EPT[Christian topic] Greg Laurie - Page 14
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
| ||
|
testpat
United States565 Posts
I honestly don't think you realize how many animals exist on the planet, and how much food they would need. How many animals do you think are on the ark? I believe it was 58,000 animals needed to be on the ark. To have exactly as many species as we have now. 58,000 x 2 = 100k huh, i would guess closer to 4 million. Not my figure, support below. This is just stored animals. Not animals needed to feed carnivores. + Show Spoiler + http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8619_issue_11_volume_4_number_1__3_12_2003.asp Getting an accurate count. We can finally begin to make some calculations. Robert D. Barnes lists the number of living species for each phylum, ranging from the sole member of Placozoa to the 923,000 in Arthropoda (pp. 12, 85-88). Using his figures, we arrive at a total of 1,177,920 species. In addition, there are many animals that are as yet unknown. Wendt estimates that only 2 percent of all the parasitic worms are known, which would easily add another million species (p. 83). This includes as many as 500,000 nematodes, although only 15,000 have been described (Levine, p. 1). Ten thousand new species of insects are discovered every year, yet still only a small fraction of those in existence have been found (Atkins, p. 45). All of those creatures were known at one time, for Adam gave them all names (Genesis 2:19-20), and, since they exist today, they must have been on the ark. But we shall be extremely generous to the creationists and add only 500,000 undiscovered species to our figure of 1,177,920—thus giving a mere 1,677,920 species with which Noah had to contend. To this number, we must add the myriad of extinct prehistoric animals, which creationists assure us were alive at the time of the flood, making tracks in the Paluxy River, and which were known to Job afterward (John Morris, 1980, p. 65). This would vastly increase the numbers, since "only a tiny percentage of the animal and plant species that have ever existed are alive today" (Kear, p. 10). However, since creationists do not believe in transitional forms, we can again give them the benefit of the doubt and add to our total only the 200,000 different fossils that have been described. This brings the number to 1,877,920 species or animal pairs that were to be boarded onto the ark. Of course, we can't forget that Genesis 7:2-3 (particularly in the Revised Standard Version) makes it clear that only unclean animals come in single pairs, male and female; the clean animals and birds come in seven pairs, male and female. That means fourteen of each clean animal and each bird. But since figures for the number of clean animals are hard to find, we will have to let creationists off the hook and ignore them. Birds are another story. There are 8,590 species of birds. Since they have already been calculated into our figure of 1,877,920 species or 3,755,840 individual animals on the ark, we need only six more pairs of each species of bird to make it come out to seven pairs. That brings our count up to a grand total of 3,858,920 animals aboard the ark—two of each species, except birds which number fourteen each. But I'll go with 58,000. Is seven days long enough to load every animal onto the ark? Noah had a lot longer than 7 days to build the ark. Even still, yes I believe 7 days is plently. I know of cattle drivers that loaded more than 60,000 cows into freight trains in a matter of a couple of days. I never said it was built in 7 days. I've completely ignored the fact that the dimensions of the ark are 4 times larger than anything built during that time, 150 ft longer than any wooden ship ever built. Without steel reinforcement they break in half. Even then, they leak so badly they need constant pumping, and can only be used close to shore because they can't handle deep seas. I just assumed he was divinely inspired to figure out all the engineering necessary to built it. However, it was loaded in 7 days. The ark was loaded two by two. 58,000 x 2. Noah and his extended family (50?) loads 100k animals, their food for over a year in a week, after gathering it of course. They also collect enough fresh water until the magical salt rain/ fresh water rain falls. During this time, they would also have to be feed the animals they were loading. How long were they are on the ark? Can't you read it yourself? See if you opened to the chapter of the Bible and read what it said, I wouldn't have to explain a thing. Can't you think for yourself. What we are having is a discussion about the requirement for the ark, physical things that are required to fit the text. The amount of time on the ship is necessary because it creates storage requirements for food. If you used your brain a little more, I wouldn't have to explain a thing about how impossible the ark is. How are the animals fed, what is done with the excrement? ooo this is a toughy... Let's see, first I'd store food on the Ark (go figure) and then I'd throw the poop overboard. Man you ask tough logical questions.... These 50 people feed 104,000 animal a day, remove 6 - 12 tons of breath respiration (water vapour). Distribute 58 tons of food, remove 50 tons of manure. They also repair the ship as necessary. Distribute 10 tons of fresh water. I can see why you give such well thought out answers - its obvious that this is possible. How are living environments maintained, how are animals exercised? how is heat transfered, how is it lit? Living environments? How do you know polar bears lived where they live now? Polar bears could have adapted into a cold thriving bear. Exercised? I honestly don't think exercise is a primary concern when your huddled in a boat, floating on top of the world. Heat Transfer? Cold is the absence of heat, look it up. How is it lit? Let's try the sun for starters... The fact that you don't understand that some animals will not survive if they cannot move is understandable with the how well you've thought out the rest of the questions. The fact that the ark has 3 levels, and therefore two levels don't have natural sunlight confuses me since i thought you read your bible is not understandable. A fair number of creatures will not live in total darkness. Living bodies also generate and output heat, this has to go someplace. While not a problem for houses, its a serious problem for an enclosed boat. A non magical boat. By the way, you believe in evolution huh? Before the ark, there were no polar bears? That just seems wrong. If that's your postulate, i'll explore it with you. You now have to figure out how polar bears are created after the flood in the time possible, and the fossil record should show this right? You have a lot of species to deal with though, there are amazing number of animals that only exist in certain places on earth. Otherwise you need to think how the ark recreates cold, warm, humid (probably not a problem), and arid environments. After they get off the ark, there is no food available to most of the animals? No way... Noah thought ahead and stored food... Man your questions get increasingly difficult. After all the gobs of floating seaweed settled and the water resided, seeds began springing up like normal. Honestly, how do the animals come and go from the ark to their places on earth? The Bible says God brings the animals. It is unknown how dispersed the animals are, since God created all the animals close enough for Adam to name them all, I assume they didn't have to go too far. God also filled the earth with animals and the seas with fishies - he must have brought them to adam for the naming ceremony. Or are you postulating that the earth was barren outside of a fixed radius from Noah, and God lied when he said he filled the earth? Finally, these animals come off the ark. Noah then visits the four corners of the earth, shepherding animals back to the native habitats, carrying their food. By some miracle, each animal finds their respective mate in their respective part of the earth, and produce offspring. These magical animals survive, even though conservation biologists estimate a minimum size of fifty for a species's survival, with 150 or more being a more realistic figure. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
Hosanna
United States8 Posts
Also, the post in which, you jumped onto Xel about \"judging\" people wrongly was taken far out of context as well. He wasn't saying \"Do not judge.\" to everyone, you must look at the crowd in which he was speaking. Jesus, was talking to the Pharisees about judging those outside the church. 2 Timothy 2:16 - Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. (TNIV) If we do not \"judge\" each other to keep others faith strong, are we not becoming more and more ungodly? As for the person who says human error was probably a big factor in the Bible, please, research a little more on the Trinity. The authors wrote the Bible under the influence of the Holy Spirit (Which is, God.) As believed, God has no error, and up until now, the Bible has never been proven wrong. The little incident that \"the Bible says pi = 3\" find me 1 person who can tell me EXACTLY what pi equals (I mean up until the very last number in it), then I\'ll become a believer. I also read, that there is no faith in science.. when in fact, to believe in science, you must have more faith than Christianity ever will have. In my eyes, it takes A LOT of faith to believe in, the beginning of life, evolution, carbon-dating, the big bang, etc.. Christianity, all we have to have faith in, is that God exists, created everything, and sent his son to die for us. Not only is faith in science and religion, it\'s in every day life.. I take it most of you drive? Can you see your breaks? No, but you put your faith in them to stop you from running off the road or hitting someone, right? Everything in life has an aspect of faith to it. Oh ya, what Xel said earlier is right, Science is just catching up with the bible.. many things in the Bible were written long before. History, is proving the bible more credible too. Isaiah 66:8 \"Who has ever heard of such things? Who has ever seen things like this? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment?? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children.\" May 14, 1948 Jews declared independence, became recognized as their own nation by the United States, and we\'re born in a day. I don\'t know, just things like that make me think, that it could be true? http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/isaiah_66_7.htm Thats all I have for now, because I have to go to bed.. By the way, Noah took between 70-120 years to build his ark.. Just thought I would throw that out. | ||
|
L!MP
Australia2067 Posts
On April 18 2007 09:06 lil.sis wrote: congratulations you know the bible by heart and you went to sunday school and you go to church and you know the scriptures guess what? you're still a fucking douche that is mean to other people and generally causes more harm than good YOU are the reason why being a christian today is synonymous with being an idiot YOU are the reason why whenever people are approached by others trying to spread the word nobody gives it the time of day you preach a message of arrogance, sanctimony, judgement and elitism, and anachronistic morals that are not applicable to modern society in any way! you may be christian, but you are still a bad person if given the choice, i would prefer meeting niteReloaded 1000 times over meeting you brb gotta tell my sister to go sacrifice two doves at the temple for her week of uncleanliness (menstruation, it happens) (Lev 15:29) i was about to go write something like this, but you nailed it right on the head. props. | ||
|
TheOvermind77
United States923 Posts
On April 18 2007 19:49 Annor[BbG] wrote: I wasn't using my quotes for anything, was just pointing out how useless yours was. Though the one from discovery I did like the finish. "Whatever we can't determine exactly we guess. Sometimes we KNOW our dates aren't right, so we change them to better fit time lines." Finally! Someone said it. They have multiple people, do multiple tests, then average all their results to have a scientific conclusion on the date. I'll throw this one in for measure. "The new lava dome (dacite) from the at Mount St. Helens was formed in 1986. In 1997 five specimens were taken from this dome at five different locations and subjected to conventional Potassium-Argon dating. The results indicated ages of less than one half to almost three million years old, all from eleven year old rock. We know when this dome formed. When we date rock of known age we test the claims and we see obvious failures. But, when we date rock of unknown age, we are assured that the results are accurate." Ah, so you want to talk about Mt. St Helens? Let's go >< Quoted from the SAME webpage that you got your data from, explaining why the radioisotope data was off: A good possibility is that solidification of magma does not reset the radioisotope clock to zero. Probably some argon-40 is incorporated from the start into newly formed minerals giving the "appearance" of great age. Also, it is VERY interesting to note your source...at the bottom of the page, it says "Go to the Introduction of: www.creationism.org "...dear God, you are getting scientific data from a website about creationism...incredibly biased!!!!!!!! However, if the data you just told me is true, it does not affect the dating of animal fossils, etc. This is because those objects are NOT newly formed igneous rock and are therefore not subject to the errors that your article claims exist. Remember, however....I am not arguing against anyone...I am a Christian...just not a Biblical Literalist >< Here is the site if people want to read more about it: http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm Scientists responded against this "evidence" with the following: Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93). A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified. Furthermore, many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old. Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.). With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples (Dalrymple, 1969, p. 48). That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples. For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects. Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer??? Contrary to Swenson's uninformed claim that ' Dr Austin carefully designed the research to counter all possible objections', Austin clearly demonstrated his inexperience in geochronology when he wasted a lot of money using the K-Ar method on the wrong type of samples. It is obvious that an unqualified, unknowledgable person did the testing on the subject in question. Please, read the sources and realize the possible extreme bias in what you read! Read more about it here: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm | ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On April 18 2007 22:01 TheOvermind77 wrote: Ah, so you want to talk about Mt. St Helens? Let's go >< Quoted from the SAME webpage that you got your data from, explaining why the radioisotope data was off: A good possibility is that solidification of magma does not reset the radioisotope clock to zero. Probably some argon-40 is incorporated from the start into newly formed minerals giving the "appearance" of great age. Also, it is VERY interesting to note your source...at the bottom of the page, it says "Go to the Introduction of: www.creationism.org "...dear God, you are getting scientific data from a website about creationism...incredibly biased!!!!!!!! However, if the data you just told me is true, it does not affect the dating of animal fossils, etc. This is because those objects are NOT newly formed igneous rock and are therefore not subject to the errors that your article claims exist. Remember, however....I am not arguing against anyone...I am a Christian...just not a Biblical Literalist >< Here is the site if people want to read more about it: http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm Scientists responded against this "evidence" with the following: Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93). A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified. Furthermore, many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old. Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.). With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples (Dalrymple, 1969, p. 48). That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples. For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects. Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer??? Contrary to Swenson's uninformed claim that ' Dr Austin carefully designed the research to counter all possible objections', Austin clearly demonstrated his inexperience in geochronology when he wasted a lot of money using the K-Ar method on the wrong type of samples. It is obvious that an unqualified, unknowledgable person did the testing on the subject in question. Please, read the sources and realize the possible extreme bias in what you read! Read more about it here: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm holy shit, thank you for posting that. I must have missed annor's post:X | ||
|
I_are_n00b
196 Posts
You know, it reminds me a lot when I was a kid, and we all tried to one-up each other with knowledge. Always trying to catch any oppurtunity to be the one to correct a friend mid sentence that his facts were wrong. When in actuallity none of us were experts to begin with. Hell, I'm pretty sure we didn't even know wtf we were talking about. We were just repeating some crap I memorized from an encyclopedia, or hearsay. So, who here is an expert in radioactive dating? My my, it's just like those kids that are so proud of themselves because they can out-memorize the other kid with semi-correct facts. Look, there is plenty of unanswered questions on BOTH sides. You are just as foolish to assume that evolution is the absolute raeson for creation of ALL species. When we know different species came in spikes. And yes, there are events in the Bible that may not make perfect phsyical sense. Both require an amount of faith, since I KNOW none of you are first hand researchers of all (if any) of these sciences. So please, who are we kidding? You want to talk about unanswered questions in science? There were plenty that were just ignored in this therad. Christians in this thread, on the other hand feel a need to over-defend themselves. This sometimes leads to using false statements etc etc... but it is obvious who is on the attack.... judgemental.... pssshhhh.... Lastly, just so you understand, science is based on observations. I don't see how you can explain the origin of something, much less what was BEFORE it or outside of it when you are encompassed by IT and IT is the only thing you can observe. Therefore science by definition cannot and was not meant to explain these things. | ||
|
TheOvermind77
United States923 Posts
I respect all of the people who have argued me and I am very glad that they are passionate in defending their beliefs. I respect their beliefs, and I am a Christian, too. The only point I am attempting to make is that you can't take all of the Bible literally...some things are fables, some things are influenced by humans....but the Bible as a whole still conveys the message that keeps me believing in the Christian faith. Many people disagree with me, and I suppose they can continue to do that. If you choose to disregard science and other evidence, then that is your choice. In saying that I don't agree with Biblical literalism, I am simply refuting the idea that we should take everything in the Bible ver batum. I still believe in God. I still believe in Jesus Christ. Are your beliefs so founded in Biblical literalism that you MUST prove me wrong our else the foundation of your beliefs will crumble? Bah, I am exhausted and tired of arguing in this thread. It is a very complicated subject...any of you who have debated in it have certainly realized it. All beliefs can be countered...but not disproved. All beliefs can be supported...but not proved. Hence is our delimma. Good luck to those who decide to continue this long and cyclical debate  And, for those of you who argued me, it was fun discussing such a pivotal topic with you! :D | ||
|
KrAzYfoOL
Australia3037 Posts
| ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
| ||
|
I_are_n00b
196 Posts
| ||
|
zoast
United States91 Posts
On April 18 2007 21:52 Hosanna wrote: I also read, that there is no faith in science.. when in fact, to believe in science, you must have more faith than Christianity ever will have. In my eyes, it takes A LOT of faith to believe in, the beginning of life, evolution, carbon-dating, the big bang, etc.. Christianity, all we have to have faith in, is that God exists, created everything, and sent his son to die for us. Why is it that science would find shame in relying on faith but to Christianity faith is advised, preached, and considered a virture? The brevity of a solution proves little to nothing. On April 18 2007 21:52 Hosanna wrote: Not only is faith in science and religion, it's in every day life.. I take it most of you drive? Can you see your breaks? No, but you put your faith in them to stop you from running off the road or hitting someone, right? Everything in life has an aspect of faith to it. So? If one certain car has a 1 in 100,000 chance of brake failure per day and another car has a 2 in 100,000 chance of brake failure, I'm going to want to go with the car that requires less faith. Calling a belief based on extensively tested empirical evidence "faith", I think, is stretching the term to begin with, though. All humans have elements of evil. But we don't call every human evil. I don't at least!!! | ||
Bockit
Sydney2287 Posts
| ||
|
zoast
United States91 Posts
 )ps I love starcraft | ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On April 18 2007 21:52 Hosanna wrote: Ok, I\'ve read pretty much every post on this thread... mostly all I\\\'ve gotten from it, is that you guys are incredibly ignorant to the topic thats being debated. To start off, why were you arguing, the Laws of Moses when we were debating Christianity, which is the Laws of Jesus? Yes, they taught similarly... but also different. Jesus died for our sins, thus, we don\\\'t have to offer a sacrifice to be forgiven. While reading, every post with a bible verse from the OT was taken far out of context.. because those Laws do not apply anymore to Christians (Although Jews do follow them but thats not what is being discussed.) Also, the post in which, you jumped onto Xel about \\\"judging\\\" people wrongly was taken far out of context as well. He wasn\'t saying \\\"Do not judge.\\\" to everyone, you must look at the crowd in which he was speaking. Jesus, was talking to the Pharisees about judging those outside the church. 2 Timothy 2:16 - Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. (TNIV) If we do not \\\"judge\\\" each other to keep others faith strong, are we not becoming more and more ungodly? As for the person who says human error was probably a big factor in the Bible, please, research a little more on the Trinity. The authors wrote the Bible under the influence of the Holy Spirit (Which is, God.) As believed, God has no error, and up until now, the Bible has never been proven wrong. The little incident that \\\"the Bible says pi = 3\\\" find me 1 person who can tell me EXACTLY what pi equals (I mean up until the very last number in it), then I\\\'ll become a believer. I also read, that there is no faith in science.. when in fact, to believe in science, you must have more faith than Christianity ever will have. In my eyes, it takes A LOT of faith to believe in, the beginning of life, evolution, carbon-dating, the big bang, etc.. Christianity, all we have to have faith in, is that God exists, created everything, and sent his son to die for us. Not only is faith in science and religion, it\\\'s in every day life.. I take it most of you drive? Can you see your breaks? No, but you put your faith in them to stop you from running off the road or hitting someone, right? Everything in life has an aspect of faith to it. Oh ya, what Xel said earlier is right, Science is just catching up with the bible.. many things in the Bible were written long before. History, is proving the bible more credible too. Isaiah 66:8 \\\"Who has ever heard of such things? Who has ever seen things like this? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment?? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children.\\\" May 14, 1948 Jews declared independence, became recognized as their own nation by the United States, and we\\\'re born in a day. I don\\\'t know, just things like that make me think, that it could be true? http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/isaiah_66_7.htm Thats all I have for now, because I have to go to bed.. By the way, Noah took between 70-120 years to build his ark.. Just thought I would throw that out. ok as far as the faith thing goes, I\'m fairly sure you are referring to my post. First we have agree on a common definition of faith. The one I am using is: Aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason. as far as your examples.........You say that \"all\" you have to believe in is God and the rest falls into place. WOW, of course it does. It is because you chose to \"believe\" in an answer of an omnipotent being that solves every question ever imaginable. That is by NO MEANS a small leap of faith. I believe that the Big Bang is entirely probable based on observation of the universe around us. Could it be revised or proven wrong? Probably, we don\'t even have alot of the details. Do I have \"faith\" that the Big Bang happened? Well first of all I don\'t claim that it is the truth, only a plausible theory. Second of all, what makes it a plausible theory is..........\"evidence.\" As for the car example, when I drive I am reasonably confident that my breaks wont give out. Why? Because I know how cars are designed and short of something bad happening, I know there is VERY LITTLE chance my breaks will give out. I also acknowledge that it is possible that they could give out. I am all for a live and let live policy guys. Just don\'t try to give religion the same logical credibility as science. Deducing what is probable and what isn\'t through observation and experimenting of the world around is much different then blind faith. You can\'t logically defend being a creationist or defending the bible word for word because you have all ready made the leap of faith that the bible is the truth. You are giving non-existent credibility to your arguments. You can argue against certain popular scientific theories, but by doing this you aren\'t making the bible any more truthful. This being said, you are right in that we can\'t disprove many things in the bible yet( or ever). I doubt sufficent proof will ever be found to satisfy every religous person, because when it comes to disproving something, you will want 100% undeniable proof which is almost impossible. Science doesn\'t work on claiming to know things 100%. There are many laws of science which seem so obviously true to us that we assume they are true, but all of that could be changed in an instant with the right evidence. The whole point is finding out things to such a probable degree that they can be assumed true until proven otherwise. Stuff like creationism isn\'t science. It assumes itself to be true already and looks for any sort of evidence it can find to make it more credible while ignoring things that might sugguest otherwise. This makes it sound more believable to the average person because they are using \"science.\" If there was no story of genesis, and someone were to look at the world around us, they would rule out the idea of any story like creationism reasonably fast. Stuff like the Fossil Record is real, credible evidence. Getting the 5% of \"scientists\" ( even less for gelogists, according to 1997 statistics) in the U.S to try and make it seem like a creidble scientific theory doesn\'t make it one. The biggest clue should be how no scientist who isn\'t a Christian takes it seriously, because there is very weak evidence for it and strong evidence against certain parts of it. Overmind has the right attitude in admitting that he has to take a leap of faith, which is fine with me:o | ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On April 18 2007 22:31 RebelHeart wrote: well before you go let me say this - you seriously think that because a website has a link to creationism is biased and therefore not qualified to talk about science? that's like saying the Jews aren't allowed to write about the holocaust because they are biased 'cos they believe it happened. there's a huge tomb called The Case For Christ series by Lee Strobel which interviews hundreds of science professors at prestigious universities (such as Princeton) who believe the Bible literally i'd send it to you but i'd already sent it to infinity14 from the other debate but i'd recommend that if you're genuine about finding out the truth about OT facts and willing to learn from people who have studied it all their lives you should get it out of the library or buy it at a bookstore (less than $10 in the US, assuming it will be at a similar price that it is in NZ where it's $10 and since the US dollar is much stronger than NZ's) that was just a side comment he made. The point is the acrticled DID end up being biased and wrong. In that particular case, they used the wrong dating method on the wrong substance. | ||
|
x_woof_x
United States659 Posts
On April 18 2007 09:22 lil.sis wrote: the point you are missing: that religion should be about loving, not judging that the #1 message of Christianity should be loving others not pointing out the flaws in other people not making other people feel that they are small because they subscribe to a different moral code not about telling the HEATHENS (muslims, buddhists, and jews, i'm talking about YOU!) that because of a technicality they are going to hell (you might lead a good life, be generous, humble, and kind to others but if you dont believe in jesus sux 2 be u!) christianity today is a religion of fear and hate i have a bible next to my bed and i read it when i need strength and comfort, and i believe in God and am generally a spiritual person. but will I ever attend one of your churches? no thanks. i'll have no part of it. i strongly agree with lil.sis] i myself am a christian and i agree that christianity is about loving not judging. what did jesus do when he came to this earth? did he judge? did he tell people, omfzors u dont folow the words of the bible, how bad of you. nope. he just loved christianity is about becoming more like jesus look whats been happening these days | ||
|
XelNaga
162 Posts
On April 18 2007 23:00 x_woof_x wrote: i strongly agree with lil.sis] i myself am a christian and i agree that christianity is about loving not judging. what did jesus do when he came to this earth? did he judge? did he tell people, omfzors u dont folow the words of the bible, how bad of you. nope. he just loved christianity is about becoming more like jesus look whats been happening these days Did Jesus judge the pharisees? The scribes? The religious leaders of his day? Don't make me get back into this, I really don't want to. | ||
|
zoast
United States91 Posts
On April 18 2007 23:03 XelNaga wrote: Did Jesus judge the pharisees? The scribes? The religious leaders of his day? Don't make me get back into this, I really don't want to. He who is without sin. Yea, that's Jesus. Or, are you the second coming? I think your point about rebuking fellow brothers for their own good is better. I did get the impression of arrogance from your posts too (fyi/fwiw). From extensive use of little quips like "Oh yea?" But it's cool... really hard to tell on the interweb. | ||
| ||
