atheism)...."

You equate athiesm as a religious belief.

Man you're out there for sure.

 
  by: Tumbleweed   09/29/2008 11:45 PM     
  @COG  
 
You may interpret God's word to suit your beliefs, but non-religious definitions aren't so vague:

The difference between beliefs and theories are empirical testing. You cannot substitute one for another, just as an honest scientist cannot choose to disbelieve the evidence of a Theory because he does not like it. Further, those Theories are not held due to general agreement, but because they are evidenced by testing designed to prove them false. That is in stark contrast to religious practices, which is designed to celebrate and enshrine its ideas.

There is no "superhuman agency" at the center of the Big Bang theory. It's no more "superhuman" than a volcanic eruption.

Science is not ritual, which is something done for its own sake within a belief system without measurable benefit. Scientific processes are methods by which to test and observe natural processes. There is a tangible outcome beyond completion of process. Example: no one continues to test gravity because the Theory has been established.

Finally, the point of science is not to "slander all Christians." I know you don't get that self-righteous feeling from the fact, but most non-Christians don't care what Christians do, so long as they're not trying to elbow their way into places where their religion does not belong.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/29/2008 11:47 PM     
  @cog  
 
KJV:
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

New American Standard
for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God

Douay-Rheims Bible
Adore not any strange god. The Lord his name is Jealous, he is a jealous God.
 
  by: Jaded Fox     09/30/2008 01:53 AM     
  @MomentOfClarity  
 
Thou hath said, "The difference between beliefs and theories are empirical testing."

Exactly!

That's what faithmongers cannot understand. What science is all about.

Like you said, science requires experimentation. It also desires to genuinely know the truth one way or the other.

It is mandatory that a scientist accept the possibility that a favoured theory may in fact be wrong and be prepared to yield to that proof when and if provided.

Religion is the maximum deviation from integrity I have ever witnessed outside of politics. (And when they mix, forget it altogether!)

No conclusion can legitimately be called scientific or said to be supported by science unless the scientific method led to and supports that conclusion. Even so, it is still possible for more than one theory regarding the same phenomenon to meet this simple definition of 'scientific' without conflict with the scientific method.

No matter how reasonable something may sound, that just isn't good enough for science. Faith in science, like in religion, would (has and does daily) cause far more harm than benefit.

Religious tribal savages, with their abysmal, murderous, hypocritical record of humanity, have nothing to say relevant to my or any one's life today, unless I was an historian studying their culture. They were a textbook example of subhumanity in its grandest glory. The extinction of their culture is their single best contribution to humanity they ever made. Theirs are the only books proven worthy of being burned since they are the basis of the worst atrocities of history up to the present day and contain no knowledge of worth to anyone.

Unlike the beliefs of science, religious beliefs can be twisted to mean anything you want them to mean on a whim. One can quote the bible in defence of the death penalty while another can quote the bible in support of the death penalty while both sides declare the bible infallible and on their side. Same with any other issues one wishes to thump his bible over.


According to the Dictionary of Christianity in America [Protestant] (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990):

"As of 1980 David B. Barrett identified 20,800 Christian denominations worldwide . .

And that's only ONE religion!


If the Xxxxxxx religion is the ONLY true religion, then WHICH Xxxxxxx religion (sect) is THE religion, since they disagree (or there would be no differing sects) and often kill each other while thumping the same book in their defence, how do I tell? What test is there so I don't pick the wrong one?

Substitute your favourite religion for [Xxxxxxx] above and the problem is obvious.


I don't wanna go to hell, Mommy! Do good little boys who die get 70 virgins in heaven too? Wow, I can't wait to die!


Woe to the Republic.
 
  by: DeepSand   09/30/2008 02:49 AM     
  @MOC  
 
While scientific endeavor in general is based on empirical evidence, and the scientific process, the whole lot is just a house of cards resting on unproven assumptions which everyone has faith will work.

Inevitably, science is a matter of faith in the validity of observed results. Even the concept of existence at all is an assumption. Science deals with closed systems with artificially limited variables and then attempts to describe that system. That's cool, it's a good tool, but it's hardly fact or reality in itself.

What science needs is a healthy dose of perspective.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/30/2008 02:59 AM     
  Faith - Where's The Beef ?  
 
SoshiMaster

I think you are splitting hairs a bit too much. Not all faith is based on religion. It also can mean 'trust' based on rational premises, a totally different context than religious faith. They should not be equated or confused.

There is little that one can do that doesn't involve some form of faith or another. You have faith in your five senses too, but they still fool you sometimes anyway. That's why we do experiments. So we don't mistake an illusion for a real oasis and go in the wrong direction making our situation worse.

Science puts its assumed truths to the test to the best of its ability. Religion tells you what is 'true' and outright demands you believe it, often threatening cruel torments forever if you think for yourself. It doesn't say, "Let's try to test this belief and see, just to make sure."

I never heard any religion say, "Oops! I made a mistake and was wrong about that." God forbid!

Science at least makes an honest effort to prove its 'beliefs' are justifiable and admits to error when discovered. Science cannot and does not apply BLIND faith to anything. Scientific faith is reasoned faith, not unreasoning faith and certainly not religious faith.

Faith is why people were sacrificed to volcano gods and cast spells to cure diseases.

Science is why we stopped that sort of thing.

Science is trial and error and has never claimed infallibility like religion often does.

When proven wrong, science updates it books accordingly, and often, and great benefits result from those revisions.

Does ANY religion EVER admit to ANY errors and revise its books accordingly (on this planet)?

Imagine teaching science from a 2000 year old book written by tribal savages and never updated with a single new fact of any value in all that time!


The integrity of religion is inferior to the integrity of science. The obvious truth of that should be beyond debate.
 
  by: DeepSand   09/30/2008 03:32 AM     
  @ Soshi  
 
"....What science needs is a healthy dose of perspective...."

Bah, religous folks need a healthy dose of reality!
 
  by: Tumbleweed   09/30/2008 03:54 AM     
  @DeepSand  
 
I said science is a good tool, and that it describes closed systems with artificially limited variables and attempts to explain those systems.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/30/2008 04:20 AM     
  @SoshiMaster  
 
Yo - SoshiMaster

Not disagreeing with you for the most part. I just thought you were giving faith too much credit in science.

Trying to explain the virtues of science to any with a willing mind - without the horrors of maths. Obviously, mathematics is the work of Satan! I can prove THAT scientifically!
LOL

But when the accomplishments of religion are compared with the accomplishments of science, religion has little to nothing to brag about, little more than some fancy artwork and psychological solace to those weak enough to need it. A direct comparison of achievements vs. achievements and the benefits derived therefrom is about all it takes. No contest.

It wasn't the power of faith and prayer that reduced the bubonic plague, smallpox and other horrors to near oblivion.

To me, religion has lost its credibility and for good reason. It hides cringing in nameless fear behind beliefs it fully knows, or desperately hopes, cannot be tested or proven and smugly considers that to be proof of something extraordinary and supportive of its position. It's a fool's paradise and the potential quality of life reduced worldwide because of it.
 
  by: DeepSand   09/30/2008 04:54 AM     
  Ah  
 
Laughable. You know, God says, and takes credit for (rightly so, obviously) that not only did He create the Universe, but He also created SCIENCE.
Butja know what ? Scientists have not said they created anything. I would say thier demise will arrive quickly when they start boasting they created God.
 
  by: wvcoalminer   09/30/2008 05:03 AM     
  @DeepSand  
 
People always draw attention to the worst efforts of religion, and the best efforts of science.

Don't forget that science gave us nuclear weapons and the cold war, assault rifles and semi automatic pistols, blue fibre asbestos, massive levels of global polution, global warming, etc etc.

 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/30/2008 05:07 AM     
  Science Never Claimed Morality  
 
Its value lies in its lack of bias.
 
  by: ichi     09/30/2008 05:20 AM     
  @wv  
 
If god created science then why are you against it? Perhaps evolution is the method god used to create the Earth and every time you spit retarded & illogical dogma at us he rolls his eyes at you.

@TIB
You are my new atheist hero.
 
  by: lachs     09/30/2008 05:26 AM     
  Pretty Wild  
 
Pretty wild how everyone jumps on Palin and her religious beliefs. If she was Jewish or Moslem and said the same thing no one would have batted an eye. If it had of happened in the workplace they DEFINITELY wouldn't have uttered a word!

The separation of Church and State is a moronic statement when you consider the fact that most of the basic laws of this country governing personal welfare and rights, are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
 
  by: FreakKeeper     09/30/2008 05:27 AM     
  @ichi  
 
And there-in lies its danger too.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/30/2008 05:27 AM     
  Science/Morality  
 
Actually science does claim a moral stance. It says that people will evolve into BETTER (IE: MORALITY HERE) people. That the world will evolve into a better place (MORALITY HERE).

Evolution is a RELIGION, a HUMANIST RELIGION. And guess who is pushing all of this evolution stuff ? Satan himself, he doesn't want you to believe in God, becuase, if ya do, he will loose YOU to God, and have to burn by himself.

Try God, He loves ya and wants ya with Him in Heaven. :)
 
  by: wvcoalminer   09/30/2008 05:27 AM     
  @FreakKeeper  
 
Morality was around long before religion buddy, all the great apes live in structured societies too, have sex for pleasure, mourn their dead, engage in wars with foreign groups etc...
 
  by: lachs     09/30/2008 05:36 AM     
  @soshi, wv  
 
S: "While scientific endeavor in general is based on empirical evidence, and the scientific process, the whole lot is just a house of cards resting on unproven assumptions which everyone has faith will work."

Not at all. It's a compilation of investigated ideas that most everyone expects to work because they've been tested against failure by both friend and foe. What you've described above is religion, inronically. Indeed, "the whole lot is just a house of cards resting on unproven assumptions which everyone has faith will work." That's all that's expected of a religious cosmology, but a scientific Theory must be more.

WV: "Actually science does claim a moral stance. It says that people will evolve into BETTER (IE: MORALITY HERE) people. That the world will evolve into a better place (IE: MORALITY HERE)."

Actually, you have no idea what you're talking about. I can't put it much more nicely than that, because what you've just said is one of the most common fallacies held by the common man about evolution. There's no judgment about which mutation is better. Either it will help a creature survive or not, but no feature or adaptation in and of itself is "better," implying a "best." Further, better has more meaning than moral comparison, and morality is rarely applied to an organic change. All in all, yours is a VERY flimsy proposition.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/30/2008 06:03 AM     
  @Sishi  
 
Yes. I agree. With every solution comes new problems.

Recycling causes other pollution problems that recycling can't address, etc.

It isn't science that kills people. Like a box of matches, it's evil people corrupting science who start the fires of destruction. Science and religion consists of evil and good people.

Science is not a forced ideology, it is a factual methodology for the study of the cause/effect relationships of nature.

Science doesn't care who made the universe. It only wants to study it and figure out how it works. Nothing more.

Science makes the world more and more predictable and controllable. Religion has never done that yet. It strives to control people from cradle to grave and beyond. That's its only apparent purpose - a tool of social control in the hands of corrupt leaders.

Science , in spite of its warts, shows continuous benefits, while religions generally live centuries in the past and do not seem to contribute anything new of benefit. Day after day, it's the same old thing forever. That's worse than the worst of science. The worst of science is temporary. The worst of religion is forever.

It's a paradox.

Science is exploring space, while some religions are still, today, burning people as witches. Go figure.
 
  by: DeepSand   09/30/2008 06:06 AM     
  @Sushi  
 
Sorry about mistyping.

The flying fickle mouse button of fate.

 
  by: DeepSand   09/30/2008 06:08 AM     
  This...  
 
is me making a comment so I know where I left off in this thread.

I'll check back later. It's been some fun reading.
 
  by: erasedgod   09/30/2008 06:15 AM     
  @ MomentOfClarity  
 
Hmm. I guess this country hick is more stupid than I thought.

I jus kina figurd that when them thar Discovery channels shows all them thar fancy shows bout howz we gonna seez better, livez better, u know, just be BETTER (which, better to mez equatez to MORALITY) and howz the planetz gonna be betterz and howz weez gonna go and inhabits other planets and makes them thar planets betterz.....(eh, which once again BETTER TO ME EQUATES TO MORALITY).
Ah, I guess ima jus a dum ol hick after allz.

LOL
 
  by: wvcoalminer   09/30/2008 06:26 AM     
  @DeepSand  
 
S O S H I
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/30/2008 07:12 AM     
  Sosh  
 
The devil made me do it.

>:>

 
  by: DeepSand   09/30/2008 07:15 AM     
  @DeepSand  
 
S

O

S

H

I

 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/30/2008 07:17 AM     
  @wv  
 
Yup, you were wrong, or a troll, can't really tell where your obnoxiousness comes from. Doesn't really matter, I just care to swat down misinformation.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     09/30/2008 07:30 AM     
  Go Palin  
 
The Bible states that Earth is flat. We should teach that in Science class too.
 
  by: kmazzawi     09/30/2008 07:30 AM     
  @kmazzawi  
 
You're the last person I expected to fall into that trap:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/...
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/30/2008 07:34 AM     
  Not only the Bible ....  
 
Not only the Bible!

"The earth is flat, and anyone who disputes this claim is an atheist who deserves to be punished."

Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, Supreme religious authority, Saudi Arabia and author of a Muslim religious edict, 1993

NOTE: Ibn Baaz has since recanted his position on a flat earth



"The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment."

Yousef M. Ibrahim, "Muslim Edicts take on New Force",
The New York Times, February 12, 1995, p. A-14.


2 billion monkeys can't be wrong!

 
  by: DeepSand   09/30/2008 07:35 AM     
  Don't Forget the Marshmallows  
 
For comic relief:

Eleven elderly people accused of being witches have been burned to death by a mob in the west of Kenya, police say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/...




Two South African women have been burned to death after a group of students accused them of bewitching their high school with evil spirits.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/...




Anita Mandal and her two-year-old daughter were drowned in the River Ganga after a village exorcist in West Bengal convinced her relatives that the two were witches.

http://www.bio-medicine.org/...



http://www.skeptictank.org/...

A report earlier this year by Tanzania's Criminal Investigation Division said at least 101 killings linked to witchcraft had been reported in the first eight months of the year throughout the East African nation.






Lots of countries are relatively new. Some are only a few hundred years old.

Why are those young countries so much more advanced in technology than many others who have been around for over 3000 years, some even longer?

Why aren't those old countries far more advanced, since they had thousands of years to learn much more and should be far ahead of the rest of the world. A 30-year-old person should be wiser and much smarter than a 3-year-old for the same reason.

If the USA was over 3000 years old, would it still be holding witch trials and executions today?

A 300 year old country exploring the depths of outer space, while a country over 10 times older, that should be far more intelligent and civilized with thousands of years of accumulated knowledge, the "cradle of civilization", is still killing witches. Guess it depends on how one defines "civilized".

God bless religion. Without it, where would we be?

Probably seeking god in starships by now.

:)
 
  by: DeepSand   09/30/2008 08:23 AM     
  lachs, Kmazzawi, Daryl  
 
lachs

"Morality was around long before religion buddy, all the great apes live in structured societies too, have sex for pleasure, mourn their dead, engage in wars with foreign groups etc..."

Because you were there to see this for yourself... I get it now. you must be really good shape to be millions of years old and be able to function. What's your secret?

Kmazzawi
"The Bible states that Earth is flat. We should teach that in Science class too."

Isaiah 40:22
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

You fail!

Daryl-

You're still being disregarded.
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/30/2008 08:36 AM     
  @C.O.G.  
 
"Because you were there to see this for yourself"
We can see apes today. And yes, they mourn the dead and act altruistically. Without religion.
I'm sorry, but if non-human creatures with no sense of religion can act morally, then religion is obviously not the source of moral behaviour.

"circle of the earth"
The Earth isn't actually circular. It's spherical.
There is a word for spherical in ancient Hebrew.
So if that passage was meant to show the reader that the world is a sphere, it could have been much clearer.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/30/2008 08:58 AM     
  @Ec  
 
The hebrew word for sphere is the word being rendered as circle.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/30/2008 09:06 AM     
  So COG  
 
In Exodus god admits that he is jealous and rather vindictive. I put the quotes on jealousy up there somewhere.

I also say he has a vindictive streak because not only that he will punish sinner but the punishment continues "the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.” That sounds like saying that if someone commits a crime we should jail his kids the grandkids, the great grandkids, and the great great grandkids.

You say however that the deal changed in the New Testament. I guess having a kid really mellowed him out.
 
  by: Jaded Fox     09/30/2008 09:06 AM     
  Ec  
 
"Because you were there to see this for yourself"
We can see apes today. And yes, they mourn the dead and act altruistically. Without religion.
I'm sorry, but if non-human creatures with no sense of religion can act morally, then religion is obviously not the source of moral behaviour."

Even animals (non-humans) do what God called them to do. Why can't we if we're fully functioning and cognitive beings.

"circle of the earth"
The Earth isn't actually circular. It's spherical.
There is a word for spherical in ancient Hebrew.
So if that passage was meant to show the reader that the world is a sphere, it could have been much clearer."

Yeah, but a sphere is a 3D circle correct. Please stop nit-picking at wordage. That is OC. That passage just goes to show you that they weren't boneheads back in the day... keep in mind, that's B.C... as in the OLD Testament. They had that knowledge then.
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/30/2008 09:08 AM     
  Actually  
 
Let me strike that last comment, I was thinking of a different passage.

The Hebrew word rendered as "circle" in Isaiah is Chuwg, which means the scope or compass of something, it comes from a route meaning to encircle or enclose.

The phrase is not referring to the shape of the earth.


 
  by: SoshiMaster   09/30/2008 09:17 AM     
  Jaded  
 
"In Exodus god admits that he is jealous and rather vindictive. I put the quotes on jealousy up there somewhere."

Yes, He is worthy to pursue divine justice. God is Justice. But He is also forgiving. This is why Christ had to come and redeem us. If you look at the sacrifices in the Old Testament, they were a way to repair the relationship with God. Study the Atonement (Old Testament). The reason why we don't have to do this anymore is because Christ came down and offered Himself up for the ULTIMATE atonement and through Him, we can be made right with God. God's Justice, Wrath, and Fury were satisfied with the Sacrifice Christ made (FOR ETERNITY). God loves us so much that He gave Himself (Christ) for that sacrifice so we can be made right with Him. So yes, He is very vengeful and just, but also loving at the same time.

"I also say he has a vindictive streak because not only that he will punish sinner but the punishment continues "the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.” That sounds like saying that if someone commits a crime we should jail his kids the grandkids, the great grandkids, and the great great grandkids."

Sin is a disease. It is passed down from generation to generation just like physical traits. An example is, if I squander all my money and ruin my father's business, then my children don't have that business to pick up. That's my mistake passing down from generation to generation. Look at what MAN messed up in the case of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael. That is the VERY REASON we have the Muslim V Christian/Jew wars now... all because of the mistake of Abraham. Look it up in Genesis. Look at Moses, he jacked up getting into the promised land because the "religious folk" pissed Him off. Look at Cain, he murdered his brother for the sake of religion, he was cast out, and his decendants had to suffer from there. Religion is not what God wants. Religion won't get you into Heaven. Relationship with God will (through Jesus, who is also God).

"You say however that the deal changed in the New Testament. I guess having a kid really mellowed him out."

LOL! You's a fool for that one (that means you're funny). No, God didn't have Jesus as a child. Christ was there from the beginning... but Christ satisfied God's wrath. See earlier in this post. Check out John Ch 1 for Jesus/God's eternal relationship as ONE! This is some of it.

John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.



 
  by: C.O.G.   09/30/2008 09:21 AM     
  The Bible  
 
is myth information, simple as that.


Besides, any religion that had to debate among its higher clergy on whether women were human like man or were beasts... well, that doesn't sit well with me considering that all humans are inheritly female to begin with. (Whoot for Science! DNA and Chromosomes!)

...and woman got voted as being human by aformentioned clergy because to procreate with an animal is beastiality and therefore a sin.

Besides, God doesn't exist. Just a fairytale to explain what was unexplainable to the ignorant masses. Unfortunately Jesus' body was moved and it became a cult that's been polluting mankind since it's inception. Wars have been waged in god's name, each side pretty sure that god was cheering them on. I don't know if I'd want to follow a god that is sadistic with a wanton lust for death, torture and ignorance.

Oh, and if god is infallable, why did he a) create the earth and have it peopled b) think "oh shite, this ant colony I made is pretty screwed up" and then killed the vast majority of people and animals by flood (what a crappy way to die) and then start all over?? If god is perfect and infallible, why did he have to erase his blunder and start again with an incestuous family on a boatload of stinkin animals?

Brains are for thinking-- not to be used as paperweights.

Thank you.
 
  by: SpankytheClown   09/30/2008 10:26 AM     
  ...  
 
That whole last post made from someone named "SpankytheClown". I sure hope that the clown amused himself with those circus tricks he just pulled. Congratulations.
"Unfortunately Jesus' body was moved and it became a cult that's been polluting mankind since it's inception."

Because you were there and you saw that happen. I understand now. You actually documented them moving the Bible and put it in Science Weekly in an article named "Jesus did not resurrect, His disciples moved the body.", published in 33 A.D.
You fail.

"Oh, and if god is infallable, why did he a) create the earth and have it peopled b) think "oh shite, this ant colony I made is pretty screwed up" and then killed the vast majority of people and animals by flood (what a crappy way to die) and then start all over?? If god is perfect and infallible, why did he have to erase his blunder and start again with an incestuous family on a boatload of stinkin animals?"

He created everything to praise Him and bring glory to Him (He's God, He can do that). If you really want the answers, read Genesis 6. Here's why though.

Genesis 6
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

It wasn't God's fault that man messed up. Man chose to mess up. You won't understand that because you don't want to.

If you really want the answers, study for yourself.

 
  by: C.O.G.   09/30/2008 10:55 AM     
  @wvcoalminer & Other Zealots  
 
<deleted by admin>
 
  by: OneEightSeven   09/30/2008 11:58 AM     
  187  
 
<original of quote removed by admin>

That was very kind of you. I already have a child so, too late. Do you have any other solutions? Is one in your name?
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/30/2008 12:02 PM     
  C.O.G  
 
Sigh.

**Because you were there and you saw that happen. I understand now. You actually documented them moving the Bible and put it in Science Weekly in an article named "Jesus did not resurrect, His disciples moved the body.", published in 33 A.D.

>> Ooooh sarcasm. And I am to understand that you were there, that you saw the wee ghostie of Jesus waft up to the heavens like a popcorn fart, while recording it for posterity? You were there with your high-tech ghost hunting gadgets, maybe a photograph?? No? Oh, well where's your proof? fact is, there is no proof, only faith from people who were ignorant of how the world operated, you know, in a scientific sense. Why is it so difficult to think that Jesus had some loyal followers who moved the body out of the tomb (you know, which was located by where tombs of criminals who had also been crucified) to an undisclosed location and didn't banty the information about town, lest the wrath of roman justice come their way? That is much more plausible to me than the whole disappearing 3 days after he died because he went to heaven in which no one was there to record what actually happened. If someone had been there, a vigil being held inside the tomb and poof, in a cloud of smoke went the body of the savior... well, I'd be more inclined to lean that way. But fact is no one was there to witness this "miracle". Occams Razor. Hence I win, if we are going for points. Which I'm not, because that's just plain juvinile.

** Genesis 6
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

>> Ah, and god created this evil. He created man, gave them the choice and saw them become so malevolent that he drowned the world like an unwanted puppy. What a lovely, benevolent being there. "Opps, I screwed up, created assholes and now I'm going to erase their existance..." That makes god fallible. He screwed up. He created Lucifer too, right? Was he bored, looking for some entertainment from his fluffy white cloud? "Heh heh heh, time to create an arch nemesis!" If god is all knowing, he would have known Lucifer would have fallen and would be a soul-scavenger looking for war. So either god was bored and wanted some sort of diversion from the ant farm or he is fallible.

**You won't understand that because you don't want to.

>>You know, the same could be applied to you.

I don't know you personally, but every very devout christian who spouts off bible verses to prove something is like some nutty guy who is so proud of his junk (and by junk, I mean his wedding tackle) and goes around thrusting it in everyone's face, because it's the best thing ever!... so while I can respect that you take the bible as literal truth rather than allegory, I have no respect for when you stick your junk in my face, uninvited.

If you really want the answers, study for yourself.

>> You know, I did read the bible. I actually read it, noted how crappy women were treated, how presumptuous man was and how nasty temptered 'god' was and figured that if ANYONE took it for literal truth rather than allegory, they were lost causes.
 
  by: SpankytheClown   09/30/2008 12:17 PM     
  @cog  
 
I think people of your mentality are referred to as zealots.

Reading through the MASS of posts, I noticed a very serious inconsistancy:
You say that some of the sins of the old testament are now unnecessary as they were directed at a specific people and time.

Where in the bible is that specified? Where exactly does it say: "You still can't kill, but you can wear tie dyed shirts?"

It seems that you and your ilk are reinterpreted a misinterpreted text to suit your needs and desires. Either you believe in the scripture and follow it to the letter as a literal text or you don't. There is no middle ground, only hypocrisy.

 
  by: Twisted_Mister   09/30/2008 01:13 PM     
  Spanky, Mister Twisted  
 
"You were there with your high-tech ghost hunting gadgets, maybe a photograph?? No? Oh, well where's your proof? fact is, there is no proof, only faith from people who were ignorant of how the world operated, you know, in a scientific sense. Why is it so difficult to think that Jesus had some loyal followers who moved the body out of the tomb (you know, which was located by where tombs of criminals who had also been crucified) to an undisclosed location and didn't banty the information about town, lest the wrath of roman justice come their way?"
well there spanky... for one, Jesus wasn't a ghost when He returned to Heaven. Notice how he showed His hands (wrists) to prove it was really Him. In sound body. Ghosts hunting gadgets would have failed, quite like you just did. Your grade = F.
Here's why it isn't plausible for His disciples to have removed the body... First of all, the Tomb was guarded by some pretty swole guards ALL THE TIME, no disciple would've been able to physically get past them. Next, the rock sealing the tomb was too heavy to move, third His disciples (men of truth, even viewed this way by their peers) lived their whole life ane were even persecuted based on this truth. For them to state otherwise would be blasphemy, and that was a SERIOUS crime back then.

>> Ah, and god created this evil. He created man, gave them the choice and saw them become so malevolent that he drowned the world like an unwanted puppy. What a lovely, benevolent being there. "Opps, I screwed up, created assholes and now I'm going to erase their existance..."

Yes, He created man, man was made perfect... man was made with FREE WILL! Man used that free will and messed up, God didn't. Sin was spreading on the face of the planed like wildfire and God put a stop to it... Just like He's going to do sooner than you think.

"He created Lucifer too, right? Was he bored, looking for some entertainment from his fluffy white cloud? "Heh heh heh, time to create an arch nemesis!" If god is all knowing, he would have known Lucifer would have fallen and would be a soul-scavenger looking for war. So either god was bored and wanted some sort of diversion from the ant farm or he is fallible."

Yes, God created Lucifer (also with free will). Lucifer was the most beautiful angel and he got full of himself and challenged God. Lucifer's fault, not God's. Yes, God knew this would happen... that's why He created Hell. Hell and the lake of fire are for the permanent destruction of sin. I know you were being sarcastic, but God doesn't live a white cloud you clown. Read Revelations to find out where God lives.

" don't know you personally, but every very devout christian who spouts off bible verses to prove something is like some nutty guy who is so proud of his junk (and by junk, I mean his wedding tackle) and goes around thrusting it in everyone's face, because it's the best thing ever!... so while I can respect that you take the bible as literal truth rather than allegory, I have no respect for when you stick your junk in my face, uninvited."

Quick solution, don't open up your face for it to be shoved in to. If you don't wanna read it... DON'T.

"You know, I did read the bible. I actually read it, noted how crappy women were treated, how presumptuous man was and how nasty temptered 'god' was and figured that if ANYONE took it for literal truth rather than allegory, they were lost causes. "

That was the culture of the day... not God. God is Just, not nasty tempered. You my friend are nasty tempered, I am nasty tempered, the whole world is nasty tempered. You failed so try again.

Mister (got it all) Twisted

"Where in the bible is that specified? Where exactly does it say: "You still can't kill, but you can wear tie dyed shirts?"

That was a law for the people of that day to not be identified with the pagan, non Isrealites who were doing this to show their paganism. This was taking Pagan customs and inheriting them into their own. Kind of like tattoos later in the Bible. God wanted his people to be distinguishable.It is okay to mix fabrics now.

"It seems that you and your ilk are reinterpreted a misinterpreted text to suit your needs and desires. Either you believe in the scripture and follow it to the letter as a literal text or you don't. There is no middle ground, only hypocrisy."

You're right, but thank God, Christ died for that so we are no longer held to the punishment of the law. We will mess up, but we won't go to Hell for it if we've accepted redemption through Jesus.
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/30/2008 02:11 PM     
  @OneEightSeven  
 
Once you learn about Christianity, there is no such thing as "shutting up". You don' t keep your light hid. Howerver in YOUR situation, you would be wise to keep your head stuck up your ass.
 
  by: wvcoalminer   09/30/2008 04:44 PM     
  Here's a question....  
 
If Adam and Eve thought that being naked was so sinful, then why did God make man in his image, and why Jesus was born naked?

JUST WONDERING.

 
  by: theironboard     09/30/2008 05:06 PM     
  TIB  
 
They didn't think being naked was sinful. Once their eyes were opened to the knowledge of Good and evil, they thought evil thoughts and were therefore ashamed at their nekkidness. Before they sinned, they were in nekkid bliss.
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/30/2008 05:28 PM     
  You people are geniuses  
 
We have atheists screaming and cussing at religious people, and religious people bashing atheists over the head with their worldview. I'm confident this will be a very productive conversation and that both groups will find common ground here! : )
 
  by: l´anglais     09/30/2008 05:40 PM     
  @wvcoalminer  
 
I'm sorry to say this, but you're not a light. When you said, for example, that the Theory of Evolution claims that organisms 'get better', you were wrong. Very wrong. Truly, this is not a claim made by Evolutionary Theory. Objectively, you were wrong.

You have faith. But you reject science without understanding what you're rejecting.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/30/2008 05:41 PM     
  @COG  
 
What are all these people failing that you yourself are not?
 
  by: erasedgod   09/30/2008 06:11 PM     
  @c.o.g.  
 
Then why do Christians think being naked is so sinful? Why are christians so afraid of their own bodies?
 
  by: theironboard     09/30/2008 06:29 PM     
  @l'anglais  
 
"You people are geniuses"
I agree with the intent of your comment.

In my mind, atheists have good reason to be frustrated. Religion often crops up in various discussions, including politics. But since religion is supposedly unchanging and based on perfect morality, this often leads nowhere. As has been suggested in this thread, if it violates the religious code, it cannot be good. End of discussion.

That said, being rude isn't going to accomplish anything but convince religious people to reject the words of atheists. And vice versa. Which is pointless.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/30/2008 06:33 PM     
  @everyone  
 
Atheists, you guys need to stop being dicks about it. It gets frustrating trying to convince someone who thinks irrationally, but cussing them out does not help. Logic is your weapon. Use it wisely.

Christians, dinosaurs and man never coexisted. This is a fact. As for all your other arguments, try different sources. YOU CAN'T PROVE THE BIBLE WITH THE BIBLE. There were historians during Jesus' time. Try to use their documentation...

There is no documentation of Jesus during his lifetime? Geez, you'd figure that a historian from somewhere would at least mention Jesus, the son of God, who walked on water, turned water to wine, healed countless ill people, and created one of the biggest religions in the world. Nothing was written about Jesus until 30-60 years after he died. That would be the Bible. So again, find some evidence of these events outside the Bible.

I think I will use Narnia to prove Aslan is real.
 
  by: Mr. Wright     09/30/2008 06:52 PM     
  For The Dogma'd Christian  
 
Yes, that means you, wvcolaminer, cog, and whomever else thinks like these two. It definately discludes Christians like DarkAngelJG - she's a Christian, but doesn't come on the board preaching, she simply converses. She's the kind of Christian your Jesus would be proud of. She's the kind of Christian that bears true witness to your God.

Here is a song for you, it's from a band named "A Perfect Circle". It's called "Judith". It's about the neverending hole of crap you have let yourself be sucked into.

Having fouind this song many years afer my conversion from Christianity to Humanity, it fits perfectly what I was also stuck in for many years.

The text file is the lyrics, so it can't get censored (as it surely would be if I posted it, that's a "sensitive ears" warning.)


Judith:
http://bellsouthpwp.net/...


Lyrics:
http://bellsouthpwp.net/...
 
  by: Tumbleweed   09/30/2008 07:14 PM     
  I love these threads  
 
I saw a t shirt on Tshirt Hell recently
"I'm American, Entertain me"

I want a t shirt saying
"You're American, entertain me"
or
"You're a religious nut, entertain me"

There can't be too many countries out there as religiously extreme as the U$A.
 
  by: stretchman     09/30/2008 07:34 PM     
  @ Mr. Wright  
 
Just for clarification, in case your "athiest" statement was also directed towards me.

I am not athiest, I am anit-religion.
 
  by: Tumbleweed   09/30/2008 07:43 PM     
  @tumbleweed  
 
So are you agnostic then? That is the category where I would put myself.

There is a thin line between anti-religion and atheism. Could you clear it up for me?

BTW, love the Perfect Circle Reference. I believe lyrics to the song "Opiate" would fit nicely in this thread as well.
http://www.azlyrics.com/...
 
  by: Mr. Wright     09/30/2008 07:56 PM     
  The New Testament Was Compiled  
 
At the Council of Nicaea (Nicea) at the direction of Constanine the Great about 325 AD. 300 religious scholars were brought together to decide if Christ was devine. They were also directed to decide what writings were worthy of the bible and which ones were not. Man was to decide what was devine.
 
  by: ichi     09/30/2008 08:13 PM     
  make sure you're sure  
   
  by: crosimoto     09/30/2008 09:01 PM     
  @ Mr. Wright  
 
I'm just spiritual. It's not something I talk about tho. I feel that spiritualness should be soley between that spirit, and the human - period. Once it is put out into the open, it is subject to being tainted by those that believe it to be wrong (ie: it's not a religion, so it must be wrong).

It's amazing the looks I get when people ask me what religion I am, and I say none, they look at me in disbelief, as if I just told them I have no blood in my body.

I mean think about it, what they hell good is religion, towards spirituality, when all the religions do nothing but argue who's God is real.
 
  by: Tumbleweed   09/30/2008 09:34 PM     
  erasedgod, TIB  
 
erasedgod-
Man, I fail just like everybody else. The only difference between me and the next sinner is that I have been made right with God by accepting Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. I'm still just as jacked up as the next person. The area that they're failing at is not recognizing YHWH (God) as the Alpha and Omega and as God... which He clearly is. Plus I just like using the word "fail". It's pretty funny to me. It doesn't really mean anything other than that.

TIB
Good question, it's not that being in the full monty is sinful. It's just that we cause others to sin when we're in the buff, even scantly clad. If a woman is sexually attracted to me and I'm nekkid, I'm going to make her think sexual thoughts. You can also take drinking alcohol and use that for an example... it's not a sin to drink alcohol, but it is a sin to be drunk. Drinking is not the sin, but an evil intent in drinking is sin. I hope that kinda answered your question.
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/30/2008 10:19 PM     
  @ cog  
 
"... It's just that we cause others to sin when we're in the buff, even scantly clad...."

Bullshit. No persons causes another person to sin. That's to say that the naked person is in control of the viewers will. It's the viewer that chooses to sin or not.
 
  by: Tumbleweed   09/30/2008 10:28 PM     
  Tumbleweed  
 
"Bullshit. No persons causes another person to sin. That's to say that the naked person is in control of the viewers will. It's the viewer that chooses to sin or not."

Okay, you're entitled to your views... however, if I know someone is addicted to crack and I hand them a rock, they're gonna smoke it. Still their decision to smoke the rock, but I helped them do that. Same concept.

Like a preacher who has a large congregation. If that preacher is preaching the Word, but the next Saturday night is out at the club drinking and partying, some people are going to think this is okay, and in turn do this as well. The blood is on his hands even though the other person sinned since he lead them astray.
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/30/2008 10:32 PM     
  Oh Good Grief  
 
And if I hand a murderer a gun and he shoots and kills me, I am guilty to God of my own murder.

Jeebuz Christ on an upside-down cross, I've met some twisted xtians in my day, but you are definately the prize pretzel.
 
  by: Tumbleweed   09/30/2008 10:40 PM     
  Tumbleweed  
 
Why would you hand a murderer a gun?

"Jeebuz Christ on an upside-down cross, I've met some twisted xtians in my day, but you are definately the prize pretzel."

I'm going to go off on a limb here and take that as an insult. Oh well. Thanks anyways. I'm not going to argue with you!
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/30/2008 10:44 PM     
  @COG  
 
Here is a question that makes sense from a 4.6 billion year old earth idea but does not make sense from a creationist dinos lived with man idea.

There have been cave paintings from Europe, to N. America and really all over the world that have been discovered to be 10,000+ years old. There are human artifacts that are known to be thousands of years old. Arrow heads, tools, bowls. Even recent findings show that the worlds oldest building in Syria was is some 9,500 year old.

With all that said, how can you deny the existence of these people that were clearly here. We see their art, their tools, their lives and even their bones. Yet you deny these people existed? Why is it of all the cave paintings, not one has ever depicted a dinosaur with humans. There are pictures of horses, elephants, lions, etc. But not one single dinosaur painting.

Perhaps because this planet is much older than you think.
 
  by: slavefortheman     09/30/2008 10:57 PM     
  @tumbleweed  
 
Ok, so we are kinda on the same page. I say I am agnostic because I accept the existence of a higher being. I just choose not to define it, because I feel it can not be truly defined. I will not devote my life to worshiping something I do not understand.
 
  by: Mr. Wright     09/30/2008 11:00 PM     
  Slave  
 
Short answer. I don't know.

I've got questions for you, and please understand that I'm not trying to be a jerk... If a scientist/archeologist told you it was 9,500 years old through their testing, would you take it as truth?
Is there any chance that these cave paintings are made up? Is there any chance that these cave paintings were "monsters" to scare little children? How can you be 100% sure that the testing is accurate?
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/30/2008 11:08 PM     
  @ cog & Mr.Wright  
 
cog:

Why would you hand a crackhead a rock?
It was your analogy, not mine.

Mr Wright

You worded it perfectly !!
 
  by: Tumbleweed   09/30/2008 11:08 PM     
  Tumbleweed  
 
Drug dealers hand rock to a crackhead to make money. This is bad, don't get me wrong.
But seriously... why would you hand a murderer a gun?
 
  by: C.O.G.   09/30/2008 11:14 PM     
  Stalemate  
 
It doesn't do any good to argue religion with a religionist. You won't win. They won't change. It's a stalemate. Give up. ;)
 
  by: JonSmith     09/30/2008 11:17 PM     
  COG  
 
**Yes, God created Lucifer (also with free will). Lucifer was the most beautiful angel and he got full of himself and challenged God. Lucifer's fault, not God's.

But since god's creation ran amok, isn't he the one responsible? If your dog mauled your neighbor's kid, you would be held responsible. The dog would be put down and you'd probably have jail time and a fine. God doesn't take responsibility for his creations or actions.

**Yes, God knew this would happen... that's why He created Hell. Hell and the lake of fire are for the permanent destruction of sin.

So god was bored when he created all these things he *knew* would turn on him. That's a wise and all-seeing being right there. Efficient too.

**Read Revelations to find out where God lives.

You know, the last time I ingested any of the bible was when I ran out of rolling papers. Just doing my part, you know, the burning bush and all. (and that was sarcasm)

I'm abrasive, caustic and cantankerous. Nothing is gonna change that like logic won't change your views.

Out of curiosity, do you pick and choose which bible passages to follow or view the entire thing as absolute truth that you'll follow? I mean, if your kid has given you sass, you are supposed to chuck rocks at Junior until he keels over, per the bible. Hell, it even condones selling your daughters into slavery.

Pick and choosing which passages are valid to follow doesn't make sense to me when the entire bible is supposed to be *the word* of god. How can some of it be ok, and other parts taboo?
 
  by: SpankytheClown   09/30/2008 11:54 PM     
  Spanky  
 
"But since god's creation ran amok, isn't he the one responsible? If your dog mauled your neighbor's kid, you would be held responsible. The dog would be put down and you'd probably have jail time and a fine. God doesn't take responsibility for his creations or actions."

No, a dog doesn't have the cognition that man has. God created a full grown adult with full grown cognition. Adam made his decision on his own.

"So god was bored when he created all these things he *knew* would turn on him. That's a wise and all-seeing being right there. Efficient too."

Bored? No, He existed eternally in perfect harmony within His own Triunity. There's no boredom in that. But yes, He did know create the lake of fire to destroy sin, hell and death.

"You know, the last time I ingested any of the bible was when I ran out of rolling papers. Just doing my part, you know, the burning bush and all. (and that was sarcasm)."

I laughed. That was pretty funny.

"Out of curiosity, do you pick and choose which bible passages to follow or view the entire thing as absolute truth that you'll follow? I mean, if your kid has given you sass, you are supposed to chuck rocks at Junior until he keels over, per the bible. Hell, it even condones selling your daughters into slavery.

Pick and choosing which passages are valid to follow doesn't make sense to me when the entire bible is supposed to be *the word* of god. How can some of it be ok, and other parts taboo?"

We talked about this earlier. I'm not trying to dismiss you, but I don't want to repeat myself. It's late. See earlier posts.

 
  by: C.O.G.   10/01/2008 12:15 AM     
  So God Created Me Imperfectly  
 
Knowing full well everything that I was going to do before I was created. Then tells me that I have free will? That knowing that I would be evil and would not choose to be redeemed still made me to suffer eternally? I wonder if god is imperfect. If god is flawed then what? For god to change his mind would prove that god is not perfect. The whole concept is flawed.
 
  by: ichi     10/01/2008 12:27 AM     
  @COG, ichi  
 
Allow me to inject a few of my own opinions here:

"If a scientist/archeologist told you it was 9,500 years old through their testing, would you take it as truth?...How can you be 100% sure that the testing is accurate?"

There is no 100% certainty, but I would take it as a qualified statement, LIKELY to be accurate. There is no Truth, nor Proof, in science. In religion, the answer is in the Word, which is not to be questioned, guaranteeing certainty. In science, the answer is in the data, which is always to be questioned, guaranteeing constant fact-checking. I hope this helps you to better understand the difference.

"That knowing that I would be evil and would not choose to be redeemed still made me to suffer eternally? I wonder if god is imperfect."

The real flaw I see is not that He made people with the potential to break, but that He cannot fix them. OK, God wanted people to have free will, and that brings the possiblity of sin. OK, so while we're on Earth, he won't interfere so as to preserve that free will. But why, when we return to the other side, are the broken ones discarded when the Maker can apparently do anything and everything?

Then again, not all Christians believe Hell is either a place or that it is to be forever.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     10/01/2008 01:19 AM     
  To all evolutionists  
 
Read the book of Job.
 
  by: wvcoalminer   10/01/2008 01:25 AM     
  @WV  
 
The one where god decided to destroy a man's life just for a bet with the Satan? Yeah that was inspiring.
 
  by: Jaded Fox     10/01/2008 01:44 AM     
  @ cogt  
 
"....Drug dealers hand rock to a crackhead to make money...."

In your original analogy, you did not say if a *drug dealer* handed a crackhead a rock, you said if *YOU* handed him a rock.

You have become far past redundant.

Good bye.
 
  by: Tumbleweed   10/01/2008 02:37 AM     
  @wv  
 
That is one of the most viral and disgusting bible verses i've ever read.
God would've known how devoted to him Job was (god knows everything...), but just to prove it to SATAN he killed Job's family, friends and workers and covered him in painful sores.

Job is clearly a better man than god, maybe we should worship him?
 
  by: lachs     10/01/2008 03:02 AM     
  @lachs  
 
I've been a Job worshipper since 1986!
 
  by: vash_the_stampede     10/01/2008 05:42 AM     
  Here ya go.  
   
  by: erasedgod   10/01/2008 05:58 AM     
  MOC  
 
One of the discussions I have heard is that god died for all men's sins no mater who no mater what. The thought is that his sacrifice was to perfect to not resolve all mens sins.

But then I am an agnostic.
 
  by: ichi     10/01/2008 06:02 AM     
  @ erasedgod  
 
"....I don't steal 'cuz it's kind of a dick thing to do...."

LMAO !!
 
  by: Tumbleweed   10/01/2008 06:25 AM     
  Wow  
 
If there is one thing the religious and the non-religious share it is the inability/unwillingness to accept others who have a different point of view or belief. Everyone will leave this thread believing what they did when they came in but please, debate to your heart's content. My only request is a little less foaming at the mouth from some people. A difference of opinion is no reason not to show a little respect.
 
  by: ixuzus     10/01/2008 06:28 AM     
  @ ixuzus  
 
Some, like myself, are a bit justified in the blatancy of views. I know both sides of the religious scenario, from experience.
 
  by: Tumbleweed   10/01/2008 06:39 AM     
  ::Tumbleweed::  
 
You may have experiences as a Christian, and as an atheist, but that doesn't mean you've experienced what others have, or can speak for others as an authority.

It might give you insight into how they think, or what they believe, but unless you actually know definitively their experiences (which is impossible) you can only speak for your own.

Did you every have a vision of Christ? Ever speak in tongues? Feel the presence of God in and around you? Experience an inexplicable sense of knowing and rightness that washed away every doubt you had?
 
  by: TrollKallaMik   10/01/2008 06:50 AM     
  @wvcoalminer  
 
<deleted by admin>
 
  by: OneEightSeven   10/01/2008 06:55 AM     
  Tumbleweed, Ix, Ichi, Troll, 187  
 
Tumbleweed-
Okay, that's cool and all... but still, why would you hand a murderer a gun?

Ix-
Well said. I'll try my best to be respectful. I'm just so dang sarcastic.

Ichi-
"Knowing full well everything that I was going to do before I was created. Then tells me that I have free will? That knowing that I would be evil and would not choose to be redeemed still made me to suffer eternally? I wonder if god is imperfect. If god is flawed then what? For god to change his mind would prove that god is not perfect. The whole concept is flawed."

Well, you're both right and wrong. Yes, God knew everything you were going to do and has a plan for you whether you choose to accept Him or not. Keep in mind, God has the power to do in His nature. This far trancends human comprehension. God can take the evil things you do, and turn them around into good... this is a hard concept to grasp, I understand that. Once you're lead by the Spirit, you can understand these things too. You do have free will, yes, God loves you enough to let you make your own decisions. He already knows every move you will make though. Also, God works through predestination and election. He has already determined who will be saved and not saved from the beginning of time... I know you won't understand this and still understand how God is Fair, Just, and Right. Heck I don't even understand that whole concept. I just know that He is God and His reasoning is right. This, once again, trancends human comprehension. God is not flawed in any way. He is perfect. God change His mind? Nah, everything was predetermined in eternity past when it was just Him (Father, Son, and Spirit). People like to use the example of Abraham bargaining with God about Sodom and Gommorrah and how he allowed Abraham to talk Him down in number. No, God already knew this would happen and Abraham stood as an intecessor for Sodom and Gommorah. I can elaborate more if you need me to.

TrollKallaMik-
Beautifully put!

187-
Despite your harsh putdowns, I still love you and want you to experience the best.
 
  by: C.O.G.   10/01/2008 10:13 AM     
  @COG  
 
Your argument for ichi basically says we have no free will. That is predestination and gives everyone the excuse of "God made me do it."
 
  by: Mr. Wright     10/01/2008 06:18 PM     
  but it is a sin to be drunk...?  
 
'....but it is a sin to be drunk'

Says who? Why is it a sin? If you are drunk in your own home, watching football or whatever... who are you harming and why would your Christian god find this to be against his will, etc?

 
  by: theironboard     10/01/2008 08:53 PM     
  @tib  
 
the flying spaghetti monster works in mysterious ways...lol
 
  by: HAVOC666     10/01/2008 08:59 PM     
  Here ya go  
 
John 3:16

 
  by: wvcoalminer   10/01/2008 09:02 PM     
  @WV  
 
think about that passage...

if your father sent you to a group of people that he knew was going to kill you... most people would think your father was a sadistic asshole.

this is what i mean when i've said in the past even if there was a "god" like the one of the bible "it" would be worthy of worship anyways... even "satan" was a better father figure in the bible; encouraging indulgence in life, the aquisition of knowledge... while "god" is the overbearing mother sheltering the masses from the spectrum of indulgence in life and encouraging ignorance, who sentences people to "hell" "because he loves you".
 
  by: HAVOC666     10/01/2008 09:16 PM     
  I donot understand  
 
why people persist to give people like wvcoalminer, COG etc. a platform to spout their religious b.s.

in every thread they argue the same things, their minds are closed as are others who are clearly identifiable in their threads. I couldnt give a damn that they are religious except for the fact that they use thier beliefs to reject outright anything that brings those beliefs into question. Clearly they cannot be debated with or convinced of anytyhing, they let go of the ability for independent thought by blindly believing in something.
 
  by: dieu_7     10/01/2008 09:30 PM     
  @ dieu_7  
 
"....why people persist to give people like wvcoalminer, COG etc. a platform to spout their religious b.s....."

Somewhat a form of reverse pshycology. Everytime the likes of crazy religious views (such as in this thread) are spawned, it's testiment to everyone outside the religion just how close-minded (most) religions are. In essance, it's open verbal warning, from the religion itself, how dangerous religion can be.

Somewhat akin to "don't forget the past", this is don't forget the present, disabling it to propegate.

My 38¢ (inflation)
 
  by: Tumbleweed   10/02/2008 04:03 AM     
  @HAVOC666, dieu_7, Tumbleweed  
 
I don't view a God who would send His Son on a rescue mission despite the odds sadistic.
Satan encourages knowledge acquisition allright (sarcasm), the type that draws a person further from God. And Satan wants you to indulge into everything so he has you further in his trap.

The same could be and is said about evolutionists. Your minds are closed to anything but humans coming from apes. Of course, you evolutionists have been around for millions of years and seen all this happening, and know for a FACT that everything you espouse is correct.

To say science is not close minded is naive as well.

All in all, I believe in CREATION SCIENCE. The argument that is being put back in forth is answered in the book of Job. God asks Job where was he when God created the universe.........puts Job in his place.



 
  by: wvcoalminer   10/02/2008 12:24 PM     
  @wvcoalminer  
 
"I believe in CREATION SCIENCE"
There is no science in creation science. The name was designed to create the impression that creationism is scientifically respectable, but creation science does not follow the rules of science. This is one of the blatant lies that permeate this 'debate'.

When creationists are allowed to redefine science, they make a mockery of science and of religion. Quite frankly, it disturbs me that, in the US at least, very few religious people object to this practice.
 
  by: Ec5618   10/02/2008 12:37 PM     
  @wvcoalminer  
 
"Your minds are closed to anything but humans coming from apes."
That certainly wasn't true when this idea was first introduced. Deeply religious scientists embraced the idea at that time, because it made sense. So anyone who claims that Evolutionary Theory is accepted because of closed-mindedness is kidding themselves. The reason it was accepted was because of open-mindedness.

"Of course, you evolutionists have been around for millions of years and seen all this happening"
No. Have you? Are you saying it's impossible to figure out what happened in the past? We analyse crime scenes and accident sites all the time, and convict rapists based on genetic evidence. Are you saying we shouldn't? Are you saying we can't?

"and know for a FACT that everything you espouse is correct."
No. Scientists accept that they can never be absolutely certain. Which is why the Theory of Relativity, the scientific Theory that allows GPS to function, is 'still' called a Theory.
Why hasn't anyone ever told you scientists don't claim to know anything 'for a fact'?
 
  by: Ec5618   10/02/2008 12:48 PM     
  Bill Maher  
 
"God says to Jesus: Son, I'm sending you to earth on a suicide mission, don't worry, they can't kill you cause you're really me. But it is gonna hurt for a hot minute, I'm not gonna lie about that, you're gonna hate me but its the best thing for you son..."
Bill Maher on the Daily Show, check it out ;)

http://sciencereligionnews.blogspot.com/...
 
  by: baraka     10/02/2008 12:55 PM     
  You know what's scary  
 
I learned something from WV. I now know why America worships idiots while sneering at intelligence.

"Satan encourages knowledge acquisition allright (sarcasm)the type that draws a person further from God."

This belief kind of sums up the American attitude. Intelligence makes you dangerous and unworthy while living in ignorance is the path to righteousness.

Just look at one of the iconic American heroes, Superman, he's got a lot of power but not much in the way of brains. Even if you consider him above average, in comparison to his arc nemesis Lex Luther he's a moron.

What really scares me is that this is the same sort of thinking that lead to the persecution of Galileo and the various witch trials across Europe.

 
  by: Jaded Fox     10/02/2008 02:43 PM     
  Ah  
 
Those "deeply religious scientists" must not have been to deep into knowing God, or they would have rejected the idea outright.

There is plenty of science in Creation science, it is the mere fact that we worship the Creator, and give HIM credit for our creation, and not worship MAN like evolutionists do, that have evolutionists all up in a tizzy. LOL

Hey, I believe that God CREATED science. You think I am going to reject DNA and the like for crime scenes ? Not hardly. I bow down to Jesus, who created EVERYTHING, not evolutionary scientists who haven't created squat

And apparently, some of you can't discern a sentence. I said that Satan encourages acquisition of a TYPE of knowledge that leads you away from God. I didn't say KNOWLEDGE was bad. I said a TYPE. OMG, it is like trying to explain this to a 5 year old. You can't do it.

 
  by: wvcoalminer   10/02/2008 04:16 PM     
  That's pretty much the same thing  
 
they said about Galileo's theory that the earth was not the center of the universe.
 
  by: Jaded Fox     10/02/2008 04:33 PM     
  @wvcoalminer  
 
"Those '"deeply religious scientists' must not have been to deep into knowing God, or they would have rejected the idea outright."
Or, they didn't interpret the bible the same way you do. Your interpretation isn't the only one.

"There is plenty of science in Creation science, it is the mere fact that we worship the Creator, and give HIM credit for our creation"
So did the religious scientists I mentioned. What's your point?

"and not worship MAN like evolutionists do"
'Evolutionists' don't worship man. Many of them are religious and worship the Abrahamic god.

"that have evolutionists all up in a tizzy. LOL"
Nonsense. As I explained, it is the fact that there is no science in 'creation science' that irks scientists.

"Hey, I believe that God CREATED science. You think I am going to reject DNA and the like for crime scenes? Not hardly."
So you admit that we can 'see' what happened in the past, without having 'been there'.

"I bow down to Jesus, who created EVERYTHING, not evolutionary scientists who haven't created squat"
Actually, scientists have created quite a bit. You might have noticed some of the medical advances, for example, are born out of Evolutionary Theory.

"And apparently, some of you can't discern a sentence. I said that Satan encourages acquisition of a TYPE of knowledge that leads you away from God. I didn't say KNOWLEDGE was bad. I said a TYPE. OMG, it is like trying to explain this to a 5 year old. You can't do it."
I know how you feel. I feel like I'm talking to someone who will not accept that his interpretation of the bible might be flawed.
 
  by: Ec5618   10/02/2008 04:47 PM     
  Yeah  
 
"So you admit that we can 'see' what happened in the past, without having 'been there'."

By opening up the Bible.
 
  by: C.O.G.   10/02/2008 04:53 PM     
  @ Ec5618  
 
No, if those scientists was truely "deeply" religious, they would have rejected the idea of evolution outright. Thier faith in God was not that deep apparently since they jumped the band wagon to the evolutionary side.

DNA evidence at a crime scene is not radio-carbon dating. Two different things. What, you can't even discern that ?

Why don't you show me a human being that they have created out of dust? Better still, why don't you show me a living creature that they have created out of NOTHING. You can't, and will never be able to do it. And why don't you see if you can get some of your evolutionary scientists to completely destroy something so there is NOTHING there. No smoke, no ashes, nothing.
 
  by: wvcoalminer   10/02/2008 04:55 PM     
  @wvcoalminer  
 
"No, if those scientists was truely 'deeply' religious, they would have rejected the idea of evolution outright."
Again, no. They realised that the existence of evolutionary change does not mean there is no god. They saw a process by which beauty comes to be as evidence for their beliefs, not as a threat to them.

"Thier faith in God was not that deep apparently since they jumped the band wagon to the evolutionary side."
They created the 'band wagon'.

"DNA evidence at a crime scene is not radio-carbon dating."
That's very true. Irrelevant though. You claimed that, unless they were there, scientists can't make claims about things that happened in the past. Clearly, you see that isn't true.
You might not agree with specific scientific methods (whatever that means) but claiming that science cannot show what happened in the past is a nonsense claim. You shouldn't repeat it.

"Why don't you show me a human being that they have created out of dust?"
Don't be silly. You interpret the bible to mean that humans were created out of dirt. That's nice. But most Christians don't. They interpret the bible to mean humans were created by god, through means we cannot understand. They interpret the story of creation as a beautiful parable, instead of as bland fact.

Scientists don't claim to be gods. Please stop accusing them of that.
 
  by: Ec5618   10/02/2008 05:06 PM     
  @wvcoalminer  
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...

There you have it. Scientists have in fact created life
 
  by: Mr. Wright     10/02/2008 05:32 PM     
  Science hasn't created life from dust  
 
but it has managed to create the building blocks of life from carbon dioxide, ammonia, water, nitrogen and electricity. Experiments of this sort fall under abiogenisis.

http://www.sciam.com/...

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

http://www.news-medical.net/...
 
  by: Jaded Fox     10/02/2008 05:57 PM     
  Interpretting the Bible?  
 
Maybe people ought to pay attention to the Catholic church; they compiled it, after all. They have made clear that the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang are not in conflict with faith nor God's word. But I'm sure a bunch of Johnny-come-lately, born-again Protestants know better. ;)
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     10/02/2008 05:59 PM     
  @moment  
 
Too bad the Catholic church lost their credibility with the Inquisition, Crusades and child molestation.

They believe the Pope is infallible, yet the Pope has apologized for the mistakes of another Pope.
 
  by: Mr. Wright     10/02/2008 07:09 PM     
  I don't have any problems  
 
I don't have any problems with a believer in God being part of government. You can have Atheist scientists, Agnostic scientists, Christian scientists, Muslim Scientists, Jewish scientists. Government is for everyone both believer and unbeliever because that's how this earth is constructed in reality.
 
  by: myviews   10/02/2008 07:32 PM     
  @Mr. Wright  
 
Actually, the Pope's word (not the man himself) is infallible only under certain circumstances and on certain topics. That doesn't mean he's perfect or every word divine, but that when he speaks on certain things, his word is final. So, popes can apologize for mistakes of previous popes.

I'd have to disagree with their credibility or authority being compromised in terms of ability to interpret scripture. Firstly, moral errors have nothing to do with that. Secondly, if every religion that made a mistake were to be so outrightly stripped of its credibility, no one would be credible by now.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     10/02/2008 07:42 PM     
  @myviews  
 
and up until the past 200 years the earth was NOT made that way. believe in the church and state or be deemed a heretic/traitor and jailed/killed
 
  by: syoware   10/02/2008 08:00 PM     
  ".....worship MAN like evolutionists ....."  
 
Well, the secret's out, evolutionists worship the Great Neandertal Man, creator of the Sacred Flame.

This is actually becoming quite comical. Keep it up twisted Christians, you're making up for the crap comedy on the boob tube!
 
  by: Tumbleweed   10/02/2008 08:28 PM     
  @moment & myviews  
 
moment:

I agree with you. No religion is credible.

myviews:

I have no qualms about a Christian, even a fundamentalist Christian holding office. I do have a problem when their personal religious views adversely impact the liberties of those they preside over.
 
  by: Mr. Wright     10/02/2008 08:31 PM     
  Heh, A New X-tian Rock Band?  
 
"Twisted Christian"

"oh we're not gonna take it,
No, we're just gonna fake it"

I'm sorry to the real folks in this thread for that, but this whole scenario is redundant squared.
 
  by: Tumbleweed   10/02/2008 08:31 PM     
  @Mr. Wright  
 
It works both ways, why should you impose your views on them i.e Christians?

Democratic government encompasses both the believer and non-believer and should have checks and balances so that ignorance on both sides don't come out on top.
 
  by: myviews   10/02/2008 10:23 PM     
  @syoware  
 
Let's get real here. In the past 200 years we've had the Papacy, Communism, Nazism, Capitalism, etc. And yes they have all jailed/killed and called others that don't hold their doctrines heretics/traitors.
 
  by: myviews   10/02/2008 10:39 PM     
  @myviews  
 
"It works both ways, why should you impose your views on them i.e Christians?"
No-one claimed that respect, acceptance or tolerance doesn't work both ways. Mr. Wright certainly didn't. He doesn't find religion credible. But he never suggested imposing his views on others. Please don't haphazardly accuse people.

As for syoware's comment, again, you seem to see a conflict where none exists. You say that government is for believer and non-believer. All syoware said is that this is a relatively modern invention. He did not say that religion is inherently more evil than any other ideology.
 
  by: Ec5618   10/02/2008 10:50 PM     
  @myviews  
 
I never had any intention of imposing my views on everyone else. lol "my views"
Anyway, you have to see things the way Ec5618 explained. Everyone has a right to believe what they want, but imposing your view on someone else is wrong.

Example: A girl can have an abortion because she believes it is OK. She has acted in accordance with her beliefs. Punishing her would be imposing your beliefs upon her.
Atheists don't go around burning churches because they don't believe in God. That would be wrong because they are imposing their beliefs on Christians.
 
  by: Mr. Wright     10/02/2008 11:12 PM     
  Eh  
 
Actually the Bible was composed by the Jews.
And as far as the Pope goes, yeah he is fallible.
Of course I am a Protestant, so, I hold that view. :)
 
  by: wvcoalminer   10/03/2008 01:51 AM     
  @wvcoalminer  
 
"Actually the Bible was composed by the Jews."
Seriously? You think that?
Are you aware of the New Testament?
 
  by: Ec5618   10/03/2008 09:04 AM     
  WOW !!!  
 
This is a long thread.
 
  by: elzorro   10/03/2008 08:52 PM     
  @Ec5618  
 
Yeah, I am aware of the New Testament. Of course, are you talking about the New Testament the BOOKS, or the New Testament that God made with man ?
And, the new Testament was compiled by the Apostles, etc. ? Which, most of those were Jews. Of course, the New Testament (the New Covenant, and also the New Testament, books) brought into sharper focus that the Gentiles were included in the plan of salvation.
 
  by: wvcoalminer   10/03/2008 09:02 PM     
  @wvcoalminer  
 
Individual apostles wrote books. But the New Testament wasn't compiled by them. Have a look at the Wikipedia article on this subject. Specifically 'New Testament' and 'New Testament apocrypha'. These articles should tell you more than I could.
 
  by: Ec5618   10/03/2008 09:43 PM     
  Book/Testament/Version/Writer/Jew/Gentile  
 
Does it really matter what he meant? No matter what he says, the reply would be skewed to fit your (xtian in general) purpouse of the moment. And that, is subject to change at your whimsey.

A common tactic since religious proselytizing became the agenda of man's religion, instead of simply bearing witness to God.
 
  by: Tumbleweed   10/03/2008 09:44 PM     
  @Ec5618  
 
It was a retorical question. So please don't hazardly accuse people based on your misunderstanding of a retorical question. Also, as my name suggests, it's myviews so please don't tell me what to think or not to think.

As for your reply to my reply about syoware's comment. I just added more institutions that have done exactly the same as certain religious institutions.
So please don't distort my replies. Thank you.
 
  by: myviews   10/04/2008 01:29 AM     
  @myviews  
 
"It was a retorical question."
It certainly didn't look like one. It didn't imply the answer at all.

"Also, as my name suggests, it's myviews so please don't tell me what to think or not to think."
I have views on your views. Please don't tell me what view to have on your views. You get the simple point I'm making, I'm sure.

"I just added more institutions that have done exactly the same as certain religious institutions."
Exactly. You focussed on a perceived attack on your religion, instead of on the actual point being made. Which is what I addressed, and which you again failed to notice.
 
  by: Ec5618   10/04/2008 02:04 AM     
  @Ec5618  
 
Wikipedia is an unreliable source for information. It can be edited by anybody.
 
  by: wvcoalminer   10/04/2008 02:14 AM     
  @wvcoalminer  
 
Why do you bother me with this? If you find one source untrustworthy, find another. There are many encyclopaedic sources available to you.
Just look at the facts.
'New Testament' and 'New Testament apocrypha'
 
  by: Ec5618   10/04/2008 02:18 AM     
  @WV  
 
In the New testament they weren't all Jews. Paul was Roman.
 
  by: Jaded Fox     10/04/2008 02:52 AM     
  @WV  
 
Misread. You said most not all.

Anyway, what is your opinion of abiogenesis? You asked that we show what evolutionary scientist have created and there were two things brought up. I showed you that scientist can create amino acids and Mr. Wright gave you an article where they actually created something from it.
 
  by: Jaded Fox     10/04/2008 03:01 AM     
  @Ec5618  
 
Clearly, @Mr. Wright didn't inform me of his views, so believing that I must have been referring to something he didn't say seems illogical to me. My reply @Mr. Wright was made in a rhetorical way. I was simply saying, you/anyone, views can cut both ways. I made it clear to you. If you can't accept it that's your problem not mine. My statement is just that, if you disagree with views cutting both ways then let’s have that debate, else it’s a non-issue.

"I have views on your views. Please don't tell me what view to have on your views. You get the simple point I'm making, I'm sure."

No I don't get your point, because you have strayed into your own confused logic. But it seems you got my point. I'm sure.

"Exactly. You focussed on a perceived attack on your religion, instead of on the actual point being made. Which is what I addressed, and which you again failed to notice."

There you go again, telling me what you think I'm saying and putting words into my mouth. Where have I talked about 'my religion' when you say 'on your religion'? I added a further list to institutions to make the point that mostly all institutions succumb to certain evils. It's that simple. If you want to read anything into it, by all means do, as you have done so far. But I've told you what the intention of my reply was, if you can't except it, then argue with yourself, because I’m not running to your self professed tune.
 
  by: myviews   10/04/2008 03:25 AM     
  @myviews  
 
"My reply @Mr. Wright was made in a rhetorical way."
So you've said. But again, that wasn't at all clear. Which may explain why neither I nor Mr. Wright noticed your rhetorical intentions.
I'm not saying your question wasn't meant to be rhetorical. I'm saying it doesn't look rhetorical, so you shouldn't blame others for not taking it as such.

"No I don't get your point"
Telling people that they can't comment on your views is ridiculous. That was my point. And commenting isn't 'telling you what to think'.

"Where have I talked about 'my religion'"
Granted, you haven't. But you have taken a comment about the relative novelty of democracy and acceptance of different religions and atheism as an opportunity to defend religion, which suggests to me that you are religious. If you're not, so be it.

"But I've told you what the intention of my reply was"
And I've told you the intention of the words you're replying to, because it seems you still miss the point.
 
  by: Ec5618   10/04/2008 10:15 AM     
  Love it  
 
One little spark and everyone ignites!

Technically she's right, as many birds have been classified as 'dinosuars' - so man and dinosaur currently exist together today.

Kinda backward though - some scientists claim dinosaurs are extinct, yet others classify living animals today as such... and people thought religion was fragmented! :-P
 
  by: amplitude   10/04/2008 10:17 AM     
  @ Jaded Fox  
 
When was the last time a scientist merely spoke and a whole universe came into existance?
 
  by: wvcoalminer   10/04/2008 07:56 PM     
  @wvcoalminer  
 
Firstly, don't be silly. No scientist ever claimed to create a universe. And beside being generally pointless, your reply to Jaded Fox didn't address the question posed.

Secondly, I take it you haven't bothered to look at any of the information I suggested? Did you give up after discovering that Wikipedia is not perfect?
 
  by: Ec5618   10/04/2008 10:45 PM     
  @WV  
 
You said, "Why don't you show me a human being that they have created out of dust? Better still, why don't you show me a living creature that they have created out of NOTHING. You can't, and will never be able to do it."

We showed you how a living being could be constructed out of abiotic substances. Not exactly dust but chemicals and electricity. In other words the beginnings of life.

One more time...

What are your thoughts on these branches of science? Do you get why science is science and faith is faith? Experiments like the ones here can be checked and reviewed to confirm or negate their conclusions.
 
  by: Jaded Fox     10/05/2008 01:26 AM     
  Ok enough  
 
Ok I am bored with this thread now.
 
  by: wvcoalminer   10/05/2008 02:18 AM     
  @wvcoalminer  
 
"Ok I am bored with this thread now."

Aww... sore loser.

I am actually impressed that this thread managed to go on like it did. Quite controversial material.
 
  by: Mr. Wright     10/05/2008 04:18 AM     
  Over 300 comments  
 
This is the longest thread I ever saw. Wonder what the record is.
 
  by: Jaded Fox     10/05/2008 10:50 AM     
  Eh  
 
Not a sore loser. It is just boring. The Creationists (such as myself) and the evolutionists are just throwing the same stuff back and forth. And yeah it is a long thread. LOL
 
  by: wvcoalminer   10/05/2008 04:13 PM     
  takes a while to load this thread!  
 
I am the proud parent of this thread. We have spilled blood, gnashed teeth, pulled out our hair, screamed until our voices were whispers.... at the end we can all hug each other and weep in joy-

- until the next asshole says something stupid.





;>
 
  by: theironboard     10/05/2008 08:21 PM     
  @ theironboard  
 
OMG that last statement had me rolling with laughter.....
 
  by: wvcoalminer   10/06/2008 01:00 AM     
  @Stupid Parents  
 
Intelligent Design has no place in a Science curriculum and you don't even need the separation of Church and State to figure that out. Intelligent Design is not a Scientific Theory, instead it aims to find holes in a tried and tested theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, and so far it has been 100% unable to discredit Evolution in a legitimate way.

Evolution is considered FACT now by most biologists who know what they are talking about. The evidence is tremendous. The most powerful of all is genetics, something that Darwin was around too early to observe. You can look at the human genome and compare it to our closest "relatives" in the natural world; a chimp and a human differ by half a chromosome, for example.

Some incorrectly interpret this astounding fact as evidence of same designer and not common decent, but that's simply not true when you find Endogenous Retroviruses that were inherited as species evolved, you could mark these out of the massive "tree of life", they sort of serve as markers so we can follow back along a path, sort of like marking trees in the woods so you can find your way out again.

Comparative anatomy alone tells us we are all related, reproduction systems and the fossil record (YES, there are MANY transitional fossils, go to a real museum of natural history and ask to see Tiktaalik, for example).

One more thing I have to point out is that most people who disagree with Evolutionary theories like Natural Selection all admit that Evolution actually does happen "now", and we can watch it happen (by Natural Selection). Think of H5N1 (bird flu). Coming into contact with infected creatures can cause a human to contract it, but human to human transfer doesn't happen with the strains (although, there is reason to believe that on about 2 or maybe more occasions, it did happen). For this reason, most of the population is fine for now. However, when dealing with something as small as a virus, which replicates billions upon billions of times, the odds of mutation become so enormous that its guaranteed to mutate, and mutate and mutate all the time.

The fear is that a mutated strain will be able to infect a human and replicate and pass on human to human. That itself, is, Evolution, but the media refrains from saying so. From one strain came another strain more adapted to human beings.

For another example, there is a growing fear now that the use of antibacterial soaps in households around the world will breathe superbugs that could kill many many people in the world. Basically, on your hands are ridiculous amounts of bacteria and it is all over everything you touch (with some exceptions in controlled environments). So if you wash your hands with something that kills 99% of all bacteria (or is advertised as doing so), then you kill off everything except that last 1% of bacteria. Now that bacteria is free in its environment to breathe superbugs that you can throw anti-bacterial substances at and it won't matter, it will just keep on going.

That is an example of Natural Selection, the introduction of a chemical lethal to 99% of bacteria in an environment can allow the other 1% to thrive.

I know I have made this comment far too long already but I just wanted to add some details here because I am quite surprised at some of the comments I read here. One last thing, if you are wondering, like a lot of Evolution-skeptics, how we could go from single cell primitive life to massive life like ourselves, composed of billions and billions of cells, then ask yourself where you came from.

Think of how tiny a sperm cell and an egg are. The remarkable thing is those first hours after fertilization determine pretty much everything about how you will be composed when you are born. The 46 chromosomes (23 from mom, 23 from dad... so 23 pairs) will combine and create a unique building instruction set for a new human being. What's remarkable is all of this is determined so quickly (how tall you will be, what color your eyes will be etc) and then the vast majority of the development during pregnancy is building to that plan, simply growing cell by cell. This powerful process is made possible by the remarkable element "carbon". The important point here is that, the journey to human life begins microscopic, unimaginably small, and so did all of life on planet earth. So while we see this big world full of large creatures around us, all of it started at the microscopic level, from the trees and other plants to birds and reptiles, to everything, including us.

With all of the evidence and understanding of Evolution now present, the debate doesn't even exist. There are debates on how Evolution happened step by step, but not on whether it happened or not. It "did" happen. You can say it was God's work if you want, or that God kick started it and maybe monitored its development, you can even say it was the tool he used to craft Intelligent life if you wish, but you will have a terribly hard time
 
  by: Dela     10/06/2008 02:06 AM     
  continued  
 
(sorry, i went over the maximum and my comment was cut by the site, here's the rest)

...but you will have a terribly hard time trying to prove the biblical account as accurate, especially when you realize just how and why the Bible itself was compiled, and from what... and by who.

So to sum up, Evolution is a scientific theory, Intelligent Design is not even a theory. It's Creationism in disguise, seeking to subvert the U.S. Constitution by manufacturing dissent and controversy about the origin of human life, and the complexity of all life. The "teach both sides" argument then is also nonsense, you are free to teach the Bible at "Sunday School", but Science is the study of the Natural world and I.D. / Creationism is outside of this realm... it is not Science by definition and so it cannot be taught in a Science class.

Thomas Jefferson referenced "a wall of separation" in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, and so far it has been upheld relatively well when it comes to Science education. Those of you who want to undermine the founding fathers of the U.S., like Sarah Palin, go ahead and try, but remember you have a battle you cannot win. (I also find it amusing that the most outspoken opponents of the separation are usually very much in love with the Second Amendment that grants citizens the right to keep and bare arms. Are you sure you want to have another Amendment considered even more important changed? ;-) don't try make precedents now, it will come back to bite you on the ass ;-) )
 
  by: Dela     10/06/2008 02:11 AM     
  My favorite mixed animal  
 
is still Archaeopteryx. I admit the fish fingers are pretty cool but come on. Flying feathered lizards. How can you beat that?
 
  by: Jaded Fox     10/06/2008 04:25 AM     
  @ Dela  
 
At one point you say evolution is fact, and then theory? Which one ya think it is?
Well, without a doubt it is theory.
Furthermore, the Bible was taught in the colonies.
And for separation of church and state, I am all for it. But as far as the Bible being taught, I say go for it, especially in historical context.
Oh and the debate continues on the lie called evolution, and will continue until Christ returns to lay that garbage to rest. Of course, evolutionists don't like to hear that, because their "intellect" has been challenged. LMAO
 
  by: wvcoalminer   10/06/2008 05:16 AM     
  Uh hum! I'm afraid that I can prove that  
 
That there is not a teapot floating in orbit around mars ... now about that 300 billion year old thing....I need to see something a little more tangible than barney the dinosaur said so. K:)
 
  by: JP_Allison   10/06/2008 06:31 AM     
  I'm going to go out on a limb for the bible haters  
 
Written by a bunch of dudes in England. Please don't even attempt to entertain me with your ignorance. Disiples removed body in 33AD. Written by the pharisees for public consumption. Oh no! no conflict of interest there. And WHY would they say such a thing? Maybe because the body of Jesus was not there. Wait!whats that NO BODY! Did they not request a roman guard to watch the tomb for just such a reason? And Why did the deciples steal the body of Christ....oh yeah I forgot, to make themselves rich by becoming T.V. evangelists. Oh and to make sure they all were martyred befor they spent their millions. This is particularly ignorant when all that they had to say is that their testimony was false. Testament ...I John testify that I saw.... Some peoples powers of deductive reasoning are UNDERWHELMING.

Well.......any takers? or are you just going to talk about my horrible puctuation.
 
  by: JP_Allison   10/06/2008 07:08 AM     
  @wvcoalminer  
 
"At one point you say evolution is fact, and then theory? Which one ya think it is?"

I said most biologists, especially any with knowledge of genetics and without a paycheck from a corrupt organization (like Liberty University & The Discovery Institute... not to be confused with the Discovery Channel..), will consider Evolution as a fact. However, since we don't have a time machine to go and actually watch the last 4 billion years of Earth's history, there is always going to be debate and new discoveries about how Evolution occurred... that is Evolutionary Theory, and the most powerful theory is Natural Selection. Fossils are discovered, we see Evolution happen moreso now than ever in Nature, we crack the code of life (genetics) from more and more species and compare them to others and our own and see just how related we are to EVERYTHING alive on this planet.

"And for separation of church and state, I am all for it. But as far as the Bible being taught, I say go for it, especially in historical context."

I don't see any problem with teaching religion as long as it isn't state-sponsored indoctrination to any particular church or faith, and don't fool yourself, this is what the Pat Robertson's of America want. In the UK, faith schools are _right now_ denying children a proper Education, the worst of all being Islamic schools, funded by Saudi Arabia itself. Religion is an important topic because such a large amount of the world's population is religious in one way or another.

However, the argument in I.D. vs. Evolution is not whether to teach anything about religion in schools, it's about teaching non-Science in a Science class or part of a Science curriculum. I explained already that I.D. isn't even a theory and there is NO legitimate controversy among the Scientific community. In fact, the Intelligent Design pushers, namely the Discovery Institute, don't even try to push their "theory". They don't publish articles to Scientific journals, the same which have led to world-changing discoveries and advancements in areas like health care and sanitation, they do not engage in peer review either (most didn't turn up when I.D. was put on trial in Dover in 2005 and was exposed by a Judge the I.D. guys thought would ignore the facts and give I.D. the pass for textbooks because he was recommended by Senator Rick Santorum)

All other Scientific theories are put through the strictest of scrutiny before they are deemed fit for the text book and none has been as ripped apart and had more demanded of it than Evolutionary theory. In all areas, it passes with flying colors. You will hear B.S. claims about fake fossils, lack of transitional fossils and other lies that are spread around, but if you are brave enough (and I mean brave enough to overcome your obvious bias) then you can see these lies exposed right here on the Internet.

"Oh and the debate continues on the lie called evolution, and will continue until Christ returns to lay that garbage to rest. Of course, evolutionists don't like to hear that, because their "intellect" has been challenged. LMAO"

I invite God to intervene at any moment to tell us all just how much we are wrong. The fact is, you and millions of people will die waiting for Christ to set the record straight, and I don't mean that in an offensive way, I promise, I am just telling you this because millions of people have already died convinced they would see Christ return. In fact, every generation of Christians think they are the key generation to Jesus coming back, so far, all have been wrong.

I find it hilarious that people like you attack "Intellect". If you want to move to Afghanistan where the Taliban has banned anything remotely resembling progress then go ahead. If not, then look around you and marvel at what the human intellect can create. From vehicles that travel millions of miles across the vaccum of space to study a whole new world right back to the chair you are now sitting on right now.

Everything we see designed, has been designed by human intellect. I know for a fact that without anti-biotics, anti-septic and other major discoveries, I'd be dead now. The same goes for most people who will read this message. Without "intellect", take a look at the world you would live in now my friend. I picked Afghanistan because its a baron wasteland for the most part. The taliban even banned trees. But even thats far advanced over what we'd have, they certainly wudnt even have clothes.

So you might want to think before you type, that's all I'm saying.
 
  by: Dela     10/06/2008 07:12 AM     
  one thing  
 
btw, before anyone wants to point it out to me, im aware that the taliban are not in control of Afghanistan now. I am talking about the after effects and what affect it has there that the taliban still operates and executes people for anything they deem out of order.
 
  by: Dela     10/06/2008 07:21 AM     
  @ Dela  
 
Good grief this thread is becoming a novel of interesting sorts.
Let me do this quickly, so that I can put forth my view, and so I will not be adding to an already long thread more than needs be.
#1. I believe without a shadow of doubt, that a loving God (the Trinity, IE, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost) created the earth in six literal 24 hour days, and rested the 7th day (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown)
#2. Evolution is just a THEORY. (well, it is much deeper than that actually). It is, I believe in faith, a lie propagated by Satan to draw man from a loving God. THAT BEING SAID, I believe that in public schools, it should be stated UP FRONT, that evolution is JUST A THEORY. And on the other side of the debate, is people who believe in ID and also Creationists (I being of the latter, that is, the faith view held in #1) who believe in a 7 day creation week. Then go on from there, and go ahead and teach science from an evolutionary THEORY VIEW. Why do I say that? Because, the faith side has already been stated, and will create interest in those who wish to follow it more. This still allows the separation of church and state. And, it allows people to study science without a religous slant.
#3. I should have been more specific on the "intellect" comment. People are not thinking the way I am thinking when I post such things, and I have to explain more. Intellect is a good thing, I am all to aware of that. I was specifically trying to bring into focus the "held notion or idea or belief in evolution" as a source of ego, and not solid proof.
#4. You can say, well there is proof. No you can't. WHY? Just the same as I cannot convince you of "proof" of the 7day creation week, you or anyone else who believes in evolution, can offer no proof. BECAUSE YOU OR I OR ANYONE ELSE WAS NOT AROUND TO WITNESS EITHER ONE. It is a matter of FAITH either WAY.
End of argument.
 
  by: wvcoalminer   10/06/2008 07:46 AM     
  @wvcoalminer  
 
OK, I'll give my responses to your points, thanks for making it easy, and agree this thread is very messy at the moment.

"#1. I believe without a shadow of doubt, that a loving God (the Trinity, IE, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost) created the earth in six literal 24 hour days, and rested the 7th day (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown)"

As put forth in the Bible. I believed it too once, but only because I had been brought up to believe it. It didn't take very long for it to fall off. You are dealing with certainty here. Absolute certainty. You claim absolute truth (beyond a shadow of a doubt) and you cannot provide any sort of evidence to back up the claims you make, other than the Bible.

You got your beliefs no doubt from your parents. The reason you have these beliefs however is because you were born in the generation that you were, and your geographical location. If you were born earlier and elsewhere, you'd believe something totally different and claim it as absolute truth too. The thing about the God you believe in, the Judeo-Christian God, is that he is only one of many many Gods people believed in. I assume I am correct to say we are all Atheists when it comes to Thor or Wotan. For some of us, there is no difference between these past Gods and the Judeo-Christian God.

But the important point here is you claim Absolute Truth in that you believe it beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I assume base your life upon the assumption that it is true.

(continuing in new comment)
 
  by: Dela     10/06/2008 08:31 AM     
  @wvcoalminer (2)  
 
"#2. Evolution is just a THEORY. (well, it is much deeper than that actually). It is, I believe in faith, a lie propagated by Satan to draw man from a loving God. THAT BEING SAID, I believe that in public schools, it should be stated UP FRONT, that evolution is JUST A THEORY. And on the other side of the debate, is people who believe in ID and also Creationists (I being of the latter, that is, the faith view held in #1) who believe in a 7 day creation week. Then go on from there, and go ahead and teach science from an evolutionary THEORY VIEW. Why do I say that? Because, the faith side has already been stated, and will create interest in those who wish to follow it more. This still allows the separation of church and state. And, it allows people to study science without a religous slant."

That's the usual response I get - "Evolution is just a theory". The problem with this response is everything in Science is a theory at some level. Gravity itself is something we all observe every single day and yet its still theoretical, and not as basic as it may seem. It is a phenemon nowhere near understood, it baffles even the best minds in how it behaves and it causes all kinds of problems for the standard model of physics. Yet, we still know "gravity" exists. Why? Because we can measure it. We can test it. We can look through telescopes and watch the fierce battle of 2 MASSIVE galaxies caught in a gravitational dance before finally slamming together to form a single galaxy.

The same is for everything in Science, including Evolution. If you believe really that Evolution was created by Satan, then you must believe that Satan wrote the code of life itself. Genetics determines and defines everything about us and all other life on this planet, and it is the single greatest piece of Evidence held in favor of Evolution. If it were a murder case, you literally just walked in on the murderer stabbing the victim and conveniently all members of the jury walked in with you... and there just happened to be 10 million CCTV cameras in the area looking directly at it... that is powerful it is. I have read a lot of the Bible, I know what the Christian account for everything is, and I'm telling you that at the very least, there is nothing wrong with you taking a look yourself at how genetics proves Evolutionary theory is on the correct path.

Basically, there are many accounts of how complex and seemingly designed life exist on Earth. Christians generally believe the Biblical account, as you do, but there are other faiths, and other accounts, and many people who believe theirs just as much as you do, and in as much detail. For a curious person, this can be a lot of different beliefs to choose from, but they are so radically different, yet so specific. So the logical thing to do is to take a look at nature itself. What you discover is that, of course, they aren't all right. In fact, at least when it comes to human life, none of them are.

There is a fundamental difference between Creationists and Scientists or people who believe Evolution to be accurate. Only one side of it needs Evidence, the other disregards or makes up Evidence. You know which order these are in. People like Kent Hovind have shown a remarkable capacity to lie for Jesus (I assume its for Jesus), and it's worse because he will actually lie to the people who buy his DVDs (he even went to jail for tax fraud... yet he's loved by Creationists everywhere).

With all respect my friend, Creationism has nothing backing it up. It has no hints in the Natural world of being remotely accurate. Evolution on the other hand has tremendous amounts. At one time the difference in chromosomes between Chimps and Humans was a real problem for Evolution for example. Chimps are the closest thing to us that we know of, you can line up the genetic information and just take a look at how similar we are.

However, there was a big problem. Chimps have 48 chromosomes, humans have 46, which seemed at first to be a real problem for anyone claiming descent. 46 chromosomes is 23 pairs (23 from mom, 23 from dad... its just accurate Science that you can look at in the lab) and chimps then have 24 (24 from mom, 24 from dad). What was discovered was remarkable. When compared, two chimp chromosomes actually had fused together to create 1 which is found in humans, not chimps. This was an example of how a huge problem for Evolution became one of its biggest pieces of Evidence ever. The actual fusion site was even located. The fused chromosome is now Human Chromosome Number 2. All the time, we see Evolution get stronger.

It's actually only within the last few months that a Scientist witnessed the Evolution of a new flower. While that might not seem very interesting, a flower is a living thing, it is life itself. I can't remember names but I'll certainly look for the articles for you if you ask, but what had happened is two flowers, which if I remember correctly, growing on the side of riverb
 
  by: Dela     10/06/2008 08:32 AM     
  @wvcoalminer (2b)  
 
(Sorry, again I overran the maximum, I promise from now on I'll keep it shorter...)

...a flower is a living thing, it is life itself. I can't remember names but I'll certainly look for the articles for you if you ask, but what had happened is two flowers, which if I remember correctly, growing on the side of riverbeds can sometimes produce a hybrid flower. Let's call them Flower A and Flower B. They were genetically similar enough to produce offspring, a lot, however, the offspring was always either sterile or simply had no other flower like it to produce any more itself.

However, the author of the article on this, who was well aware of this process taking place, noticed one day an abundance of these new flowers, way more than you would usually expect. So he went to the lab where he discovered that this was a whole new species of flowers, descended from A and B. So we now have C, a whole new species that will continue to produce offspring and grow. This might not seem like a wonderful example, but thats only within recent times, and there has been a LOT of time.

Creationism on the other hand, is a closed system. Creationists themselves (at least those who are most outspoken) only try to poke holes in Evolution and basically, shove God in. The problem with this is, it's easy to expose a lie, and it gets done time and time again. I have no problem with anyone believing a biblical account, but to attack a legitimate area of research as a result and try to block it from other people, is a sinister act. A researcher at the Vatican put it best when he explained that Creationism / Intelligent Design, as they are, not only have the power to seriously damage Scientific Research, but also will destroy religion.

(continuing in new comment, sorry for length)
 
  by: Dela     10/06/2008 08:37 AM     
  @wvcoalminer (3)  
 
"#3. I should have been more specific on the "intellect" comment. People are not thinking the way I am thinking when I post such things, and I have to explain more. Intellect is a good thing, I am all to aware of that. I was specifically trying to bring into focus the "held notion or idea or belief in evolution" as a source of ego, and not solid proof. "

Oh Ok, I think I get what you are saying. I don't think that there is much difference between people who believe in Evolution and who don't in most cases, I'm 100% sure most people aren't really interested in their origins. The problem I have though is when people dismiss Evolution, or attack it, when they haven't even studied it to see what its all about. They simply attack because they are told to, and I have a problem with that for an obvious reason.

"#4. You can say, well there is proof. No you can't. WHY? Just the same as I cannot convince you of "proof" of the 7day creation week, you or anyone else who believes in evolution, can offer no proof. BECAUSE YOU OR I OR ANYONE ELSE WAS NOT AROUND TO WITNESS EITHER ONE. It is a matter of FAITH either WAY.
End of argument."

Evolution is not a matter of faith. Evolution is far from a closed book, there are things to understand about it yet. Evolution only is so popular because it has so much evidence to back it up. It's like with an earlier reply I talked about witnessing a murder. What I meant by that is that there is so much evidence in favor of Evolution that it's like coming to a murder scene where the aftermath and events of it so blatantly point accurately to the murderer.

Human beings live only on average, not long over half a century. We only are able to see things in the correct spectrum, and they have to be big enough. We cannot see the microscopic life that actually dominates this planet at all. It's simply too small for our visual systems to witness, but we can see it with help.

That's the reason why we now know that illness is not evil spirits or curses, its disease and pathogens. We can watch in the labs how these things attack humans, and how human's have systems that fight back. We know this as fact, it is undeniable, you can look at it with the appropriate technology.

In the same way, we can see the evidence of Evolution all around us. There are things in medicine and health that depend on Evolution being correct to work, and it works. It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of Evidence.

Some think the Bible to be a reliable source of Evidence. I don't. The reason I don't is because I have watched many programmes and read many articles and books about the origin of the Bible itself. I have read comparisons between the Bible and what we know as historical fact, and with everything I've taken in, I cannot consider it accurate.

(to be continued... again... 1 more ;-) )
 
  by: Dela     10/06/2008 08:49 AM     
  @wvcoalminer (4)  
 
I have also seen the striking similarities between the Christian story. The account of Jesus' life has seemingly original details which actually turn out to be abundant in ancient times. Historians have found mountains of other details about God's and saviors that share virgin birth, crucifixion, 3 day death and resurrection, similar titles (Light of the World, The God Shephard etc. originate with Horus of 3000B.C.) similar miracles even similar scripture. The list goes on and on. The bible itself contains contradictory information like two creation stories, and seemingly eye-witness accounts from documents dated long after the alleged death of Jesus. Numerous figures lived in the region that documented so much that now gives us an idea of the times, but none have solid proof evidence of Jesus doing anything remarkable.

Also, it doesn't help that the Bible was compiled of selected texts, and others from similar time periods, etc. were rejected, a lot of the time because they contained obviously overwhelming false information.

I'm not typing this to challenge you though, you explained what you believed to me and I am explaining to you why i can't believe it. I will not say there is no God, because I don't know that. If God exists, I don't believe, based on what I know, that he is as depicted in the Bible. But for all I know, there is a God "above" or "out there", I can't and wouldn't try to disprove that.

Either way, I think I have replied to your messages as best I can (at least I'm thorough eh? ;-) and I also try to always keep everything nice and calm). I have a lot of religious friends, Christians of all sorts, a few Jews and a couple of Muslims, I don't discriminate, but I don't hesitate to debate of defend myself either, and I wouldn't expect any less from you or anyone else.

Peace brother!
 
  by: Dela     10/06/2008 09:01 AM     
  Dela  
 
Whatup homie? I don't mean to butt in, but you have respectable view, but check this out...

http://www.gotquestions.org/...

"Also, it doesn't help that the Bible was compiled of selected texts, and others from similar time periods, etc. were rejected, a lot of the time because they contained obviously overwhelming false information."

I can't explain that either... but these are the basic fundamentals of Christianity. (Taken from carm.org).

Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).
Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14).
Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4).
The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).
There is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8).
God exists as a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (See Trinity).
Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary (nature of incarnation)

For you to be saved, you don't have to have all of the books in the Bible or be completely knowledgeable of all of the texts (in the Bible or not) or perform any specific action (since we are saved by grace through faith). So therefore, the promise is good to the educated as well as those who just know and trust in the basic principles.

"If God exists, I don't believe, based on what I know, that he is as depicted in the Bible."

Not trying to bug you here, but why not?
 
  by: C.O.G.   10/06/2008 09:37 AM     
  @C.O.G.  
 
You're not butting in :-)

As I said in a previous post, I have read a lot of the Bible in my life so far. I was raised Christian and in my country (Ireland), religion is taught as a stand-alone subject (so there is no Creationism in Science classes, generally at least). The things you told me about Christianity I also learned a long time ago.

For somebody who really believes the Christian doctrine it can be hard I'd assume to hear from someone else who is not convinced. I am not convinced and haven't been for a very long time. I debated this as far back as Secondary (High) School when I basically asked the questions that nobody else asked about the story.

I don't like to make a case of "Science vs. Religion", I honestly don't, because it doesn't help, but I would be lying if I didn't admit that what I learned from Scientific Research has me almost convinced that the Christian God does not exist.

I say "almost" because I believe its important never to rule anything out. Instead it seems really improbable to me that this figure actually exists, but I won't say it with certainty as absolute certainty that he/it does exist is also hard for me to understand.

Firstly, before I went on a quest of several years being interested in this topic, I had noticed things that were a bit "off". Firstly, the loving God that I was told about in church turned out in the Bible to actually be quite ruthless and cruel at the same time. Make no mistake, this character is scary and I'm convinced that most people have no idea that is in the pages of the Old Testament.

I understand many Christians instead point out Jesus' message, and say that the New Testament is what should be followed etc. However, even with the excessive cruelty depicted in the Old Testament, it strikes me as odd that we should consider the introduction of the concept of "Hell" (as it doesn't appear in the Old Testament) to be something of an upgrade, from a moral point of view. Post-death torment until the ultimate end seems infinitely more cruel than simply having your life taken from you, even if it was done brutally.

Again, this is a point I don't think most people are aware of. So that was my first problem with what I was being taught. Secondly, when I started getting interested in Astronomy for the first time, I realise the Universe is just so massive, to think it was all done with our well-being alone in mind just doesn't make sense.

Why would God create a Universe that we know already has at least 100,000,000,000 observable galaxies, which contain hundreds of billions of stars, which have their own planets, moons, asteroids, comets etc. if it was all for human beings. The Universe is so massive, that I really believe there isn't a human mind in existence or ever will be, that will truly understand its grandeur. However, being created for us, on this relatively tiny bubble we call a planet, it seems very wasteful for a perfect creator.

After that I learned about the whole other, alien-like world that exists... the world of the very very small. These tiny living things that could literally kill the whole human race one day, are dominant on this planet, and yet the Bible makes no mention of this. In fact, the Bible doesn't make mention of people who weren't in that particular area of the world back then.

Lastly, the greatest argument for God turned into the worst argument, the illusion of design in life. Love it or Hate it, Evolution explains complexity and has yet to suffer defeat, anywhere. As I mentioned in my posts, we actually have, and do observe Natural Selection in progress today. We do have piles of undeniable evidence that shows common decent as true (such as two chimp chromosomes fusing to become human chromosome number 2).

There are other things I mentioned too. Countless Gods and saviors who were born of a virgin, crucified, performed miracles, had the "same" titles as Jesus (lamb of god, light of the world, alpha and omega etc.) resurrected three days after death etc. he list goes on. Let's just say there are a lot of reasons why I highly doubt any God that exists will be as depicted in the Bible.

Again, all of the above are just my answers, not a challenge to anyone or meant to be offensive.
 
  by: Dela     10/06/2008 10:25 AM     
  Nah dude  
 
You're not offensive in any manner... as a matter of fact, I really respect your opinion (I'm sure you don't care, lol). I hope you don't mind if I address some of your issues to the best of my ability, here goes!

"Firstly, the loving God that I was told about in church turned out in the Bible to actually be quite ruthless and cruel at the same time. Make no mistake, this character is scary and I'm convinced that most people have no idea that is in the pages of the Old Testament."

I get what you're saying. People like who believe like you see God as being mean. I can understand why. However, for believers, we view God as being Just. You prolly already know this as a former Christian, but God is infinite and we as finite beings sin (rebellion against God) and therefore offend God for eternity. God is sooooo Holy, that He utterly detests sin, and has to do away with it. Therefore, He destroys it. Cue Jesus to come on the scene. A lot of people don't understand the purpose of atonement. In the OT, people sacrificed their best animals and offered them to God for a big ole "I'm sorry". Since only God can satisfy Himself, Jesus (being God) came down and gave the ultimate sacrifice and atonement in His perfect life. God is the same as He was in the OT, it's just that we have a permanent and eternal sacrifice that cleanses us by grace through faith. But, we are to fear God (knowing what He can do) and worship Him in love. I know you were already aware of this though, sorry to beat a dead horse.

"I understand many Christians instead point out Jesus' message, and say that the New Testament is what should be followed etc. However, even with the excessive cruelty depicted in the Old Testament, it strikes me as odd that we should consider the introduction of the concept of "Hell" (as it doesn't appear in the Old Testament) to be something of an upgrade, from a moral point of view. Post-death torment until the ultimate end seems infinitely more cruel than simply having your life taken from you, even if it was done brutally."

Hell is mentioned in the OT. See Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 66:24, Deuteronomy 32:22, Psalms 55:15 (in this last one, taken in context, the grave is eternal death). Post death torment until the ultimate end? There is no end in eternity... Hell is eternal punishment and death of anything not of God. But the thing is, God will warn you before your demise, so He doesn't just leave you hanging and punish you harshly. You can check the Book of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc. He also promises Salvation in the OT too.

"...I realise the Universe is just so massive, to think it was all done with our well-being alone in mind just doesn't make sense."

True and not true. According to Christianity, the universe was created to give honor to God. Basically God showing us how infinite beyond our wildest imaginations He is. Since we are His creation, He created everything to work together for the Good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose (Rom 8:28). Life on earth is no exception.

"The Universe is so massive, that I really believe there isn't a human mind in existence or ever will be, that will truly understand its grandeur."

The same is true for God, only He created the universe with every little detail planned out, so we'll never completely understand Him.

"Lastly, the greatest argument for God turned into the worst argument, the illusion of design in life. Love it or Hate it, Evolution explains complexity and has yet to suffer defeat, anywhere. As I mentioned in my posts, we actually have, and do observe Natural Selection in progress today. We do have piles of undeniable evidence that shows common decent as true (such as two chimp chromosomes fusing to become human chromosome number 2)."

Like WV said, I personally believe that the concept of evolution (discrediting God) is deception cooked up by the devil to draw people further from God (because he knows we have a thirst for knowledge). I do agree with science as long as it is in line with the Word.

"After that I learned about the whole other, alien-like world that exists... the world of the very very small. These tiny living things that could literally kill the whole human race one day, are dominant on this planet, and yet the Bible makes no mention of this. In fact, the Bible doesn't make mention of people who weren't in that particular area of the world back then"

Those tiny living things are called plagues and are spoken of in the OT and prophesied in the NT (Revelations). Science gave us a way to understand these plagues more to further warn us. The Bible is pretty centralized around Israel area (for the most part) but check out what God did when man wanted to build the Tower of Babel in Genesis (this account is often called the 'Table of Nations'.)

"Lastly, the greatest argument for God turned into the worst argument, the illusion of design in life."

Why do you say this?

"Love it or Hate
 
  by: C.O.G.   10/06/2008 11:17 AM     
  Nah dude  
 
You're not offensive in any manner... as a matter of fact, I really respect your opinion (I'm sure you don't care, lol). I hope you don't mind if I address some of your issues to the best of my ability, here goes!

"Firstly, the loving God that I was told about in church turned out in the Bible to actually be quite ruthless and cruel at the same time. Make no mistake, this character is scary and I'm convinced that most people have no idea that is in the pages of the Old Testament."

I get what you're saying. People like who believe like you see God as being mean. I can understand why. However, for believers, we view God as being Just. You prolly already know this as a former Christian, but God is infinite and we as finite beings sin (rebellion against God) and therefore offend God for eternity. God is sooooo Holy, that He utterly detests sin, and has to do away with it. Therefore, He destroys it. Cue Jesus to come on the scene. A lot of people don't understand the purpose of atonement. In the OT, people sacrificed their best animals and offered them to God for a big ole "I'm sorry". Since only God can satisfy Himself, Jesus (being God) came down and gave the ultimate sacrifice and atonement in His perfect life. God is the same as He was in the OT, it's just that we have a permanent and eternal sacrifice that cleanses us by grace through faith. But, we are to fear God (knowing what He can do) and worship Him in love. I know you were already aware of this though, sorry to beat a dead horse.

"I understand many Christians instead point out Jesus' message, and say that the New Testament is what should be followed etc. However, even with the excessive cruelty depicted in the Old Testament, it strikes me as odd that we should consider the introduction of the concept of "Hell" (as it doesn't appear in the Old Testament) to be something of an upgrade, from a moral point of view. Post-death torment until the ultimate end seems infinitely more cruel than simply having your life taken from you, even if it was done brutally."

Hell is mentioned in the OT. See Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 66:24, Deuteronomy 32:22, Psalms 55:15 (in this last one, taken in context, the grave is eternal death). Post death torment until the ultimate end? There is no end in eternity... Hell is eternal punishment and death of anything not of God. But the thing is, God will warn you before your demise, so He doesn't just leave you hanging and punish you harshly. You can check the Book of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc. He also promises Salvation in the OT too.

"...I realise the Universe is just so massive, to think it was all done with our well-being alone in mind just doesn't make sense."

True and not true. According to Christianity, the universe was created to give honor to God. Basically God showing us how infinite beyond our wildest imaginations He is. Since we are His creation, He created everything to work together for the Good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose (Rom 8:28). Life on earth is no exception.

"The Universe is so massive, that I really believe there isn't a human mind in existence or ever will be, that will truly understand its grandeur."

The same is true for God, only He created the universe with every little detail planned out, so we'll never completely understand Him.

"Lastly, the greatest argument for God turned into the worst argument, the illusion of design in life. Love it or Hate it, Evolution explains complexity and has yet to suffer defeat, anywhere. As I mentioned in my posts, we actually have, and do observe Natural Selection in progress today. We do have piles of undeniable evidence that shows common decent as true (such as two chimp chromosomes fusing to become human chromosome number 2)."

Like WV said, I personally believe that the concept of evolution (discrediting God) is deception cooked up by the devil to draw people further from God (because he knows we have a thirst for knowledge). I do agree with science as long as it is in line with the Word.

"After that I learned about the whole other, alien-like world that exists... the world of the very very small. These tiny living things that could literally kill the whole human race one day, are dominant on this planet, and yet the Bible makes no mention of this. In fact, the Bible doesn't make mention of people who weren't in that particular area of the world back then"

Those tiny living things are called plagues and are spoken of in the OT and prophesied in the NT (Revelations). Science gave us a way to understand these plagues more to further warn us. The Bible is pretty centralized around Israel area (for the most part) but check out what God did when man wanted to build the Tower of Babel in Genesis (this account is often called the 'Table of Nations'.)

"Lastly, the greatest argument for God turned into the worst argument, the illusion of design in life."

Why do you say this?

"Love it or Hate
 
  by: C.O.G.   10/06/2008 11:17 AM     
  continuation  
 
"Love it or Hate it, Evolution explains complexity and has yet to suffer defeat, anywhere. As I mentioned in my posts, we actually have, and do observe Natural Selection in progress today."

Yeah; however, I believe in natural selection through Supernatural Selection. I believe that God chose what's to stay and what's to go.

"There are other things I mentioned too. Countless Gods and saviors who were born of a virgin, crucified, performed miracles, had the "same" titles as Jesus (lamb of god, light of the world, alpha and omega etc.) resurrected three days after death etc. he list goes on. Let's just say there are a lot of reasons why I highly doubt any God that exists will be as depicted in the Bible."

This is also true. But I believe that (since DETAILED prophesies about Jesus date back to the book of Genesis) the devil tried to confuse man waaaaay back then too, stating that the prophecies have been fulfilled and he duped man into believing these lies. He knew he was going to lose since the beginning and it's been his goal to take as many people down as possible with him since then.

Just my feelings based on my Holy Book.
 
  by: C.O.G.   10/06/2008 11:18 AM     
  my bad  
 
for the double post.
 
  by: C.O.G.   10/06/2008 11:19 AM     
  @C.O.G.  
 
1 Timothy 1:4 specifically warns against concentrating on fables and genealogies instead of focussing on the actual basics. Which is, I believe, what you're doing when you focus on details such as the time line of creation. Your faith shouldn't be about fact-checking the bible, surely, but about building a relationship with god. Let the facts be what they may, but focus on your faith.


"Like WV said, I personally believe that the concept of evolution (discrediting God) is deception cooked up by the devil to draw people further from God (because he knows we have a thirst for knowledge)."
Like Dela argued, if you believe the sciences that disagree with your interpretation of the bible are a lie created by Satan, then you must believe that Satan created our genome, our geology, (and perhaps even our cosmology) because all of these contradict your (overly) literal account of the bible. What did god create, if not these things?

Oh, and "evolution (discrediting God)" is nonsense. Evolution doesn't discredit god. It certainly never sought to discredit god. It does seem to discredit your interpretation of some of the bible, but as you're aware that you're not fallible, this shouldn't bother you.

"I do agree with science as long as it is in line with the Word."
Like I said before, science is in line with various other interpretations of 'the word'. You are personally choosing to interpret the bible so that it contradicts the evidence, and then claim that the evidence should fit your interpretation. Please read that again.
You are personally choosing to interpret the bible so that it contradicts the evidence, and then blame the evidence for not fitting your interpretation.

Have you read up the Documentary Hypothesis?

"I believe in natural selection through Supernatural Selection."
Good. If you can now accept that this process has been going on for 3.5 billion years, leading to the vast diversity of life we know and love today as all the evidence suggests, you're done. If you wish to believe in a supernatural selector, feel free. Nothing in science contradicts the idea of a supernatural selector. The Theory doesn't include such a selector because so far, no need for one has been discovered. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
 
  by: Ec5618   10/06/2008 11:42 AM     
  Ec  
 
Lol. Whatup buddy? Here we go again!

"1 Timothy 1:4 specifically warns against concentrating on fables and genealogies instead of focussing on the actual basics. Which is, I believe, what you're doing when you focus on details such as the time line of creation. Your faith shouldn't be about fact-checking the bible, surely, but about building a relationship with god. Let the facts be what they may, but focus on your faith."

I must say that you're right. Scripture is not meant to be checked for facts for numerous reasons, however, we (as Christians) should speak to the people in their common language (Jesus and the fishermen/farmers/pharisees). Atheists want facts, the Bible has facts. We're not trying to discredit the facts, but we're trying to give y'all the facts so that y'all might believe... which is clearly against the teachings. And I'm wrong for that. Thanks for the correction.

"Like Dela argued, if you believe the sciences that disagree with your interpretation of the bible are a lie created by Satan, then you must believe that Satan created our genome, our geology, (and perhaps even our cosmology) because all of these contradict your (overly) literal account of the bible. What did god create, if not these things?"

No, I belive God created all the things you spoke of. God created the genome, geology and cosmology. I think your generalizing me when you say overly literal...

"Evolution doesn't discredit god. It certainly never sought to discredit god. It does seem to discredit your interpretation of some of the bible, but as you're aware that you're not fallible, this shouldn't bother you."

ok.

"Like I said before, science is in line with various other interpretations of 'the word'. You are personally choosing to interpret the bible so that it contradicts the evidence, and then claim that the evidence should fit your interpretation. Please read that again.
You are personally choosing to interpret the bible so that it contradicts the evidence, and then blame the evidence for not fitting your interpretation."

Ok and no.

"Good. If you can now accept that this process has been going on for 3.5 billion years, leading to the vast diversity of life we know and love today as all the evidence suggests, you're done."

No.
 
  by: C.O.G.   10/06/2008 11:57 AM     
  @C.O.G.  
 
"No, I belive God created all the things you spoke of. God created the genome, geology and cosmology."
Then how can the patterns we see in these things be created by Satan?

"I think your generalizing me when you say overly literal..."
Your interpretation is quite literal. So what generalisation do you accuse me of?

"Ok and no"
You'll agree that this semi-answer does little to explain your views. Because of the interpretation you have chosen, you interpret the evidence of favour of Evolutionary Theory as Satanic, do you not? Then what part of my statement do you disagree with?

"No."
Again, you give me little to work with. Could you please elaborate?
 
  by: Ec5618   10/06/2008 12:12 PM     
  Ec  
 
Dude, I'm not here to argue. You'll never be satisfied with my answers. I'm just going to tell you how good my God has been to me.

Satan twists the whole truth by throwing a little lie in there. His greatest trick is making man believe he doesn't exist. With that being said...

"Then how can the patterns we see in these things be created by Satan?"
satan didn't create these things, just the lie associated with them.

"Your interpretation is quite literal. So what generalisation do you accuse me of?"

Ok.

"Ok and no"
You'll agree that this semi-answer does little to explain your views. Because of the interpretation you have chosen, you interpret the evidence of favour of Evolutionary Theory as Satanic, do you not? Then what part of my statement do you disagree with?"

We've been over this before. You didn't like my answers then, and you won't like them now... I said ok because I don't feel like getting into that again. I say no because I don't agree.

"No."
Again, you give me little to work with. Could you please elaborate?"

I'm not trying to give you anything to work with. I'm just going to respect that you're content with what you believe.
 
  by: C.O.G.   10/06/2008 01:05 PM     
  @C.O.G.  
 
We were having a pleasant discussion. Why are you trying to ruin that?

"You didn't like my answers then, and you won't like them now... "
You admitted that you wouldn't like your answers either, so I'm not sure why you continue to focus on my dislike of them, instead of on the simple fact that your answers are unsatisfactory.
But more importantly, my current questions aren't about vague philosophy, so I don't understand why you have such difficulty answering them.


Given that there are billions of pieces of evidence in the natural world that all agree with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, and given that most of those pieces of evidence contradict your beliefs, what exactly do you imagine Satan did? He didn't create the evidence, did he? God did, right? So, what are you saying?
 
  by: Ec5618   10/06/2008 01:26 PM     
  Ec  
 
"We were having a pleasant discussion. Why are you trying to ruin that?"

Sorry, I don't mean to, but I'm not going to debate this with you. Sorry.

""You didn't like my answers then, and you won't like them now... "
You admitted that you wouldn't like your answers either,"

If I were an atheist dead set in my ways, I wouldn't like my answers. You're correct. You have access to the Bible just as I do. You shouldn't just take my answers as truth, but you should do the research yourself!

"But more importantly, my current questions aren't about vague philosophy, so I don't understand why you have such difficulty answering them."

I'm not having a difficult time answering them. I've answered them time and time again. You didn't like the answers. I just choose not to answer to avoid repeating all of our other threads.

"Given that there are billions of pieces of evidence in the natural world that all agree with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, and given that most of those pieces of evidence contradict your beliefs, what exactly do you imagine Satan did? He didn't create the evidence, did he? God did, right? So, what are you saying?"

What am I saying? I'm saying Ok.
 
  by: C.O.G.   10/06/2008 01:34 PM     
  Ec  
 
I'm not trying to be dismissive. I just don't feel like going into it again. Please don't take it personally, as I don't mean it to be that way.
 
  by: C.O.G.   10/06/2008 01:39 PM     
  @C.O.G.  
 
"I'm not trying to be dismissive."
You are being very dismissive. Not just of me, but of the valid points you felt I made. Did reconsidering your beliefs frighten you? Why do you dismiss arguments you agreed with?

"If I were an atheist dead set in my ways"
You're not such an atheist though, are you? So the reasons you didn't find your own answers compelling must lie elsewhere.
By the way, if you're suggesting that I am such an atheist, I'm not. And labelling all those who don't share your religion or aren't convinced by your 'answers' as 'atheists dead set in their ways' isn't productive. That someone isn't convinced of something doesn't mean they are convinced of the opposite.

"I just don't feel like going into it again."
"I've answered them time and time again."
Again? No, you haven't.
Firstly, again, even you didn't find the answers you're referring to compelling. I'm confident that no-one outside of your specific branch of Christianity would be convinced by your arguments. (Which would mean your arguments don't convince anyone.) So don't blame me for being disappointed by your answers, and asking for actually compelling answers.
Secondly, I'm asking different questions now. Such as 'what do you imagine Satan did to either fool the universe into providing false evidence or to fool scientists into finding billions of pieces of evidence that don't actually exist?'

New round, new question.
 
  by: Ec5618   10/06/2008 02:01 PM     
  Ec  
 
Okay.
 
  by: C.O.G.   10/06/2008 02:08 PM     
  Pay attention this time  
 
the difference between theory and Theory. Look one has a capital letter one does not.

theory (no capitalization)- a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or an unproved assumption.

example:
Guessing that someone is a hooker because he or she is out all night.


HOWEVER

Theory (Big T here people) - A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A scientific theory explains a set of related observations or events based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by different groups or individual researchers.

The most important thing to note here is that they can be peer reviewed. Abnormalities found in testing results in changes to or rejection of the theory.

Examples of theories:
Theory of Gravity
Germ Theory of Disease
Harmonics Theory
and of course Darwin's Theory of Evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/...
 
  by: Jaded Fox     10/06/2008 02:41 PM     
  Pay attention this time - theory vs. Theory  
 
the difference between theory and Theory. Look one has a capital letter one does not.

theory (no capitalization)- a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or an unproved assumption.

example:
Guessing that someone is a hooker because he or she is out all night.


HOWEVER

Theory (Big T here people) - A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A scientific theory explains a set of related observations or events based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by different groups or individual researchers.

The most important thing to note here is that they can be peer reviewed. Abnormalities found in testing results in changes to or rejection of the theory.

Examples of theories:
Theory of Gravity
Germ Theory of Disease
Harmonics Theory
and of course Darwin's Theory of Evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/...
 
  by: Jaded Fox     10/06/2008 02:42 PM     
  I'm not sure what happened  
 
Sorry about the double post.