[Christian topic] Greg Laurie - Page 22

On April 19 2007 19:09 Smurg wrote:
Dude wtf.

What sounds more logical?
a.) God created life.

b.) Very verbose description

On April 19 2007 18:47 XelNaga wrote:


How about you explain to me how those particles that caused the big bang got there.

On April 19 2007 19:33 bine wrote:


It doesn't follow from the fact that certain things are inexplicable that everything in the bible is true. You have the burden of proof, not us. We don't have to prove God doesn't exist just like we don't have to prove that there aren't chickens the size of galaxies floating around the universe.

On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote:


Wow, you are a dense person. An amazingly dense person. An amazingly dense person who hasn't even read the biblical passage, even though we've been discussing this for two days. They are on the ark for more than a few months, the ark has 3 levels, lighting is necessary. These are in your expertise - the bible.

Other than Feed, clean poop, disperse animals, I'm missing where you've expanded on this well thought out plan for caring for the animals. Other than stating you believe in Evolution, cause there were no polar bears before the ark, I'm not sure what further data you've provided. For that matter, I don't see a post after my post that futher illuminates your thoughts an the myriad of problems i outlined.

From the new information of where you pulled 58,000 from, I'm guessing invertebrates are made later by god pulling out the skeletons, since they aren't on the ark. I'm guessing insects must be imaginary - because they are all dead if they aren't on the ark. I'm guessing that your concept of animal hasn't really considered that all other life is wiped out - and therefore everything needs to be on the ark. That's why your 58,000 number is really just silly. Why is it that every additional postulate you make, and the support for it, makes your ark look less planned out?

+ Show Spoiler +

So far you've told me only clean animals are on the ark, failed to understand the ark is in water for a year, failed to understand that the ark has 3 levels. Now you add that they are only on the ark for a few months. Noah's account is a few pages of the bible, how tough is it to read it?

Finally, another well thought out article of how they repopulate "Gee sounds a lot easier to repopulate from a number of 2, then to start at 0 like evolution and then populate.." So your argument is "it sounds easier than evolution, it must be true. For you to make this argument means you believe in evolution correct? Otherwise its complete nonsense.

Even if you do believe in evolution, your logic doesn't follow. Evolution is not the origin of life, its the changing characteristics of large populations over time. There is no evolutionary change in populations of zero. If you just mistook origin of life for evolution with your normal sloppy thinking. I would state that in the time periods involved < 10k years, the earth could not be populated with its current genetic diversity if the first signs of life occurred 10k years ago.

I would further state that given a set of species, numbering 2 in each case, that the genetic diversity we see today would not be possible, in addition, most species would die out because of lack of diversity in the genes of the original population. Conservation biologists estimate a minimum size of fifty for a species's survival, with 150 or more being a more realistic figure. How about .... honey bees? you do realize that 2 bees cannot create a colony, certain plants can't pollinate without bees.

On April 19 2007 19:32 testpat wrote:


Where did you find that, that's great.

On April 19 2007 19:39 Haemonculus wrote:
This thread is horribly retarded. Wow. This religion shit has been debated on tl plenty of times before. None of you are getting anywhere. None of you are any closer to convincing your opponent. Half of you are brand new posters with your entire tl career in this one thread.

None of you look smart spouting out bible quotes you pulled off a Christian propaganda site. None of you look smart spouting quotes and information from an anti-religious site. Fucking hell, if it wasn't for the select levity added by a few senior members, I'd insist that everyone who posted here kill themselves. This is the most ridiculously useless debate I think I've ever seen here.

On April 19 2007 19:40 XelNaga wrote:


Six more posts and you'll be a 1337? Nice of you to post your two cents?

On April 19 2007 19:39 Haemonculus wrote:
This thread is horribly retarded. Wow. This religion shit has been debated on tl plenty of times before. None of you are getting anywhere. None of you are any closer to convincing your opponent. Half of you are brand new posters with your entire tl career in this one thread.

None of you look smart spouting out bible quotes you pulled off a Christian propaganda site. None of you look smart spouting quotes and information from an anti-religious site. Fucking hell, if it wasn't for the select levity added by a few senior members, I'd insist that everyone who posted here kill themselves. This is the most ridiculously useless debate I think I've ever seen here.

Cool? How does it feel to be completely meaningless? No point to life.. Just a mistake? Really, whats the point in living, you have no reason.. No purpose.. No meaning. Evolving.. Not really all that fun eh?

On April 19 2007 19:44 Haemonculus wrote:
He tried to breathe, struggling for air, but to his despair, Snape grabbed the back of his head and shoved his cock back into his mouth. He muttered something, no doubt another spell, XelNaga realized with horror. He screamed as Snape's cock sprouted spikes and turned green, and he ejaculated hot polenta into his mouth and all over his face. "Not done yet, you little fucking twink," he said as he pulled Xel's head away from his crotch. He momentarily scrunched up his eyes in deep concentration, then sprouted no less than eighteen breasts, all at least a double D, and all tipped with large black penises that put Xel's wrinkled cashew shaped organ to shame. Xel screamed as they ejaculated Tabasco sauce into his eyes.

There's my 2 cents. I think it matches the bulk of this thread.

On April 19 2007 19:44 HumbleZealot wrote:

XelNaga watch what you say, you are getting into some very deep shit if you really want to make this about meaning. I could make the same argument for you, saying that you are restrained, held back and a mere slave to an invisible and non-existent entity. But in your view you are not and in my view I am not living a meaningless life. You should really understand that other people have different perspectives and respect them in such a case.

On April 19 2007 19:37 XelNaga wrote:


I have the burden of proof to prove to you what your theory postulates about the beginning? Excuse me? You see, if people are going to start harassing me about my theory, am I not allowed to ask them questions about theirs? In this case, how did those particles get there? Or.. How did both sexes evolve at the same time along the same lines as perfect as they did? I'm sure those questions have answers to them, since people here seem to think evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?

But no, instead you tell me the burden of proof is on me.. Hmm, sounds like you have no answer for a very simple question about one of the foundations of the big bang/evolutionary theory.

That's a real sham.. Accuse me and Annor of being stupid and you can't even explain your own beliefs.

Might as well party, drink and do whatever because after they're gone, there's nothing.

On April 19 2007 19:47 Smurg wrote:
XelNaga, what are you trying to prove?

I haven't figured it out yet.

On April 19 2007 19:50 yisun518 wrote:
how did god create the universe? thats equally as hard to answer as big bang.

On April 19 2007 19:50 yisun518 wrote:
its just as inconceivable as the big bang, to create the universe by god. picture it for me. poof, magic. its equivalent of any fairy tale. i can think of any belief, such as the spheghetti monster belief, it could be as fancy as the bible, but entirely different, write a book about it called "new bible" and kill off anyone who do not believe in the "new bible" and burn our current bibles, then in another 1000 years, the majority of religion become founded on the "new bible"....

On April 19 2007 19:50 yisun518 wrote:
all in all.
the difference is, in religion, we learn god created the universe, so that must be it.
well in science, we strive to refine knowledge by ever improving methodology in a self-correcting way, and there is always be improvement and correction through time.

On April 19 2007 19:46 XelNaga wrote:


I thought you weren't getting involved? Come now, stick to your guns next time.
Hey? Maybe you can tell me.. How did the sexes evolve?



Really eh? Tell me. If we didn't have free will (Which is what you were getting at with the first comment) why did God give Adam and Eve the choice of eating the fruit or not? Seems to me that he could have avoided a loooooot of problems but taking away the choice?

We can get into philosophy, that's fine with me. Did you want to? Don't be so arrogant, you don't nearly know as much as you think you do (Same goes for me as well)

But uh yeah, according to what I believe as compared to what the people believe here... Pointless existence. Might as well party, drink and do whatever because after they're gone, there's nothing.

On April 19 2007 19:56 Smurg wrote:
Dude let's stop talking about all this shit.

Why do we even care?

We have our own beliefs, leave it as that. You believe in God, I believe in nothing so let me be with my beliefs.

Everyone stfu and gtfo.

On April 19 2007 19:57 HumbleZealot wrote:

WHAT THE FUCK?!?!

My post had NOTHING to do with philosophy, I was simply pointing out that other people have different perspectives of the world (which you already know) and that people will just start saying just as nasty things to you if you post comments like this, it had nothing to do with philosophy or Adam and Eve. What the fuck are you trying to say?