Tossica wrote:you are making up your own shit and claiming it's Christianity. That is no different than me making up a bunch of shit and calling it Tossicatholism.
That made me lol irl.
Donnel, there is a big difference between a "point of view," and a closed mind too stubborn to open because it's in a "comfort zone." You don't have evidence of anything - you have theories and ideas, there is no rock solid truth to any of it - I've read the bullshit regarding the carbon dating.
It's not a matter of you being right or wrong - the information you are stating is wrong. That is not coming from me - that comes from people who work everyday to debunk the Bible (meaning to discover truth from fiction - not prove it wrong).
You sound like my ex m-i-l. She told me that because I was not able to believe that Christ was my saviour that I would go to hell and take her son with me...
I told her I'd see her there and sell her a condo after I kicked Satan out.
You want to be set in your firm beliefs of the universe and how it all works? Be my guest Indeed, no one knows who is right and who has the answer to the gates of Heaven, but you know what? I'd rather keep my mind open to a universe of possibilites and experiences, rather than to be stale and stonefaced in my beliefs so strongly that I will never be able to understand another's.
I hope you open your eyes someday.
Last edited by Trielelvan on Mon May 24, 2004 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Judaism is kind of a misnomer since the religeon predates the birth of Judah son of Israel
sorry christianity has nothing to do with the religeon set forth in the torah therefore cannot of been practiced by moshe. heck Abraham wasnt a jew if you want to really look at it.
I really want to hear how carbon dating and dinasaurs are explained in a creationist view. Anyone care to enlighten this evolutionist?
Assume that life would be found on other planets. Is this a problem for Creationists?
I would like to think the dinosaurs missed the boat when Noah shouted all on board!
However the big bang is also a theory as is evolution(Darwinism). We just like them because we dont have any better ones. It´s been argued (by scientists) that both of them are wrong and they have serious flaws that remain unexplained. I wont elaborate to much.
1. Wings. Halfdeveloped wings are useless and any attempts to fly would have caused death (maybe they were used for something besides flying first?)
2. The mammal eye. Its very complex and if it´s not developed to perfection it´s also useless and would not be any advantage at all.
3. DNA to proteins. The discovery of cathalytic RNA bridged part of the gap but it does not fully explain how such a huge leap could happen.
4. The organic soup were life began. I´m not a big fan of this one. Personally I´m sure it´s wrong but I still don´t belive a god got handy with clay.
1,2
The 'causing death' thing is just a false premise. Every step in the development of eyes and wings are beneficial to survival. Think of proto-avians or other animals living in trees. Moving from branch to branch, if the distance is not far, would not be much of a problem. Jumping longer distances however would require some way to slow down and balance once landed - flailing their arms. Go ahead and try to jump over a far gap *without* flailing your arms. And it may even be that reptilian scales evolved into an insulating cover, feathers, before this use was needed. From there it's simple to see that more effective wings and longer feathers would have been highly beneficial.
And as for eyes, even today there are organisms that span the entire spectrum of eye development, from eyes more complex than human eyes, to eye-spots on single celled organisms.
Did you miss the whole point or what?
"From there it's simple to see that more effective wings and longer feathers would have been highly beneficial."
--->gliding--->flying
each step is an improvement, each step is beneficial, and it is recorded in fossile record.
I´m sorry Map. I don´t think I missed your point. Just the mental image of me flapping my arms as I leaped from a chair to the floor struck me as really funny.
I´m guessing your point is that evolution can explain everything that is around us and that there is no need for a divine interference.
My point is that I also belive this to be true. However, darwinism is just a theory (as is the big bang), and as such it has flaws. It will also change. We will find better theorys and abandon the older ones. Its the nature of science.
The evolution of the wing and the eye are very much a subject to debate in natural science. So are a number of other things in Darwins theory. (I dont mean the debate between evolutionists and creationists)
All right. And I see now that it looked like I was saying "this is the reason why wings developed", it was merely a scenario showing how less developed wings are helpful, though not used for flight.
What if God is like a divine clock maker. He created all the rules of science, physics and evolution. Then set his creation in motion. The more we learn of science and how things work, the more we understand God. Why does everyone assume Science and Religion are diametrically opposed?
"Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage."
Scoota McGee wrote:What if God is like a divine clock maker. He created all the rules of science, physics and evolution. Then set his creation in motion. The more we learn of science and how things work, the more we understand God. Why does everyone assume Science and Religion are diametrically opposed?
I don't. I just think Christianity is a crock of shit for the most part.
"Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage."
No, but I would be more open to entertaining the idea of some sentient ball of energy that sparked everything than all this heaven and hell, immaculate conception, son of god, pray real hard and god will answer your prayers bullshit.
i've never really liked the big bang theory, i'm guessing i don't understand any of the math or science behind it, but BOOM, here's the universe is little better than 'let their be light'.
No, but I would be more open to entertaining the idea of some sentient ball of energy that sparked everything than all this heaven and hell, immaculate conception, son of god, pray real hard and god will answer your prayers bullshit.
I'm not talking about the dogma. Do you believe that the universe was created by directed purpose or by random accident?
"Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage."
Thon wrote:btw comparing god to a clockmaker is about as retarded as believing in the bible
It wasn't my analogy. It was Dante's. Maybe you should read some of his literature before calling him a retard.
"Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage."
Taxx wrote:This is my "i'm pretending to care" face.
Why are you on this thread if you don't care about it?
"Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage."
I don't think that there was a conscious effort somewhere that produced humans.
I imagine there is order to the chaos but it's not something we will understand any time soon. I am content living my life not knowing and don't have the void that others feel the need to fill with religion.
Didn't realize you were so spiritual. I actually agree. Their probably is some higher power involved that is beyond our comprehension. Seems pretty egocentric to think we figured out the Universe some 2000 years ago.
"Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage."
the retard bit was paraphrasing Hume. an 'argument from design' is futile.
yes, a clock is complex, yet manages to work. it must have been created by an intelligence! However, you only arrived at that conclusion because you know clocks are made by clockmakers. you could go meet the person who made it, you yourself could learn how to make a clock.
nobody has any 'experiance' with God, or any great maker of creation. the universe sure is a tad more complex than a clock, so it MUST have been made by some far more complex intelligence! So your belief in God is based upon clocks being made by some old dude squinting in a little shop fitting gears together.
In fact iirc Hume even uses the clockmaker analogy when he bashes on the argument from design. perhaps if you'd caught up on your literature you could have used a different analogy?
BTW, as for flying and how that developed, saw a show on dinosaur evolution the other day that has a pretty good explanation for it. Apparently, a lot of the raptor type dinosaurs were actually developing feathers for quite a while. (utahraptor, velociraptor, etc.) Also, the way their skeletons were set up, the motion they used to spring their claws forward to grab something is almost exactly the same motion a bird uses to swing its wings forward as part of the flight motion. So, if you have feathered arms, swinging forward in a flight-type motion, not too far fetched to go from that to using that to get longer jumps, to gliding, to true flight, given several million years.
Now, as for the bible again. Some stuff for our apparently departed christian arguing partner. First, I at least never called you a retard, not once, go look at my posts. Now, some questions:
1) Why is god creating the universe by means of the big bang somehow incompatible with the bible?
2) How is saying "god is the spark that caused the random amino acids created by lightning striking the primordial soup of the oceans to recombine into the beginnings of life, which led via his mechanism of evolution, eventually to allthe birds, beasts, plants and man" also somehow incompatible with the bible? (not that I believe that's how it happened, but I certainly can't disprove that or argue against it scientifically.)
3) Do you believe that earth was created in 4004 BC, as figured out by some bishop a long time ago, by tracing back the lifespans and dates in all the who begat who stuff in the bible?
4) If Adam and Eve really existed, and Kane and Abel were their first 2 children, where did all the people come from that Kane went out among when he was banished from Eden for killing his brother? Shouldn't those 4 have been the only people on earth?
5) What's wrong with Carbon dating? And you DO know there's other radiological dating methods in use besides just carbon dating, to allow us to date rocks?
6) How do you explain dinosaur skeletons, homo erectus skeletons, australopithicus skeletons, hell, how about wooly mammoth skeletons or frozen corpses like you could see about on the discovery channel, that was dated to 20,000 years old?
7) Similarly to the last question, assuming literal creationism, and earth starts in 4004 BC, how do you explain 25,000 year old cave paintings and those temples in Malta that were built in 6-7000 BC?
8) How about life on other planets? Never mentioned in the bible, how'd that get started, or is there none but here?
9) If the bible is "god's word", how do you explain the mis-translations? Like the whole "parting of the red sea" thing, when if you look back at earlier greek version, it should be REED sea (ie, a tidal marsh). How many other errors and inaccuracies do we NOT know about?
10) Again if the bible is "god's word", how do you explain the fact that it was men, many with political agendas, that decided at 2 vatican councils which books would be *IN* the bible? Check out the Apocrypha and Pseudopygrypha (sp?). Those are the collected books that many thought SHOULD be in the bible, but didn't have enough votes to be included.
11) If the jewish slaves fleeing egypt really spent 40 years wandering around the sinai desert trying to reach Israel, why is there NO archaeological evidence whatsoever for any such thing? Deserts are great preservers of man's detritus; in the mojave today you can see tank tracks that look fresh, but were really made in the 1940s by US tank troops preparing to go to North Africa. Yet, in all that area there's no evidence of that many people living there for that long. none. (also, how in hell does it take 40 years to go from one side of Sinai up to Israel? It's what, 200 miles tops? Talk about a SERIOUSLY lousy sense of direction.)
12) What gives christians the right to go out and prosletyze and force their beliefs on others? And yes, it's almost invariably christians doing this. You don't see buddhist missionaries going to africa to convert the natives, nor hindu, nor shintoist, nor jewish, nor even islamic really. People of those other religions believe in their correctness as fervently as you do in yours, so what gives christians the right to try and impose THEIR will on other people?
So, there you go. 12 simple questions. If you have data and evidence to support your claims, by all means, bring it, I want to see it. You may not convince me, but I definitely want to see what you have to back up your claims. If you DON'T, well, it just looks like you don't really have anything, you just can't answer the tough questions and fled rather than having to try. So please, I'm waiting for your response here.
