1. Creationism is scientifically non-explanatory.
2. Science and religion are two different cognitive fields between which communication is not possible.
3. Science is dynamic, its goal to approach the objective truth as much as possible, and religion is static, its goal to protect a system of subjective truths set a priori.
4. Being religious does not have to mean being creationistic.
5. Why would, of all the available
creation-myths, the Hebrew one be the only valid one ?
6. Creationism is inherent to a view of life in which man is disconnected from nature, and has the right to exploit his environment, which is characteristic of expansionistic religions.
7. Despite of what creationists say, evolution is a scientific theory which produces testable hypotheses that are still corroborated everyday by data from the fossil record, comparative morphology, biogeography, molecular systematics, and other disciplines.
8. Creationism is not concordant with the fossil record.
9. Creationists do not seem to be aware of, or prefer to ignore, the latest findings on the field of Self-organisation and Chaos/complexity theory which indicate that life really is able to originate and develop on its own.
10. The idea that nature has been designed and crafted together is so anthropomorphic, that it is more likely to be a projection by ourselves. Is not nature equally wondrous by imagining that it has all come into being on it's own?
NOTE: I just copied these from someplace, lol. Discuss.
Reeeaaaaaaaaallllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyy...I don't think it's something that can be defined. I personally had to seek out God in my own way, and I've experienced events that have lead me to believe he is there.
I think it's the same for any guy out there seeking enlightenment, or whatver else they may have set as their goal.
These topics always seem to end up badly, as no one can really take them the way they should be taken, as some idiot (you know who I am referring to) always comes in and wrecks the whole damn thing.
Quoteas some idiot (you know who I am referring to) always comes in and wrecks the whole damn thing.
I'm sorry.... :'(
:tpg:
You all already know my view.
...Not you, other idiot. I'm referring to THE idiot.
Me?
Please say its me.
Oh yeah isnt the most current creationist thingy that intellegent desing thing? If I remember right, it's jebusites saying gawd guides evolution or something. I can't quite remeber off the top of my head. Can some one expand on it?
Quote from: Silverline on March 08, 2007, 12:32:52 AM
1. Creationism is scientifically non-explanatory.
The explanation is God.
Quote2. Science and religion are two different cognitive fields between which communication is not possible.
Not at all, I think many scientific ideals fit in with my religion.
Quote
3. Science is dynamic, its goal to approach the objective truth as much as possible, and religion is static, its goal to protect a system of subjective truths set a priori.
Christianity is about truth. The bible is one of the most valuable history books we have.
Quote4. Being religious does not have to mean being creationistic.
There are thousands if not millions of different religions out there that believe in a wide assorted amount of things. You can believe pretty much anything and find a religion to meet those creeds.
Quote
5. Why would, of all the available
creation-myths, the Hebrew one be the only valid one?
Because it was at that time in which God decided to show himself. Man was too chaotic before that time.
Quote
6. Creationism is inherent to a view of life in which man is disconnected from nature, and has the right to exploit his environment, which is characteristic of expansionistic religions.
That's because it
is a religion. I don't see why it has to be different to be correct.
Quote
7. Despite of what creationists say, evolution is a scientific theory which produces testable hypotheses that are still corroborated everyday by data from the fossil record, comparative morphology, biogeography, molecular systematics, and other disciplines.
It's still a theory, with many flaws. You can't prove anything.
Quote
8. Creationism is not concordant with the fossil record.
That's because carbon dating is heavily inaccurate.
Quote9. Creationists do not seem to be aware of, or prefer to ignore, the latest findings on the field of Self-organisation and Chaos/complexity theory which indicate that life really is able to originate and develop on its own.
Do you know how to create life? =)
Quote
10. The idea that nature has been designed and crafted together is so anthropomorphic, that it is more likely to be a projection by ourselves. Is not nature equally wondrous by imagining that it has all come into being on it's own?
You can
imagine what ever you like, but it seems you just admitted that nature seems too perfect as to appear created by a designer.
( I'm just fighting on the other time this round... You need someone on the opposition to have a debate. I don't believe in a god or creationism. )
He is referring to me >:3
(I love how the mods go out of their way to delete everything I say ^_^ just more incentive to keep typing)
I haven't and I won't.
Quote from: Elegy on March 08, 2007, 04:52:01 PM
He is referring to me >:3
(I love how the mods go out of their way to delete everything I say ^_^ just more incentive to keep typing)
you look like a chick.
Quote from: Elegy on March 08, 2007, 04:52:01 PM
He is referring to me >:3
(I love how the mods go out of their way to delete everything I say ^_^ just more incentive to keep typing)
Speak of the retard...
Quote from: Elegy on March 08, 2007, 04:52:01 PM
He is referring to me >:3
(I love how the mods go out of their way to delete everything I say ^_^ just more incentive to keep typing)
I deleted your post because you were contributing nothing to the topic, and you're forcing other people now to go off-topic as well. Contribute or gtfo.
Quote( I'm just fighting on the other time this round... You need someone on the opposition to have a debate. I don't believe in a god or creationism. )
I'm switching sides for this debate SBX.
Oh and to the n0bz who posted before you: I was just forced to Shame you all. Add something relevant.
Okay to the topic of creationism. If saucy is playing devils advocate, I might as well try to say whats wrong with creationism.
First, what kind of God would make the human body so quirky? Example, the human eye, technically the eye perceives an image upsidedown but the center of the brian that deals with vision flips it right side up. if we were made by some intellegent being wouldn't the eye not perceive the image upside down and no compensation be needed?
Also, we have extra teeth that we don't need. You know, wisdom teeth. If we were created by a higher power why would we have teeth we don't need? Wouldn't it make more sense NOT to have them? Also, it's obvious that third molars/ wisdom teeth are some sort of evolutionary left over.
Also, The appendix another evolutionary left over. Apparently because we no longer use this organ is seems to be shrinking each sucessive generation. I forget where I read this, but my point is doesn't that seem to be evolution right there?
Quote from: Silverline on March 08, 2007, 12:32:52 AM
1. Creationism is scientifically non-explanatory.
How is it not? God created the universe. Isn't that explanatory?
Quote
2. Science and religion are two different cognitive fields between which communication is not possible.
God created the universe and set in motion natural laws.
Quote
3. Science is dynamic, its goal to approach the objective truth as much as possible, and religion is static, its goal to protect a system of subjective truths set a priori.
In religion, the goals, although not completely objective in this life, become so in the next.
Quote
4. Being religious does not have to mean being creationistic.
Being creationistic doesn't mean being Christian. It also doesn't mean being an absolute creationist.
Quote
5. Why would, of all the available
creation-myths, the Hebrew one be the only valid one ?
Why would it not be?
Quote
6. Creationism is inherent to a view of life in which man is disconnected from nature, and has the right to exploit his environment, which is characteristic of expansionistic religions.
Man has every right to exploit his environment as the dominant species on the planet.
Quote
7. Despite of what creationists say, evolution is a scientific theory which produces testable hypotheses that are still corroborated everyday by data from the fossil record, comparative morphology, biogeography, molecular systematics, and other disciplines.
After God created the universe.
Quote
8. Creationism is not concordant with the fossil record.
Not Judeo-Christian creationism.
Quote
9. Creationists do not seem to be aware of, or prefer to ignore, the latest findings on the field of Self-organisation and Chaos/complexity theory which indicate that life really is able to originate and develop on its own.
The Judeo-Christian creationists don't.
Quote
10. The idea that nature has been designed and crafted together is so anthropomorphic, that it is more likely to be a projection by ourselves. Is not nature equally wondrous by imagining that it has all come into being on it's own?
Maybe Judeo-Christian creationism is anthropomorphic, but with deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism), God's only created the universe and set shit a-goin', and watches from there and stuff.
I really hate the fact that I invented these gigantic slice and dice posts. Honestly, who wants to read that?
Ah, so I assumed correctly.
Interesting facts, Silverline. What did you prove? Nothing really.
I could name events the Bible said would happen that did happen in the past, and not prove anything. I think debating about it leads to nothing since there is no way to prove any of this. But we'll see what happens in the end.
Quote from: Irockman1 on March 09, 2007, 08:02:30 AM
Interesting facts, Silverline. What did you prove? Nothing really.
I could name events the Bible said would happen that did happen in the past, and not prove anything. I think debating about it leads to nothing since there is no way to prove any of this. But we'll see what happens in the end.
Who says he was trying to prove anything? It seems to me he was just starting a discussion.
Quote from: Saladin on March 09, 2007, 07:50:06 AM
I really hate the fact that I invented these gigantic slice and dice posts. Honestly, who wants to read that?
You didn't invent that.
Quote from: SexualBubblegumX on March 09, 2007, 02:38:14 AM
Okay to the topic of creationism. If saucy is playing devils advocate, I might as well try to say whats wrong with creationism.
First, what kind of God would make the human body so quirky? Example, the human eye, technically the eye perceives an image upsidedown but the center of the brian that deals with vision flips it right side up. if we were made by some intellegent being wouldn't the eye not perceive the image upside down and no compensation be needed?
Also, we have extra teeth that we don't need. You know, wisdom teeth. If we were created by a higher power why would we have teeth we don't need? Wouldn't it make more sense NOT to have them? Also, it's obvious that third molars/ wisdom teeth are some sort of evolutionary left over.
Also, The appendix another evolutionary left over. Apparently because we no longer use this organ is seems to be shrinking each sucessive generation. I forget where I read this, but my point is doesn't that seem to be evolution right there?
Don't forget our now non-existant (for the most part) tails.
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 09, 2007, 08:08:57 AM
Quote from: Irockman1 on March 09, 2007, 08:02:30 AM
Interesting facts, Silverline. What did you prove? Nothing really.
I could name events the Bible said would happen that did happen in the past, and not prove anything. I think debating about it leads to nothing since there is no way to prove any of this. But we'll see what happens in the end.
Who says he was trying to prove anything? It seems to me he was just starting a discussion.
In that case I don't believe in Evolution because my religion's Holy Book has predicted events that have happened and seems more logical in my opinion than a giant Universe coming out of nothing instantly. What created the particles that caused the big bang? Another big bang? What created that? Another big bang? I don't think particles form when there is no space ore time to form in.
Quote from: Irockman1 on March 09, 2007, 08:14:58 AM
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 09, 2007, 08:08:57 AM
Quote from: Irockman1 on March 09, 2007, 08:02:30 AM
Interesting facts, Silverline. What did you prove? Nothing really.
I could name events the Bible said would happen that did happen in the past, and not prove anything. I think debating about it leads to nothing since there is no way to prove any of this. But we'll see what happens in the end.
Who says he was trying to prove anything? It seems to me he was just starting a discussion.
In that case I don't believe in Evolution because my religion's Holy Book has predicted events that have happened and seems more logical in my opinion than a giant Universe coming out of nothing instantly. What created the particles that caused the big bang? Another big bang? What created that? Another big bang? I don't think particles form when there is no space ore time to form in.
The big bang is the conclusion from evidence clearly available to us - that all the galaxies are moving away from each other. This suggests that they were once all together and that the force required to set them in this motion against the law of gravity must have been simply inredible. Like, even more than the force of zypher ejaculating in djangonator. It doesn't try to explain how that actually happened or anything that happened before it.
Quote from: Saladin on March 09, 2007, 08:17:15 AM
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 09, 2007, 08:08:57 AMYou didn't invent that.
Don't tell me what I did or didn't invent.
Unless you are who I think you are, (in which case you're probably about to be banned for a fourth time) then no, you didn't invent them.
Approx.
2.1 Billion Christians
1.3 Billion Muslims
1.1 Billion Atheists
900 Million Hindu
394 Million Chinese Folk Religion
376 Million Buddhists
23 Million Sikhism
14 Million Jews
And lots of other idiots.
Any chance of them all agreeing on one single philosophy?
You'd have more luck getting Bush to understand Boltzmann's constant or Einstein's theory of relativity.
I'm a follower of String Theory, even though the tools to prove it unconditionally will most likely never be within our reach. I don't really buy in to religion, but its not an anti-spiritual thing for me. Its more that I don't really see following a set of beliefs, and would rather have my own ideas, and not have to adhere to policies already in place. I can see several things that many religions do causing more harm than good, but conversely, I can see a lot of great ideas pertaining to morality. I say to each his own, and let everyone believe what they want. Its just that convincing other people to think this way is the hard part.
Quote from: Silverline on March 09, 2007, 12:58:36 PM
Quote from: Irockman1 on March 09, 2007, 08:14:58 AM
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 09, 2007, 08:08:57 AM
Quote from: Irockman1 on March 09, 2007, 08:02:30 AM
Interesting facts, Silverline. What did you prove? Nothing really.
I could name events the Bible said would happen that did happen in the past, and not prove anything. I think debating about it leads to nothing since there is no way to prove any of this. But we'll see what happens in the end.
Who says he was trying to prove anything? It seems to me he was just starting a discussion.
In that case I don't believe in Evolution because my religion's Holy Book has predicted events that have happened and seems more logical in my opinion than a giant Universe coming out of nothing instantly. What created the particles that caused the big bang? Another big bang? What created that? Another big bang? I don't think particles form when there is no space ore time to form in.
The big bang is the conclusion from evidence clearly available to us - that all the galaxies are moving away from each other. This suggests that they were once all together and that the force required to set them in this motion against the law of gravity must have been simply inredible. Like, even more than the force of zypher ejaculating in djangonator. It doesn't try to explain how that actually happened or anything that happened before it.
So there really is no logical explanation for how the big bang was caused, yet people believe in it? Even though matter cannot form without time or space and time and space cannot form without a creator?
Quote from: Elegy on March 09, 2007, 04:33:13 PM
Approx.
2.1 Billion Christians
1.3 Billion Muslims
1.1 Billion Atheists
900 Million Hindu
394 Million Chinese Folk Religion
376 Million Buddhists
23 Million Sikhism
14 Million Jews
And lots of other idiots.
Any chance of them all agreeing on one single philosophy?
You'd have more luck getting Bush to understand Boltzmann's constant or Einstein's theory of relativity.
What makes people with different beliefs than you make them idiots? That's like me calling you an idiot because you believe in looking like an emo jackass. I may not be an atheist, but I don't think they are idiots for having their own opinions.
But then there is the question of who created the creator.
Quote from: Djangonator on March 09, 2007, 09:47:23 PM
But then there is the question of who created the creator.
I expected that, but it's more logical than matter forming with nothing to form it, nor any space to form in.
How is it more logical?
Quote from: Djangonator on March 09, 2007, 09:55:43 PM
How is it more logical?
Because matter can't form in nothing unless some powerful being creates space. How a creator got there, I don't know.
Quote from: Irockman1 on March 09, 2007, 09:59:55 PM
Quote from: Djangonator on March 09, 2007, 09:55:43 PM
How is it more logical?
Because matter can't form in nothing unless some powerful being creates space. How a creator got there, I don't know.
If matter can't form in nothing, how does the creator form in nothing?
Quote from: Irockman1 on March 09, 2007, 09:59:55 PM
Because matter can't form in nothing unless some THING creates space. How a creator got there, I don't know.
Fixed to make more sense. Besides, you don't "create" space. That defeats the purpose of space, a LACK of anything whatsoever.
And I don't think there's any way to answer that question, religous or not. Other questions must be answered first before any answer to THAT question can be taken seriously in an argument.
That being said, I think we should save it for later.
Quote from: Irockman1 on March 09, 2007, 09:43:30 PMQuote from: Elegy on March 09, 2007, 04:33:13 PM
Approx.
2.1 Billion Christians
1.3 Billion Muslims
1.1 Billion Atheists
900 Million Hindu
394 Million Chinese Folk Religion
376 Million Buddhists
23 Million Sikhism
14 Million Jews
And lots of other idiots.
Any chance of them all agreeing on one single philosophy?
You'd have more luck getting Bush to understand Boltzmann's constant or Einstein's theory of relativity.
What makes people with different beliefs than you make them idiots? That's like me calling you an idiot because you believe in looking like an emo jackass. I may not be an atheist, but I don't think they are idiots for having their own opinions.
No, they are idiots because they believe that aliens came and dropped other aliens into volcanoes and then used machines to catch their souls and brainwash them with 3D movies..
Quote from: DjangonatorIf matter can't form in nothing, how does the creator form in nothing?
Most of the major religions go around that by the notice of the creator always being there, thus never being formed.
Yeah, I'm not completely stupid. gtfo n00b
Anyway, before any form of creationist could refute the Big Bang theory or anything, they couldn't logically use the reasoning that it "didn't happen because matter doesn't just appear" without answering where their creator came from first.
B the way, Arrow, you can create space. Just depends upon what kind ;)
Quote from: Elegy on March 09, 2007, 10:26:50 PM
Quote from: Irockman1 on March 09, 2007, 09:43:30 PMQuote from: Elegy on March 09, 2007, 04:33:13 PM
Approx.
2.1 Billion Christians
1.3 Billion Muslims
1.1 Billion Atheists
900 Million Hindu
394 Million Chinese Folk Religion
376 Million Buddhists
23 Million Sikhism
14 Million Jews
And lots of other idiots.
Any chance of them all agreeing on one single philosophy?
You'd have more luck getting Bush to understand Boltzmann's constant or Einstein's theory of relativity.
What makes people with different beliefs than you make them idiots? That's like me calling you an idiot because you believe in looking like an emo jackass. I may not be an atheist, but I don't think they are idiots for having their own opinions.
No, they are idiots because they believe that aliens came and dropped other aliens into volcanoes and then used machines to catch their souls and brainwash them with 3D movies..
This is intelligent debate, not South Park discussion.
So you have no reason to hate people with religons.
I don't hate things.
Quote from: Elegy on March 09, 2007, 04:33:13 PM1.1 Billion Atheists
If you're going to make up statistics try to make them somewhat believable. Your statistics on Buddhism and "Chinese folk religions" are off by hundreds of millions, and saying that there are a billion atheists tells us that you don't know anything about religions outside of your own.
Aha! A contradiction! I submit that Elegy should revise, then repost his statement! Then, we will cross-examine it once more! And once more, we shall find a contradiction, completely destroying any credability he once had!
AND THEN HE'LL LEAVE.
Hopefully.
If there was a god, it wouldn't have made you look like a chick.
QuoteSo there really is no logical explanation for how the big bang was caused, yet people believe in it? Even though matter cannot form without time or space and time and space cannot form without a creator?
Well let's put it this way: We don't know how life is exactly formed, but we still believe it exists. While you may say that is because we have mass amounts of evidence to support the theory that life exists, well we have mass amounts of evidence to say that the bigbang happened, you just don't understand it, or perhaps don't want to.
With the expansion and acceleration of the universe, the only logical explanation when these numbers are put in reverse, is one massive explosion to set it all off. Just remember: Bigbang theory isn't a "full stop" explanation, it also doesn't state that matter was formed from nothing. I also don't see why so many religious types are against the bigbang theory, it really doesn't clash, can't you just say that god set off the bigbang..?
There are many things that we don't have proof of, or proof of it's creation, that we still believe in. Just because an answer brings up more questions, doesn't mean it's not the correct choice or something we shouldn't believe in.
Remember; you believe in a god that has less evidence of it's existence then we have on the bigbang, so it's coming off quite ironic for you to say that.
The Big Bang wasn't an explosion.
No but most people recognize this, and rather then saying " an expansion that is taking the rest of the universe away from us" I feel explosion ( even though it's not ) is the easiest word available in helping people understand. It's a trivial matter.
Edit: In simpler words; The planets by themselves aren't moving, it's the universe that is expanding, pulling the planets by the universes gravitational pull.
The big bang "didn't" happen, it is still happening. The whole thing about the big bang is that space is infinite, as well as being redundant at the same time. Its hard for me to explain how this is possible, and its hard to imagine at first. If you all really are interested in this type of information, and aren't just here to stick your two cents in, I suggest reading "A Complete History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson. It gives you facts and equations, but it is written in a way that the information isn't impossible to decode. Its all pretty fascinating, and while being from a purely scientific standpoint, it laterally gives creedence to there being some kind of intelligence to the design. I'm not in any position to guess at what that intelligence is, but it sparks the imagination. If you read this book, and are interested in more, I would say check out "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. This is a little more flexible in the fact department, adding neutrinos, superstrings, and multiple dimensions to the mix. Very interesting, if not a little technical. I got goosebumps while reading it.
Quote from: Holkeye on March 10, 2007, 06:41:44 AM
it laterally gives creedence to there being some kind of intelligence to the design.
Perhaps you would like to tell us how it does this..?
Well, mostly it is my belief, and I'm not trying to push it on anyone. I just feel like with something so perfectly integrated and extravagant, there has to be some sort of intelligence involved. Not necessarily human or animal intelligence. I don't believe that science and divinity could exist alone, and they are both intertwined. But like I said, its just how I feel.
Well I didn't make up those statistics, I searched the net for statistics and thats what came up.
And I may look like a chick, but chicks are hot, besides it's a statement, I don't care that makeup is a perdominately female thing, because it makes me look hot.
So I'll keep using it just like the ancient egyptians did.
Quote from: Arrow-1Aha! A contradiction! I submit that Elegy should revise, then repost his statement! Then, we will cross-examine it once more! And once more, we shall find a contradiction, completely destroying any credability he once had!
I had credibility at some point? Yay. ^_^
EDIT: 69 posts, also hot. ;)
I may be new here but I am as much of a scholar as you guys are. First of all if you read the fossil post from others and cave crashing and ect. then yoou can see it does not take that long to make fossil or even the Grand canyon for that matter. Second could not have God being an all powerful being not have created the earth with age so that we might have recouces that would normally take years to creat phisicly be created in an instant with Just a few words(Genesis 1). The big bang theory is just an excuse for an atheistic view about how life is created and therefore since they are rejecting God they are proving that they are sinners and not following God's will in life.
Quote from: cobragamer on March 10, 2007, 11:57:01 AM
I may be new here but I am as much of a scholar as you guys are.
Is that a compliment, or insult..?
QuoteFirst of all if you read the fossil post from others and cave crashing and ect. then yoou can see it does not take that long to make fossil or even the Grand canyon for that matter.
Yes, I'm sure that's explains away every fossils "religious age problem"... Wait...
QuoteSecond could not have God being an all powerful being not have created the earth with age so that we might have recouces that would normally take years to creat phisicly be created in an instant with Just a few words(Genesis 1).
>_> Uhhh, what do you mean "create the world with age"..? Time would be meaningless to a god, why take a short-cut? Perhaps your god is impatient?
QuoteThe big bang theory is just an excuse for an atheistic view about how life is created and therefore since they are rejecting God they are proving that they are sinners and not following God's will in life.
1) THE BIGBANG IS NOT EVIDENCE, NOR DOES IT TRY TO EXPLAIN THE START OF EVERYTHING.
2) No it's not an "excuse", it is factual. OH WAIT! The scientist must be lying about this proof as a way to destroy your religion! Yeh they also must of lied about mathematics too, and perhaps they're covering up the lochness monster and ET as well!
3) Yes I reject the notion of god, any god, and in the last few days of my Christianity I decided that hell would be much more fun compared to heaven so I'm set either way.
4) Ever heard of the "Divine Plan"? Basically a plan for every human, according to this Yahweh has already set a path for me, wouldn't that make it directly him, if not him coercing me to take the Atheist, hell-bound path..?
Shut up, first of all he wants all of us to go to heaven it is your choice if you want to take his offer and therefore take atheism as a choice. Second yes the big bang theory is proof of atheists to explain how we all got here what else could it be. The earth with age is refering to that if thier was no age we would all die withn weeks thats why there is no oil and other energy recources because they would take thousands of years to make more so we need to conserve it.
QuoteYes, I'm sure that's explains away every fossils "religious age problem"... Wait...
What kind of arguement is that?...
Also:
How many martyrs for Aethiesm do you see? NONE
There are many Christian martyrs and before you go and say the terrorists are martyrs as well, they're not. Killing or commiting suicide for your belief is different than being murdered for your belief.
Who do you see being murdered for their belief? Jews and Christians. Wow, I recall something in the Bible saying that many would die for His name.
Yes, and the bible also preaches not forcing your religion on others.
It doesn't say christians should try to convert people, it says they only have to talk about their religion if someone seriously wants to know.
Explain your definition of forcing: A:Killing people or believe. or B: Letting them know that we are there and won't give up on letting them know how we believe.
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.Acts 1.
Quote from: cobragamer on March 10, 2007, 06:07:06 PM
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.Acts 1.
This is what "we Christians" call
The Great Commission.[back on topic]
Show me proof of evolution. And no theories now. After all, you just said evolution is not a theory. Show me scientific experiments that PROVED evolution. Then I might start to take you guys seriously as oponents in this debate. We don't only use the Bible as proof of Creationism, we use it to affirm truths we seek.
...no. It says sare the news. It doesn't give specifics. You dislike christianity, how can you say you know the Bible? He never said FORCE it on people, but it says try to convert them. You're twisting the text.
@Tsunokiette-
Alright, but you do know that evolution and Darwinian Natural Selection are not the same thing right? Here's some evidence for
evolution and the reason why people don't want to explain
evolution to you is because it is not a subject in debate, excluding by you of course.
Quote
One piece of evidence is based on our DNA molecules.
Every single cell in our bodies contains DNA, a special molecule which
literally makes us what we are. Our DNA is almost EXACTLY the same as gorilla
DNA, and is even closer to DNA obtained from fossils of ancient ancestors of
human beings.
Quote 1. Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
* All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
* Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
* Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
* Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
* The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
* Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
* Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
* Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
* The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
* Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
* The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
* When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
* The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
* Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
* Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
* Speciation has been observed.
* The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.
Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).
The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.
-http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
QuoteIn the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
-Stephen J. Gould
QuoteIt is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
-Stephen J. Gould
How evolution happens is a subject of debate, not evolution its self. If things that should have been explained to you in grade school miss your grasp, then perhaps you should do some research before you ask people to show evidence of a commonly believed, and proved fact.
I partly agree with ~
QuoteHow evolution happens is a subject of debate, not evolution its self. If things that should have been explained to you in grade school miss your grasp, then perhaps you should do some research before you ask people to show evidence of a commonly believed, and proved fact.
However, in schools (in britain anyway) if someone in the science class believes god created everything, the teachers are suppose to also teach that. Not that they always do.
Also evolution is where a mutation occurs in the DNA. Each DNA strand has the data to remake your entire body exactly the same. Things like UVA, UVB and some radiation (not all radiation is bad for you) can change the coding. Most commonly this results in a cancer of the cells affected. (btw ~ can someone tell me how cancer spreads? i forget lol). Sometimes the DNA changes from the norm when a child is born (Appart from the normal spread of DNA from both parents alltering the looks of the child) which results in many different effects, many ending (or starting) in death. This covers things like; Cystic Fibrosis, Huntington's Disease and sickle-cell anaemia. None of which should be taken lightly.
Anyway maybe I went a litle off topic. However if there is a God, or a creator, shouldn't we be perfect?
EDIT: The bible was written 500 years after the events told within it, hardly reliable. Also, it contradicts itself.
EDIT2: Grammer and Spelling.
Evolution is apparent in all things. I'm religous, and I can own up to that. I'm not saying we evolved from apes, that's a HELL of a stretch, but yes, evolution = truth.
You can not say that we should be made perfect because he could create us like we are to marvel at his glory and give glory if we were perfect then we would be him and there fore could not marvel and give him gloory. It the same as you saying that I want to build a robot that is so perfect that it could match me in every thing I do or even be better.
I would also like to include that if we did evolve from apes then why are apes not evolving themselves or we continue to evolve are form geneticcaly
*sigh* When we say evolution we're not speaking of micro-evolution, we're speaking of inter-species evolution. Like arrow said, we didn't come from apes!
@Darico - Once again, as I have to ask constantly, where in the Bible does it contradict itself?
@DS - Prove that there were no mammals that long ago. In fact, prove that it WAS that long ago. Most creatures of myth came about (such as the Cyclops) due to people finding large bones, and piecing them together incorrectly. I'm not saying dinosaurs didn't exist, the Bible mentions them (or do I need to bring it up again?) but the flood killed them all. And a theory is a theory, I said bring me proof - not a quote.
Also, just because it may seem that the earth is that old, it's not. As was said before, whether by God or by Big Explosion (which you all contradict yourselves by saying God must of been created although the energy for the Big Bang - it makes PERFECT sense that it already existed -_- ) the earth had to be created as an aged earth, not a young earth. If it were a young earth no sustenence would have formed and no organism could have survived. Also, where did all of the plants come from? Where did vegetation come from? I don't see evolution explaining that?
ALSO: This IS on topic. If you discuss creationism you must also discuss the aadverse in the debate, in this case evolution. You can't have an intelligent debate without having both sides of the equation.
And just as a side note : If we were all perfect we would all be Gods, why would God created His own adversaries?
@cobragamer ~Because one ape had a successful mutation (aka, helpful mutation) and went on to become 'human' and the others did not. Its really that simple lol.
@tsunokiette ~ So adam and eve are the only people on the planet then they have kids... the bible says,
Abel and Cain where the sons...
"Genesis 4, 5" 16&17" quotes;
"16. And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17. And Cain knew his wive; and she conceived, and bare Enoch : and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."
Umm... Hold on... Another women!? Where? How?
Also @ Tsuno ~ the firstlife forms where bacteria from a asteroid that collied with our planet many many billions and billions of years ago. Apparently, no one can prove anything.
Besides. The "why aren't the apes evolving" idea is entirely flawed. The most obvious reason is that evolution branches. It's not like there's only ONE TYPE OF FROG in the world, or ONE TYPE OF BEAR. It branched! (if we did in face come from apes) One branch was more suited for staying in the wild, and so the offspring that retained the ape qualities survived, and those that didn't did not live. The human branch found ways to break away from the wild and create an environment for itself.
check above post.
Ah. Well, he deleted the question anyhow, so I guess neither matters.
Lol, he changed it. and the new answer to your... change question is....
*Drum role please...*
We havnt mutated yet, or we have but science has over taken evolution and we are "fixing" ourselves to stay the same!
@Darico - Read the whole section. They have more kids. -_-
Yes, another boy named Seth for when Cain is killed,. But no girls are born.
That doesn't mean it contradicts itself though. Where does it say "These are the only children they had" ?
For example, the Bible never says that people breathed oxygen in Genesis, but does that mean they don't? No.
They author probabaly didn't find it important to mention the females born. (sex views)
But you can't prove any exsited either, which brings a close to that leg of this discussion.
Also, you bringing oxygen onto the table made me think; where does the bible explain for all the elements that we are still discovering?
@cobragamer- You really haven't the slightest clue on what your talking about. Darwinism doesn't say we came from "apes", it says that we share common ancestry. When I come to intelligent debate I don't expect to be forced to teach, I come here to debate people who have an understanding on both sides of the situation. You do not.
QuoteIt the same as you saying that I want to build a robot that is so perfect that it could match me in every thing I do or even be better.
If we didn't make robots better then ourselves then we would have no use for them. GTFO please.
@Tsunokiette- Evolution is the change of a species. If you are attacking Darwinism, then say "Darwinism", if you are attacking macro-evolution then say "macro-evolution". Evolution its self does not have an answer to how it happens, it just says it does. The mechanics ( not the same as the theory of evolution ) or explanation theories try to explain the fine tuning.
QuoteProve that there were no mammals that long ago. In fact, prove that it WAS that long ago. Most creatures of myth came about (such as the Cyclops) due to people finding large bones, and piecing them together incorrectly. I'm not saying dinosaurs didn't exist, the Bible mentions them (or do I need to bring it up again?) but the flood killed them all. And a theory is a theory, I said bring me proof - not a quote.
Alrighty, prove that you exist. That same question is as stupid as yours, I'm sure you have overwhelming evidence that you exist, but a theory is just a theory.
Quote(which you all contradict yourselves by saying God must of been created although the energy for the Big Bang - it makes PERFECT sense that it already existed -_- )
Of course the energy pre-existed to create the bigbang, matter can not come from nothing. If you knew anything about the bigbang you would know it isn't a final explanation. A theory doesn't have to explain its existence or come-abouts to be true, just like evolution.
Quote
Also, just because it may seem that the earth is that old, it's not.
Perhaps you would like to show me some proof of this..?
Quotethe earth had to be created as an aged earth, not a young earth. If it were a young earth no sustenence would have formed and no organism could have survived.
We can think up ways to terraform mars, A.K.A. bring life to a dead planet, your saying your god couldn't?
QuoteAlso, where did all of the plants come from? Where did vegetation come from? I don't see evolution explaining that?
Yeah, it kinda does =). Plants are lifeforms too, just simple ones...
QuoteAnd just as a side note : If we were all perfect we would all be Gods, why would God created His own adversaries?
So did he make us weak out of fear??
Oh and the bible contradicts its self in many places, I really couldn't be bothered posting them as I've done so on many occasions... It all ends with either "THAT'S FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT, HOW DARE YOU" or "The bible your quoting from is incorrectly translated!!".
Ok, well first off the story of Adam and Eve is largely known to be just a parable about humans needing to be baptized and containing original sin. Only very extreme sects of religions believe it to be true, and personally, I think if you believe that Adam and Eve and the story of the garden of Eden are real, you have more to worry about than this debate.
@Saucy ~ What you said.
@Holkeye ~ lol.
[offtopic]
If there is a God then there must be a Satan. If there is the sky then there must be the ground. If there is light then there must be dark. There must always be a opposite. (This is where i say, "The equation must be balanced" but that is a bit Matrix-like for my tastes!)
[/offtopic]
Truth is relative, there are no absolutes.
That is why arguing about things is only useful if you like instigating, as long as you are content in your own opinion, nothing else matters.
Wether we evolved over billions of years or a diety created us is irellevant, we are, and thats what matters.
Do the best with the time you have, and don't worry about death, cops, laws, money etc.
Does what you said actually have any point towards this topic? You basically through everything said so far out of the window and said it dosnt matter. :=:
Yes, and that is my point.
Argue all you want but don't expect to reach a conclusion.
And even if you against all odds do reach a conclusion, it doesn't change anything, so why bother?
The only thing you could possibly gain is avoiding a bruised ego.
We are only talking about it :-\ don't get involved if you have nothing contributing to say.
Quote from: Elegy on March 10, 2007, 09:30:37 PM
Yes, and that is my point.
Argue all you want but don't expect to reach a conclusion.
And even if you against all odds do reach a conclusion, it doesn't change anything, so why bother?
The only thing you could possibly gain is avoiding a bruised ego.
Elegy is like a piece of change; two faced, and always flipping over.
Quote from: Darico on March 10, 2007, 09:04:52 PM
But you can't prove any exsited either, which brings a close to that leg of this discussion.
Also, you bringing oxygen onto the table made me think; where does the bible explain for all the elements that we are still discovering?
Most of the elements that we are all still discovering are man made and God has created enough so that we can marvel at his glory.
Quote from: Holkeye on March 10, 2007, 09:06:45 PM
Ok, well first off the story of Adam and Eve is largely known to be just a parable about humans needing to be baptized and containing original sin. Only very extreme sects of religions believe it to be true, and personally, I think if you believe that Adam and Eve and the story of the garden of Eden are real, you have more to worry about than this debate.
Why or what do I have to be worried about? It is just sounds like I am trying to recite things from one of the only sources that is reliable to have million or even billions of people believing.
Some time ago, millions, if not billions of people knew the world to be a flat plate =). Taking the number odds is a poor choice to make on just that alone.
Is English your first language?
Quote from: cobragamer on March 10, 2007, 11:49:23 PM
Quote from: Holkeye on March 10, 2007, 09:06:45 PM
Ok, well first off the story of Adam and Eve is largely known to be just a parable about humans needing to be baptized and containing original sin. Only very extreme sects of religions believe it to be true, and personally, I think if you believe that Adam and Eve and the story of the garden of Eden are real, you have more to worry about than this debate.
Why or what do I have to be worried about? It is just sounds like I am trying to recite things from one of the only sources that is reliable to have million or even billions of people believing.
The reason you should be worried is because no matter how you look at it, with the adam and eve story has lots and LOTS of incest. Seriously, every ones got some incest in their bloodline if they go back far enough. But if that story were true humanity would be severely inbred. I mean like, inbred to the point where we'd all have down syndrome or something.
Our sin has made mankind burdened with diseases; Back then sin had just started taking effect so they could marry each other and besides God Commanded them to
You have more to worry about because you're a fucking idiot if you think that a serpent told a girl and a man made from her rib to eat some fruit that made them know shame and an omnipotent deity showed itself from the sky and kicked them out of a garden.
Can you prove it didn't happen Holkeye?
Can you prove there isn't a dildo orbiting the earth? :/
Errr... give me a big telescope and lots of time and I may be able to ;8
You never know, a lady astronout may of got a bit... horny...
Technically you can't disprove a negative. We have no proof that unicorns ( and I'm not referring to the Egyptian ones ) aren't real, yet we don't believe in them. There's also a reason why I stopped believing in Santa Clause at four years of age, I assure you it wasn't because I could prove he didn't exist =).
When an idea becomes so implausible due to lack of evidence, it's not worth our energy entertaining.
Quote from: Deliciously_Saucy on March 10, 2007, 11:53:35 PMIs English your first language?
Please don't attack my friend in that manner. It ticks me off when people are attacked for no real reason.
Also, I apologize for my mis-spelling of macroevolution, I'm human, I make mistakes. -_-
Final Note : I would say since everbody has already posted their view on the matter at hand, that in real life this debate would already be over. The point of a debate is not to try to "win" persay, but rather to share your arguement. If there is a winner it is chosen by the people (ex: the presidential debates).
God did not show himself directectly and even then It would have happened eventually no matter what happened
I have about as much evidence against it as you do in favor of it. And also, what would've happened eventually? Thats not a very good argument for anything.
I want to know what you could throw at me that contradicts the bible ing any way at all.
Science disproves all religion. Religion is just the root of all evil. (that, and money)
science has proved the bible so many times it is not funny. And how could you say religion is evil when it disapproves evil?
You can't use the bible as proof. Science has not "proven the bible to be true", it has found correlating evidence to major political events throughout the New Testament. The bible is called historical fiction. It takes place during real historical events, but it is still fiction. Just because a bunch of people decided to follow the writings in it does not make it a divine book of some sort. Its like millions of people following The Lord Of The Rings, and believing that all that stuff happened before the so called "Age of Man".
Now that I have shown my stance on the matter, I am through with this thread. I respect the fact that some of you had undying faith. I'm sure life is a little easier to live when you have something like that to be unquestionably devoted to. Its not that I'm not a spiriual person, like I said earlier. Its just that some beliefs can't be entertained after the evidence points the other way.
how has scienced proved the bible right?
Quote from: cobragamer on March 11, 2007, 07:07:50 PM
science has proved the bible so many times it is not funny. And how could you say religion is evil when it disapproves evil?
« Last Edit: Today at 02:13:29 PM by Tsunokiette »
Well Tsuno, it may not be funny, but what you just said certainly is. The last time I checked Noah's ark was absolutely shown to be an impossibility... What parts of the bible have been "proven"..?
Science soposedly discovered jesus tomb, woops wrong it only helped that Jesus has risen from the dead. Bible mentions about a mine of copper ofr some other miniral, they went to were the bible said it was found nothing but then they dug deeeper and found it full of the metal. In the bible it prophetised about and increase of earthquakes over the last 1000 years earthquakes have risin to high numbers of thousands of earthquakes just check the news or remember the tsuname about two or three years ago.
Noahs ark has been proven! Mt. ararat still exists today just I think it was renamed. It has been taken a picture of it under the ice. Science has also recorded that earth is more compacted during floods. they have found a great compaction whitch would have been the soil 5 thousand years ago
Evidence is often misleading.
Quote from: Miguel de CervantesFacts are the enemy of truth
That's very interesting, but even though you are talking about evidence you're off topic. As a matter of fact, I can't really blame you, as so far this whole page seems to have been...
It says on the first page you can't prove or disprove religion with science. That's true, as religion is a faith system. Faith is based solely on the individual, and cannot be disproven or proven.
That being said, let's get back on topic: the actual questions out of those first ten lines.
I would also like to say the bible ii itself is not a religion it is just a tool of the religion because it can be taken out of context and serve as a tool of deciet and lies when it was not originally attended to do so but rather correct your moral situation.
Yes...this was obvious. You can do this with any text or piece of factual evidence.
sorry I just noticed you where taking the bible and talking about religion
Quote from: cobragamer on March 11, 2007, 07:23:18 PM
Science soposedly discovered jesus tomb, woops wrong it only helped that Jesus has risen from the dead. Bible mentions about a mine of copper ofr some other miniral, they went to were the bible said it was found nothing but then they dug deeeper and found it full of the metal. In the bible it prophetised about and increase of earthquakes over the last 1000 years earthquakes have risin to high numbers of thousands of earthquakes just check the news or remember the tsuname about two or three years ago.
Yeh, Nostradamus predicted a lot of stuff too... It's a nice little trick. It's not a premonition unless you can name the event to take place
before it happens. The bible is more then vague with what it predicts, it doesn't give any specific dates making it bound to happen at one time or another. If you predict that some time in the future it will get much colder, I'm sure that it will happen.
As to the tomb, I really don't see how that proves anything, while I have not gone deeply into the story as of yet, I'm sure there are plenty of tombs around the place... As well as copper mines...
Jesus is still a fictional character in my books, I have seen no evidence of his existence past the bible.
Quote from: cobragamer on March 11, 2007, 07:27:20 PM
Noahs ark has been proven! Mt. ararat still exists today just I think it was renamed. It has been taken a picture of it under the ice. Science has also recorded that earth is more compacted during floods. they have found a great compaction whitch would have been the soil 5 thousand years ago
No, no it hasn't. I'm afraid, sadly for you, that I have done pleanty of research in the Mt. Ararat boat "findings" and all they have is a satilite photo of most likey nothing, and a few atention seeking locals who want to be on Tv claiming to have seen a boat on their travels on the mountain... Here's a vid I find quite fun... ;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxFTCdBBklU&watch_response It has music and cartoons.. Please watch...
Going by your bible, the dimensions given are physically impossible for a wooden boat, as well as many other things...
How are they impossible? and what about the flood finding with the ground
A wooden boat of that size would capsize. Most of my argument is in this video, watch it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxFTCdBBklU&watch_response (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxFTCdBBklU&watch_response)
No matter how big a boat is if is made of wood it will float as long as it is in the correct dimensions and did you even check what he was saying was comepletly true based on the Bible books and others findings.
If we are going to talk about the bibble then we should start a separate thread.
Quote from: cobragamer on March 11, 2007, 09:16:21 PM
No matter how big a boat is if is made of wood it will float as long as it is in the correct dimensions
Really... ... Perhaps you would like to
not blindly state things like that again in the future, you really are losing credibility. I'm afraid a pure wooden ship does indeed have a limit to it's size due to the nature of wood its self. Wood is very flexible, without metal to reinforce it a wooden ship would not only sink, it would break.
Quoteand did you even check what he was saying was comepletly true based on the Bible books and others findings.
I'm afraid I didn't get that... Of course it was based on the bible, it's a biblical story, what else would you like to base it on? Dissect the story to fit current needs and we're no longer talking about the same thing. Perhaps I misunderstood you, your style of writing isn't the easiest to understand.
But yes I did check what the maker was saying, and excluding the repetition of the word "fuck", the movie tends to discredit any realism of the story Noah's Ark.
Quote from: Deliciously_Saucy on March 11, 2007, 08:12:31 PM
Quote from: cobragamer on March 11, 2007, 07:23:18 PM
Science soposedly discovered jesus tomb, woops wrong it only helped that Jesus has risen from the dead. Bible mentions about a mine of copper ofr some other miniral, they went to were the bible said it was found nothing but then they dug deeeper and found it full of the metal. In the bible it prophetised about and increase of earthquakes over the last 1000 years earthquakes have risin to high numbers of thousands of earthquakes just check the news or remember the tsuname about two or three years ago.
Yeh, Nostradamus predicted a lot of stuff too... It's a nice little trick. It's not a premonition unless you can name the event to take place before it happens. The bible is more then vague with what it predicts, it doesn't give any specific dates making it bound to happen at one time or another. If you predict that some time in the future it will get much colder, I'm sure that it will happen.
As to the tomb, I really don't see how that proves anything, while I have not gone deeply into the story as of yet, I'm sure there are plenty of tombs around the place... As well as copper mines...
Jesus is still a fictional character in my books, I have seen no evidence of his existence past the bible.
There is over 100 proghesies on Jesus and they all came true based on writing during that same period
Also, Noah reinforced the wood with metals (they had the materials back then), so by your standards DS it should float.
Going to start playing devil's advocate here. Can you prove from articles or material that are relevant to the time period?
No, you're just being arbitrary for the sake of it.
Quote from: Tsunokiette on March 12, 2007, 02:01:56 AM
Also, Noah reinforced the wood with metals (they had the materials back then), so by your standards DS it should float.
Oh god... I didn't say that... THERE IS A LIMIT IN SIZE TO A WOODEN BOAT WHETHER YOU REINFORCE IT OR NOT. Tested and tried, reinforcement increases the size, but not to that extent. Ask some one at the American ship building industry.
As to the metal workings, Noah lived roughly in 2900 B.C. ( or according to the bible, the tenth generation after Adam ), in other words the early bronze age. When Noah was
600 years old ( he died 350 years later ;)), this was when he was commissioned to build his arc. No matter when you place him going by the ideas given by your bible, Noah really wouldn't have had the technical prowess for iron reinforcement. Oh wait, perhaps god gave it to him :).
QuoteGoing to start playing devil's advocate here. Can you prove from articles or material that are relevant to the time period?
Who the hell are you talking to? I'm also surprised you didn't bleep out the word "devil".
From what I found there really is no exact time reference to Noah in the bible, and given that he's a fictional character there isn't any other records of him. The time I put up is from religious types trying to place him in a real time period.
Pfft, americans can't build ships.
Quote from: SaucyNoah really wouldn't have had the technical prowess for iron reinforcement
Thats an interesting thought, the discovery of penicillin was attributed to Alexander Fleming in 1928, but the Veda scriptures prove that people knew about penicillin 5000 years ago, same goes for lead accumulators, (better known as car batteries) the ancient egyptians knew how to make those.
Point remains, you can't really know what kind of technical abilities people had in the past, the only thing found are pottery and occasional wooden objects, if they had metal tools they would have eroded.
Now THERE'S a point we agree on. Though I cna't back-up what your specific examples as this is the first I've heard of this, I can back up your general idea. So many records have been hidden or lost or destroyed, there's no telling what ancient earth was like. China is a fantastic example.
http://www.neatorama.com/2006/07/01/noahs-ark-found/
There is a sight that says that they have found what is noah's ark. Man is a sinful creature and there can be flaws as text being translated down during the reformations times but I still believe there is a way whether of not it uses divine intervention or not I have no idea but it is still possible
Yes, I'm sure in your mind there's no way it could be wrong, but that's because your an unquestioning religious type. But the real interesting point is that you keep searching for evidence of your faith... Odd, can't you "just believe"? Even when your mind is fumbled by evidence and scientific law, you always have "well, it must of been divine intervention" to fall back on and reassure your faith. Just keep ignoring logic, your doing a great job.
Oh and thanks for the gossip. Two poorly written, unfounded paragraphs really don't have two legs to stand on...
Well it is the same for you why do you have to find falts in our religion is it becuese you are in denile and need an excuse to stay away from God
Quote from: cobragamer on March 12, 2007, 10:03:37 PM
Well it is the same for you why do you have to find falts in our religion is it becuese you are in denile and need an excuse to stay away from God
Not even slightly, I was deeply Christian, by my own accord too, but when I gained some knowledge from the world I started asking questions, and the answers came quite clearly to me one day; there is no god, at least not a personal one. What do I have to be in denial about?
The idea of life after death is something I would kill for. I assure you, accepting nothingness at death isn't a choice that is comforting, nor is it something I want, but I would rather live in truth and be depressed, then live a shallow, controlled life just to be content the last few moments before my death.
You should ignore the possibility if there is a God or not. In the end it's only faith that matters. I still say it's better to live a fun life, regardless of your beliefs.
Hey let's just get back on topic Ok will you tell me how, why and from where you get your beliefs of Evolution
The topic is not evolution, it is creationism.
.. and subsequently the main counter theory, evolution.
*bashes head into table.*
Sorry, I was getting sort of used to countering him like that. You're absolutely right. Sorry cobra.
Quote from: cobragamer on March 13, 2007, 12:05:07 AM
Hey let's just get back on topic Ok will you tell me how, why and from where you get your beliefs of Evolution
how: I never really believed or disbelieved in evolution when I was a young Christian, and when you start learning about things of an academic nature it really shows you the evidence that the only possibility is evolution ( I'm not referring to NS ).
Why: There really aren't any counter options to take in the real world that are taken seriously, that and I've studied it to some degree myself, the evidence is there and undeniable, the
only people I have seen that try to attack or don't believe in evolution ( in its base form ) are religious types in who's ideas evolution clashes with.
Where: Uh, where else? The world and it's surroundings.
I'm still wondering if Tsuno ever watched that show I linked him. If not, links yet again: part 1 (http://www.antonioedward.net/component/option,com_remository/Itemid,28/func,fileinfo/filecatid,50/parent,category) & part 2 (http://www.antonioedward.net/component/option,com_remository/Itemid,28/func,fileinfo/filecatid,49/parent,category). I'd advise his bible buddy watch it as well. Hopefully it'll save both of you from your delusion :/
If you're up for reading a book, I attached "The God Delusion" here (http://rmrk.net/index.php/topic,11657.msg145959.html#msg145959), which I recommend you read.
Both cover creationism/evolution quite alot, so relevance++.
It's almost hilarious that people still beleive these man-made religions and blindly beleive things like the earth is merely a few thousand years old even in the face of concrete proof that it is clearly billions of years old. Take one small random sample of all this, something like the layers of ice on the polar caps, which (like tree rings) changes each year due to summer and winter, melting and refreezing. So far when drilling out, they've had ice with what, nearly a million layers?
Quote from: Silverline on March 13, 2007, 02:10:40 PM
Take one small random sample of all this, something like the layers of ice on the polar caps, which (like tree rings) changes each year due to summer and winter, melting and refreezing. So far when drilling out, they've had ice with what, nearly a million layers?
No no no, god did that to trick you all >_> for some reason >_>...
Ahhh, downloads a bitch Silver =) but I'm doing it now... I'll edit in a response once they have downloaded ( an est. 2 hours... ).
Just like love, ignoring flaws and accepting insane logic to make things fit is an easy thing to do in the face of religion, I can see that bible pete over here is asking enough questions to try and make more sense of his faith, but if you refuse to accept the answers, the truth then there really is no point in asking. Your making up logic in a vain attempt to back your faith to answers you can't respond to in a rational way.
Quote from: Deliciously_Saucy on March 13, 2007, 02:36:55 PM
No no no, god did that to trick you all >_> for some reason >_>...
I thought, you believed there is no God. ;)
I think you're wrong. The Bible isn't there to provide any accurate answers or explanations. It's there to just give you a picture of it. So like "Ah, yeah, God created us all, that's all that matters. If we wanna know how and when, we have to find out ourselves.".
Quote from: Blizzard on March 13, 2007, 05:47:13 PM
"So ah, yeh, there's this magical dude called, uhhh, God, and uhhh just believe in him, k? I don't have any accurate answers or explanations, but uhhhh, just believe any way.... I mean, >_>, YOU DON'T WANT TO BURN IN HELL DO YOU?!? ... ..".
That's what I heard. ^
I don't know what's worse, those who make up truths in order for their ideas to be accurate, or those who accept that it doesn't make sense and believe any way.
Actually the ice layers due to changes in temperature, not changes in seasons.
Not so long ago they found something there from like 1940 or something, I don't really know.
In any case, the ice-layer system said that the thing had been down there for over 350 some years.
EDIT: What the hell? I just noticed someone has given me +rep :'(
Thats not fair, I worked hard for those -22 points.
I'm officially withdrawing from this thread because Cobra dropped the collective intellegnce of his damn thing. No maater how much Arrow, Bliz, DS or Silver try to redeem this thread Its just too retarded for me.
Also If 'Noah's Ark' get mentioned again I'm going to have to break an epee across some one's face.
....NOAH'S ARK!!!!
lol
@Silverline - As a matter of fact, I have part 1 and 2 of The Origin of All Evil on my desktop, however I do not know what program runs .mp4's so... yeah. (Besides an IPod).
Every now and then I get the voice in my head that tells me to throw away my belief, that it's all a delusion. Then, God does something to rock my world... again, restoring my faith.
[on topic]
Another link http://www.nwcreation.net/noahwyatt.html
http://videolan.org
http://anydecentmediaplayer.com
I am sorry to bring this up again but here is how I am getting my info: from:http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0324ark.asp
Its false logic to say that since evolution can't be proven, creationism should be taught as well. I think the funniest part was the guy that said the Earth was 6000 years old.
....What is creationism ;8....
oneray, creationism is the thought or belief that religion had something to do with the world, like for example, how it was made, how humans appeared on earth, so in short, it involves anything that has to do with the heavens and skies, earth and human, animals and plants, RELIGIOUSLY,
some religions believe that adam and eve were the first humans.
Quote from: oneray on April 11, 2007, 12:22:21 AM
....What is creationism ;8....
The answer depends on who you ask, I say it is total BS.
Creationism, or Intelligent Design, is the belief that some sort of entity crafted the world and life on Earth. The (kind of) opposite would be evolution, which is the belief that life changed over time, adjusting itself to its surroundings.
Since creationism can't be proved and science can, i will go with creationism.
Quote from: oneray on April 19, 2007, 10:16:18 PM
Since creationism can't be proved and science can, i will go with creationism.
Did you mistype?
LOL! I am a total clutz. yeah i did mistype. ;8 I go with science.
Quote from: oneray on April 19, 2007, 10:46:24 PM
LOL! I am a total clutz. yeah i did mistype. ;8 I go with science.
Lol, ok. I didn't know if you were making a joke or not.